Posted on 12/11/2010 10:41:54 PM PST by neverdem
Standing by it doesn't make it correct. And I note that you added "assuming such a thing is possible", which is the case here, and was NOT in your original argument.
No, it just means that I think it is.
Seems to me that there are some semantic issues involved here, but I am not disposed to argue them at this time. You didn't quote me accurately in your latest rejoinder, and I don't have the time to explain what I was getting at.
In what way was what I posted "inaccurate"??
The problem with "climate science" isn't the methodological approach used, which is fine. The problem is that said process has been deliberately corrupted, as the Climategate emails prove conclusively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.