This is by far the fastest I have seen anyone online being unable to come back with intelligent arguments and instead resort so fast to strawmans and trolling.
i bet your little website has the vast majority of peer-reviewed, publishing climatologists just shaking in their wee little boots.You can't really be this slow?
ok perhaps the nas heading is the ONLY thing i got wrongThe link says 1999. I was only posting the peer-reviewed versions of the paper not the original non-peer-reviewed version.
Why do you keep lying? Quote and source one reputable site that claims the original paper had a NAS heading.
You are really embarrassing yourself.
Why are you lying that "surgeons" reviewed the paper when they did not?
Blogs are not peer-reviewed and thus scientifically irrelevant in response to a peer-reviewed paper. Surely you can find a peer-reviewed comment on the paper?
hang on there big boy i'd check the order of the posts i had answered yoursWhy are you changing the subject after I refuted you in extensive detail on climate change? Are you conceding defeat?
^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/These guys make Sophists look like higher life forms. They are not after the Science. They want the thug fight of Agenda.
poptech has been banned from many differing forums, and sites over the last few year with good reason too^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
That said, I like the recent article Cook has in the Age regarding the alarmist/denier bickering.
"I trust the integrity and compassion of these "deniers", and admire their courage and awesome perseverance."
A lot more civility than the "might makes right" mindset I see here!
Logically, the bolded is the classic argumentum ad hominem, even though it is positive in its sentiment. cn^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
That said, I like the recent article Cook has in the Age regarding the alarmist/denier bickering.
"I trust the integrity and compassion of these "deniers", and admire their courage and awesome perseverance."
A lot more civility than the "might makes right" mindset I see here!
No you got just about everything wrong.ok perhaps the nas heading is the ONLY thing i got wrong
No it was not identical. I already stated that Robinson admitted to copying the style but you cropped his full comment again,in january 1998 the pettition was sent out with study that wasnt peer reviewed that had an identical format to NAS
heres the 1998 study (we'll need this in a second)
http://webs.uvigo.es/esuarez/RNL/Petition Project.pdf
by robinsons own admission he copied the style
Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.'
What you are effectively arguing is that the scientists complaining to the NAS about the paper were absolutely incompetent and could not recognize a paper that explicitly said it was from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute"."Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal." [...]
"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more."
The only thing quoted is "it was stupid" so we do not know what his actual statement was but you still cropped it,Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format.
Why can you not provide the entire context?Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.
This was refuted by Dr. Robinson,and during 1998 the NAS has the need to dissavow it
...the National Academy of Sciences has issued a statement about our project. Apparently, Sherwood Row-land convinced a majority on the governing council to put out a statement that the petition project is not an NAS activity. No one thought that it was an NAS activity, but Rowland thinks he can get some negative political mileage out of this disclaimer.
The enviros must smear the project. They are being drowned in the signatures of scientists who oppose the global warming mania. Without their perceived consensus, years of enviro preparations and many billions of dollars in propaganda designed to seize control of the world's energy supplies and turn down the flow of energy to industry, technology, and individuals may be lost.
This is a strawman argument as I made no claim that it was the same exact paper. When I cited it in post #90 it was to correct your misinformation that the 2007 paper was the same as the older one. I am well aware that they circulated a pre-published version of the paper in 1998 with the petition. It is very relevant to note that this was later submitted to and pass peer-review. It is quite normal for a paper to change before final publication due to the peer-review process. It is also relevant since they circulated the peer-reviewed version of the paper with the petition after it was published.now the 1999 paper that you posted was not only irrelevant but its specious for you to pretend that its connected
not only was it "published" over a year and a half after
the 1999 study is not only different in format but its also got different content to the 1998 piece
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/
Anyone can go read through my posts and see the numerous corrections to your misinformation that I have posted. It has been demonstrated extensively here that you have no idea what you are talking about.now i have seen your performances on other forums so i do not expect you to give a fuck about this info but incase anyone else is reading its all there in black and white
I have no idea what you are talking about as no one has presented anything here written by a surgeon.and yeah the surgoen piece is as much a hack job as the rest of the debacle
How do you know that? The increasing web hits to the list say otherwise.you've spent year trying to argue your case in climate, scientific and sceptic forums and you've gotten nowehre
The only reason I am here is because of the misinformation you stated about my list, of which I have corrected. I am well aware you are incapable of debating me and you putting me on the ignore list is proof of this.the fact that your here amongst the potheads your campaigning against shows your desperation to stay relevant and keep a view of importance on your feeble arse
im not going to waste my time giving it to you
and i know your not welcomed here
so congratualtions you silly silly kook you are the very first person here to make my ignore list
dont let the door hit you on the way out
You can find a more detailed analysis of my censorship at Skeptical Science here,^Here, here. Ginja linked skepticalscience in another thread and I commented good link and site. I've read from it knowing Cook is a cartoonist, the site has a "spin" and scientists that comment there are censored. Poptech too. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
Please name them. The only sites I have ever been banned from are alarmist or far left political websites because they cannot debate me.poptech has been banned from many differing forums, and sites over the last few year with good reason too
Please name them. The only sites I have ever been banned from are alarmist or far left political websites because they cannot debate me.
Notice he cannot name them. How come no one arguing against me can actually support their arguments? Instead they make bullshit allegations that they cannot back up.
Still Trolling?
I take it you like Poptarts?