[Emphasis mine] Back it up. Oh, that's right, you don't feel the need to justify a thing you say about me and you have a problem with admitting you are wrong. But let's watch you continue to make crap up about me.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Originally Posted by JHC
.... Let me crouch way down, bend way over, get really, really small, and see if I can and speak like you do: ...

.... for someone having difficulty with the English language.

.... Gosh, are you having difficulty?

.... your refusal to speak frankly and civilly....

.... If it's over your head, get your Chinese colleagues to help you....

.... And whats this "effectively" shit?

...you should have kept your trap shut.

.... Slow enough for ya?...

.... wiggle, wiggle little worm....

.... Like pulling fucking teeth....

.... By the way, little miss puff-up-your -chest-I'm-busy-doing-science,.. I set up a company in Cyprus this week while we chatted....

What ?

You're unimpressed that jhc "set up a company in cypress" ?

You didn't know that jhc is a real "mover and shaker" ?

Or do you just not beleive any of it

Link to the IPCC reviews
The Debate Really IS over... NOT!

Si,

Now then, is it the peer review process with which you take issue?

You said you agreed with the three basic statements with qualifications and that the qualifications were dependent on peer review since you were not an expert in the field.

I have presented the peer reviews.

Does this satisfy your qualification such that you could have faith in the science behind those three statements?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

For Thane

Cyprus:


Cypress:

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

This is an interesting assumption. Why would you not make this same assumption about the reviews offered by the IPCC?

I'm sure there is some reason other than political bias.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

In response to #225 regarding stooping...

NOTE** I had to remove 10 snarky smili's to be allowed to quote you hear without exceeding the limit.

That one was fun.
But I didn't give you shit about not reading your own link. I let you dig your own hole. You can't blame that one on me.

Yes. It is clear that you view anyone in disagreement as unfortunately inaccurate...and not paying attention...and spinning...and ignorant...


Well then. You have asked for support of my assertions so I thought I would oblige. Last time you accused me of unsubstantiated claims, I just conceded for the sake of maintaining a discussion about global warming but I can see that is not your aim.

Sorry folks.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

So because I misspelled the name of the place you assume I have no idea what or where it is and post me some pictures.

NOW we beleive you're a "mover and a shaker" setting up businesses

What IS your fixation with my previous screen-name ?

So, where did I confuse a media outlet with a scientific Journal? Please provide evidence of this.

Should I have made an assumption that you didn't know how to spell?
Or perhaps I should have made an assumption that you didn't know how to read because you quoted me spelling it correctly and then misspelled it yourself.
Posting the pictures along with the correct spelling covers both.

I could care less if you believe I am a "mover and a shaker". However, I did prove that the there is a difference between the Middle East tax haven of Cyprus and ...a tree.

AND, did you the favor of not reporting your completely off topic post. Perhaps you'd like to discuss Global Warming?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Perhaps YOU would ?

Instead of making nasty, baiting remarks at people that show that there is a lot that is still not known about this.

Instead of making nasty, baiting remarks at people that have data and studies that don't support YOUR beleifs on the subject matter.

Instead of bragging yourself up as a "mover and shaker" in the worldwide business world.

When someone refuses to answer a simple, straightforward question, it is easy to get frustrated.

The peer review process has numerous flaws.

It is not designed to catch fraud. It does not look at raw data.

Here are a few links..........

June 26, 2005
Peer Review Process at IPCC Formally Questioned

Posted by jennifer, at 08:03 PM

A standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has formally written to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) questioning the integrity of the Third Assessment Report and asking nine specific questions.
Jennifer Marohasy: Peer Review Process at IPCC Formally Questioned

Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts.

Peer review is often assumed to be a purification process. There is no such thing as purifying science. Scientific knowledge must continually evolve. Like all truth, no one can arbitrate it; it must speak for itself through the evidence. There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.

Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation.

A pretty good paper.........

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

Global Warming Science in Perspective &#151 Carbon Dioxide is not the Cause.

FROM THE NY Times....

Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system.

Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication.

The publication process is complex. Many factors can allow error, even fraud, to slip through.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

From the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals -- Smith 99 (4): 178 -- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research Community, Prompts Reflection on Peer Review Process
Brian Vastag

A stunning admission of fraud from a respected Norwegian oral cancer researcher, Jon Sudbø, M.D., Ph.D., D.D.S., has left the cancer research community reeling. According to statements from his hospital and his attorney, Sudbø fabricated data for 900 patients in a study published in October in The Lancet, which has now retracted the article.

Cancer Fraud Case Stuns Research Community, Prompts Reflection on Peer Review Process -- Vastag 98 (6): 374 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

I could go on and on.

I can fill many pages with scientists questioning the peer review process and the many flaws with this process.

I think it is time FOR OPEN REVIEW, instead of anonymous review.

I think the online journals are an improvement.

Single-blind peer review (SBPR), in which the reviewer knows the identity of the author but not vice versa, is the currently accepted practice. Because SBPR can be vulnerable to sexism and nepotism [1], its ethical foundations have come under criticism; the method is frequently recognized to be biased against new ideas, women, young scientists, career changers, and scholars from less prestigious universities and/or from developing countries (see [2] and references therein). Generally, two policies have been proposed to eliminate bias from the peer-review process: open peer review and double-blind peer review (DBPR).

We believe that current peer-review process, even though functional, can be, and should be, improved.

In open peer review, the identities of both authors and reviewers are revealed, affording the authors the ability to identify the reviewers' comments to a person. Even though this might be an equitable strategy to prevent unfair rejections, this process has no safeguard against unfair acceptance of papers—reviewers, and especially newcomers, may feel pressured into accepting a mediocre paper from a more established lab in fear of future reprisals.

PLoS Biology - Peer Review—The Newcomers' Perspective

The Peer review process has some major flaws. Luckily, the internet can make this process much better. OPEN REVIEW is a much better way to go, since truth shouldn't need secrecy.

Thankfully there are some scientists out there who recognize this.

Glad to see you're all over this Global Warming topic. You should start from the beginning and read my first post(s) discussions with Si modo. Strangely, I'm the one that said there was political bias on both sides. There's only been one poster who adamantly stated there was no need to concern ourselves with political bias as long as the science was peer reviewed - that was Si modo herself.

Turns out it was peer reviewed. Even though she said she read it and also said it wasn't peer reviewed...but there it was in the link I gave her...you know...that post where she kept responding that I wasn't providing peer reviewed data and therefore my question was inadequate? yeah...that one.

I don't know what my belief is on Global Warming. Perhaps you could tell me.

If setting up a company in Cyprus makes me a "mover and shaker" in your mind, thats your own perception.

Did you read the peer reviews in the link or are you not actually interested in the topic of this thread?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn