Denier may refer to:

Denier (unit), a unit of linear mass density of fibers
Denier, Pas-de-Calais, France
French denier, a coin

Well and good, generally, however this discussion is specifically about the NYT article reporting on the "Fiasco" over the depiction of Greenland in a new atlas. Having read the article, I did not find it particularly biased or lacking in truthful reporting. Are there specific part which you take issue with?

The original posting was independent of global warming and just an example of bad publishing.

After being described as someone with an axe to grind against Time-Life I corrected the error of my original post.

But since you raise global warming here are points to consider.

1. Is global warming occurring?

2. Is it man-made?

3. Is it negative, neutral or positive?

4. Can man realistically stop/alter/change it?

5. Given the cost to change is it worth it?

These are by no means all of the questions but they are some that are virtually never asked.

Threatening people who do not share your views with sufficient vigor is, at the very least, silly.

As I've mention earlier, the same as "SRJ" constantly correcting and editing his posting according to the comments following the original post

__________________
Vivere senza rimpianti



Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?

Sorry pal, but you are way off base lumping in sjh with the likes of 'SRJ'.
There really isnt any comparison .
#1. sjh is much more intelligent, articulate than ... you are.
#2. 'SRJ' ..is gone.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

Whatever makes you sleep better "honey"
You don't know anything about me so please don't provide your "inside knowledge" or believes.
One other "Inside" for you. You are NOT my pal, they way I see it you will never be one.

__________________
Vivere senza rimpianti



Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?

With

Out

Papers




I rest my case~



"Who loves ya Baby"

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

Awww crap, yuh made me read the article. It looked like fair reporting to me of an interesting failure at fact checking the original document.

Which, of course, was all I stated in the original post.

Your so-called error correction is still full of distortation, misstatement of fact, and is just another example of your hypocritical thread title. Your statement:

"To help the general public fully grasp the horror of global warming Time (my error, I though tit was Time-Life not Time, no deception intended) decided to embellish the receding of Greenland's glacier mass by 1500%."

Is factually incorrect, and just another example of your not worrying about the truth, and publishing what you want. This article has nothing to do with the well-known publication known as "Time", a publication you have continually tried to slander, so your claim that there was "no deception intended" rings rather hollow. Get your facts straight. It is not "Time", it is a the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, known as The Times of London, something that was directly pointed out to you. Do you even read the stuff you post? And if you do, why do you have so much difficulty extracting the actual facts? Why do you waste our time posting this unfactual drivel? The entire screed above is a pile of lies. Again, get your facts straight.

That's half the story, the other half is that glaciologists responded to this failure by bringing loud attention to it, even tho, as a group, it is well known they are firmly in the Global Warming camp. It showed that science has taken note that they must be hypervigilant in keeping their name out of the left-right exaggeration war so they don't end up getting slandered and smeared by, Fox News? Isn't that the organization that loudly hyped to so-called "email scandal"? Interesting that the real fact here is that the book was authored by? ...... Rupert Murdoch's London Times? Hmmmm........

Too much conspiracy for me to grasp, Kirk.

The flap about the emails was based on facts -- those guys were playing with the models to get the results they wanted. Whatever one believes concerning GCC, that manipulation to create a specific outcome serves only the detractors, as has been amply demonstrated.

Chris, I have seen no evidence of anyone "playing with models" in this over-hyped scandal. Perhaps this might help.

FactCheck.org : “Climategate”

I can do you one better: I know the data, the models and some of the scientists. I know how and what followed behind the scenes. I know what work is going on now.

Actual knowledge of people and events trumps a damned website and conspiracy theorists.

Go get 'em tiger!