multiple times. Perhaps in your mind. But other than the misrepresentation of the Himalayan data, what other prevarications are you talking about. At he most 1 page out of 3000. What other errors?
You still have not answered my question, are you willing to apply the same standard to the things you agree with. I rather doubt it frankly. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We caught them lying multiple times in this report. Now we're supposed > to believe it's all true except what ever else is found to be a lie? > The boy that cried wolf ring a bell? > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> so by your logic then anything published by the journal Nature or >> Science is automatically invalid because once there were some invalid >> data published in that data. >> >> In other words that's thorough crap. All it does is invalidate the >> Himalayan data, it does not change one whit the data involving the >> Arctic Ocean icecover melt, or the temperature data from the last 130 >> years. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311115 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
