Regardless of the current wording in their rebuttal, it would not change their position. My inferences are based on their public policy positions in relation to free speech. Anyone who has properly researched the institute would know this. I can assure you they are only concerned with libel in relation to the fake document and not simply any discussion on the documents. You do not have to be affiliated with them to know this truth.
My comments here were in direct response to exact words stated by the author. You nor any commentator here is an arbitrator on what the "discussion" is or who can comment and why.
Google Page Rank does not weigh blog comment links high if at all. So your conspiracy theories here are meaningless.
You are correct that I have an obsession with correcting misinformation about subjects I am knowledgeable in.
Mike irresponsibly stated misinformation and failed to source it. I corrected the misinformation. It is telling that no one has attempted to quote and source a rebuttal to any of my factual corrections.
You are absolutely clueless about what a strawman argument actually is. If the person I am arguing against explicitly makes certain statements and I argue against them that is NOT a strawman argument. Mike explicitly said,
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Are you denying Mike made the statement above?
Based on years of scientific research I do not believe the future of the global climate is at stake.
Dr. Singer is a credentialed scientists and has published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature,
S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity
(Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 47, Number 10, pp. 1327-1336, October 2010)
- Craig Loehle, S. F. Singer
Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)
- S. Fred Singer
Singer, Soon and Spencer have all extensively published their positions in the scientific literature,
Your question cannot be answered without first defining your terms. The "scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" does not have a single universal definition.
I am agnostic so religion does not play into my decisions.
It appears that various links on that page are broken, I have contacted them to correct this as those links would address you complaints.
"Business can ban smoking on their premises if they so desire, you have no say in that. Local government has the authority to put in place measures for the benefit of society, you vote - right?"
I would never think of having any say in what moral practices a private property owner chooses to allow on their property. Local government should not have the right to tell a private property owner what moral practices they can allow on their property. "For the benefit of society" is an emotional platitude spoken by those who wish to control the moral behavior of others even when it does not harm anyone else.
So long as it is voluntary for you to choose to go to or work at a private business than it is your choice to take the risks incurred if smoking is permitted there.
The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process
Re: Re: Re: The Climategate Emails were not misread
After reading about the story on another site I searched Google News for more stories on it. Techdirt's came up as one of the most recent ones at that time. I never claimed it was front page news. I really don't understand the conspiracy theories.
I sleep very soundly as I do not hold emotional positions on scientific issues.
Re: Re: Re: The Climategate Emails were not misread
The facts don't change despite your denial of them. I have provided sourced evidence to support my arguments and you have failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support the "in certain circles" ones. I challenge anyone to provide such evidence.
You can believe whatever you want, I am just giving you the correct interpretation of their words. I will email them to see if they will comment here to clarify this.
Re: Re: Re: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
It the article was not about the false statements Mike made about the Heartland Institute then he should not have included them.
The outrage expressed here is patently absurd as their concern is with libel relating to the fake document and not simply discussions on the leaked documents.
I have no relationship whatsoever with the Heartland Institute. It is really pathetic that you accuse me of trolling for making factual corrections to false statements made by the author here. So you would prefer the author and anyone reading this remained ignorant on the factual statements I corrected?
I am the same Poptech found in Climate Change debates online. My reasons for commenting is if you wish to argue against the organization then do so based on what they actually state and not misinformation as posted by Mike.
Claiming "in certain circles" does not excuse the use of those factually untrue statements. When I noticed comments repeating those false statements it compelled me to post.
"what specific evidence would have to be presented to convince you that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is correct?"
This is a joke right?
Define the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and cite your source. If I then can provide a source that defines it differently your question is invalidated.
Re: Re: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
TheOldFart, please go look up the definition of Strawman argument as I did not such thing. What I quoted was stated exactly by Mike and thus cannot be a "Strawman argument". The false claim was made by Mike, try READING his article,
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Dr. Singer and the Heartland Institute use inconvenient scientific and statistical evidence to debunk exaggerated claims made by anti-smoking groups and AGW Alarmists.
Dr. Singer has not trained me to do anything. This site is so full of conspiracy theorists it is embarrassing.
He clearly made false statements on those issues, which I have corrected.
The Heartland Institute has a legal write to sue for libel. They are only concerned with those journalists who made libelous statements about them in relation to the forged document. Not anyone who "commented" on it - which is absolutely absurd. Mike and yourself are misreading what they stated.
I actually found this post using Google News and when I read it, found many factually incorrect statements that I corrected by creating an account and posting about them. You guys accuse a first time commentator of believing in falsely conspiracy theories while fabricating conspiracy theories about them posting - hillarious!
All you have is make ad hominem attacks since you cannot refute a single fact I stated and supported with sources.
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
Free to Comment
My comments here were in direct response to exact words stated by the author. You nor any commentator here is an arbitrator on what the "discussion" is or who can comment and why.
