Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolutionists Aren’t the Only Ones: More Climate Emails

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists, as Del Ratzsch has pointed out, are people. And qua people, they sometimes have non scientific biases. These biases and motivations are crucial for they guide and restrict the science. Some answers are acceptable and other answers are not acceptable. It is that simple. There are those who are blackballed, and there are those who do the blackballing. It all depends on whether one is interested in truth or in dogma. You know who you are.  Read more

Comments
Black Carbon Soot From China & India Melting Himalayan Glaciers, Not CO2 Emissions Say Scientists Polar Ice Melt: Over 90% of Melt Due To Soot, Not CO2, According To Peer-Reviewed StudyJoe
December 4, 2011
December
12
Dec
4
04
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
[quote]You lack elementary reasoning skills. If co2 levels were between 180 and 280 for 400k years and then all of a sudden they shot up to 380ppm in the last 100 and it just so happens that man started to use fossil fuels as a resource a 100 years ago, and 7 year old can conclude that those extraordinary co2 levels are due to man.[/quote] Indeed. But then, most seven-year-olds don't understand the difference between causation and correlation.Phinehas
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
noam, We are still recovering from the little ice age. History has demonstrtaed that humanity does poorly in cold epochs and does very, very well in warm epochs. IOW noam it is YOU who is being an irrational chicken-little. Also the past 15 years CO2 has been rising but not the temperature. That you would ignore that says quite a bit about your agenda. You said the two go together- obviously NOT.Joe
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
CO2 is only ONE of MANY factors that contribute to climate and NO ONE on this planet has demonstrated any sort of CO2 to climate sensitivity. IOW C)2 NOT the only drver of the climate- only complete imbeciles would even think that. I have also provided a paper that shows that we are a minor contributor of CO2- why did you ignore it?
1. if CO2 rises and temperature rises 95% of the time in concert
That is false
2. if greenhouses gases are what keep the Earth warm
That is also false- if the earth did not have a molten core or if the sun was a red dwarf we would be cold. But anyway perhaps it would be a good thing if some large cities are destroyed and soot does more melting than temps do. My bet is if we clean up the soot the melting would cease. Plants need CO2- what do you have against plants?Joe
December 3, 2011
December
12
Dec
3
03
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
A significant downturn is a lower low followed by a lower high, we don't have either one of those yet. So you don't even know how to read charts. I look at a chart with 400 k years, you look at a chart of 15 years and ignore anything else. Warmth will not make humans prosper. It will destroy many of our largest cities, not to mention exterminate millions of species, and quite possibly even set off a chain reaction from which it will take hundreds of years to adapt. You don't even know how to do the necessary actions in order to keep yourself from harm which is the very definition of irrational behavior.noam_ghish
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
as for the email 4195, even I will occasionally send an email to a friend where I concede that Darwinists have some good points, it means nothing.
No one has linked CO2 to temps, not on Earth. And it is a fact that cloud cover causes cooling.
Now you're just asserting things without facts. You don't even know how to perform elementary data analysis. Anyone looking at the charts I posted above will see that CO2 levels and temp levels move up and down in concert roughly 95%. 95% is what you call a correlation, 50% is what you call a lack thereof.
Also YOU don’t know what 450ppm will do so why the chicken-little dance?
Neither do I know what will happen if I jump off a 1000 foot cliff. It doesn't take too much logic to conclude that 1. if CO2 rises and temperature rises 95% of the time in concert 2. if greenhouses gases are what keep the Earth warm 3. and if greenhouse gases rise much more 4. then the temperature will continue to rise 5. therefore, glaciers will melt 6. therefore, half of the world's largest cities will be destroyed.
I have said man-made CO2 is a very, very small % of all CO2.
You lack elementary reasoning skills. If co2 levels were between 180 and 280 for 400k years and then all of a sudden they shot up to 380ppm in the last 100 and it just so happens that man started to use fossil fuels as a resource a 100 years ago, and 7 year old can conclude that those extraordinary co2 levels are due to man.
YOUR scientists get paid too and their emails betray them.
This is just an assertion. I've pointed you to detailed research that shows the funding of junk science by oil companies. you've showed me nothing. Moreover, oil companies have more money than most 3rd world countries. What money do environmentalists have? The Sierra Club earns about 12 million a year, Exxon earns about 100 billion.noam_ghish
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
And as far as melting ice, well it has been SCIETIFICALLY demonstrated that SOOT can and does melt snow and ice even with freezing temps!
If that’s true then why does the chart I linked to show that temperature has been heading upwards since 1950?
What is your level of eductation? Soot is dark and absorbs sunligt which makes the soot warmer which melts the snow and ice which reveals the land or water beneath it. Both land and water will absorb sunlight which will make them warmer. When they warm they warm the air.Joe
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
If you would actually look over the actual paper you’ll find charts that refute your thesis. You’ve got to look at the big picture. Here’s a chart from that paper http://i87.photobucket.com/alb.....0252AM.png As you can see that chart clearly shows an uptrend and the last 15 years is just a minor downtick, it not a reversal of trend.
It shows a signioficant downturn, thanks. Not only that we now have scientists saying no warming until 2020. And BTW history tells us that warm is good as humans prospered and cold is bad as humans suffered.Joe
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
email 4195:
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.- Phil Jones
No one has linked CO2 to temps, not on Earth. And it is a fact that cloud cover causes cooling. Also YOU don't know what 450ppm will do so why the chicken-little dance? I have said man-made CO2 is a very, very small % of all CO2. YOUR scientists get paid too and their emails betray them.Joe
December 2, 2011
December
12
Dec
2
02
2011
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
If you would actually look over the actual paper you'll find charts that refute your thesis. You've got to look at the big picture. Here's a chart from that paper http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k137/kylefoley76/Screenshot2011-12-02at120252AM.png As you can see that chart clearly shows an uptrend and the last 15 years is just a minor downtick, it not a reversal of trend. You relied on the cato institute to tell you how to interpret the paper when the cato institute is clearly funded by oil money.
And as far as melting ice, well it has been SCIETIFICALLY demonstrated that SOOT can and does melt snow and ice even with freezing temps!
If that's true then why does the chart I linked to show that temperature has been heading upwards since 1950? Here is what you haven't refuted: 1. if there is such a clear link between CO2 levels and temp over the last 450K then how is that your theory that Co2 causes increase cloud cover which causes decrease in temperature valid? 2. why do you think it's rational to increase CO2 levels to 450 ppm when you don't even know what that will do, ie. jump off a cliff when you don't if such a height will kill you 3. you've basically conceded that CO2 levels are man-made yet you have failed to own up to your mistakes and admit them 4. why you think it's rational to listen to a scientist that is paid for by oil money when all the other clean scientists are telling us we're sick 5. your response to the nasa graph which shows temperature clearly rising up.noam_ghish
December 1, 2011
December
12
Dec
1
01
2011
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Why Hasn't the Earth Warmed in Nearly 15 Years?- complete with a graph...Joe
December 1, 2011
December
12
Dec
1
01
2011
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Also the SCIENTIFIC data says that cloud cover = cooling-> SCIENTIFIC data says that. So what have you refuted? And as far as melting ice, well it has been SCIETIFICALLY demonstrated that SOOT can and does melt snow and ice even with freezing temps! Look it up- just go to google and type in “soot and global warming”
That’s not what the scientific data says.
Yes, it is. Look you don't know how to think for yourself.
According to your retrodictions the temperature of the Earth should remain constant despite CO2 levels over the last 400k years but it hasn’t.
Wrong again- I never made nor implied such a thing. As I and scientists have said there is more to climate than CO2. Here are the peer-reviewed papers that support my claims: Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere See also: Effects of Cloud Cover on forecasted temperatures Soot and Global Warming So again I will ask you- exactly what have you refuted that I have said?Joe
December 1, 2011
December
12
Dec
1
01
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
noam_ghish "this is wrong. global warming is a fact. the ID movement harms itself by taking up the cause of global warming skeptics." ==== Unfortunately you will never convince them of the climate change. Yet it is they themselves who should be championing the the deplorable condition the Earth and it's various degraded natural systems find themselves in today. The problem for both sides is the political ideological hatred they express towards each other. The climate debate is really not the issue, it's their political power struggle differences which do count and who perceive themselves as coming off the debate winner in whatever electoral power grab event that comes along lately. The next opportunity of course is the presidential elections over in the USA next year. In the mean time, back at the Ranch, nature will continue getting screwed by by sides. What's incredible is that no one need talk to experts or other self promoting genius' on this matter to arrive at a truth that something is clearly going wrong. I deal with farmers and just basic immigrants from all over many parts of the Earth, and without bringing up this politically charged controversy, they all mention the problems they face as a result of weather not being normal as to what it was in decades past. Doesn't matter what unique geographical climate location we are talking about, whether desert, savanah, tropical, temperate, etc. All climate globally has taken a turn for the worse and the average world citizen notices this. They don't need a scientist or political/religious ideologue to explain this to them one way or the other. The mistake the GW movement makes is that they focus on simply one or two symptoms and never really deal with the heart of the matter when it comes to causes. Yes, of course humans are ultimately responsible, but the religious side should be the ones pointing this out, not secularist materialists interested ONLY in using this as a political tool for over taking an opponant. I don't believe the majority of those promoting GW on blogs and other debate forums are really all that interested in climate change anymore than those they oppose. Again it's only a tool for power take over.Eocene
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
noam- No one cares about opinions, even from scientists. The data says there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years- the SCIENTIFIC data.
Look, you don't even know how to read a chart. For every 1 chart you show me that shows temperature decreasing over the last 15 years, I'll show you 5. You haven't even produced one so far.
Also the SCIENTIFIC data says that cloud cover = cooling-> SCIENTIFIC data says that. So what have you refuted? And as far as melting ice, well it has been SCIETIFICALLY demonstrated that SOOT can and does melt snow and ice even with freezing temps! Look it up- just go to google and type in “soot and global warming”
That's not what the scientific data says. According to your retrodictions the temperature of the Earth should remain constant despite CO2 levels over the last 400k years but it hasn't. I already pointed that out to you but you ignored the point.noam_ghish
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
noam- No one cares about opinions, even from scientists. The data says there hasn't been any warming in the past 15 years- the SCIENTIFIC data. Also the SCIENTIFIC data says that cloud cover = cooling-> SCIENTIFIC data says that. So what have you refuted? And as far as melting ice, well it has been SCIETIFICALLY demonstrated that SOOT can and does melt snow and ice even with freezing temps! Look it up- just go to google and type in "soot and global warming"Joe
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Obviously you have serious issues.
Now you're just resorting to ad hom attacks, in other words you can't refute my ideas based on science.
BEST just released a report that could not/ did not link the warming to any human activities. Why Hasn’t the Earth Warmed in Nearly 15 Years?: There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years? If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
You've got to look at a range of scientific opinions. If 99 doctors are telling you you shouldn't smoke and 1 says you should and he's paid for by Philip Morris, then you better stick with the 99. Anyone who looks at this chart by nasa can infer that temp is increasing. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png As for: "By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide." It's not prudent when looking at this chart to increase CO2 levels. Looking at this chart there is a clear correlation between co2 and temperature. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
Also the emails prove that AGW is a farce and they also prove that your position is that of chicken-little.
This is just an argument from ridicule. Arguing with Darwinists you should know that that is not an argument.
As for cloud cover- again you have to be a moron not to understand how that works. Clouds cause shade. Shade is cooler than direct sunlight- duh.
Again, you're just jumping off a cliff and hoping you won't die. It's a fact that temperature melts ice and higher water levels destroy cities. It's not a fact that there will be enough clouds to reflect enough sunlight, precisely because we have no direct experience of this. Moreover, if you look at that chart I sent you, if it's true that increase cloud cover keeps temperature even, then why hasn't temperature remained even over the last 400k years?
But anyway all you claims of “bald assertion” and yet you can produce nothing- no science- nothing, to refute what I said.
I've refuted every point you've said, yet you haven't understood it. What do you call the following two points I made here, which you only refute with an insult? 1. Is it rational to experiment with destroying one’s home? 2. Is it good if 8 of 17 of the world’s largest cities are destroyednoam_ghish
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Global warming we can all cheer
You can be forgiven if you didn’t know that we’re in the middle of an ice age right now, what with all the talk about global warming. But it’s true. We’re in what geologists call “the Quaternary glaciation,” an ice age that’s lasted for the past 2.5 million years. Ice ages last a very long time, with periods of extreme cold punctuated by warmer periods, or interglacials. We’re in such an interglacial right now: The Holocene epoch began about 12,000 years ago. It’s best thought of as a brief respite from the most severe ravages of Quaternary ice. So global warming actually began around 10,000 BC, when the ice sheets that had covered large portions of North America and Eurasia retreated to the poles. And what has happened since this (entirely natural) warming began? The Neolithic Revolution, the dawn of civilization and the expansion of human populations like never before. In other words, homo sapiens, which existed in its more or less anatomically modern form for 100,000 to 200,000 years, began to flourish and thrive as a result of this most fortuitous warmth. In short: Global warming is good for people. If you don’t believe me, look at the temperature variations within the Holocene: The so-called Roman Warming coincided with the heights of classical civilization; then came a period of cooling which coincided with the social collapse of the Dark Ages. Then there was the Medieval Warm Period, which coincided with the rise of monumental cathedrals in Europe and the settlement by Vikings in a lush Greenland, followed by the Little Ice Age (from roughly the 14th to the 19th centuries) — which saw widespread political upheavals, famine and disease. Finally, there is the current warming trend of the last century and a half or so. In each instance, the result is broadly the same: The warmer the Earth, the better it has been for people. So let’s be thankful for the Holocene — civilization could never have arisen without it. And let’s be thankful we live in this especially warm period within the Holocene, which has seen human populations achieve measures of health and wealth unparalleled in all of history. But let us also not be fooled — this blessed respite will someday end. The ice will return. It always has, it always will. And when it does, it will threaten all we have built, and indeed, our very existence. Enviros often describe global warming as some kind of Hell on Earth. But Dante Alighieri, who taught us a thing or two about Hell, knew better. In Canto 34 of The Inferno, Dante and his guide Virgil descend to the ninth and lowest circle of Hell, and in the very center they find Satan who sits, not in a pit of fire — but frozen in a solid lake of ice.
Joe
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
noam, Obviously you have serious issues. BEST just released a report that could not/ did not link the warming to any human activities. Why Hasn't the Earth Warmed in Nearly 15 Years?:
There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there's been no change in fourteen and a half years? If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University's Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you'd say yes, indeed. It's China's fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Also the emails prove that AGW is a farce and they also prove that your position is that of chicken-little. As for cloud cover- again you have to be a moron not to understand how that works. Clouds cause shade. Shade is cooler than direct sunlight- duh. See http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf But anyway all you claims of "bald assertion" and yet you can produce nothing- no science- nothing, to refute what I said.
1. Is it rational to experiment with destroying one’s home? 2. Is it good if 8 of 17 of the world’s largest cities are destroyed
chicken-little...Joe
November 30, 2011
November
11
Nov
30
30
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
[[The cloud scenario is a given, Al Gore has been proven wrong so many times the climate scientists are distancing themselves from him]] This is just a bald assertion on your part. Further, we don't know how many clouds will form, nor do we know much that will drop the temp. Again, you don't jump off a 100 foot cliff, just to see if you will live. It would be foolish and reckless to drive CO2 levels up to 500 ppm and just hope that enough clouds will form. I have yet to hear from you a rational response from my cliff analogy. [[ and what I claimed was the warming is NOT anthropic.]] You're insane!!! Co2 levels vascillated between 180 and 280 for 800K years and now in the last 100 they've shot up to 380 and you think that has nothing to man? You're seriously lacking in rational skills. [[And even though CO2 levels are rising the temperature is not.]] Again, you're crazy. Anyone who looks at Al Gore's graph and sees that two variable CO2 and temp move at the same time over 800K years and says they're not related is just desperate to ignore the truth. Basically, you don't have any evidence, you're just making bald assertions. [[CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it and I bet they are wondering why we are so stingey with the stuff.]] Sure, it's not a pollutant but when the ocean rises 4 feet and destroys 8 of 17 of the world's largest cities then it doesn't matter what you call it - it's a killer of civilization. Further, it could even get worse. There's the possibility of a runaway greenhouse gas effect where if carbon ppm goes up to 600 it sets off a positive feedback loop that drives greenhouse gas levels up to a 1000 or even 2000. If ALL the artic and antartic ice melts then we could be talking the whole planet being submerged in water. [[BTW there isn’t enough water to submerge the whole planet.]] Maybe, but who wants to destroy half of the world's cities. I have yet to hear from you an answer to this charge. [[Have you not kept up on the climategate email leaks?]] Yes, have you? The emails have been taken out of context. What I'd actually like to see from you is some hard evidence. Haven't you heard of exxonsecrets http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php When the oil industry is paying scientists to lie that should tell you something. I have yet to hear a rational response from you regarding these two points: 1. Is it rational to experiment with destroying one's home? 2. Is it good if 8 of 17 of the world's largest cities are destroyed [[ It is very telling that the science does not support your extreme views- glaciation bad, warm good…]] This is just a bald assertion.noam_ghish
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
noam, The cloud scenario is a given, Al Gore has been proven wrong so many times the climate scientists are distancing themselves from him and what I claimed was the warming is NOT anthropic. And even though CO2 levels are rising the temperature is not. CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it and I bet they are wondering why we are so stingey with the stuff. BTW there isn't enough water to submerge the whole planet. The way the Creationists get away with te Flood is by saying the mountains and deep ocean basins did not exist at that time but were created during that Flood epoch. Have you not kept up on the climategate email leaks? It is very telling that the science does not support your extreme views- glaciation bad, warm good...Joe
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Joe, if you would look at the chart by Al Gore which shows temp levels and CO2 levels over the last 400K years you would realize that it is more likely that there is a correlation between the two than not. Moreover, when we are talking about our only home in the universe, it is prudent to error on the side of caution. Take your body, you only have one, you don't keep smoking if 99 out of 100 doctors says it's unhealthy and the only doctor that does is paid for by phillip morris? if we ruin this earth, then we're dead. if we spend trillions of dollars fighting a global warming and it turns out to be false, then at worse we've just wasted about 10 trillion hours of labor. but if global warming is real, then we might 8 of 17 of the world's largest cities. Also, as Peter Ward points in Rare Earth, if the whole Planet becomes submerged in water there's a strong chance that we can't reverse that trend. Again, better to err on the side of life, not on the side of the economy. And you continue to move the goal post: first, you said CO2 levels are not anthropogenic, then you said CO2 levels were higher in the past. now you're saying that there is no correlation between CO2 and temp. how about a little admission that you're wrong, before you come up with a new thesis. As for creating clouds, which cools the Earth, that might be true, but it would foolish to find out if that actually is the case. You don't jump off a 200 cliff to see if you will live. You err on the side of life. What do we do if we raise CO2 levels to 550 ppm and we find out that temperature keeps rising? Then we're dead.noam_ghish
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Actually only a small % of CO2 is from humans. GLOBAL WARMING, HUMAN-INDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS, AND THEIR UNCERTAINTIES But anyway- the earth warms, water evaporates creating clouds, which then cool the earth. And yes CO2 levels have gone up but the temperature has not (in the last decade). And BEST says that North America has been cooling. See also: Pheesiks? We don’t need no steenkin’ pheesiks!Joe
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Sure, CO2 levels have been higher in the past, I think during the Jurassic they were at 3000ppm but that doesn't mean that 8 of the 17 of the largest cities on Earth won't be submerged! CO2 levels have not declined in the last 10 years, they've gone up. Do you think people have sold their cars in the last 10 years and are walking to work now? In your reply you've basically conceded that the CO2 levels are the result of humans. So now you've moved the goal post to: 380+ won't do anything. You think those ice caps won't melt? You don't think all those coastal cities won't get flooded? What's going to happen when that methane trapped in the artic ice gets released? Methane is 17 times worse than CO2.noam_ghish
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Not only that there are peer-reviewed papers that say warming has stopped- ie no warming for over the past 10 years. There is more to climate than CO2 levels and at 380+ parts per million that isn't enough to do anything.Joe
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Joe, the carbon levels vascillated between 180 ppm and 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years and now in the last 100 it has shot up to 380 and you think it's an accident that humans burn a lot of fossil fuels, which just happen to have CO2?noam_ghish
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
That the climate changes is an undeniable fact. Anthropic global warming is not a fact.Joe
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
this is wrong. global warming is a fact. the ID movement harms itself by taking up the cause of global warming skeptics.noam_ghish
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
The release of these emails should change the climate of the debate! It is now undeniable that the researchers at the center of this issue are more interested in politics than truth. That doesn't mean that their conclusions are necessarily wrong. But it does mean that we're never going to be able to trust that their conclusions are correct until we have purged these dishonest workers from the ranks of science.APM
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply