|
|
sci.environment |
In article <1107432933.356529.109...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to >I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes >>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98. >An interesting choice of words >I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science. >You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important.
"peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this? LOL! You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato
>>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
>take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed
>journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately
>sets out what is in the GRL paper !
Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore
them.
And your qualifications to make this judgment are?
>several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't
>>matter* because things have advanced since then.
>You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence
>'99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is
>that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get
>a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is
>correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
>yours
>per