re: #156 albusteve

this is all nonsense…and rude

No, it is actually dead on target.

He brought an article twice about scientists revising a stance on AGW, in an attempt to show that the science is messed up, but correcting itself and hence make it seem like the truths of AGW are less bad than they are.

The proof is that he neglected to mention that the retracted paper was controversial because it was claiming lowball estimates and that the good science, which is working, and was the majority actually knows that the estimates were lowball. And hence, that AGW is much worse than IPCC or the retracted paper indicate.

If he were not trolling in his usual dishonest way, he would have mentioned the whole story.