lets see given the choixe between the conclusions given by the Royal Society and those of Forbes Magazine, an unbiased source no doubt, I suspect that the choice is obvious to anyone with a bit of education in the sciences.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ > > Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) > prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking > measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and > discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political > cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of > these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science > is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. > > > Hmmm, that is funny: > > . > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Funny thing about all those emails, the university of east Anglia, the >> British government and the Royal Society all investigated the issue. No >> fraud, or conspiracy were found. The only thing that did end up being >> criticized was the use of stats. And that issue was their use of >> probability values of .1 instead of .05. The entire thing is a manufactured >> conspiracy by the reich wing. They cannot answer the science so they fake a >> conspiracy. Typical conservative type of integrity. In other words, none. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:345636 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
