Climategate victims chide Heartland double standard

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:40Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Climategate victims chide Heartland double standard

A group of top-tier climate scientists who were victimized in the email theft known as Climategate has written to the Heartland Institute, sympathizing that the Institute is reading its own confidential documents in the public press, but chiding the “think tank” for how irresponsibly it dealt with the stolen emails.

In a letter printed in The Guardian, the scientists say,

As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

The signatories were Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Ray Bradley, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt and David Karoly, a relative who's who of climate science excellence.

They point out that when the Climategate emails were stolen, Heartland took bits and pieces out of context (and, we would add, advocated for punitive action against the scientists on the basis of these manipulations). At no time did the institute suggest that the hackers who breached the East Anglia University security system to steal the emails had been in the wrong to do so.

In the case at hand, (and as Heartland explains in its own press release) an anonymous “Heartland Insider” asked the Institute to mail the entire briefing package for its January board meeting - and Heartland complied. Having received that package, the DeSmogBlog checked the content against research we had in hand to confirm its authenticity. Then we published it - in its entirety, so there could be no doubt about the context - on our website on Valentines's Day.

The scientists conclude their letter by saying:

“The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

“We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward.”

Previous Comments

“We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers”

I’m sure raucous will ensue around the HI board room table at that suggestion.

But yes, as they say, the HI documents were complete. We only saw a couple of thousand out of 200,000 emails stolen from CRU. Would deniers care to release the whole lot?

 

They just don’t have the balls to live up to their own ‘supposed’ values.

The reason they attack those scientists is because they don’t have any science to back up what they claim.  So they have to shoot the messengers.

So its back to sewing FUD.   (FEAR UNCERTAINTY DOUBT)  The funny thing is that if this sticks to them, then they’ll have failed at FUDing their own problems.

Anyways if they have any case that the documents were fake, they can sue (and win).  But its completely predictable that they will do nothing because they are guilty as sin.

Ross Kaminski, a Heartland senior fellow, writes ( American Spectator) that someone fooled a staffer on ” more than one occasion” resulting in an unspecified number of emails. This is not the same story being told by Heartland staffers.

He says the documents were emailed but makes no reference to alterations.

John McManus

 

Here’s the link to the Ross Kaminsky article.

And here’s the specific quote:

Earlier this month, on more than one occasion, someone pretending to be a member of the Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors deceived a Heartland staff member into sending him documents related to Heartland’s upcoming Board of Directors meeting.

I wonder what the “earlier this month” exactly means as well as the “on more than one occasion”.

BTW, he does make reference of alterations:

These documents, along with another note which Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely describes as “a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute” were then posted on a web site called DeSmogBlog.com, a project of Jim Hoggan, a self-styled public relations expert, global warming alarmist and aggressive member of the climate thought police.”

Kaminsky then presents a totally unsupported accusation against whom he believes might be the author of the ‘theft’, Peter Gleick.

I don’t know what it is with these current and former Heartland directors but they all do appear to have a serious communications problem.

Edit: for some reason I cannot add a hyperlink above so here goes: http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of

“Kaminsky then presents a totally unsupported accusation against whom he believes might be the author of the ‘theft’, Peter Gleick.”

The right wing denialosphere is lashing out & looking for victims. Kaminsky is almost inciting violence by naming Peter Gleick. If something happens to Gleick or his family, Kaminksy might have to answer some questions for the police himself. We have seen what happens in the past when right wing blogosphere denial idols point the finger. Death threats, smear, harrasment, FOI spam, posting of personal details. 

Many of the easily duped deniers would interpret Kaminsky’s comment :

” Perhaps people should keep an eye on the dumpsters around Gleick’s house for discarded computers or an Epson scanner.”

As, go through his bins…………ahhh what the heck, just go through his house. Such is the desire for orcs to please.


