What do you mean, you know what makes the research have integrity. And I've always cited research that fits within those boundaries. I find it very interesting that the so called climate change revisonists and deniers cannot or will not cite any legitimate research from a credible peer reviewed scientific journal like Nature, Science, Annals of the American Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Journal International, Journal of Applied Geophysics etc.
So don't talk about irony. Instead of whining about it do the work, and actually go through the journals looking for a pattern of contradictory findings. The reality of it is that the so called research you keep bringing up is simply sponsored crap. It starts off with a very specific agenda and proceeds to dig for bedrock from there. When it hits the bottom it starts digging deeper. There typically is very little credibility. While current theories are not perfect, they do provide a very good fit to the existent data. The industry sponsored work simply does not. So you keep boasting about your maths degree. put it to some use. >" that raises up a lot of flags about legitimacy of the research." > >The irony. > >J > >- > >Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - >Henry Kissinger > >Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go >out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:341471 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
