View Single Post
Old 04-07-2008, 12:21 PM   #46 (permalink)
Polynikes
helmet
1,000+ posts
 
Join Date: Nov 2006

Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack78 View Post
Regarding the analyses of SoF I linked (and there are many others): If you can't tell the difference between exposing "misrepresentation of the science", as shown by way of point-by-point example, and "attacking the messenger", you're seriously effed, polynikes.


Regarding Heartland Institute:
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...62-post47.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...84-post13.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...25-post27.html
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...638-post1.html

This messenger is well known industry front group that intentionally cherry-picks the data to support it positions ... unlike with Crichton, whose intent is not as clear, please do consider Heartland as a messenger both attacked and ignored.
I asked you not to attack the messenger. It shows you can't refute the information.

Second, EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS. Let me repeat: EVERY SOURCE HAS BIAS.

Let me prove my point. The author of your links is named: Michael Mann.

He's a Professor at Penn State. Law of averages: a democrat.

Proof? Of course: Here he is donating to john kerry's campaign: Michael Mann Donations -- Huffington Post (fourth name down).

Next, one could make the case that ALL OF HIS POSTS AND PAPERS ARE INVALID.

Why? One of his major "achievements" was the "hockeystick" graph. It showed global temperatures over time.

Only problem was that Mann appears to have FUDGED THE DATA. He is guilty of the scientific equivalent of HERESY.

The Week That Was

Quote:
Mann et al. misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.
BOOM!!!

So, to sum up, everyone has a bias. Your "proof" was given by a guy who manipulates data, is a democrat and who has a political agenda.

Now, shall we discuss the information on hand, or are too much of an intellectual weakling to accept you may be full of crap?
Polynikes is offline
 
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.14923 seconds with 9 queries