The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:50:21 GMT
Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2005 11:50 am
Subject: Re: McKintyre & McKitrick publish again !
"peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:1107448084.429676.88490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: >>If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. Yes, and by "right" is meant their accusation that MBH is wrong, not that > Just in case you have a problem with reading, this is what wmc said: MM got their climate reconstruction right since they don't even believe that themselves. >>Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong Sure, I still encounter creationists who bring up the Piltdown man as >>we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that > different. > I believe other authors of papers in the literature might humbly evidence that evolution is a fraud. Should MBH be wrong I'm sure there will be people who bring it up for decades as example of how the entire field of climate science is worthless, which is why the debate gets so emotional. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||