Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoeker
Not cherry picked, sunshine.
It was a list of consecutive names from the same page that you used.
I didn't single the out (i.e. cherry pick) the ones with no history.
|
I never said you picked ones with no history but rather ones that are harder to search for which is irrelevant as I already clearly stated multiple times:
It is quite easy to cherry pick more common names that are harder to search for but that does not disprove a real scientist has that name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Besoeker
Really? Take the Oregon Petition. He has yet to offer any rational explanation on why someone with a BS or MS might be designated as MD. If appropriate. When would it ever be appropriate to designate someone with a masters degree in a science discipline as MD? The rules of the OISM clearly require signatories to have a degree in a physical science. You'd think they would fall over themselves to demonstrate that the signatories met this requirement. Yet, out of the 19,000 "scientists" there is not one to whom a science degree is attributed. Don't you think it is odd that they chose to omit such information on such a grand scale?
|
They are designated MD if they are a MEDICAL DOCTOR! They do not randomly list some MDs and not others - you are incapable of understanding the wording. I already clearly gave a rational reason: They wanted all the MDs listed so no one could say that the ones with degrees not listed are all doctors and make some irrelevant argument about it. There are roughly a few hundred MDs who signed the petition but they all have physical science degrees. When they listed the names they did not wait for YOUR opinion on how the names should be listed to satisfy YOU. The only thing I think is odd is that you cannot comprehend why they would want to save space on a webpage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
Actually he has been massacred even Alex McKee got in on the action.
He has actually not proved anything in fact he just keeps bringing up dodgy links and trying to play games.
How exactly has he scored points? Claiming that the official proposal of the 13 top science societies in the world is just the opinion of 13 people is not scoring points, its playing absurd  ish games. And when having been confronted by me and Alex McKee about his silly attacks on wikipedia, being unable to read the rules and then keep going on and on is also behaviour.
In that case I don't except his petition unless he emails me ID for each of the people. Looks like it is a 10 100 score now for the balanced viewpoint, ie Mine. |
The only one who has been massacred is you unless of course if you think repeating your same unsupported positions is evidence of something, I call it hot air. Yes, yes the links are "dodgy" because you declare it too bad that is now how it works in the real world.
A piece of paper signed by 13 presidents of scientific societies represents the opinion of those 13 signers. So please prove me wrong and provide evidence of a poll or survey of EVERY member that supports each signer's position. If you do not have it then you have nothing but a political action which is meaningless for science.
Keep calling me a troll and repeating your lies about Wikipedia because you cannot back up your dishonest position. Everyone here reading this can clearly see you have lost the Wikipedia debate.
The names of the petition members are clearly listed. You don't have to accept it but you have yet to prove that what the petition states is false. Thus people can make up their own minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akria
Poptech, I have commented on how the 'battle of the graphs' by Monckton is disingenuous at best before.
|
I have proven how the Hockey Stick graph is utterly worthless by anyone who understands basic computer programming.