What, me worry? After all the "typical" voter doesn't read George Will.
Posted on 04/28/2008 4:23:39 PM PDT by The_Republican
To address Exxon's profits by looking ONLY at the aggregate profit number is absolutely ridiculous. What about the size and scale of the company?
Would he feel better if Exxon was broken up into 20 companies (so you could then divide their total profit number by 20)?
Obama's ignorance on economic matters is astounding.
I suspect that the one is coming after McCain.
This is pretty much the motif operandi of the liberal judges, forget the law, go with your feewings...
I've already read your link to RealClimate as well as a few other blogs that critique both the original paper and the RealClimate analysis.
The answer to your question is that only a peer reviewed paper in a legitimate technical journal will carry any weight with the the scientific community. That's just the way it is. This is a highly controversial topic and potentially very damaging to the the GW advocates position. There is no doubt that this is recognized by the GW community on both sides of the issue. So a failure by the advocates to publish a paper contradicting Douglass et al is very telling.
It is noteworthy also that the author of the RealClimate analysis is "group". Who is group? Why won't they sign their names to their own work? Why don't they publish their analysis? It seems to me that these are pretty important questions.
Personally I don't find the RealClimate critique nearly as persuasive as the Douglass paper and the critique has been picked apart pretty thoroughly by Cristy and others.
Ignore the above - posted to the wrong thread. Sorry about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.