On 15 Aug 2007 at 7:11, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 14/08/2007, at 8:55 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 13 Aug 2007 at 8:54, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/ > >>> revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html > > > > As usual... check Realclimate first? > > > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all- > > that/ > > "Heh. Try elsewhere for anything LIKE balanced. I'm NOT going to go > into > the entire flamewar about why. (Hint: PR flacks, not scientists)" > > Your words. > > So why is realclimate.org now worth checking? What's changed?
I don't like their take on origional research, I think they filter it quite badly. But for debunking the "news" stories about how global warming is suddenly derailed by a tiny correction to statistics? They explain quite well. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
