human population, sooner or later.
>
>In other words, the seriousness of AGW is quite independent of any of the data in question. There is a consilience of evidence from several lines of investigation. This indicates that even if there had been a fraudulent intent, it had no bearing on AGW. It appears that the data in question dealt with specific examples of where global warming was already evident. That's a different question from the severity of AGW in the broader scope.
>
>In summary, to trumpet that "skeptics are vindicated," implying that AGW isn't as serious as was thought, is rather premature and ignores the basic science of AGW.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 27 09:47:08 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 27 2009 - 09:47:09 EST