Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:39:16 -0600
"Tom S." <tmswork@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/14/2009 6:15 PM, Mickey wrote:
Buck Turgidson<deppitybob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:BUCK...DO YOU GRASP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DATA AND CONCLUSION?
No, it isn't. It's an admission from the guys at the University of
think that "thrown away" thing is one of the myths that's being
promoted by the AGW side.
East Anglia.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
And the "massaged and cooked" argument goes
both ways: arguments on the GW side (like there's anyone who's actually
pro-GW...yes, please cook our planet!) are that the AGW people are
selecting, massaging, and cooking the data to counter reality.
Mickey, how much time, effort, and bandwidth are you going to dedicate
to this obnoxious ignoramus?
I think there's hope for him.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Tony
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Ken Dixon
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- References:
- Climategate? Not so much
- From: Buck Turgidson
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Joe
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Buck Turgidson
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Mickey
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Buck Turgidson
- Re: Climategate? Not so much
- From: Mickey
- Climategate? Not so much
- Prev by Date: Re: Sorry, science not faked
- Next by Date: Re: Climategate? Not so much
- Previous by thread: Re: Climategate? Not so much
- Next by thread: Re: Climategate? Not so much
- Index(es):