the-pi-guy said:
How does a scientist being exposed as a fraud, mean that climate change might also be a fraud? In fact, it should be shown as more evidence. A private collection of bones were found to be fraudalent, and yet the public air that everyone has access to, should be even easier to fact check. So it should have a higher probability of being shown to be false, than the bones. |
That's what I was thinking. I don't get what this guy's thought process is. It seems only related to trying to prove his father is who he says he is. Though that makes little sense to do since anyone can just come up with some name of a scientist who made fraudulent work and try to connect someone else to it.
I also am wondering how an anthropologists work is used for a biologist.
