by KeithE » Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:34 am
Lightly read your reply - will do more probably tonight.
Immediate response is that you did not defend how you (and your "sources") turned the Doran and Anderegg surveys from 97 (97-98) % of the most involved / most GW published climatologist are AGW to 3% are (via misuse of the survey data and use of an old petition-not a survey). That is what you tried to say - claimed 97% was really 3%. Instead your post above for the most part is personal attacks on some of the authors.
WRT to all of the 26 Independent Teams members having a prior "overt bias", you made no headway at all that I can immediately say.
I'm trying to make you realise how over-the-top some of your blustery statements are.
Need to go to work right now.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.