>Thank you for making my point ;)
>
by the way, do you know that if you google 'Jacques Parizeau jewish money
interests'
(without the quotes of course), this thread is the only result that comes up?
On the whole internet?
So not only is it a slender thread on which to hang a charge of pogroms
Let's do be scientific:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/
I find no mention of facilitated communication in the methods section:
Methods
Participating centers were intensive care and neurology units as well as
neurorehabilitation centers, part of the Belgian federal network for car
nobody *in this thread* is talking about it. It's all over the tabloids,
including the article you posted, but the scientists are not talking about
it at all much less calling it proof of anything. Go look at the original
biomed article.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
ok so I suggest that you read the original journal article, and that's
pseudo science? But you don't "use insults" as you so articulately put it?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> frankly I don't care about your lame opinions and your advocacy of
> pseudo science.
>
> On
frankly I don't care about your lame opinions and your advocacy of
pseudo science.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I don't care about your red herring ;)
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>> What valid evidence that this facilitated communication work
wrong. In four separate articles FC was mentioned. The techniques
discussed in the original article and the video plainly show
facilitated communication techniques.
Pull the other leg its has bells on it.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Larry. Read the article. Then re-read the
sigh. What a shame they never did a rediagnosis then and proved them wrong.
Just saying.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that he isn't in a conscious state now. I am
> questioning the communications mode. I think that the re-diagnosis is
> very good, espe
I don't care about your red herring ;)
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> What valid evidence that this facilitated communication works, or is
> it just a function of the facilitator's expectations? The data are
> very clear on that, facilitated communication is bogus scie
you don't think that accusing a culture of ethnic cleansing based on o
single politician expressing disappointment ant being outspent is an insult?
You learned from the Bushies didnn't ya, cause that's a definition worthy of
Rove.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> You're
Larry. Read the article. Then re-read the thread. Nobody but you is talking
about facilitated communication, and the article says he is the guy is
conscious, so this stunt is unnecessary. Shrug. Go read the original biomed
article. Double shrug. We now return you to your pointless arguments from
a
Fair enough.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that he isn't in a conscious state now. I am
> questioning the communications mode. I think that the re-diagnosis is
> very good, especially using the new techniquest not available in the
> mid 80's.
>
> But y
I'm not saying that he isn't in a conscious state now. I am
questioning the communications mode. I think that the re-diagnosis is
very good, especially using the new techniquest not available in the
mid 80's.
But yes people will spend years fooling themselves in these
situations. Look at Shaivo's
Understood. However don't you think this would've manifested much much
earlier? It's been like 15 years or something hasn't it? That's a bloody
long time to be fooling oneself with false hope don't you think? Just
asking.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Hope - that in
Hope - that in spite of everything that's happened to the guy, he
will eventually come out of things OK.
They're not faking anything, I think. In all likelihood its a
desperate hope that he's there and not some very badly damaged shell.
So they look and see a random movement as "proof" that he's
Ok, fair enough.
I'm still interested to know your thoughts on this though:
> As far as evidence, well you're right. I would ask you this though: In
this
> case specifically, after all these years, what would be the family's
benefit
> to faking it?
~
You're correct, but I had not used any insults in this discussion. Yes
she starts the insults on this one, and usually does so when she
cannot make her point.
I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion without insults, but many
on this list appear incapable of doing so.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:
I'm usually behind on you on most points L.C.L. But I have to call hypocrite
with your last statement. You're no stranger to insults. In fact very few of
us resist the urge to insult our peers on the list.
As far as evidence, well you're right. I would ask you this though: In this
case specifical
That doesn't surprise me.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Consequently, I cast my very first vote for David Duke.
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on
What valid evidence that this facilitated communication works, or is
it just a function of the facilitator's expectations? The data are
very clear on that, facilitated communication is bogus science. Its
nothing more than what the so called facilitator thinks, for a summary
of the research that de
by the way, I see you still don't read the links you post
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm quite skeptical of this case. Its great that the man was able to
> be rediagnosed as locked-in syndrom rather than minimally aware
> syndrome or being in a peristant vegit
we should just trust you, right? Cause you know. And we should have faith in
you ;)
I'd almost feel bad for how ridiculous you sound, except that you did it to
yourself ::shrug::
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> You really need to read up on why facilitated communicati
You really need to read up on why facilitated communication isn't. I'm
not going to rehash the old tired story, except to say that its been
shown that facilitated communication isn't. From the videos I've seen
of the guy, more than half the time he isn't even looking at the
keyboard or screen. Eno
he can't accept that answer because it was family members in the other case
also.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> For me the fact that it's family members, and more than one, I think adds a
> certain degree of credibility to it.
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Lar
"I guess I don't see why write it, why use the bandwidth, or in particular
why I should read it, if everyone is just restating known positions."
Sometimes it's just to elicit a response from someone.
It may be hard to believe, but I sometimes (not always) try to understand
opinions I disagree wi
For me the fact that it's family members, and more than one, I think adds a
certain degree of credibility to it.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm quite skeptical of this case. Its great that the man was able to
> be rediagnosed as locked-in syndrom rather than minim
I'm quite skeptical of this case. Its great that the man was able to
be rediagnosed as locked-in syndrom rather than minimally aware
syndrome or being in a peristant vegitative state. But other than that
there may be no great change. He still cannot communicate in any
meaningful way. It would appe
why would you?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> ...when you are finally heard and everyone understands what happened...
> ...
> would you kill yourself?
>
> 2009/12/6 Michael Grant :
> >
> > I saw a doc on this recently. Can you imagine the frustration that would
> > cause. Perf
yes
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Actually...did anyone read about that guy who was in a coma for 15
> years supposedly braindead, but with new methods they recently found
> that his brain was quite active, and for those 15 years he knew what
> was going on around him?
>
> 20
...when you are finally heard and everyone understands what happened...
...
would you kill yourself?
2009/12/6 Michael Grant :
>
> I saw a doc on this recently. Can you imagine the frustration that would
> cause. Perfectly functioning brain combined with total paralysis. I
> shudder to think of h
I saw a doc on this recently. Can you imagine the frustration that would
cause. Perfectly functioning brain combined with total paralysis. I
shudder to think of how awful that would be.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Actually...did anyone read about that guy who was in a coma
Actually...did anyone read about that guy who was in a coma for 15
years supposedly braindead, but with new methods they recently found
that his brain was quite active, and for those 15 years he knew what
was going on around him?
2009/12/6 Dana :
>>Your accusation is quite interesting considerin
Thank you for making my point ;)
> When Jacques Parizeau actively encouraged such when he blamed the last
> referendum loss on the ethnic vote and the "Jewish money interests."
> That to me comes pretty close to me to ethnic pogroms and cleansing.
>
That statement to me trivializes ethnic pogro
Pardon me but how does some of the anti-semetic actions of the PQ, or
the anti immigrant stances that they take be anything but what I said.
When Jacques Parizeau actively encouraged such when he blamed the last
referendum loss on the ethnic vote and the "Jewish money interests."
That to me comes
Larry -- we had that shit out years ago. I am not in favor of them, but the
fact that some kid in Montreal sprayed a swaztika on a headstone ::cough::
is obviously regrettable and wrong, and just as obviously irrelevant. I
spent hmm at least three years immersed in the culture without ever
encount
At least the KKK isn't into ethnic cleansing as much as the Séparatistes.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Close, but I still think a KKK Grand Wizard beats a Quebec separatist :)
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> I have only voted once, in a parliame
no, I didn't vote for the separatist. I voted for the wrestler. But no
question you win; wasn't trying to compete ;) Just saying I feel ya.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Close, but I still think a KKK Grand Wizard beats a Quebec separatist :)
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 a
Close, but I still think a KKK Grand Wizard beats a Quebec separatist :)
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I have only voted once, in a parliamentary election in Montreal. Since my
> choice was a separatist vs a wrestler, I voted for the wrestlerlol.
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at
I have only voted once, in a parliamentary election in Montreal. Since my
choice was a separatist vs a wrestler, I voted for the wrestlerlol.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> > Funny story. My father-in-law bla
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> Funny story. My father-in-law blasted me for voting for Bill Clinton
> (twice) and against Jessie Helms. As I have gotten older, I have become
> more conservative. He on the other hand has become extremely liberal. Now
> he blasts me for
I guess I don't see why write it, why use the bandwidth, or in particular
why I should read it, if everyone is just restating known positions.
(?)
Anyway thanks for the validation, kinda ;)
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "why do any of you bother. Minds changed in
"why do any of you bother. Minds changed in this thread - 0."
Dana, I disagree with 99.9% of your posts. I agree with this one.
I won't talk politics around my family anymore, even if they ask my
opinion. It ends up in arguments based on opinion.
Funny story. My father-in-law blasted me for
OT:
> China is producing cheap solar panels. They're going electric.
At the rate that China is catching up with the rest of the world I have no
doubt that they'll be able to make a green shift soon. And I also have no
doubt they'll be able to turn things around at brake-neak speed once they
de
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:07 PM, denstar wrote:
>>
The question is, could "we" be changing our environment?
>>>
>>> No it wasn't
>>
>> It is the question at the heart of the debate, esse.
>
> The heart of the debate is fudging science to earn bill
I'm not in it to change minds. I love conversation. :)
--
They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom.
Confucius
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> why do any of you bother. Minds changed in this thread - 0.
>
>
~
You bothered. You must care. Love you.
Minds f u - *
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> why do any of you bother. Minds changed in this thread - 0.
>
>
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with somethin
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:07 PM, denstar wrote:
>
>>> The question is, could "we" be changing our environment?
>>
>> No it wasn't
>
> It is the question at the heart of the debate, esse.
The heart of the debate is fudging science to earn billions in grants
and change world economies by trillions.
why do any of you bother. Minds changed in this thread - 0.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, denstar wrote:
>
> AAH! Ok, for some reason I was thinking sharks with lasers
> versus jet planes or something totally wrong like that.
>
> Bonus! Lovely analogy. Greasers vs. Socs, or mayb
AAH! Ok, for some reason I was thinking sharks with lasers
versus jet planes or something totally wrong like that.
Bonus! Lovely analogy. Greasers vs. Socs, or maybe more Capulet vs.
Montague... sweet.
Love will find a way! (or die trying)
--
The will to win, the desire to succeed
>
> Mari? Line monster, and I can't guess the rest.
>
I'm guessing "Lots of Marias" was the line. Carrying the West Side Story
analogy forward.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:52 AM, denstar wrote:
>>> That's a lie. C02 is plant food not pollution. Pollution is a
>>> different story. We all want to stop pollution.
>>> Nice try.
>>
>> The question is, could "we" be changing our environment?
>
> No it
Well that makes all the difference, a fellow professor that can't read.
Sherlock said:
Some observers allege that one of e-mails suggested CRU head Professor
Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major
assessment of climate science.
Jones said:
"I can't see either of these
interesting article from the BBC on this controversy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8396035.stm
Expert slams 'tabloid' e-mail row
A colleague of the UK professor at the centre of the climate e-mails
row says "sceptics" have embarked on a "tabloid-style character
assassination".
Pro
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:52 AM, denstar wrote:
>> That's a lie. C02 is plant food not pollution. Pollution is a
>> different story. We all want to stop pollution.
>> Nice try.
>
> The question is, could "we" be changing our environment?
No it wasn't
> You acknowledge we pollute-- are you certai
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:52 AM, denstar wrote:
>> Stay away from the trees, they're poisonous.
>
> I wonder if you could build up a tolerance, like with snakes?
I just thought "good thing we're chopping them all down!"
I new bumper sticker: "Feed the Trees!"
Oxygen levels couldn't have anythin
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>>
>> That's the point, that the pollution apologists fail to address.
>
> That's a lie. C02 is plant food not pollution. Pollution is a
> different story. We all want to stop pollution.
> Nice try.
The qu
Naw, it's obviously going to be consumerism. :)
--
The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.
Confucius
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Funnily enough I believe capitalism will be what saves us. It's just
> making saving the earth profitable that'
A weird twist?
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-james-hansen-climategate-leaker.html
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Here's another one by the NASA inspector general. Like this guy has a
> left wing agenda right Sam?
>
> http://oig.nasa.gov/investigatio
You posted two links about global warming. Are you able to pay attention?
A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA
I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen
was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media
interviews he was involved in ove
That's what I said.
And now we know Bush was right, the science about AGW NASA was pushing
was fudged.
If they were honest in the first place they wouldn't have had to be edited.
Just think if they had there way, we'd be $trillions more in the hole by now.
Waxman should feel like an ass now.
On
Here's another one by the NASA inspector general. Like this guy has a
left wing agenda right Sam?
http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Just for you sam, in case your faulty memory needs some jogging.
>
> Warning this congr
Just for you sam, in case your faulty memory needs some jogging.
Warning this congressional report uses words of more than 3 syllables.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/political-interference.pdf
In a nutshell testimony by Bush appointees and staffers show that
there
:D
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I might have spelled that incorrectly but the meaning still works ...kind
> of :)
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
> >
> > Sudo.
> > S'awesome.
> >
>
>
~~~
It was Hansen that started the entire hoax years ago and was quickly
debunked, yet even today you still spread the whispers.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Sam it wasn't just Hansen. They actively suppressed reports that went
> against their ideology. That is interfer
Sam it wasn't just Hansen. They actively suppressed reports that went
against their ideology. That is interference.
You really need to have your short memory checked.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> What you call interference I call accountability.
>
> The Bush admin didn't influ
I might have spelled that incorrectly but the meaning still works ...kind of :)
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Sudo.
> S'awesome.
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want?
Sudo.
S'awesome.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> What you call interference I call accountability.
>
> The Bush admin didn't influence the science, they demanded it be
> responsible before putting the government seal of approval on it.
> James Hansen caused that by pushing his co
What you call interference I call accountability.
The Bush admin didn't influence the science, they demanded it be
responsible before putting the government seal of approval on it.
James Hansen caused that by pushing his corrupt sudo-science.
I can't believe the nutter is still employed. He was i
so you have no problem with political interference with science. Very
interesting. You need to look up something, Lamarkianism
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism
Political interference in science that resulted in the deaths of
thousands. Also Eugenics.
There's a reason why political interfe
So you are contesting that large amounts of Carbon dioxide is a
pollutant to human beings...
2009/12/3 Sam :
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> That's a lie. C02 is plant food not pollution. Pollution is a
> different story. We all want to stop pollution.
> Nice try.
~
NASA is being sued for the same BS about hiding records. A two year
old FOIA is being ignored even though they had twenty days to comply.
What are they hiding?
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> When NOAA, NASA and other reputable scientific communities analyze and
> eithe
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> That's the point, that the pollution apologists fail to address.
That's a lie. C02 is plant food not pollution. Pollution is a
different story. We all want to stop pollution.
Nice try.
> Carbon Dioxide and all the other chemicals that we spew int
Funnily enough I believe capitalism will be what saves us. It's just
making saving the earth profitable that's the hickup.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> That's the point, that the pollution apologists fail to address.
>
> Carbon Dioxide and all the other chemicals that we spe
That's the point, that the pollution apologists fail to address.
Carbon Dioxide and all the other chemicals that we spew into the
atmosphere are dangerous to humans and other animals.
That's a FACT.
No one has yet disputed or disproved the Greenhouse Effect Theory.
That's a FACT.
So why aren'
ommunity
Subject: Re: climategate emails
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Scott Stew wrote:
>
> Like I said to Hatton, if these emails empirically proved that Global
> Warming existed the three of you (you, Rob and Hatton) would be all over
> them like white on rice trying to dismiss or d
Completely out of content.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Does this statement ring a bell?
>
>>> Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
>>> with which the opponents can derail the entire dialogue on climate
>>> change.
>
> Or by calling the exposure a
Does this statement ring a bell?
>> Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
>> with which the opponents can derail the entire dialogue on climate
>> change.
Or by calling the exposure a red herring you really meant tuna?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Maureen wrot
I don't recall ever commenting at all on Bush and science, but this is
hardly the first time you've attributed stuff to me that I never said.
And I defy you find any comment I have made in this discussion that
excuses the skewing of data by either side.
Ass.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Sam
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Scott Stew wrote:
>
> Like I said to Hatton, if these emails empirically proved that Global
> Warming existed the three of you (you, Rob and Hatton) would be all over
> them like white on rice trying to dismiss or disprove them any way you
> could, factually or ot
After reading some of the emails I'm glad he had the foresight.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Sam I don't have to prove anything. Its been hashed out before and
> demonstrated quite conclusively that the Shrubbery actively interfered
> with scientific reports - to th
Sam I don't have to prove anything. Its been hashed out before and
demonstrated quite conclusively that the Shrubbery actively interfered
with scientific reports - to the point where climate scientists were
ordered to have their conclusions vetted by the Whitehouse before
submitting it for confere
You're using a poll about hearsay to prove your claim about science?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Now that you mention it, a recent Pew Charitable Trust poll found that
> over 70% of scientists surveyed had either heard of active
> interference by the Bush administr
Now that you mention it, a recent Pew Charitable Trust poll found that
over 70% of scientists surveyed had either heard of active
interference by the Bush administration. To quote
(http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549)
"An overwhelming majority of scientists say they have heard a lot
(55%)
At least Clinton had a smile on his face at some point.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
> with which the opponents can derail the entire dialogue on climate
> change. Someone obviously did not think this throu
Argument by authority.
Not worth much at all.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
>>
>> I find it interesting how much those emails have been cherry picked
>> and quote mined by the climate change deniers. It would be mo
All those years of claiming Bush was controlling science and now you
have proof it was the other side and yet you excuse it.
Shame shame.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
> with which the opponents can derail
Skip the site and download the zip.
It's been confirmed they are the real thing.
Are you ready now to admit that because the authors did.
Now onto the content... what do you think of these scientists now?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Who owns that website, what are their
Wow, you've jumped the shark.
Mann and Jones confirmed that the emails are theirs. You don't feel
that is proof enough they authored them and then claim I'm lacking
critical thinking?
Really?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> Yeah.. another example of the lack of grey..
That is very true, and a pretty appropriate analogy.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
> with which the opponents can derail the entire dialogue on climate
> change. Someone obviously did not think this through
Perhaps that is all it was, but what it has become the red herring
with which the opponents can derail the entire dialogue on climate
change. Someone obviously did not think this through before taking
action, so it has become the climate research equivalent of Clinton's
blow job.
On Wed, Dec 2,
To me this all just seems like tweaking a few facts to make an underlying
truth have greater impact upon the skeptics.
It's exageration not fabrication.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let the
Who owns that website, what are their credentials and why should we
believe anything "they" say?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
>>
>> Hmm no headers, nothing to prove that they actually came from East
>> Anglia.. fishy
>>
>
> "The authenticity of these email
you
could, factually or otherwise.
I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. Give me hard proof or you have nothing..
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:49 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: climategate emails
The people that
The people that wrote the emails claimed they were real. Nothing more
we can do for you.
You are now a denier.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> I find the whole episode rather suspicious, what we have is heresay
> Based on supposed hacked emails with no other way to auth
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I find it interesting how much those emails have been cherry picked
> and quote mined by the climate change deniers. It would be most
> interesting to see what the original emails said, not the carefully
> edited exerpts used by the wing n
Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:06 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: climategate emails
I find it interesting how much those emails have been cherry picked
and quote mined by the climate change deniers. It would be mos
I find it interesting how much those emails have been cherry picked
and quote mined by the climate change deniers. It would be most
interesting to see what the original emails said, not the carefully
edited exerpts used by the wing nuts.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> If you want to shape the evidence to your particular version of the "truth"
> be my guest.
As I said, I'm not debating them - I think I've made comments to the tone
the professors use now when referring to what they claim are
misinterpretations of the content.
~
cember 02, 2009 3:05 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: climategate emails
>
> IMO, the authenticity of the "emails" should be empirically verified
before
> the debate even begins; otherwise they're invalid as evidence of anything
> else other than someone went to a g
>
> IMO, the authenticity of the "emails" should be empirically verified before
> the debate even begins; otherwise they're invalid as evidence of anything
> else other than someone went to a great deal of trouble to produce a lot of
> text files.
>
> These wouldn't hold up in a court of law, why
Most have already been verified by the school and the senders. Due to
the sheer number of emails not all could be confirmed. If you have a
specific message you want confirmed I'm sure they'll ablige.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> Hatton,
>
> IMO, the authenticity of t
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
