That's an interesting read

Space/Science » in reply to re: LOL you are illiterate I guess

That's an interesting read

Sam F. — 5/9/2005 9:11:29 AM (archived)

Maybe it doesn't count, though, because it's not in Science or Nature.

Oh, clickable link here. (HTML is easy! :-) )

The whole thread (40 posts)

Global warming - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 2:07:26 AM
- another important factor - E.P. Grondine - 5/10/2005 2:40:52 AM
  - re: another important factor - gbaikie - 5/10/2005 4:45:38 AM
- Yup- ya just disproved the whole global warming myth! - R.L. - 5/9/2005 5:01:00 AM
  - R.L. please inform us of your educational credentials on this subject? - Scott Evil - 5/9/2005 5:55:08 PM
  - re: Yup- ya just disproved the whole global warming myth! - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 6:42:16 AM
    - LOL you are illiterate I guess - R.L. - 5/9/2005 7:07:01 AM
      - re: LOL you are illiterate I guess - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 8:42:42 AM
        
        A non-peer reviewed, opinion article from 2000? - et - 5/9/2005 2:33:52 PM
        
        Levitus - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 5:07:18 PM
        
        Peer review: Oreskes v. Peiser - pwokenyaw - 5/9/2005 7:23:01 PM
        
        But peer review failed! - Sam F. - 5/10/2005 7:45:50 AM
        
        no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility - pwokenyaw - 5/10/2005 4:56:01 PM
        
        proof - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 3:02:56 AM
        
        Landsea doesn't disagree with AGW - pwokenyaw - 5/11/2005 4:57:42 PM
        
        A couple more items. - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 3:36:47 AM
        
        A couple more desperate flailings.... - et - 5/11/2005 4:14:54 AM
        
        Solar activity - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 5:11:22 AM
        
        More sources newer than 5 years old? - et - 5/11/2005 5:16:26 AM
        
        What, did the existing data wear out? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 11:41:27 PM
        
        The existing contention lingers on. - et - 5/12/2005 6:13:30 PM
        
        Short synopsis - Tom Brosz - 5/13/2005 2:58:26 AM
        
        okay, here's your refutation on cosmic rays - pwokenyaw - 5/12/2005 1:04:33 AM
        
        Okay - Tom Brosz - 5/12/2005 3:47:19 AM
        
        I also liked that link as a source. - et - 5/11/2005 3:31:12 AM
        
        Fudging - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 4:16:04 AM
        
        re: Fudging - et - 5/11/2005 4:28:17 AM
        
        re: no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility - gbaikie - 5/11/2005 2:09:51 AM
        
        Extract and answer.... - End Trans. - 5/11/2005 2:52:51 AM
        
        re: Extract and answer.... - gbaikie - 5/11/2005 6:10:06 AM
        
        Extract first, then answer.... - et - 5/11/2005 2:51:27 PM
        
        re: Extract first, then answer.... - gbaikie - 5/12/2005 4:19:10 AM
        
        Fine. Now draw those lines on the graphs, and tell me what you see. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/10/2005 3:58:46 AM
        
        re: Fine. Now draw those lines on the graphs, and tell me what you see. - pwokenyaw - 5/10/2005 5:22:09 PM
        
        That's an interesting read - Sam F. - 5/9/2005 9:11:29 AM
- Urban Heat Island myth passed around by denialists - pwokenyaw - 5/9/2005 4:31:19 AM
  - re: Urban Heat Island myth passed around by denialists - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 6:17:42 AM
- A few thoughts. - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 2:52:51 AM
  - re: A few thoughts. - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 4:59:45 AM
    - re: A few thoughts. - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 7:17:43 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (40 posts)