--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > [snip} > > > His very deliberate misrepresentations of > > the Journal of Scientific Exploration, > > intended to put TM research in a bad light > > because TM has published one article in the > > journal, are quite directly parallel to the > > misrepresentations of the climate-change > > deniers with regard to the hacked emails. Hard > > up for evidence to support their perspective, > > in both cases they have to resort to inventing > > it--and hope that their audience will be too > > lazy and credulous to check up on them. > > [/snip] > > A slur! > > I'm sorry you choose to perpetuate that silly > and intellectually disreputable use of the > word "deniers". For shame. How can you live > with yourself?
Oh, please. You've used the term yourself: "Or try this very thoughtful analysis from Judy Curry, a climate scientist who again is NOT in the denier camp:" > Of course when you say "misrepresentations > ...with regard to the hacked emails" - no > one can argue with that. It is the non > misrepresentation of those emails which gives > many folks pause for thought. I haven't seen anything I'd call nonmisrepresentation from the folks who don't believe in AGW, whatever they want to call themselves. I do agree with Curry's assessment--as I noted in response to your post quoted above--but then, as you point out, she isn't on your side either. The whole "tribalism" thing needs to be cleaned up, unquestionably, but not because it legitimately calls the science in question. It needs to be cleaned up because it gives the anti-AGW folks weapons they can misuse--*have been* misusing--to shake the public's faith in the science. > "Hard up for evidence to support their > perspective"? Really? I think not. Think what you wish. I disagree. What do you have to say about the famous "trick/hidden" email? That's a good test of integrity.
