On 10/9/2010 6:46 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:58 pm, "Rich Grise, Professional AGW Denialist"
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:38:09 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:32 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

The Church of Warmingism refuses to back up their own lies, imagine my
surprise.

Would you care to name one?

Sure! They keep insisting that I'm in the employ of Big Oil, yet I have
yet to see a dime of this alleged bribery.

Nobody would beleive for a minute that Big Oil would be silly enough
to pay you for your efforts as a shill - you are just an ignorant
dupe, retailing the rubbish that Big Oil wholesales to the media as
"balanced contributions to the debate" carefully neglecting to remind
the media that the serious debate was won by the anthropogenic global
warming team a couple of decades ago. This isn't to say that we know
enough about anthropogenic global warming - but we do know more enough
to know that it is real and we need to do something about it sooner
rather than later.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Is there anything about the pro AGW stance that you question? Do you
have any problem with AGW activists preventing opposing views from being
published in journals, as the intercepted emails indicated?

David

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 12:05:02 -0500, David R. Birch wrote:
On 10/9/2010 6:46 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:58 pm, "Rich Grise, Professional AGW Denialist"
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:38:09 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:32 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

The Church of Warmingism refuses to back up their own lies, imagine
my surprise.

Would you care to name one?

Sure! They keep insisting that I'm in the employ of Big Oil, yet I have
yet to see a dime of this alleged bribery.

Nobody would beleive for a minute that Big Oil would be silly enough to
pay you for your efforts as a shill - you are just an ignorant dupe,
retailing the rubbish that Big Oil wholesales to the media as "balanced
contributions to the debate" carefully neglecting to remind the media
that the serious debate was won by the anthropogenic global warming team
a couple of decades ago. This isn't to say that we know enough about
anthropogenic global warming - but we do know more enough to know that
it is real and we need to do something about it sooner rather than
later.

Is there anything about the pro AGW stance that you question? Do you have
any problem with AGW activists preventing opposing views from being
published in journals, as the intercepted emails indicated?

Of course not. It's his Holy Duty to protect The Faith, you see. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Oct 10, 7:05*pm, "David R. Birch" wrote:
On 10/9/2010 6:46 PM,BillSlomanwrote:



On Oct 4, 5:58 pm, "Rich Grise, Professional AGW Denialist"
*wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:38:09 -0700,BillSlomanwrote:
On Oct 4, 6:32 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

The Church of Warmingism refuses to back up their own lies, imagine my
surprise.

Would you care to name one?

Sure! They keep insisting that I'm in the employ of Big Oil, yet I have
yet to see a dime of this alleged bribery.

Nobody would beleive for a minute that Big Oil would be silly enough
to pay you for your efforts as a shill - you are just an ignorant
dupe, retailing the rubbish that Big Oil wholesales to the media as
"balanced contributions to the debate" carefully neglecting to remind
the media that the serious debate was won by the anthropogenic global
warming team a couple of decades ago. This isn't to say that we know
enough about anthropogenic global warming - but we do know more enough
to know that it is real and we need to do something about it sooner
rather than later.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

Is there anything about the pro AGW stance that you question?

I leave that to the peer-review mechanism - climate scientists knw a
lot more about climate science than I do.

Do you
have any problem with AGW activists preventing opposing views from being
published in journals, as the intercepted emails indicated?

The intercepted e-mails showed that a couple of climate scientists
were concerned that an inadequate scientific paper looked as if it
might slip through the peer-review process without being sent back to
the authors to have its errors corrected and its inadequacies
addressed.

My wife gets to referee papers like this from time to time, where one
journal knocks back an inadequate paper and the authors send it to
another journal without correcting the defects and she gets asked to
referee the same paper again. It generates a few acid e-mails. Not all
referees are equally thorough or well-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On 10/12/2010 6:28 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:05 pm, "David R. wrote:

Is there anything about the pro AGW stance that you question?

I leave that to the peer-review mechanism - climate scientists knw a
lot more about climate science than I do.

Doesn't everyone? "No" would have required less typing.

Do you
have any problem with AGW activists preventing opposing views from being
published in journals, as the intercepted emails indicated?

The intercepted e-mails showed that a couple of climate scientists
were concerned that an inadequate scientific paper looked as if it
might slip through the peer-review process without being sent back to
the authors to have its errors corrected and its inadequacies
addressed.

The emails I saw indicated it was a continuing effort against dissenting
scientists, not a single instance.

My wife gets to referee papers like this from time to time, where one
journal knocks back an inadequate paper and the authors send it to
another journal without correcting the defects and she gets asked to
referee the same paper again. It generates a few acid e-mails. Not all
referees are equally thorough or well-informed.

The emails were about suppressing views and writers, not just pointing
out minor errors.

David