On Monday 17 September 2007 00:49, ken barber 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 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."
Hi Ken,
Hope the move has gone well.
Sorry, it seems my "good british education" (which incidentally was at a "non
academic" school for the disabled - noone took external exams) has let me
down, since I've failed to adequately get over the following points
sufficiently so that you can understand what I am saying (very
frustrating!):-
a) a director of the hudson institute paid avery and singer to write this book
b) the hudson institute did no independent research themselves.
c) avery & singer did no independent research themselves
d) a & s selectively pulled data from 500 published research papers
e) a & s then made it appear that 500 scientists supported their view,
although the vast majority do not.
Ethically this behaviour is suspect, and I'm surprised your using this source
to support your view.
> it is totally up to the reader if one believes the
> studies that the cites refernces.
If I did read the 500 reports (although I'd have to buy singer's book to read
the bibliography - which isn't going to happen!) I'm sure I'd thoroughly
agree with most of them - but I can't agree when the authors of those reports
say "white" and singer says they meant to say "black". Should I believe the
original author or the person who erroneously cites them.
> 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.
This confused me too, until I realised the context is "closeing the deal" of
the house sale!!
Cheers
Deri
>
> --- 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
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
