On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Paul Hill wrote:
> In all, it's a worthwhile error to catch for the US data, but it
> doesn't change much about the overall pattern.
That doesn't matter. If there is any tiny error that can be focused
on to the exclusion of everything else to the contrary, that is
enough for the anti-science folks to grab on to and use to justify
ignorance. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to not notice the
word "global" in "global warming" and constantly harp about local
temperatures?
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
