More circularity

Tony — 5/4/2005 4:27:58 PM (archived)

See Fox here

Now, Peiser claims to refute Oreskes' conclusions with his own meta-analysis of the same papers -- i.e., he claims no consensus exists -- while at the same time blaming a consensus-driven conspiracy against publication of his findings.

So, which is it?

This gets confusing having two threads on two boards...
My 'ead 'urts.

The whole thread (15 posts)

Some recent global warming science. - et - 5/3/2005 3:18:17 PM
- re: Some recent global warming science. - gbaikie - 5/4/2005 2:11:02 AM
- re: Some recent global warming science. - DL - 5/3/2005 3:29:46 PM
  - Science schmience, makin money is all the reality some need. - et - 5/3/2005 3:50:26 PM
    - re: Science schmience - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 4:01:45 PM
      - Snark off.... - et - 5/3/2005 4:56:14 PM
        
        Whoa, was that lame. - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 5:09:05 PM
        
        You're right. (be sure to bookmark this) - et - 5/3/2005 5:21:00 PM
        
        Just keep your eyes open. - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 5:32:22 PM
        
        Tryin' to... - et - 5/3/2005 6:25:08 PM
      - attack on peer-reviewed study failed to submit to peer review - pwokenyaw - 5/3/2005 4:37:25 PM
        
        That's it? - Tom Brosz - 5/3/2005 7:53:47 PM
        
        More circularity - Tony - 5/4/2005 4:27:58 PM
        
        No, Tom - pwokenyaw - 5/4/2005 4:11:30 PM
  - Corrected HTML (?) - DL - 5/3/2005 3:31:27 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (15 posts)