Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Why can`t people have opposing views to yours S1.Run off now and...

First 10 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
sheepshed

101 Posts.

21/08/19

12:48

Post #: 40075309
Share

Originally posted by Sidonicus1: ↑

A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[31] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[32] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[32]

This petition was deceptive, as are the users re-floating it on HC.

Expand

Why can`t people have opposing views to yours S1.
Run off now and tell your guardians that you have done your bit for the bullshit cause.
20 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

3DA

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

NHF

Burgeoning NZ insurance claims drive 1H25 operating loss for nib

ACW

Actinogen receives $9M R&D tax rebate to fund Alzheimer's trial

There are more pages in this discussion • 10 more messages in this thread...

First 10 Last