>>>>>Yes, it was real sloppy by the scientists who did it. >>>>> >>>>>Mike, if you think it was merely being sloppy, I think there's a great deal more you need to read. This was intellectual corruption. Care to hear some facts? >>>> >>>>I am not disputing the facts of what happened there. Wanting a particular conclusion, of course, is the opposite of proper scientific method. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. >>> >>>I'm going to jump in here. For the past twenty years winter has been arriving later and later and spring arrives earlier each year. Winter isn't over and the birds are returning and yesterday's high sun was Plus 10 Celcius. Glaciers are receding in the mountains. The closer you are to the poles, the more the changes are noticable. And I am going to believe my eyes rather than stats, flawed or not. And it is all caused by the medical profession. >> >>I just spent some time in a doctor's waiting room and read yesterday's paper. There was an article saying disbelief in global warming has become a litmus test issue for Republican politicians. This despite the fact that only 16% of the public is dismissive of the theory. (Up from 7% two years ago). >> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-nw-climate-politics-20100305,0,187394.story > >There you go again turning it entirely into a political issue when it is not. What about your: I am not disputing the facts of what happened there. Wanting a particular conclusion, of course, is the opposite of proper scientific method. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.
Where did that come from? I referenced statements in the article.
Remember a few months ago when I got so fed up with the political discussions here I was going to skip them? That was a good idea and I am going back to it.
