You misunderstand me. My rhetorical point was that the poster had gone further than saying that Balling and Michaels' science was wrong, he suggested that they had prostituted their scientific credentials and knowlingly lied. Given that neither are subscribers to this list, they have no opportunity to reply to such allegations of misconduct. Similiarly, since Michael DiPaola is not subscribed to this list, it is rather as if I had accused him, not of an error, but a deliberate deceit or crime. Without the ability to answer, the allegation is simply a smear.
On the lesser point, you are forced to misrepresent to make it, as was DiPoala.
I said, the majority of signatories were outside of the field.
DiPaola had me saying none of the signatories were in the field
You, in a fudge have me saying that the petition was lite on climatologists. You are far too intelligent to hide behind a form of words.
So, for logical clarity's sake, I assume that we can agree that the signatories were not all, nor even most but some substantial number, in their field of expertise.
A child could understand the significance. This was not peer review, it was a petition. The signatories carried equal weight, whether expert or not, because it was an expression of opinion.
In message <p04330111b65c4a49da18@[216.254.77.128]>, Doug Henwood
<dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>It would not be rather as if that. DiPaola covers the field - reads
>the literature, talks to scientists, and goes to conferences. He's
>talking about sometehing he knows. He's demonstrated that one of your
>major and frequent claims - that the IPCC is light on atmospheric
>scientists - isn't true. You're just inventing a wild assertion. Why?
>You're too smart for this.
>
>Doug
-- James Heartfield