well "no" deri. just like when i put a link to singers
article and a link to hudson institutes article i am
not speaking for them, i am citing their article and
giving them credit for their work. when singer gives a
reference to hudson institute articles he is not
speaking for them he is citing their research and
giving them credit for their work and when hudson
referces the 500 scientist's peer reviewed plublished
works they are not speaking for the scientist they are
citing their work and giving credit for their
research. this is tought in school early on and
knowing you have a good british education, i thought
you understood  that and actually think you do
understand it and was trying to "muddy the water." 

it is totally up to the reader if one believes the
studies that the cites refernces. 

cheres deri and all. i only have a few minutes on the
computer. i'll get back in a couple of days. 

closing is monday. 
--- Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Thursday 13 September 2007 21:36:51 ken barber
> wrote:
> > lets see, the question is am i buying fred singers
> > opinion becouse of his book. no actually the 500
> > scientist and there peer reviewd publishications
> > referred to by the Hudson institutes research is
> what
> > i am relying on to state that there is really no
> > consensus, but rather one side trying to ramrod an
> > opinion by saying there is consensus over and over
> > hoping to silence the other side.
> 
> It is Fred Singer speaking on behalf of the Hudson
> Institute, I thought you 
> understood that. I also thought you understood that
> a lot of the 500 
> scientists which Mr Singer says published peer
> reviewed papers against man 
> made global warming were actually presenting
> evidence for the opposite view, 
> the fact that he then "re-interprets" that data in
> some looney way does not 
> mean that each of those 500 scientists then agree
> with his scientifically 
> untenable position.
> 
> If you read his statements carefully, he never
> claims that the 500 scientists
> support his view, just that parts of 500 published
> research papers may support 
> his view - there is a subtle difference Ken. From
> his own words there may be 
> only 2 people (Avery & Singer) who support this
> theory, so you're right, 
> there is no consensus, there are at least 2
> holdouts!!
> 
> You refer to the "Hudson Institutes research", I'm
> afraid this doesn't exist!! 
> If you research a little deeper you'll discover that
> a Hudson board member 
> paid Avery & Singer to write a debunk global warming
> book. To fulfill that 
> commission they cherry picked data from 500
> published research papers 
> (not "Hudson Research") and published this drivel.
> 
> You are championing the man who got it wrong with
> CFCs, and again on passive 
> smoking. I certainly would not stake the world on
> his track record!!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Deri
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> 
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy