@donpedrodepedo As vice ch of House Science comtee I 've benefited from numerous hearings & briefings with top scientists on both sides
@donpedrodepedo focus on merits of arguments not motive of one arguing the case. All this attempt to distract from lack of substance
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher not arrogance at all. Referencing rutan's report. Shows several instances where ipcc modified graphs to make their case ... -
@donpedrodepedo challenging specific assertion, like pointing out CO2 spike comes after warming. general dismissal arrogant & unscientific -
@DanaRohrabacher I'm not dismissing point. Like I said earlier: I'm reading rutan's report but just had a side question about motive
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher more convincing. Just wondering what they have to gain by doing so -
@donpedrodepedo I certainly believe science compromised by with holding grants contrary to GW theory, but no proposition deserves dismissal
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher similarly, you've asked others to look at whose payroll certain scientists are on. Not considering motive can be dangerous -
@donpedrodepedo I deal with the argument, I don't try to discredit the advocate. who claims I ask what payroll my adversaries have been on? - End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.