On 9/16/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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

Unfortunately no, Singer distorts the articles, selectively edits and
selectively reports results and draws his own conclusions, often in
direct contradiction to the scientists he is citing.  He cites the
scientists to give his work an air of authority but the majority of
hiw work is pure fiction.  That is why I say you will have to cite the
actual research an not someone such as Singer if you wish to convince
anyone of your arguments.

> 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,

Again no, same problem as above.

>  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.

Have you even read any actual peer reviewed scientific reports on
climate change that support your position?  If so can you cite them
for us?  Take your time, we can wait until you are unpacked and well
settled...

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

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

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

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