Google Page Rank does not weigh blog comment links high if at all. So your conspiracy theories here are meaningless.
You are correct that I have an obsession with correcting misinformation about subjects I am knowledgeable in.
Mike irresponsibly stated misinformation and failed to source it. I corrected the misinformation. It is telling that no one has attempted to quote and source a rebuttal to any of my factual corrections.
I have no idea who Paul Christoforo is.
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
Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Are you denying Mike made the statement above?
Based on years of scientific research I do not believe the future of the global climate is at stake.
Dr. Singer is a credentialed scientists and has published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature,
S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity
(Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 47, Number 10, pp. 1327-1336, October 2010)
- Craig Loehle, S. F. Singer
Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)
- S. Fred Singer
Singer, Soon and Spencer have all extensively published their positions in the scientific literature,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You appear to have no knowledge of any relevant facts to this debate.
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
Definition Request
I am agnostic so religion does not play into my decisions.
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: Lies
Please quote and cite evidence or retract your libelous 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
Very Serious
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
These are all lies...
2. "It's the long-standing official position of their propaganda chief, Fred Singer."
3. "Singer also happens to be the one in charge of the anti-science campaign by Heartland."
4. "He not only denies that climate change is happening, he denies that it's possible for humans to change the climate."
Prove me wrong, quote and cite evidence to the contrary.
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: Did you even look?
"Business can ban smoking on their premises if they so desire, you have no say in that. Local government has the authority to put in place measures for the benefit of society, you vote - right?"
I would never think of having any say in what moral practices a private property owner chooses to allow on their property. Local government should not have the right to tell a private property owner what moral practices they can allow on their property. "For the benefit of society" is an emotional platitude spoken by those who wish to control the moral behavior of others even when it does not harm anyone else.
So long as it is voluntary for you to choose to go to or work at a private business than it is your choice to take the risks incurred if smoking is permitted there.
Smoking and Property Rights (Ninos P. Malek, Ph.D. Economics)
Smoking and Property Rights (William L. Anderson, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Where There's Smoke, You Don't Have to Be (Ninos P. Malek, Ph.D. Economics)
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
Yes they did
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/c_exposed.pdf
http://w ww.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?nopager=1
http://www.weeklys tandard.com/articles/denial?nopager=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/clim ategate-part-ii_610926.html?nopager=1
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: money
Quote and cite where they stood up for Scientology.
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: The Climategate Emails were not misread
I sleep very soundly as I do not hold emotional positions on scientific issues.
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: The Climategate Emails were not misread
You can believe whatever you want, I am just giving you the correct interpretation of their words. I will email them to see if they will comment here to clarify this.
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: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
Is everyone here delusional?
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: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
The outrage expressed here is patently absurd as their concern is with libel relating to the fake document and not simply discussions on the leaked documents.
I have no relationship whatsoever with the Heartland Institute. It is really pathetic that you accuse me of trolling for making factual corrections to false statements made by the author here. So you would prefer the author and anyone reading this remained ignorant on the factual statements I corrected?
I am the same Poptech found in Climate Change debates online. My reasons for commenting is if you wish to argue against the organization then do so based on what they actually state and not misinformation as posted by Mike.
Claiming "in certain circles" does not excuse the use of those factually untrue statements. When I noticed comments repeating those false statements it compelled me to post.
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: efforts to deny climate change
This is a joke right?
Define the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and cite your source. If I then can provide a source that defines it differently your question is invalidated.
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
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: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Dr. Singer and the Heartland Institute use inconvenient scientific and statistical evidence to debunk exaggerated claims made by anti-smoking groups and AGW Alarmists.
Dr. Singer has not trained me to do anything. This site is so full of conspiracy theorists it is embarrassing.
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: The Climategate Emails were not misread
The Heartland Institute has a legal write to sue for libel. They are only concerned with those journalists who made libelous statements about them in relation to the forged document. Not anyone who "commented" on it - which is absolutely absurd. Mike and yourself are misreading what they stated.
I actually found this post using Google News and when I read it, found many factually incorrect statements that I corrected by creating an account and posting about them. You guys accuse a first time commentator of believing in falsely conspiracy theories while fabricating conspiracy theories about them posting - hillarious!
All you have is make ad hominem attacks since you cannot refute a single fact I stated and supported with sources.
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: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
I have no financial association with the Heartland Institute period.
How does it feel to be as bad about researching as Mike?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html
Sorry to crush your conspiracy theories with the facts.
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
The Climategate Emails were not misread
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?nopager=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?nopager=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/clim ategate-part-ii_610926.html?nopager=1
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/rep rint/c_exposed.pdf
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
ht tp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/understanding_the_climategate_inquirie s.pdf
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
Did you even look?
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/welcome-heartlands-smokers-lounge
Next >>