SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14113)6/25/2007 3:18:44 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 36921
 
Big deal; you disregard the sourced ones, too. How's the old hockey stick? You taping it up, or painting the bobsled?



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14113)6/25/2007 7:16:07 PM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 36921
 
The final report is here.

climatescience.gov

So why is the executive summary inconsistent with the contents of the report? That is the accusation of the reporters from the Washington Post.

and that the Royal Society is also wrong in it views of the same matter.

and that the only guys who didn't flunk science now work at the Washington Post.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14113)6/25/2007 8:10:45 PM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 36921
 
The reports you find here.

journals.royalsoc.ac.uk

are about as authoritative as it gets as far as I am concerned. Sure the reports findings may be wrong, but the science that disproves what has been written has to be convincing before I would take any serious notice of it.