1,558
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − Line 115:
Line 114: + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 16:57, April 15, 2008
, 16:57, April 15, 2008→Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]
[[/Archive 2]]
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
--<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
--<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
==Are the images really necessary?==
==Are the images really necessary?==