Posted: Sep 08, 2011 2:04 am
Teague wrote:I'm having difficulty finding relevant info on this, can anyone help out or have I been rumbled?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 445-1207r/
He is just picking and choosing data that suits his position. It is easy to do. And he keeps bringing up the old "the co2 levels in the past were higher" canard, which can be explained in 5 seconds with a google search.
People love to think by listing the same old canards in an article, they have debunked a whole field of science. Do we find this sort of argument in the scientific literature? No, that is because the cherry picking argument would fail miserably in any review process.