• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Climate Science Headline You Won't See: New Non-Hockey Stick Found in Tibet

Threegoofs said:
And this was cribbed from:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Tibet; temperatures during the Little Ice Age warmer than in 2000
Click to expand...

LOL he has a link to the place/paper he got his topic from.The OP wasn't cribbed. It's his own words and not taken as is from your source.. He posted a link to sciencedirect, an online published scientific paper repository. It's Like amazon for science since you obviously don't know.. ANd you post from the Hockeyschtick blog...

His a published scientic paper from an establsihed source, your's a bloglink... LOL, tell me about your love of science journals again....
 
Threegoofs said:
Cribbed and then mis- attributed, to make it look like you read obscure journals instead of schlocky websites.
Click to expand...

Be careful with false accusations goofs... I'm pretty sure that's a no-no here..
 
gslack said:
Be careful with false accusations goofs... I'm pretty sure that's a no-no here..
Click to expand...

It's not false at all. He is taking references from one site, and posting direct links. I'm just pointing out the dude is taking them from a denier site.

It's like a website giving links from around the web, and I take those links and post them here without attribution. It's kinda dishonest.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's not false at all. He is taking references from one site, and posting direct links. I'm just pointing out the dude is taking them from a denier site.

It's like a website giving links from around the web, and I take those links and post them here without attribution. It's kinda dishonest.
Click to expand...

Who knows what led him to the paper, the point remains he wrote his own description, and the link he provided was to the scientific paper.

Your claims were he stole it, and did so from the site you linked to.. Which upon checking both links we see clearly he did not steal it, nor was his description copied from yours or his link. He linked to his source in the OP, and that source backs up his description. All you have is a link to someplace else doing a story on the same paper. A link which once checked does not show that he "copped" it as you claimed..

Now which false claim you made against him are you denying doing? The claim you made that he stole it from someplace else and pretended it came from the scientific paper, or the implication he copied the OP from that site? Both are proven false simply by checking his links and his words compared to his and your respective links.

Fact is you made one false claim against him outright, and implied the other, hoping for a hit on one if the other failed most likely...

Frankly, I think you in the very least should apologize to him. You were wrong,he cited his source, you just couldn't believe a science journal would publish actual science rather than your preferred science, and went hunting for a story on it, found one from a skeptical site and tried to discredit him.. He cited his source, his source fits in with his description, his description is his own words, and you have no good reason to accuse him of what boils down to Plagiarism...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom