Re: The Real Junk Science

"Bob Casanova" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:tgcf8190kcbs971q3j1oqkk37dp7sdlq2n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:01:39 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "James" <kingkong@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> >
> >"Dan Clore" <clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:3eoh3tF44vp9U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to
> >> dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over
> >> a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which
> >> then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire
> >> canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent
> >> scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published
> >> in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are
> >> David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric
> >> former architect, which are based on what appears to be a
> >> non-existent data set. And you must do all this while
> >> calling yourself a scientist.
>
> >It's amazing how selective and inventive you have to be to present a
case
> >for global warming when nothing else works to convince.
>
> Did you actually read Dan's post? Do you have any evidence
> to refute his claims, or to sup****t those of the claims he
> debunked?

I read it. An extreme leftist writing in the Guardian. Sounded made up to
me. I found it a bit much he would go to all that trouble for a "hole in
his
mind". Claims are cheap stuff as this NG demonstrates.