Re: "Nature" weighs in (was: "Give it a read)
- From: Ray <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:29:15 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 12, 3:58 pm, DG <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:13 pm, DG <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray <rayb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:09 am, DG <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray <rayb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:12 pm, DG <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This shows what is really going on.
It's a political sham.
One of the world's preeminent peer-reviewed scientific journals - if
not *the* world's preeminent scientific journal - Nature, has weighed
in with the exact opposite conclusion:
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examine...
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now
know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is
small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the
climate.”
Again your citation is wrong:
No... That's what the link says.
Your source is wrong - so what else is new. That quote is not from
Lindzen, and it's not from a peer-reviewed publication either.
Here is the paper...http://europa.agu.org:8005/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0916/2009...
Like I said, your source was wrong - that quote you is not from
Lindzen, and it's not from a peer-reviewed publication either - that
quote is instead from a global warming denier who publishes lies. Nice
evasion though,
.
- References:
- Give it a read
- From: annoying
- Re: Give it a read
- From: RandyStoner
- "Nature" weighs in (was: "Give it a read)
- From: Ray
- Re: "Nature" weighs in (was: "Give it a read)
- From: Ray
- Re: "Nature" weighs in (was: "Give it a read)
- From: Ray
- Give it a read
- Prev by Date: Re: How does one go about downloading this to a computer?
- Next by Date: Re: You Win Again.
- Previous by thread: Re: "Nature" weighs in (was: "Give it a read)
- Next by thread: Re: Give it a read
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
