Re: The Real Junk Science

On Sun, 29 May 2005 10:34:28 -0400, "Ian St. John"
<istjohn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Coby Beck wrote:
>> "Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:959i91p6675dmd6tc4886dlq10iohp1q0p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:49:09 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>>>
>>> http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>>
>>> http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_measuretemp.htm
>>>
>>> Your inability to tell the difference between data and an editorial
>>> is noted.
>>
>> LOL!  That's a good one!
>>
>> You keep clinging to outdated and invalidated data, I'll stick to
>> reality, thanks for playing.
>
>That is what '****lls' like Wm James do. They ignore the thousands of
>qualified scientists who represent the mainstream science in favor of a
few
>degreed cranks and paid lobbyists that will put forth the 'junk science'
>story. By replicating only a few lies, distortions, and claims only a few
>thousand times, they totally overwhelm the voice of reason that tries to
put
>forward the facts as determined by credible research.

ROTFLMAO!  You actually make such silly BS claims while parroting
pseudoscience quackery and ignoring the data AND ignoring the many
thousands of actual scientists who call your BS the hoax it is, and
then you use the tobacco company "scientists" who's "data" and
"studies" are identical in credibility to yours for the same reason to
argue against reality?  That's funny!


William R. James