Difference between revisions of "CFC/ozone affair"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(ref) |
(corruption of science should link to ...?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock] --[[James Lovelock]] | + | We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the [[corruption of science]] in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock] --[[James Lovelock]] |
Revision as of 22:02, April 12, 2010
We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done. [1] --James Lovelock