I agree that peer reviewed incontrovertible data is better. Merely reflecting that some solid science cannot in fact be proven, and the inclusion of hypotheses does not invalidate a set of conclusions necessarily.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]>wrote: > > But it is still important to make clear that Robert wasn't wrong about > the paper. It should not have been included, period. That was a > mistake and needs to be acknowledged as such. There are plenty of > strong claims that can be made with sufficient evidence behind them; > we do not need to lower the standards of credibility. > > Judah > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> That being said, the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating for 5 > >> decades (see the link I posted earlier) and there is evidence that the > >> rate is increasing. So the original claim may not be supported well > >> enough to make it into the IPCC report but it also isn't a spurious > >> claim either. > >> > >> That's what I was wondering. > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311134 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
