Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
The climategate emails were not "debunked"; they were marginalized and excused.
|
No, they were investigated SIX times by completely different bodies with nothing coming out of it.
Of course the conspiracy loon would say that that proves that all six bodies are in on the conspiracy...
Heck even the guy in the video who misrepresented (lied) about what the emails said and was funded by the denial machine to go out and do a completely separate analysis came up with a data set that completely supports the other 3 supposedly corrupted data sets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Thanks. I do note that "seem" and "may" become "is" by the conclusion (and in the article, too.) This bothers me in that they postulate a theory, but present it as fact. And then nasty newspaper articles aggrandize it.
|
Only if you don't read it closely. The "seem" and "may" are around their observations or explanations, and the "is" is part of the actual hypothesis they're trying to disprove.
Your hypothesis can't have a "may" in it, since the hypothesis needs to either be supported or contradicted.
Your observations always have error bars and conclusions are always based on a set of assumptions (previous observations, etc), so there's always room for error.
As for arctic ice:
