Not exact matches
On the other hand, the fact that the case is already so far in the public domain might be evidence that
arguments used by m» learned friends to try and stuff it back into the obscurity from which it sprang are little more than legal tosh and
nonsense.
I worry about the minute detail involved; 0.1 per decade here, an adjustment there, the
arguments over statistical methods, the
use of models, the fact that a global average is
nonsense etc..
What's boring is having to scroll past reams of posts spouting
nonsense that's been heard ad nauseum before, posts refuting such
nonsense using arguments that needn't be given because they're talking to the denier's hand, and others talking about the knowledge, mind sets and motives of the deniers.
This group
uses non-scientific
arguments («coal trains are death trains») and knowlingly bends data to the breaking point or stays silent while non-scientists like former VP Al Gore spout
nonsense.