I made no mention of anything relating to law with my use of the word in those instances. My non-legal usage of the word is supported by seven dictionaries.
No amount would change their positions on issues. Donors give them money because the donors support the position the institute already holds. Those positions do not change based on who funds them.
In relation to AIDs they simply report on exaggerations,
I do not believe in special "sin" taxes on moral behavior that does not harm others. While I have no problem with trying to convince someone not to smoke (I do not and never have smoked), I do not believe in punishing people simply because you do not agree with their behavior. Smokers have never bothered me.
BTW you just made the argument that "sin" taxes punish the poor. Why do you want to punish the poor?
1. Using that logic water is also pollution. Saying CO2 is not pollution is not simplistic because the comparison to what people consider to be pollution (smog ect...) happens frequently, especially in climate debates.
2. If you are smoking on private property then the other people have a choice not to be there. I agree that governments should not pay for healthcare.
Please cite and quote where the magazine is defined as a "Extreme neoconservative sensationalist media outlets".
I never claimed the government document I cited was a scientific paper. The fact remains Morano never wrote that document despite your obsession with him.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information,
"Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last."
MBH98/99 has been extensively shown to wrong in the peer-reviewed literature,
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Using Historical Climate Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 1-10, January 2004)
- Craig Loehle
Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"
Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
- Gerd Burger, Ulrich Cubasch
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland
A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner
"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist
"It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics." - Ian Jolliffe, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Statistics
Anyone who wants to understand what this debate is about can read,
The so called "investigations" which amounted to things like asking Dr. Jones if he did anything wrong and him responding "no" have been extensively refuted,
"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources."
The concerns the Heartland Institute has are in relation to libelous claims made using the fake document. The evidence for the document being fake are very strong,
Re: Re: Strawman
www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-heartland_2010.pdf
The fact that you do not understand what the debate is about is rather embarrassing.
Re: Re: Etymology
$ Does not matter
In relation to AIDs they simply report on exaggerations,
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/02/01/united-nations-panel-lowers -its-politically-correct-aids-estimate
And they fully support vaccinations,
http://heartland.org/editorial/2011/12/23/parents-should-heed-ben-franklins-vaccina tion-story
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/03/17/harmful-myths-about-vaccines-expo sed
I do not believe in special "sin" taxes on moral behavior that does not harm others. While I have no problem with trying to convince someone not to smoke (I do not and never have smoked), I do not believe in punishing people simply because you do not agree with their behavior. Smokers have never bothered me.
BTW you just made the argument that "sin" taxes punish the poor. Why do you want to punish the poor?
I would like to abolish sales taxes as well.
Strawman
Asking this question clearly shows you do not understand what Climategate is about,
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Con tent/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?nopager=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/deni al?nopager=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climategate-part-ii_610926.html?nopager=1
Bogus Investigations
The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Re: Re: Ad Hominem
Moderated
Re: Re: CO2 is not pollution
2. If you are smoking on private property then the other people have a choice not to be there. I agree that governments should not pay for healthcare.
Re: Re: Evidence of Altered Data
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes they did
I never claimed the government document I cited was a scientific paper. The fact remains Morano never wrote that document despite your obsession with him.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/anti-wikipedia-resource.html
"Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last."
MBH98/99 has been extensively shown to wrong in the peer-reviewed literature,
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Using Historical Climate Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 1-10, January 2004)
- Craig Loehle
Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"
Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
- Gerd Burger, Ulrich Cubasch
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland
http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland%282007%29.pdf
A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.4002v1.pdf
"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist
"It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics." - Ian Jolliffe, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Statistics
Anyone who wants to understand what this debate is about can read,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpr ess.com/2008/09/mcintyre.2008.erice.pdf
In relation to the NAS report on the hockey stick debate,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.op-ed.pdf
Steig et al. 2009 was completely refuted by O'donnell et al.,
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/
http://www .spectator.co.uk/essays/6705193/breaking-the-ice.thtml
The so called "investigations" which amounted to things like asking Dr. Jones if he did anything wrong and him responding "no" have been extensively refuted,
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
http://sci enceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/understanding_the_climategate_inquiries.pdf
You need to try harder next time.
The Truth about SourceWatch
"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources."
You cannot even find reputable news sources.
Zero
Zero
Ad Hominem
Re: Re: Very Serious
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/23364317787/pro-tip-even-if-someone-has-faked-dam aging-memo-about-your-organization-dont-threaten-to-sue-anyone-who-comments-it.shtml#c159
The concerns the Heartland Institute has are in relation to libelous claims made using the fake document. The evidence for the document being fake are very strong,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
http://www .theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-o ne-a-fake/253165/
Etymology
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=libel&allowed_in_frame=0
All of which is irrelevant to how I defined the word, which was not a legal threat.
I can find six more dictionaries which include a non-legal definition;
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/libel_6
"to write things about someone that are not true"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/libel
"a piece of writing which contains bad and false things about a person"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/libel
"Libel is a written and published false statement about someone that damages their reputation."
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/libel
"a piece of writing that says bad, false, and harmful things about a person,"
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=libel&goquery=Find+it!&am p;Language=ENG
"A written or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation."
http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/libel
"Libel is the act of publishing a statement about someone that is not true and that gives a bad impression about the person."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: These are all lies...
Extemsive Evidence of Document Fraud
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
http://w ww.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is -one-a-fake/253165/
Re: Re: Stating facts relating to the topic is not trolling
Zero
More comments from Poptech >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Poptech.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt