Comment Re:This isn't news... (Score 1) 1367
I read the rebuttal letter.... It wasn't a "comparable" letter, it probably was scientifically accurate, but it only stated claims, no actual arguments. The letter in the WSJ actually gave arguments. All the letter in Science did was rely on the weight of the names behind it.
Oh!!! Well there's a surprise! Never seen proponents of AGW do that before. How surprising!
What they should have done was stated some facts and then drawn conclusions. I am a little confused as to why the letter was such a poor rebuttal
Oh no! I am so confyoozed!!
(I believe in climate change, personally).
*face palm*
Maybe next time they could show a little science.
Yes, maybe next time. How many years have we been saying that now? Keep waiting Gibgezr...maybe next time.
At least the original letter gave the reasons *why* they thought climate change was overblown, the rebuttal letter should have done the same, told *why* they believed in climate change. Instead, they basically just said "there's 255 of us and you better believe us or bad things will happen!"
Yeah I know.... but... you know.... because it makes me feel like a better person.... like someone who cares about something other than myself.... I just still want to believe in AGW.... how else will can I feel good about myself?
