Anyone with any journalistic integrity would not repeat unsubstantiated claims. The fact that he chose to repeat factually untrue statements demonstrates he has no interest in intellectual honesty.
"Certain Circles" could say Mike is a thief. No reputable journalist would repeat this without fact checking it first.
My "argument" is that the, "certain circles" claims are factually incorrect and no one has been able to show otherwise. My problem with Mike is that he posted them at all. It can easily be inferred that Mike believes these false claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
You are confusing errors found during the peer-review process with a paper that may have had "corrections" made to it after it was published as an addendum or erratum. These did not change the conclusions of those papers. This demonstrates you do not understand the peer-review process.
I not "handlers", your obsession with conspiracy theories is getting really old.
"That clearly puts the lie to your claim that the reputable scientific journals are conspiring to prevent publishing papers with contrarian views in it."
Strawman argument as I made no such claim here.
Your vicious ad hominem attacks on reputable scientists are all the evidence anyone needs that you do not have an argument.
"Spencer (and McKitrick) ...They both believe that all of quantum theory and all of relativity is completely wrong and that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old."
This is an absolute lie.
People can make up their own minds when they are given the truth and not the lies you peddle. What I have stated is fully supported and your lies are blatantly unsupportable.
But I am not random, I am actively involved in the debate and happen to be knowledgeable on this subject.
I have a problem when people make things up simply because they are emotional. If you want to argue against the Heartland Institute do so based on what they actually do and say not what you emotionally believe.
The scientific research in this case is reviewing and compiling a scientific report based on peer-reviewed science. The scientists in question were already doing this before being funded by anyone. Obtaining funding just allows them to concentrate on their work.
"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, [...] The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.
"We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.
For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.
We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents."
Joseph L. Bast
The Heartland Institute
Mike should issue an update as his initial concern has been addressed. He should also retract his false and unsupported statements about the Heartland Institute.