 

global warming alarmist and aggressive member of the climate thought police

Good to see HI are maintaining their high standards of truth and decency. Perhaps they should complain about the “borrowed” documents to the climate thought police (CTP) instead of the FBI; after all the CTP are much more powerful, being the enforcement arm of The Worldwide Conspiracy Of Scientists, Astronomers, Mathematicians And Anyone Who Does Not Support The Tea Party (TWCOSAMAAWDNSTTP).

Hmmm, is editing ability gone on our posts? I hate it when you read your post before hitting save & everything looks ok, but its not until you have seen the comment posted that it looks all wrong.

 

This is the seventh article this week about Heartland!  YES, 7 whole articles, wow!  Please enjoy the feeding frnzy while it lasts, these moments are certainly few and far between in the CAGW camp.

Elsewhere, Roger Pelke jr had these thoughts………

“If the faked document happened to be produced by a climate activist or scientist (as some are already suggesting), then the leaked Heartland documents will go down in history as one of the more spectacular own goals in the history of the climate debate (with the consequences proportional to the stature of the faker). The faking is likely to overshadow whatever legitimate questions may have been raised by the release of the documents. Imagine what would have happened if the UEA hacker/leaker had made up a few emails to spice up the dossier.”

Nice!

“This is the seventh article this week about Heartland!  YES, 7 whole articles, wow!  ”

I know it’s incredible isn’t it Lara, one more post than Anthony Watts!…..But that’s ok isn’t it, 6 posts by WUWT about the subject? So we have Anthony working for Fox radio, creating a website for a republican party, getting funds from a right wing lobby group and  having at least 1 article a week on Al Gore on his site. I’m sure there are some out there that believe his site is all about the science……not.

If the faked document happened to be produced by a climate activist or scientist”

Wishful thinking Lara. Pity much of it has been verified.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-confirms-it-mistakenly-emailed-internal-documents

How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.”

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

Strange that the denialosphere is trying to take the moral highground, after years of lies, inventing controversy, putting forth no evidence, then providing “evidence” only in blogs & not peer review. 

“Please enjoy the feeding frnzy”

Thanks for the tip…..I will.


 

Phil says;

“Strange that the denialosphere is trying to take the moral highground, after years of lies, inventing controversy, putting forth no evidence……”

I love how you guys go absolutely gaga over this seudo controversy! One obscure NGO/think tank leaks a few docs and all of a sudden you tools pounce.

Where were you guys in 2009 when actual “Climate” scientists were caught wit their panties down actually admitting, in emails, to faking evidence about CAGW??

Where were you guys in 2009 when actual “Climate” scientists were caught wit their panties down actually admitting, in emails, to faking evidence about CAGW??

We were right here putting all those cherry-picked quotes into their original context.

In case you missed it, 7 (seven) independent inquiries looked into the allegations of ‘faking the evidence’ etc. and none (0) found them to be true.

But of course, many still claim, despite the evidence to the contrary, that ‘scientists faked the evidence’. If you have wondered why people like you are considered to be deniers, there’s your answer.

 

“I love how you guys go absolutely gaga over this seudo controversy!”

Hank, I can understand your desire to want this story to go away & for you to downplay the importance of these documents, but pseudo controversy?

Now “climategate” was a pseudo controversy & as Gringo pointed out, there were  7 investigations into the incident, with all enquiries exonerating CRU & Jones. Lets have the IRS & 6 others investigate Heartland & then we can talk about what is & what isn’t pseudo.

After all, deniers are not exactly a reliable source of information. They have numerous blogs which attack climate science, but only with opinion…..very little peer review. If deniers backed what they spew in blogs, then they would back it with peer reviewed science……but they don’t.

“One obscure NGO/think tank leaks a few docs and all of a sudden you tools pounce.”

Oh…is that the spin that the denialosphere is giving Heartland now? Have Heartland  already been relegated to the 10 foot pole department? Fine weather friends the deniers are if you guys are trying to downplay their importance in the denial machine now after yearly Heartland conferences packed with deniers for hire, which Anthony Watts advertises each time. I suppose he has to, he is funded by them, but moving right along.

“Where were you guys in 2009 when actual “Climate” scientists were caught wit their panties down actually admitting, in emails, to faking evidence about CAGW??”

If you read right wing conspiracy sites, I guess that is the story you will hear & believe. Don’t feel bad, many others were duped too. Care to release the other 195,000 out of 200,000 emails, so we can put it all in context? No…you wouldn’t want that would you?

But one thing, climategate did prove, is that when mud is thrown it sticks. Years later I had people say to me…..”oh what about climategate & those corrupt scientists?”. I would ask them for evidence , or who was involved, or what the corruption was. They couldn’t answer it. The rumor mill in action.

It will be good if a similar success is experienced with the Heartland  cash for comments controversy. A bit more MSM, a little T.V & the deal is sealed……can’t wait for the books. Unlike “climategate”, the rumors can’t be put to bed so easily with Heartland.

Everyone knew that the bulk of denier scientists were being paid not spread an understanding of science, or to conduct research themselves that would produce contrary evidence. They are paid to spread doubt. Surely deniers must wonder……..why is all of their evidence only on blogs?


 

The denier camp do appear to have a serious issue with double standards, as evidenced again by your comment:

  • After 50+ years of scientific research into climate change with 98% of world’s active climate research experts agreeing it is happening, it is largely man-made and it is urgent to solve, ‘skeptics’ still believe there is not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, let alone adopt measures to fight global warming;

vs

  • Just one day after the leak of a batch of documents, Heartland Institute says the Strategy Memo is fake and some amateur investigators believe that too. Conclusion: it is fake and very likely done by a known warmist. Case closed.

As this blog and others have pointed out earlier, Heartland Institute can back up their assertion about the fake memo very easily by simply showing a screen-capture of their email to the alleged fraudster to which their staffer attached the whole batch of documents.  If they are right, it would show all documents except the Strategy Memo.

Why hasn’t Heartland Institute done so? Why do they continously insinuate via Twitter, fundraising emails and other communications that the memo is fake and even acuse a known ‘warmist’ of being the author? More importantly, why has the ‘denier-base’, otherwise so keen on ‘sound science’ and ‘thorough research’, swallowed Heartland’s “it is a fake” claim instantly and set off on a witch hunt based on nothing more than pure speculation and innuendo?

Is it perhaps because they all wish the document is forged?

 

“This is the seventh article this week about Heartland!  YES, 7 whole articles, wow!  ”

Lara, WUWT are up to 8 articles about it now. Haven’t seen you over there as yet chiding them for how many times they have repeated it. I’m sure that will happen wont it Lara?

 

This is funny from Watts.

“Note to Hoggan and crew – when you can’t even get a left leaning news outlet to back you up, even in the slightest, you’ve lost the battle.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/the-desmoggers-are-crashing-and-burning/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

Errrrrr, hey?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic

“During the late 20th and early 21st century, the Atlantic has primarily functioned as a moderate to politically conservative counterweight to the more liberal The New Yorker magazine,”

Just how right wing do you have to be if you consider a conservative mag “left leaning”?

Nutters.


 

Lol, hard to be a lefty Anthony, when you are a Libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_McArdle

 

Lol, even one of WUWT’s own regulars has pointed out Watts mistake. 

“edbarbar says:

February 17, 2012 at 8:33 pm

I read Megan’s column everyday (along with the many posts on WUWT). Megan is not a liberal, though she needs education about the warmistas and their evil deeds.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/the-desmoggers-are-crashing-and-burning/#comment-895914

No correction, best to just let the orcs believe this lie like they do all the other lies eh Anthony? Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good lie. It’s ok, only 1 in 147 commenters spotted the lie Anthony, the rest either wilfully ignored it, or their ideology blotted that bit out.

 

While Kaminski yelled fake, he made no reference to alterations in the other hundreds of pages.

I cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic when they turned right and their editorial honesty plummeted. I can get concervative lies free from WTFIUWT, the AIR HEAD, the backboard etc. The Atlantic still sends me copies although I don’t pay. Maybe their new republcan content isn’t attracting many paying customers and they are desperate fornumbers.

“As this blog and others have pointed out earlier, Heartland Institute can back up their assertion about the fake memo very easily by simply showing a screen-capture of their email to the alleged fraudster to which their staffer attached the whole batch of documents.  If they are right, it would show all documents except the Strategy Memo.”

1. If such a document exists it is probably with Heartland’s lawyers who are likely to advise against publishing it. I am not a lawyer but my guess is that the penalties for publishing a fake document are heavier than for falsely obtaining valid documents.

2. I assume that blogs who published the falsely obtained documents performed some form of due diligence and asked for evidence from their source, such as an email listing attachments, that all the documents were from the Heartland Institute.

  

“1. If such a document exists it is probably with Heartland’s lawyers who are likely to advise against publishing it. I am not a lawyer but my guess is that the penalties for publishing a fake document are heavier than for falsely obtaining valid documents.”

And what about wrongfully acusing Peter Gleick of forging the memo? Because that is what Ross Kaminsky (a current Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute) is doing right now.

Could Gleick (or anyone else for that matter who believes to be wrongly acused by Heartland’s insinuations), through a lawyer or law inforcement, somehow force Heartland to hand-over documentation and/or relevant computer files of their outgoing email with the whole batch of documents?

 

For the record, I believe it is wrong to suggest a name for the author of a document which might not be a fake and that it is disingenuous to say, as others have done, that you have emailed that person asking if he is the author.  That said, I do not see the connection between what I wrote and what someone else at Heartland has done. They are separate issues.

If Heartland sues anyone, the defendant will be allowed “discovery”, which would mean allowing them to troll through Heartland’s files. 

There is no way that any competent lawyer would allow that. 

Heartland have their own ClimateWiki, now I wonder if it is anymore open now than it was when Leo Hickman tried input?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jul/19/climate-change-wiki-heartland-institute?intcmp=239

I don’t like the taste of Heartland fudge.

I just read the Spectator’s blog by Kaminsky,

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/17/theft-and-apparent-forgery-of

and all I can say is that I am appalled by this Senior Fellow at the Heartland, to indentify and intimidate “One obvious suspect”. This guilt by association is absolutely unacceptable behavior for anyone in modern society, let alone a “Senior Fellow” of an institution that supposedly takes itself serious.

Take stuff like this : “One has to wonder if Peter Gleick or an alarmist fellow traveler he knows is concerned about an FBI agent knocking on the door sometime soon” and “Gleick is a committed alarmist rent-seeker”. That’s outright smearing and intimidation, as low as you can go, and right into the gutt.

The point is, in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, Mr. Kaminsky.

Apparently, the Heartland does not take such rights very seriously, and is more of the “We intimidate you and scare the living daylight out of you, and point you out for all our fans to destroy you smear you if we just believe that did something against us” type of institution.

Thank you for revealing what sort of values the Heartland represents, Mr. Kaminsky. That was most revealing.

Out of context (or more likely otherwise) there was a lot of evidence indicated in the UEA CRU emails that claims were exaggerated, that pressure was placed on journal editors to publish/otherwise and the that the peer review process was being usurped. However much does not matter, it’s clear there was some. That most scientists therefore agree is (hardly scientific in the first place) not surprising, nobody wants to lose their credibility at the hands of vociferous challenge and suggestions that dissenters should lose their livelihoods doesn’t help.

Of course governmental decisions were being made in such a climate and that has consequences if the process was not ‘clean’ or seen to be. If there was such issues then it’s massive.

I’m afraid Heartland and whatever they get up to is not really very interesting in comparison, their role is quite naturally to challenge, as it is all ours as scientists. I am concerned at the claims that the main document was faked, it doesn’t look good. One has to ask why, indeed why is Heartland considered a big deal, this is how science works.

Excellent points. But don’t expect many here to agree with you.

Dr. Judith Curry has an interesting post at her blog wherein she quotes physicist Mike Stopa as he asks, “What if we’re wrong?”

”[…]global warming is an unchallengeable “consensus” only among those who deeply yearn to save the planet. The conviction of those politicians and activists and (few) scientists that debate is destructive is itself destructive.
Scientific revolutions are difficult and traumatic enough without the added inertia of government sponsorship. To put it more bluntly, scientists have difficulty enough admitting that they have egg on their faces. Throw in the Solyndras of the world and the United Nations and the entire anti-capitalist Global Left and the backing out of this theory will be nothing short of a fiasco.
Well, the truth of this issue should be apparent within about 15 years…

The appropriate role for conservatives is to oppose the bias of hysteria and the “cautionary principle;” to demand every essential cost-benefit analysis and, understanding the daydreams of the holy, to insist that progress comes by first placing our feet upon the ground.”

“Out of context (or more likely otherwise) there was a lot of evidence indicated in the UEA CRU emails that claims were exaggerated, that pressure was placed on journal editors to publish/otherwise and the that the peer review process was being usurped.”

A lot of ‘evidence’ where? On the blogs in the denialosphere? Because 7 (SEVEN) independent inquiries looked into the allegations and none (0) found any of the allegations to be true. Quite the contrary in fact.

One has to ask why, indeed why is Heartland considered a big deal, this is how science works.

One cannot expect to be taken serious when mentioning the words ‘science’ and ‘Heartland’ in one single sentence.

Heartland is a think tank with a charity status designed and used exclusively to promote particular political ideas and values. It has nothing to do at all with science (which is apolitical anyway in the same way that Gravity is neither Left nor Right).

 

Politico (2-16-12) reports that Heartland is using this alleged “crime” as a fundraising gimmick and that Chicago FBI Special Agent Royden Rice said that, based on media reports, that the FBI has no legal basis to investigate. 

 http://www.legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2012/02/heartlands-hypocrisy.html

According to the Bishop Hill blog;

“The Heartland Institute has issued legal notices to at least two of those who have been engaging in dubious tactics after the faking of the strategy memo became clear.”

“…we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.”

Oh-oh!

 

Hank_, do you know what “discovery” means in the context of litigation?

More popcorn.

(deleted duplicate)


Look I’m a scientist, a statistician to be upfront.  I see the words (in the CRU emails) and I think, shet that’s not honest, if my reg authority got wind of me doing that stuff I’d be in prison in some US hole of a type facility for a very long time.  That’s all I’m saying, I have no bible type belief in anyfink.  Take my little trinkets (+/- thingies), my Muttly medals away, I don’t care - just answer the questions.  Do the UEA shenanigans look dubious?  BTW for those in the US the UEA is a third division university, no better than a college type set up (we used to refer to as polytechnics before Blair/Brown decided to screw the education system) giving away degrees for cash in my opinion. Millions of miles (metaphorically) from Oxford or Cambridge or any other of the many historical Uni’s.  That it comes in the top 10 or so British Universities is because it has the CRU and some Nobel support, and the CRU gets credibility because of a circular type argument.

No self respecting scientist, imo would go to the hell hole of the east coast of England to study Mickey Mouse Science.

Now if world policy depends on the prophecies of the UEA we had better suss out what the hell their science is all about, seems a bit post-modern (Rev Tom Bayes) to me.

Forgive me, I suspect that I have acted like a heretic (a troll do I hear) hence I should concern myself with my livelihood.  It beggars belief what some people think they might attack because someone disagrees, questions, challenges inconvenient truisms in the followers minds.  This is not science this is religion.

And concerning the preening, I say ‘never cheer before you know who’s winning’, it’s just safe. (FNM)

 

He wins the prize for most ad hominems in one post.

Get a life, you seem to be desparate, maybe you can’t even get a degree from a packet of cereals. Sounds like you are way down the ladder in terms of academic ability.

You appear to have taken one, I’m hurt.  Do you know what Ad Hominem means?  I know science is hard, all those integrals and those really tricky double ones but hey someone’s gotta care for science.

The univ UEA is a joke, all Engish people know so.

 

Shaw said:

“The univ UEA is a joke, all Engish (sic) people know so”.

Yes, I know what an ad hominem is and you give quite a few examples including the one I just quoted. My comments are not ad hominem since they are a truthful characterization of your despicable behaviour.

Get a life. Sadly, your attitude is a sad reflection of the mental stability and dishonourable character exhibited by all AGW deniers. Why do you hate science and scientists so much?

Thank you for allowing me to make my points.  I certainly do not wish to be seen as a sub-bridge inhabitant (but I know this is an easier assertion than debating the issues) so I will step back for a while.  I’m an academic scientist (over 50 publications, although in Europe) I just don’t want a slanging match with some green post-modern scientist.  Good luck with your quest I will return if allowed in a few weeks maybe.

David

I wish that all trolls and slimeballs would crawl back under their bridge or rocks. It would make for a more pleasant time reading honest blogs.

I know it’s easier if everyone agrees, but that’s not that scientific.  I also know that calling anyone a troll who disagrees is often seen to negate the need for coherent discussion amongst believers.  But hey I know the limitations of man.

The issue was that desmogblog had a dig at some ‘scientific’ org and the problem was it seemed to be based upon fraudulent evidence.  I guess most would issue an apology and move on, if the alleged discretion were true that is.

desmogblog had a dig at some ‘scientific’ org

What scientific org did desmogblog have a dig at? The Heartland Institute is a lobby group, not a scientific establishment.

based upon fraudulent evidence

Fraudulent? Who is claiming anything is fraudulent? Heartland have made a range of claims, none of which has been backed by the evidence to date, so it is a bit early for outsiders like us to claim any of the leaked documents is fraudulent.

It may be beneficial to keep an open mind, at least until reliable evidence comes to light.

There was a David Shaw who wrote a memo for the British Parliament about CRU, who describes himself as “a consultant statistician in pharmaceutical research”:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2202.htm

And here is the list of submitters of memoranda for “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia”:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm

 

Wow put me on the list of deniers with Vinny and Nils. I’m not ever gonna get into some puerile argument with anyone about my motives.  Simple fact is I see no evidence against the null, ie ’man didn’t do it’.  That doesn’t mean anyfink apart from your assertion is not proven beyond any level of doubt.  I know the bible tells some to attempt to trash my life, that’s gonna be hard as I write to Cameron et al weekly anyway.

The thing is that you are not a climate scientist and your rather fuzzy writing does not enhance your credibility.

Go argue statistics with Tamino then. I don’t think he was educated in England.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/

But we are seeing more weather that appears to have been affected by global warming; I’d say the weight of the evidence supports the argument that it is happening now and we are causing it.

Edited to add: I am Canadian. Another assumption you got wrong.

I don’t understand what you mean by “American type”.

The fact is that you have not provided any scientific debate here, you just made some statements about the crummy English universities, which would seem to reflect badly on your own education. 

This isn’t the place to debate the science anyway. If you really do see flaws in the climate scientists’ statistical analyses go and tell them at RealClimate or at Tamino’s. If you can prove your case, they will pay attention to you. If they can show you where you are wrong, will you pay attention to them?

But you would have a better chance of not being ignored if youwrote more succinctly and backed up your statements with citations and proof.

Edited to add “Muttly medals” and “bon points” mean nothing to me. Are they English idiomatic expressions?

It appears that Shaw is “blogging under the influence”. If he is in fact associated with the pharmaceutical industry he appears to be sampling their wares.

He is a typical troll, very poor grasp of science and the English language.

He did submit that memo, so presumably is what he says he is. But his writing certainly is fuzzy.

So go and tell Tamino what he did wrong, if you really can.

Why would I do it, it is irelevant to the discussion.  It was you who came up with the tangent?

If you are just going to sit on your butt and expect people to to come over and carefully explain the science to you in small words you can understand, you are going to be sadly disappointed.   

Sorry, I’ll spend no more time on you. Go back to Bishop Hill or whatever den of deniers you inhabit.

Oh bless, don’t you get it, it’s your claim, it is incumbent upon you to support it? Alternatively you can run away and tell mommy.

Pages