Viking Coder wrote:
…
I don’t have a “just in case” position. I have a “look at all the science, not just that which supports your preconceived notions” position. The skepticalscience.com site backs up all of its articles with peer-reviewed research papers.
As has recently been revealed, peer review is highly fallible, as huge %’s of fudged findings are getting through. Not to mention its inherently consensus-reinforcing tendencies.
Here’s some dissenting analysis that had a hard time getting past the group-think filter:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Maybe it’s the tachyons? 😆
