Welcome to the Gallery – a place where you'll find hope and strength through the healing power of art and the universal reach of technology –
a place where you can
Connect, Create, and Thrive!
Interested in partnering with us?
Click here to find out how!
Displaying (3) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art
And I'll say, TCO, that much of what you write in your above post would support the noiton that Steig wrote his 80-page review in order to *help them put their paper in proper shape for publication*, because, as you say, they tend to be totally muddled in their blogscience literature .Rather than, as they claim, writing his 80-page review subjecting them to much more severe review than real scientists have to deal with.Well, maybe real scientists know how to write papers and don't need so much hand-holding to get there.C'mon, you know that Steig's innocent in this, why can't you friggin' admit it?
By: | Dec 16, 2012 | Report Comment
I get the impression Monckton tnkihs his words are so righteous he'd CC James Hansen. I know Fred Pearce gets a bad rap, and I disagree entirely with his views on many of the email's contents, but don't be too hard on him (I emphasise too'). What you see on the web is not necessarily everything in the printed versions. One of his first Guardian articles on the emails was expanded in print, with clear and unequivocable attacks on deniers which didn't make it into the web version, as they were inserted amongst the main article. He was actually far harsher on the likes of Michaels than he was on Jones IIRC, which I remember being relieved at when reading it on a train.
By: | Dec 04, 2012 | Report Comment
Until I found this I tohught I'd have to spend the day inside.
By: | Dec 04, 2012 | Report Comment
Qs
floridababs | Region 4
There are 2 pieces of art in this thread