Reply to comment
possible conclusions?
April 7, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 30 weeks ago
Comment id: 28640
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I would guess this new computer modeling could be used to predict future climate changes or possibly weather patterns. Also, there usually aren't vast scientific conspiracies, since scientists are usually just as happy to be proven wrong as to be proven correct. If scientists say there is a 95% probability that not only is global warming real, but that humans are responsible for it, then its probably the case. Dissenting evidence will be presented and peer reviewed, to bury any such evidence is unethical, and most scientists wouldn't even consider doing it.