2 ms·
I think you're mistaken about how science actually works - the evidence that you gather is what matters, rather than who you are. Perhaps you should be addressi
by anthonyb 16y ago
I think you're mistaken about how science actually works - the evidence that you gather is what matters, rather than who you are. Perhaps you should be addressing that, rather than engaging in petty ad-hominem attacks.
- hga 16y agoWikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem "The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick would be truly fascinated to learn that "the evidence that you gather is what matters, rather than who you are" in this field. As a bit of quality time searching the contents of http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ will demonstrate: http://www.google.com/search?as_oq=McIntyre+McKitrick+MM&as_sitesearch=www.eastangliaemails.com http://www.google.com/search?as_oq=McIntyre+McKitrick+MM&... Most especially: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419 From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 "[...] The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew.... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"