Please cite and quote the journalist from a reputable news source who made those same claims about the Heartland Institute as alleged "certain circles".
Anyone with any journalistic integrity would not repeat unsubstantiated claims. The fact that he chose to repeat factually untrue statements demonstrates he has no interest in intellectual honesty.
"Certain Circles" could say Mike is a thief. No reputable journalist would repeat this without fact checking it first.
My "argument" is that the, "certain circles" claims are factually incorrect and no one has been able to show otherwise. My problem with Mike is that he posted them at all. It can easily be inferred that Mike believes these false claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
You are confusing errors found during the peer-review process with a paper that may have had "corrections" made to it after it was published as an addendum or erratum. These did not change the conclusions of those papers. This demonstrates you do not understand the peer-review process.
I not "handlers", your obsession with conspiracy theories is getting really old.
"That clearly puts the lie to your claim that the reputable scientific journals are conspiring to prevent publishing papers with contrarian views in it."
Strawman argument as I made no such claim here.
Your vicious ad hominem attacks on reputable scientists are all the evidence anyone needs that you do not have an argument.
"Spencer (and McKitrick) ...They both believe that all of quantum theory and all of relativity is completely wrong and that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old."
This is an absolute lie.
People can make up their own minds when they are given the truth and not the lies you peddle. What I have stated is fully supported and your lies are blatantly unsupportable.
You don't have a point. You have emotional beliefs and conspiracy theories. The scientists in question are not politically motivated and their scientific positions on climate change have not changed.
But I am not random, I am actively involved in the debate and happen to be knowledgeable on this subject.
I have a problem when people make things up simply because they are emotional. If you want to argue against the Heartland Institute do so based on what they actually do and say not what you emotionally believe.
I did not start his discussion, I am replying to it. He stated a challenge using a phrase that cannot be universally defined. To answer the question the following needs to be defined,
"the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)"
My argument is that the above phrase does not have a universal definition and thus his challenge is invalidated. You can certainly prove me wrong and provide the universal definition.
I am not emotional about science as many here are.
No one has ever argued that climate change does not happen. Everyone agreeing that the climate is changing is confirmation that all scientists agree in climate change not AGW.
Of course AGW is unsettled as many disagreements relating to the science still exist.
The scientific research in this case is reviewing and compiling a scientific report based on peer-reviewed science. The scientists in question were already doing this before being funded by anyone. Obtaining funding just allows them to concentrate on their work.
"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, [...] The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
I made no claims about "all" laws but specifically those relating to control over moral behavior which does not harm others.
In relation to smoking, so long as you can choose to patron or work at a private business then it is your choice and responsibility to assume any risks from being in a smoking environment.
FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.
"We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.
For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.
We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents."
Joseph L. Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
Mike should issue an update as his initial concern has been addressed. He should also retract his false and unsupported statements about the Heartland Institute.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Prove it
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grasping Science
"Climate Change" and "ACC/AGW" are two different things.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you even look?
So you reject personal responsibility? Why am I not surprised.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Zero
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Not at all
"Certain Circles" could say Mike is a thief. No reputable journalist would repeat this without fact checking it first.
My "argument" is that the, "certain circles" claims are factually incorrect and no one has been able to show otherwise. My problem with Mike is that he posted them at all. It can easily be inferred that Mike believes these false claims.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
I not "handlers", your obsession with conspiracy theories is getting really old.
"That clearly puts the lie to your claim that the reputable scientific journals are conspiring to prevent publishing papers with contrarian views in it."
Strawman argument as I made no such claim here.
Your vicious ad hominem attacks on reputable scientists are all the evidence anyone needs that you do not have an argument.
"Spencer (and McKitrick) ...They both believe that all of quantum theory and all of relativity is completely wrong and that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old."
This is an absolute lie.
People can make up their own minds when they are given the truth and not the lies you peddle. What I have stated is fully supported and your lies are blatantly unsupportable.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These are all lies...
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Of Course
I have a problem when people make things up simply because they are emotional. If you want to argue against the Heartland Institute do so based on what they actually do and say not what you emotionally believe.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Zero
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Boxed In Already
"scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)"
If you wish me to continue then he either needs to provide it or concede he cannot.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Boxed In Already
As I said before having a 0.1% or 99.9% effect can both be defined as AGW.
I have no idea why people believe stating that the "climate is changing" is some kind of argument? The climate always changes, so?
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Boxed In Already
"the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)"
My argument is that the above phrase does not have a universal definition and thus his challenge is invalidated. You can certainly prove me wrong and provide the universal definition.
I am not emotional about science as many here are.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Grasping Science
Of course AGW is unsettled as many disagreements relating to the science still exist.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: These are all lies...
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: These are all lies...
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you even look?
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.short
"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, [...] The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you even look?
In relation to smoking, so long as you can choose to patron or work at a private business then it is your choice and responsibility to assume any risks from being in a smoking environment.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Heartland Institute Issues a Revised Statement
Mike should issue an update as his initial concern has been addressed. He should also retract his false and unsupported statements about the Heartland Institute.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Lets learn to use a dictionary
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/libel
Libel NOUN:
1 a. false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
1 b.The act of presenting such material to the public.
This is separate from the legal definition,
2 The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Next time learn that their exists dictionaries not made for the legal profession.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Conspiracy Theories
Next >>