Sunday, April 12, 2009

BPA vs. (alleged) AGW

I don't know one way or the other. But if the standard is to not have errors and inconsistencies (and I think it should be), then why is (alleged) AGW research, which is fraught with both, accepted as gospel? If the funding source calls research into question, then shouldn't government or environmental group funding also call (alleged) AGW research into question?

I'm just sayin'.

No comments: