The rage! The pure rage!
How often lately, I’ve been accused of being an alarmist because I’ve taken to just deleting some of the crap that comes through. It’s nothing short of a no win situation – either I entertain nonsense (as much as the other believes it to be otherwise) or I’m yet another agent of some secret agenda out to warp science – oh, the horror!
Being a fan of free speech as much as I’m of information, I obviously hate such a label… As 2010 demonstrates though, I could waste my entire life debating with such people who really don’t care what I have to say, but a determined to convert me to their ideology. I don’t want to waste my life away talking about the One World Government, the secret truth to AGW alarmism and the imminent financial despair to follow weaning us of this fossil fuel addict as much as I have no interest been convinced by the reality of UFO’s and anal probes, the wisdom of Scientology, young Earth creation, the terror of vaccination, the truth about the moon landings, Big Foot… basically whatever weird conspiracy cooked up by some half-wit.
Adelady hit me on to Greenfyre’s Dunce Corner. At first, it looked like a good idea, but a lot of work… That was before I found Andrew (aka Poptech). This bloke won’t quit, but moans when I won’t post his latest line of “it’s a smear campaign!! The truth is out there!”
Indeed this character’s main way to attract attention largely revolves around predominantly around baiting language rather than genuine discussion; if I don’t publish, I’m hiding the truth; if I move his crap here, I’m being childish; if I find his list unscientific, I’m scared; if I try to defend my argument, I’m a dirty liar out to smear; if I get annoyed with the stupidity of circular conversation, I’m clearly intellectually dishonest and fail on basic scientific education (coming from someone with absolutely no science training, this is of course rich). Such baits are an obvious insult to anyone’s sense of self, but clearly the circular nature exposes the only conclusion that would suit such an individual; either retract my counter arguments or admit his conclusions of my character are correct (as you’ll see below, neither are correct, but there is no room outside this conundrum). Norbert Wiener said it best (h/t Stephen);
The scientist is… disposed to regard his opponent as an honorable enemy. This attitude is necessary for his effectiveness as a scientist, but tends to make him the dupe of unprincipled people in war and politics.
Someone like Andrew is of course far superior at the foggy realms of political debate than myself. All I can do is refer to the science literature and base my opinions on that. I am obviously the dupe of such arguments because treat the other with respect and take the evidence seriously. Of course not everyone will agree, but from a scientific point of view, being egged on such characters is a pointless exchange without resolve. You cannot scientific argue with high school bullying and certainly cannot treat a person who acts in such a way as an “honourable enemy”.
What to do?
…
Welcome to ‘Under the Alfoil hat!
From here on in, Andrew’s comments will be moved under the alfoil hat (unless his comment refers to a grammatical error on one of my posts). Here, I’ll leave it up to other readers to argue with him if they feel the need, I however, will happily step off from this merry-go-round, as I will with any other who happens to find themselves dumped in the Sin Bin. That way, I’m not ‘hiding the truth’, but no longer stuck down the rabbit hole of the Mad Hater.
People who are banned – who will not even find themselves even here – include the following, with my reasons included:
- rogerthesurf; this character has demonstrated venomous, childish insults aimed at stirring up an emotional response rather than an intellectual one.
- Pete Ridley; apart from being the most annoying merry-go-round I’ve come across, Pete stalks. He not only stalks blog authors and other contributors, he also hunts down people they know. Quite frankly, it’s beyond creepy – getting close to requiring legal action.
- Adam; (email Adam_jayne123@…) Adam throws across the insults as quickly as he can misspell them. He stalks – so much so his emails have been blocked from my box. His merry-go-round defies logic and quite frankly, I don’t understand how someone can hold so much hatred for SkS’s John Cook and continually use Jo Nova as a reasonable link.
- Elsa and her sock puppets (as far as I can obviously pick them); imagine being told that you’ve been abducted by aliens and even if you don’t remember it happening to you, there were many witnesses who saw it happen. Elsa is the one to tell you as much, followed by Elsa wearing a moustache, named “Colin”, followed by Elsa wearing a wig, named “Roger”… Unreasonable arguments backed up by herself. It’s just creepy..
Note – I do not necessarily think the following adhere to a bunch of crazy notions, I just find conversations with them just as circular, just as pointless and just as certain about something that seems just as unlikely as the alfoil hat patrol.
newanthropocene.wordpress.com 
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/26 at 11:48 pm | In reply to David Green.)
Either the statistics they stated are factually correct or not. This has nothing to do with the false claim of, “the Heartland Institute believes or has ever supported the notion that smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease.”
They explicitly state, “Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit.”
Presenting accurate statistics is being honest,
“Levy and Marimont showed how removing diseases for which a link between smoking and mortality has been alleged but not proven cuts the hypothetical number of smoking-related fatalities in half. Replacing an unrealistically low death rate for never-smokers with the real fatality rate cuts the number by a third.
Controlling for “confounding factors”—such as the fact that smokers tend to exercise less, drink more, and accept high-risk jobs—reduces the estimated number of deaths by about half again. Instead of 400,000 smoking-related deaths a year, Levy and Marimont estimate the number to be around 100,000.
This would place the lifetime odds of dying from smoking at 6 to 1 (45 million smokers divided by 100,000 deaths per year x 75 years), rather than 3 to 1. However, about half (45 percent) of all smoking-related deaths occur at age 75 or higher. Calling these deaths “premature” is stretching common usage of the word. The odds of a life-long smoker dying prematurely of a smoking-related disease, then, are about 12 to 1.”
MothIncarnate, the source says NOTHING about the Heartland Institute believing or has ever supported the notion that smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease.
I am well aware of their REAL position which again is NOTHING what you implied.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/26 at 11:36 pm | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
If you want people to alter their perception of you, don’t make false statements about them and then prevent them from defending themselves.
I am well aware there are scientists who support AGW but are not alarmists, I have never made any claim otherwise. That was your strawman argument.
My perception of those institutes is based on actual research and understanding of what they are not what is lied about them. The Frasier and Heartland Institutes are libertarian organizations that support free markets and liberty. The Marshall Institute is a conservative think-tank founded by eminent physicists.
Your comments reinforce my point and one of the reasons I asked you to read The Skeptical Environmentalist.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/18 at 2:36 pm | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
Do you support the actions taken by those who showed up at that event with the intent of shouting down those they disagree with?
– I challenge any scientist I believe is misrepresenting the science, that is correct. I am not going to entertain your argument about Monckton’s graphs as it is clear you have no intent of being objective about him calling him a loon. So it is pointless to argue about it with you about that. I do not believe you have brought up any fraudulent claims.
– If you provide me with the full copy of his editorial and the paper he is commenting on, I will read them. I am simply disappointed that you ideologically refuse to read what I recommended.
– The skeptic’s claims made in relation to Climategate are legitimate. This is why I asked that you read that book as it deals with one of the major issues the emails are about.
Here is some reading material I am sure you will not read,
‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)
The CRU emails show scientists,
– Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
– Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
– Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
– Assuming activist roles to influence the political process
Regarding the “inquires”,
The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (52 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
– I have no idea what you mean by I continue to validate an inappropriate interpretation of my list?
– I did not call ALL scientists and summaries of the science as “insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism”, I called the three websites you presented. Why are you distorting what I stated so badly?
– So if I do not agree with you that means I do not understand ocean acidification or CO2’s greenhouse properties? My opinion is I do not believe ocean acidification to be a problem. My opinion is based on researching the science not personal beliefs.
Then you just illogically call me a hypocrite?
I agree that we will not agree and hope you continue to refuse to read the books I suggested as I would not want you corrupted from the “truth”!
LikeLike
Hi Pop , “My opinion is I do not believe ocean acidification to be a problem.” can you please explain why its not a problem .
TY
LikeLike
It stuck me as odd that his view here (which he also elaborate with apparently have more than a basic understanding of chemistry) is contrary to the scientific evidence which he didn’t feel needed further discussion.
LikeLike
“- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;”
Wrong, conclusions were not preconceived nor dependent on manipulating data. try again.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/13 at 11:23 am | In reply to Adam.)
If you don’t want me to bother with your site, then remove your personal attack on me as I made no such comment about you. So long as it is up I will continue to post here as I am sure you would not want me to state things such as (you have a few screws loose) on my site. I am still interested in why you made this comment as you have never conversed with me.
What “larger scientific community”? Your arbitrary statements are meaningless. I explicitly stated that they failed to demonstrate how any of the papers were not peer-reviewed. Your strawman argument has nothing to do with the purpose of the list.
But since you continue to focus on the SCI (Science Citation Index) which is a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 3,700 peer-reviewed journals using a subjective inclusion process. There are thousands of peer-reviewed journals that are not included but are with competitors. Scopus indexes 16,500 peer-reviewed journals. Please answer this question,
Are there Scholarly Peer-Reviewed journals not list in the SCI?
If so then this discredits yours and the GWSH strawman argument.
The scholarly peer-reviewed socio-economic papers appear in the appropriate categories explicitly labeled like “Socio-Economic” ect… These are includes because the list includes papers that support skepticism of the negative socio-economic effects of AGW. Socio-economic papers appear throughout the IPCC WG II and WG III reports. None of this has anything to do with the irrefutable fact that they are peer-reviewed.
Failure 2 is not silly at all. As AGW Alarm is explicitly what the list is about. Fabricating a strawman argument does not make this failure any less obvious. GWSH failed on both counts.
You say that I cherry picked articles, implying that the purpose of the list was something other than to list peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism of AGW alarm. That is a lie as creating a list like this has nothing to do with cherry picking. Cherry picking would mean not including every peer-reviewed paper I could find that supports skepticism of AGW alarm. This is false as I am non-discriminatory in this regard.
I have given the scientific qualifications of many of the scientists on the list before. There are many very qualified scientists on that list.
It never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself just draw absurd conclusions about what I have or have not done. I have extensively looked over the IPCC report among other pro-AGW arguments. The list was created because people were being lied to that these papers do not exist.
If you don’t want it repeated here then a good first gesture would be to remove your personal attack on me.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t understand why you have a problem with me responding in the post where you are replying to my comments but whatever,
Lets get some things out of the way, I have no interest in “converting” you to my “ideology” or whatever you believe that to be. I have simply disagreed with you on various positions. My reason for asking you to read the two books I suggested was so you can have a better understanding from where some of my arguments are coming from as these books lay out some of them in a very readable way.
Where we agree, I do not believe in and have never brought up any conspiracy theories such as a one world government, 911 Truth, Big Foot, JFK, fake moon landings or vaccination that cause autism. I am religiously agnostic and support evolution theory not creationism or young earth creation. I believe Scientology to be a cult.
Now where we disagree is I believe AGW alarmism to exist and define it as a concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic. For my position on this I support my arguments with scientific research and empirical data.
We also disagree in that I believe that a government mandated reduction in fossil fuel usage with have significant consequences for the global economy and the health and welfare of billions of people. I base this on extensive economic and energy research. Again for my position on this I support my arguments with scientific research and empirical data.
You are correct I will not quit when it relates to a misrepresentation of my position. If you have not noticed I have not commented on any of your other posts. If you had never misrepresented my position or my work I would not be commenting here.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/28 at 12:06 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
1. Now you just implied a new smear. Correcting misinformation about my work is not narcissistic. I do not need to regularly Google the Internet to keep track of comments made about my work, there are many ways to do this efficiently. I would think you would have a problem with people stating misinformation about your work.
2. I am adding updates to my page based on your changes,
“How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who supports others claiming his list is a scientific (although admittedly he carefully avoids using the word ‘scientific’) basis that challenges apparent confidence in the high likelihood of the existence of AGW, when even a quick gloss reveals contradictions and social/opinion articles?” – Mothincarnate
Your reference to “others” here means Adam, who has never made any claim that no social science papers exist on the list as they do in the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report. No claim is made that the list is only of natural science papers (though many of these exist on the list) but rather that they are all peer-reviewed. The list does not only include papers that support skepticism of AGW but also ones that support skepticism of AGW Alarm, defined as concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic. The list is not a unified theory but a resource.
If you want to discuss Adam’s comments then you need to discuss them with him. It makes no sense for me to be discussing his comments with you trying to further interpret his position when you can simply ask him.
I have refuted all the false claims made by Greenfryre, GWSH and Skeptical Science about the list,
Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
GWSH is completely refuted extensively in the comments. Since they have not removed my comments I have no need to write anything up at this time.
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
3. “How does asserting the scientific importance of Poptech’s self-contradictory list of random articles counter the conclusions largely held by the scientific community to the contrary?” – Mothincarnate
This is a strawman as no such argument was made. The list is presented as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed literature supporting skeptic arguments. The list is not self-contradictory because it is not a unified theory but a resource. It is used to counter the conclusions held by some in the scientific community.
[Again, you originally jumped on to my space complaining that I referred to you as a loon – seems a little hypocritical, don’t you think? Especially as I’ve fixed these statements]
Only if your behavior was different. But so far you continue to misrepresent my position, censored my replies defending myself and am now moving them to some childish “bad corner” area. What I am arguing about your misrepresentation of my positions are factually based.
4. READ -> That has nothing to do with what I stated and what you falsely presented. I have never stated that “the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.” and ““Poptech defending an unchallengeable position – that all scientists who publish work that comes to the same conclusions as those above represent a small sheltered group of alarmists.” These are blatant lies. What I stated was, “The sites you listed are either environmental activist sites or alarmist scientists which do not represent the mainstream scientific community. They represent an insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism.”
5. “(not that I’m stated he puts this in the same league as the articles in his list, such as social and economic opinion articles and the random assortment of science literature, but he maintains that I’d learn something overlooked in my university training)” – Mothincarnate
I will accept this as corrected from my original complaint, however regarding the existence of social science papers on the Popular Technology.net list you have failed to answer the question, “Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report ‘relevant scientific literature’?”
Unless you university training discussed the contents of the books I presented then yes I believe you could learn something about skeptic arguments from them.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/02/28 at 10:31 pm | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
1. Why would I quite when you have failed to correct you lies? It does not matter if you correct it though because I will document your lies on my site so people can learn the truth about your dishonest behavior. They will also see how you like Greenfyre dishonestly refuses to make appropriate corrections when they were irrefutably pointed out to you. That only makes you look bad.
No you have not fixed it. You continue to fail to correct this lie. I have explained to you repeatedly that I found your blog on my own and you still imply ridiculous nonsense with these statements, “Andrew (aka Poptech) magically appeared out of nowhere ( it seemed highly surprising that Andrew appeared out of the blue following my initial referring to him – does he google himself all day?).“. There is nothing magical about knowing how to efficiently use the Internet. No I do not Google myself everyday I simply know how to use the Internet efficiently.
2. You continue to state this lie and it has nothing to do with semantics,
“How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who supports others claiming his list is a scientific (although admittedly he carefully avoids using the word ‘scientific’) basis that challenges apparent confidence in the high likelihood of the existence of AGW, when even a quick gloss reveals contradictions and social/opinion articles?” – Mothincarnate
Show me where Adam has made the claim that no social science papers exist on the list as they do in the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report.
Show me where I made the claim that the list is a unified theory and not a resource.
[You don’t need to tell me – you’re list is AWESOME! It covers, as I state in my post, a random assortment of papers that have ever question anything remotely on the subject (scientific or otherwise), they’re contradictory – instead of proposing a coherent, plausible alternative, they promote misinformation and then excuse trolls bouncing around demanding that others debunk the whole thing! It’s laughable at best]
Yes the papers support criticisms of both the natural and social science aspects of the debate. You continue to state a strawman argument about the purpose of the list. The list is not a unified theory but a resource. It is not misinformation that these peer-reviewed papers exist. It is misinformation claiming otherwise. The only thing laughable is the irrefutable evidence I have provided demonstrating you deliberate false statements about my position in your posts.
3. You continue to fail to correct this, “How does asserting the scientific importance of Poptech’s self-contradictory list of random articles counter the conclusions largely held by the scientific community to the contrary?” – Mothincarnate
This is a strawman as no such argument was made. The list is presented as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed literature supporting skeptic arguments. The list is not self-contradictory because it is not a unified theory but a resource. It is used to counter the conclusions held by some in the scientific community.
[You under the alfoil hat because I’m sick of this circular conversation – you continue to bug me, demand that I should post everyone of your comments (I’ve done so for all that I had originally moved into the trash, but were able to recover – sorry for the others) and can’t see a basic fallacy in how others view your list. You might not make such claims, but you don’t correct your fan that do – making yourself just as bad, in my opinion. It’s not a strawman – my argument is a correct view of your random list, but you’re not arguing about that – you’re arguing that it’s not your claim. You’re list isn’t even a patchwork, it’s a haphazard collection of ideas that forms nothing coherent – you may not state otherwise, but that’s the claim I’m making about your list, not your conclusion of it]
Yes it is circular in your refusal to correct what I have provided irrefutable evidence for. I have repeatedly provided evidence for Adam’s position that I defended, which has nothing to do with your false statements about it. It is a strawman when you present an argument that I have never made and argue against it. That is the definition of what a strawman argument is. Again you repeat the other strawman that my list is presented as a unified theory. Prove it, show me where I have stated my list is a unified theory and not a resource. Without providing my position counter to yours, your statement is made to falsely imply that is the purpose of the list and thus a strawman.
4. That is not fixed, it is still a lie,
“the scientists who defended confidence in the AGW theory, in the face of misinformation agendas (The Heartland, Fraser and Marshall Institutes being classic examples of such erroneous outlets) simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists. ”
I have never made any such claim.
“Poptech defending an unchallengeable position – that scientists who defend a like stances as the publish work highlighted above (ie. the scientists who attempt to engage the public via the web regarding the misinformation campaigns of climate “scepticism”) and such websites as Sourcewatch who follow the money trail represent a small sheltered group of alarmists”
This is a lie, I was not referring to Sourcewatch with my statement but only the late Dr. Schneider and the scientists on RealClimate.org not any scientist who expressed confidence in AGW theory.
[Using you’re favourite side-step of Monckton, “I never brought up the IPCC, you did”. I refer (indeed reference above) the scientific literature, not the IPCC report itself. This, Andrew, is a strawman. On the other hand what about WG4? That’s the one most people seem to discuss – funny you focus elsewhere]
Your off topic tangent about Monckton has nothing to with the list mine does as you are criticizing the existence of social science papers on it. You still have failed to answer the question,
“Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report ‘relevant scientific literature’?”
[lol – I learnt about scientific scepticism, not burying my head in the sand, thanks]
If you have not read the books I recommended then you have not and are burying your head in the sand.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/01 at 12:49 am)
I am a computer analyst but I do not work for Blizzard. I agree I am likely the only person to care if misinformation is stated about me that is irrelevant to it being stated or me caring about it as I clearly do. I can 100% guarantee that Adam and myself are two different people. I always post as Poptech.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/01 at 1:00 am | In reply to David Green.)
Libertarians are not right wing, they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Yes they all support the right to own guns, they do not however support the initiation of force only in self-defense. So your example of abortion clinic murders was done by self described social conservatives who are heavily religious. Libertarians would never physically threaten another scientists like Ben Santer had done,
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)
You are free to choose to deleted and censor our comments that will do nothing to change them or make them go away in the debate.
LikeLike
I am not sure how I can be like the anti-vax crowd when I support vaccinations for all proven major diseases like smallpox, measles ect…
Receiving donations from energy companies does not make you guilty of anything. Dr. Michaels position on climate change has never changed due to any monetary donations. Prove that he held a certain position, received money and then changed it. You are confusing cause and effect. He held these position and then received money from organizations that held similar positions. There is nothing wrong or immoral about it.
The fact that you know absolutely jack about Climategate, childishly refuse to read a book I recommended (The Hockey Stick Illusion) explaining a major part of it and have no REMOTE idea about the “investigations” only demonstrates your ignorance. I have provide extensive documentation on it that you could read if you were not so ideologically afraid.
Stay in denial of climategate it only makes you look like an ignorant child.
LikeLike
The more I understand you, and the depths of warped perception you have to acquire to maintain such delusions, more more I feel sorry for you. You’re like the anti-vax crowd simply because you know, regardless of the copious evidence in the contrary.
There is an old phrase I like – ‘if you’re too open-minded, your brain might fall out.’
I try to be open minded, as much as can be sensibly excused but; I refuse to ignore a disturbing trend between funding and flawed argument (did you watch the video I liked to? Michaels seems to make a few mistakes to maintain his point); I refuse to entertain “climategate” conspiracies because 1) every one of the (exceedingly few) quotes used by people like yourself are taking out of context or in the case such as your quoted line, just a bloke venting and, 2) 5 official investigations, with no financial gain in doing so as opposed to ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ which seems to be riding a cash cow; I refuse to concede that there might be fairies, Santa clause (but cheers for the silly comparison btw – did you see my note on the other post in reply?), alien abductions or bigfoot – regardless of how close the witness of such an event is to me personally; I refuse to believe The Heartland Institute has the average person’s health, security and economic security at heart, but rather pro-industry over regulation – based on the evidence etc…
Sorry, I’m a fan of how scientific reasoning investigated and develops our understanding. You can keep those books and the folks on the oil pay roll to yourself.
Incidental, for someone whom moans about being taking wrong and expecting my correcting such claims; “”Mothincarnate” is a dishonest and deranged individual who cannot debate skeptics so he censors their replies and instead attempts to smear them with lies. This includes dishonestly claiming they ignored or failed to reply to something he said after he deleted the comment where they made the reply! This is a typical propaganda tactic alarmists use to pretend they can win an argument.”
Have I not endeavoured to make the corrects or explained why I’ve not changed on your request? On creating under the alfoil hat, have I not reproduced your comments that I’d previously trashed and apologised for those I could not restore? How can such a statement be accurate of me?
“It is interesting to see his concern about this when he claims to have thousands of “references” in the IPCC report supporting his position. The fact that he is even attempting this demonstrates the perceived threat the Popular Technology.net list is to him. Is he scared rational, independent and open-minded people might not support his alarmist mantra?”
I’ve never claimed “to have thousands of “references” in the IPCC report supporting [my] position” – that’s a blatant lie. You brought up the IPCC, not I. Have I not explained that I’m not an “alarmist” – hardly concerned by “catastrophic” predictions, more sensible risk management? As above – I’d also argue that I am indeed open-minded – just not so much that I entertain fairies, santa, an evil communist UN (not that I’m suggest you are either), gangs of climate scientists planning drive-bys on fellow scientists, that it’s merely a coincidence that deeply entrenched contrarian scientists are also funded by oil… etc
Honestly, for someone making such a fuss about being misrepresented, you pull such a hilariously hypocritical act yourself, don’t you. As is mentioned in the other comment, I’d be happy to remove all that is written around the list (and leave you in good faith of doing the same with your own attack on me) and replace it with the short point as discussed. I’ll leave it up to you.
LikeLike
You don’t understand me let alone my arguments. It is not possible for someone (you) ignorant of an issue like Climategate to feel sorry for someone else knowledgeable about it (myself). You refuse to read the book I recommended on the issue and refuse to read the supporting documents on it that I have provided. That is denial.
I’ve seen that video before. You have failed to demonstrate how funding has influenced his position. You are simply smearing him based on your made up nonsense.
I am well aware you refuse to become knowledgeable about Climategate that way you can repeat your ignorant statements about it and “feel” intelligent.
5 investigations that don’t actually investigate the issue and are not independent from bias towards the ones they are investigating is are a joke. If you were intellectually honest you would read the following documents,
The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (52 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (50 pgs) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
You have not retracted your lie that the Heartland Institute believes or has ever supported the notion that smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease.
You have failed to correct the lies 1-4 in the other post that I have repeatedly pointed out. You refuse to allow my comments on the original threads to defend myself and did censor them. I have noted that you are letting them through but to this post.
I have corrected the sentence about the IPCC report to say, “It is interesting to see his concern about this when it is frequently claimed by alarmists that there are thousands of these “references” in the IPCC report. ”
So long as you use “Denial” I will use Alarmist.
You are clearly not open minded because you refuse to read two books I recommended.
I left it up to you before and you then stated massive lies and misinformation about my work. Refusing to correct these only makes you look bad.
LikeLike
[It’s your choice to ignore his funding and that he made a number of errors as is it my choice not to ignore his funding the his many errors]
I don’t understand if an energy company makes monetary donations to someone that makes that person evil and corrupts his work? Prove it, otherwise stop smearing him because you believe energy companies to be evil and thus anyone remotely associated with them evil as well.
[A handful of scientists sharing private emails, venting and talking in short-hand among equally trained peers has the potential to be misinterpreted by a larger audience who has no personal experience with the people involved and relevant training in the fields – people like yourself provide a classic case and point]
Please keep demonstrating your absolute ignorance on the issue. Did you get your talking points from a Guardian article on the issue? It is absolutely embarrassing. Maybe one day you will learn how to research something before ignorantly commenting on it.
[Science and Public policy? Monckton’s nest of lies? If I had any intellectually honest?!? Sorry, I’m not game to jump down that rabbit hole, but I see you are. Again, you know the emails incriminate those scientists and undermine the AGW theory.. enough said]
Oh yes Monckton, your insane obsession never ceases. The link is a reprint and used to host the paper. I am sure you are never game to be intellectually honest about anything. This is why you are like a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and runs away. I made no such idiotic statement about the emails “undermining AGW theory” but your delusions never cease.
You have not retracted your lie that the Heartland Institute believes or has ever supported the notion that smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease.
[Grow up – your comments are moved.. They’re still linked back to their original place. As explained 3. is wrong – either the list is “…800 peer reviewed scientific papers…” or “a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative, but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW “scepticism”. I can’t correct 1. without understanding how it was done. As it stands, you keep an active search on people talking about you. 2. follows 3 – both effectively dealt with the same answer. 4.. ? Do you wish for me to refine it to only refer to E&E? But do not SourceWatch, RC etc smear others?? I don’t get your problem here]
Yes my comments are censored off the posts so you can belittle them by moving them here. That is still censorship in my book. Go try reading my many posts on what is wrong with the comments. At this point it doesn’t matter to me because your dishonesty about them is fully documented at my site and will be made available to ANYONE who mentions your post. Your refusal to correct them only damages your integrity (what little is left).
[That’s still irrelevant as I couldn’t care less about the IPCC report itself]
That is great, so you just discredited yourself on having any ability to know what you are talking about on this issue.
[I don’t care – keep it. I’ve made my feelings clear on alarmism and don’t care if you or anyone else calls me an alarmist – it’s blatantly wrong and just makes the accuser look silly]
Oh you don’t like it? But you are a big boy calling everyone a denier and in denial then lying about what they said.
[Hey, you’re not open minded because you haven’t read Dianetics, the released government reports on UFO activity, the Koran, the Bible, any one of Gordon Smiths books or this little gem I fell upon (only read the free section on Amazon, but man was it a good laugh) The End of the Mystery etc etc.. When Adam has offered an actually paper, I’ve read it – checked it’s references etc, but you need to be sensible, or else risk wasting your life wading through the crap. I’m open-minded, but critical. If you need to refer to grey lit to back you up, you’ve lost me.]
Talking with you is like talking to a child. I’ve offered you science backed books, not conspiracy theories but ones fully cited to the science and evidence to support their arguments. I realize you never read books as that is below you.
[Keep stating that – maybe it’ll come true! “Refusing to correct these” – Haven’t I endeavoured to correct where you’ve asked, posted as many of your comments as I can and explained my reasoning where we’ve not seen eye to eye? Clearly “refusing” isn’t the right word]
You haven’t corrected 1-4 and have left your lies up. These are not debatable issues on what I said and what you lied about. I have irrefutable proof of my comments and the nonsense you fabricated about them.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/02 at 10:08 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
1. The same way I find out about every other comment about my work online, the methods of which I will not divulge to you. You don’t have to say anything except to stop implying it was magic or that Adam told me about it.
2. You have still not corrected the lies.
I condoned nothing other then say,
“Adam has a very good point as many people do not take the time or simply ignore the scientific arguments being made by those they are criticizing. ” – Poptech
You took that comment and created a strawman argument as I was interpreting what Adam later confirmed was his intent,
“I didn’t mean for mothincarnate to do exactly what I was saying. I was just trying to say that he should actually provide evidence for his claims and actually try and have a valid argument against the list. He has not shown anything wrong with it at all.” – Adam
I don’t believe there is a scientific consensus so it is not possible for me to believe the list challenges something I do not believe exists. I do believe the list supports skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm.
3. You have still not corrected the lies.
No you are not correct in stating nonsense. It is a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. A few of the papers are mutually exclusive but they cannot contradict each other because the list is not a unified theory but a resource. Stating new lies about the list will not help you look any less ridiculous.
[As stated above, at least one of your readers thinks it stands as a serious challenge to the AGW theory, but I stress it cannot as it is not entirely scientific papers, not a conglomeration of rigorously tested ideas that come to a high level of confidence behind another opposing conclusion to the AGW theory – but rather a catalogue of articles that effectively ‘kick the tyre to test the pressure’ (referring to our original conversation) and social/economic articles that question social consequences, not the science. If you concur, then I will delete what I have written about you on the list, stating only as much as this and be done with it.]
What Adam has stated is quite clear,
“I gave you 800 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW/AGW alarm.” – Adam
You stating a lie about him saying otherwise is getting old. You can correct your lies anytime you want. The fact that you refuse only makes you look bad.
4. You have still not corrected the lies.
What I said about SourceWatch was quite clear.
“You have provide misinformation about the journal from sites with vested interests to smear it – Sourcwatch, the late Dr. Schneider’s personal site and RealClimate.org. That is not being objective, that is attempting to attack the journal for ideological reasons.” – Poptech
To support this statement,
Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)
“A project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), […]
These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities… […]
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate — we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” […]
…The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.”
The fact that you cannot follow conversations you are having is very telling. Feel free to delete my comments as they will be duplicated on my site to expose your dishonesty.
[I’ve not read them. I’ve read WG4, but otherwise nothing else. I’ve been part of a large scientific/governmental report before and prefer to avoid them as much as possible. So, no comment really and I don’t need to – the scientific literature is loud enough]
There is no WG4 section of the 2007 IPCC report (AR4). Do you even know what you are talking about? Do you have any idea what I am talking about?
[lol – okay. Maybe they should be compulsory reading in high schools along side books that argue against evolution, because, all we want it to teach the controversy.. I’ve heard it all before – why not refer the copious relevant scientific literature – that together build a coherent picture? Oh, that’s right – it pretty much disagrees.]
Each one of these silly posts just demonstrates your ignorance on this issue. You clearly have not heard any of this before because if you read these books you would realize they do not reject AGW theory. Your fear of reading two books is all I need to know about your ideology.
LikeLike
I see that you corrected the misinformation I pointed out and have updated my page that this has been done.
[Pathetic… how can I correct it if I don’t know your “efficient ways” for keeping up-to-date with if people are talking about you (I’d still suggest such methods are very telling of your personality anyway)… I mentioned you once.. in a comment thread.. to a troll… You then pop-up out of nowhere. As if I don’t have a right to ask how and why and also to wonder about the personally required to employ such methods.. ]
I am a computer analyst, knowing how to use the Internet efficiently is not surprising to anyone else who knows how. You can ask but I am not going to reveal my methods. None of this changes the fact that I found your post on my own. The list has generated an enormous amount of misinformation about it from those attempting to criticize it so these methods are necessary.
[I have provided a valid argument against the list as a serious challenge to the theory of AGW – it’s just a random catalogue of papers, from natural science and social science to economic papers]
It is a strawman argument as the list is not a unified theory against AGW, it is a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm.
[There you have it – your inconsistency. Is Adam correct in saying, “…800 peer reviewed scientific papers…” or are you in saying, “…it is not a unified theory but a resource…”, and, “Adam, who has never made any claim that no social science papers exist on the list”, and, “No claim is made that the list is only of natural science papers (though many of these exist on the list) but rather that they are all peer-reviewed.” > Please elaborate. Is the list as Adam states, “”…800 peer reviewed scientific papers…” or more loosely (as I’ve stated before) a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative, but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW “scepticism”? I’d argue that this is the crux of our problem , Andrew]
The term “scientific” can include social science papers, this is why I like to use the terms “natural science” and “social science”. My point still stands I have never hear Adam claim that no social science papers exist on the list.
Your characterization is completely wrong, the list is intended to be (but not yet is) a comprehensive resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. I do not discriminate between any competing theories as I am not attempting to provide my own unified theory but a resource for all of them. That is one of the primary goals the other is to prove these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.
[As explained, now that I have a home for people like you, I have no need to delete your comment, for all your wonder in duplication… As you say, “dishonestly claiming they ignored or failed to reply to something he said after he deleted the comment where they made the reply!” which is obviously complete bullshit. Anyway, I’m not sure what you’re say is wrong. You think Sourcewatch, Schneider and RealClimate are incorrectly smearing E&E – do you have a problem with me generalising it further?]
You stated this at skeptical science about me ignoring your statements. I have no problem with you repeating what I actually stated. Regardless I removed this paragraph.
[You’ve got two options, either I have read it, as would suit your erroneous claim that I claim “to have thousands of “references” in the IPCC report supporting his position.” or, as I state, “I’ve been part of a large scientific/governmental report before and prefer to avoid them as much as possible. So, no comment really and I don’t need to – the scientific literature is loud enough,” and assume I’ve, at best glossed over the IPCC reports, instead preferring to refer to scientific paper… You can’t have it both ways]
I’ve changed this statement.
[lol – okay. Maybe they should be compulsory reading in high schools along side books that argue against evolution, because, all we want it to teach the controversy.. I’ve heard it all before – why not refer the copious relevant scientific literature – that together build a coherent picture? Oh, that’s right – it pretty much disagrees.]
This is just silly. Both books do not reject AGW theory.
[I simply have no interest reading those books – you go on about them like door-knockers go on about the bible. For your information, I’ve had a fair amount of interaction with creations, various spiritualists and New Agers. I’ve often been told that I’d learn something they didn’t teach in Uni about evidence against evolution, “proven energy in stones”, case studies that demonstrate the healing power of “water memory” etc… Again, my work history and the scientific literature available largely supports an opposing conclusion to the one you’re pushing, in fact after reading your own attempt to rebut me and the claims you make of me and what conclusions you’ve drawn over mined quotes from private emails, I seriously question many of the conclusions you draw from the evidence. Personally, I’d like to be done with this trivial exchange. If you can explain how 4. needs to be corrected, I will do so (as I see fit) and your other points, especially regarding my views on the IPCC and 3. remain conflicting from your own interpretation. As previously stated, if your list represents only a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative, but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW “scepticism” rather than, as Adam, put it, “800 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting skeptisicm of AGW/AGW alarm”, I’m happy to remove the entire content around the list, hope too that you’re grown-up enough to correct your own misrepresentations of me and be done with this entire, boring mess.]
The Skeptical Environmentalist’s author for instance is highly credentialed,
Bjørn Lomborg, M.A. Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1991), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1994), Assistant Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1994-1996), Associate Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1997-2005), Director, Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI), Denmark (2002-2004), Organizer, Copenhagen Consensus (2004), Adjunct Professor of Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (2005-Present), Director, Copenhagen Consensus Center (2006-Present)
Since I am religiously agnostic I take offense to such comparisons as the books I suggested are not religious in the least. Lomborg’s is heavily cited to empirical facts and the scientific literature.
Like I said I have updated my post to state that you have corrected those criticisms.
LikeLike
“I am a computer analyst, knowing how to use the Internet efficiently is not surprising to anyone else who knows how. You can ask but I am not going to reveal my methods. “
I see, so it’s ok for YOU to be a stalker and not reveal your methods.
LikeLike
[Basically my conclusion of your list correct then. It doesn’t stand as a competing idea, just a collection that means nothing as a whole. I’m fine with that. As science methodology actually requires retesting and complimentary independent inquiry that tend to draw the same conclusion as a basis for confidence, your list might be a resource, but regardless of size, it’s still pretty flimsy. It’s not a counter-weight provide even keel for valid AGW scepticism, but simply a place for musing.]
As a whole it also does not refute hurricane damage and alarm due to AGW, as a whole it also does not refute the scientific credibility of An Inconvenient Truth, as a whole it does not support the Cosmic Ray theory of climate change. While individually many of these papers do. Yes you can create a strawman argument for whatever you like, none of which changes the purpose of the list as a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.
Oh it certainly does provide extensive support for skepticism of AGW Alarm.
[I know who Lomborg is, as I stated when you first mentioned him. I’ve read reviews on his book and saw the trailer for his “Cool It” video – it seems a laughable event of self-glorification… […] No, if I don’t like the character I see, I don’t care how much others think of them and am allowed to steer clear of their puffed up ego. Also, why should I read a book written by a political scientist (which you and Ridley assure me is a great read and is something Lomborg acquires royalties from) when instead I can get my information directly from the science literature? I’ve explained this too you on many occasions (which includes at best glossing over the IPCC reports).
Re: offence: grow up! Geez.. You’ve clearly not run into many such books (that “End of the Mystery” is a real crack up, but another that also attempts to be empirical, written by a lawyer is titled, God actually). I was not implying that your book was religious, but merely that there are many books out there that push a certain view, apparently backed up by evidence – the creationists and New Agers are a great current example of this. Again, I refer instead to the scientific literature. You’ve said that I’m an alarmist when I’m clearly not; my main point on this site from day one was to promote innovation and increasingly sustainable human activity. I got dragged into this blasted AGW debate because I suggest that market structures highly dependent on a limited resource – especially oil, which is peaking and incredibly important to almost every aspect of human activity – are unsustainable and we should diversify such markets while the energy is still cheap and easy to assist in such change – hardly alarmism). You said that I’m like a child terrified of learning the truth about santa: clearly fictitious as I’ve explained that if handed a relevant science paper, I’ll read it and research more if I found it compelling enough as was the case with Adam when he handed me a paper or two. That I won’t give your books a shot sounds a lot like the criticism I received when a witness offered me a book; Life: How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (which too, I might add, tries to sound empirical). You’ve stated over and over that I’ve lied which is obviously wrong as I have actually taken the time to try to understand what you’re concerns are and how I might have taken you wrong, fixed what I agreed with and explained my reasoning when I’ve not changed it – I’ve acknowledged what you’ve said – it hardly implicates lying and censorship! Oh and apparently I’m deranged; I had a good laugh about that. What pricked your ear up on the existence of my blog was a single utterance of your screen name in a comment thread, where I implied you to be a loon – I fixed that: again, hardly seems correct, appropriate or meaningful to imply such things as those listed above on your thread now does it?
I’m sure if you took a step back, actually read through some of my posts (for times sake, focusing on the Innovation and Ecology tab above) you’ll realise I’m not an unreasonable hair-shirt green but rather a bit of a nerd for innovation, synergy, improvement and sustainability. You’ve been moved to this page solely because the level of anger and aggression (something Adam, Pete and roger took further and Elsa is just plan strange). GWSH was a funny and interesting idea, certainly sarcastic and satirical, but it drew in such nastiness. I tried to comment there, but such nastiness drew even me away (Adam, yourself, and especially RedJeff such made it unpleasant). I certainly don’t want that happening here. Again, have a look around, far from being alarmist, I’m much more positive – we’ve made a mess and are little over-weight, but we can live and learn from this. Thus nastiness was originally deleted, now is moved here.
This is the problem with this public debate over climate change – it’s not an educated scientific debate, it’s a political sport match between “Deniers” and “Alarmist”.. There’s no middle ground, no compromise, no room to admit mistakes and deep entrenchment. It’s a winless, pointless battle. I’m not interested in it. It’s paralysis under the guise of sport. When we work together as a species, we achieve near miracles. Look at the cold war space race. Indeed look at the the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. I’d hope war wouldn’t be the driving force, but commitment to an ever improving standard of living and protection of biodiversity should provide ample motivation for continuing the trend of our forefathers. Instead, we have FoxNews, the endless AGW debate and SUV-fixation. This isn’t the best we can be; but that is the problem as I see it – business as usual is “good enough”. Well it’s let of lot of our species down and driven many other species to extinction. We should continue that tradition of improvement. I’m neither an alarmist or a denier – I think the whole thing is just nonsense and a real injustice to our modern faculties. Adam set me off with a challenge that I saw as illogical. That’s all that happened here. I’ve since improved to a point where I now made it clear why attempting to discredit each article would be meaningless. I’m happy to let bygones be bygones if your willing to let go of such needless anger and subtle hatred expressed in your rebuttal thread.]
Bjorn Lomborg is fully qualified to research and discuss what he does in his books, facts and statistics relating to the environment – he taught statistics. He actually like you did not believe what someone else had to say, in this case much of what Julian Simon was stating in his books and set out to research it for himself. What he found out was that the facts and empirical evidence Dr. Simon was presenting was largely accurate. His results are in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. None of which has anything to do with rejecting AGW, it does have to do with rejecting environmentalist exaggerations. You don’t have to buy the book, you can get it from the library.
You claim not to be an alarmist but react like one. If you are truly not then read the Skeptical Environmentalist. I have not demanded you read all the papers on my list, or do anything else but suggested you read a book. If you don’t like it after reading it, I will accept it but it is the best example I have for you to understand where I and other skeptics are coming from. If you find it somewhat reasonable then read The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Any sort of religious text has to do with faith not science and has absolutely nothing to do with the books I mentioned. Constantly referring to “creationists” and other nonsense has no relation to what I presented and is a distraction.
My problem from day one was with your statements that had nothing to do with what I actually said or meant. Now that you have changed the text, I have updated a new rebuttal to address where I disagree with the new text and it does not include the more aggressive language.
LikeLike
“You claim not to be an alarmist but react like one.”
You claim to not be a denier but act, react, talk, smell exactly like one.
LikeLike
Did you ever see that Southpark episode where they had MJ, who would always reply to criticism, “you’re just ignorant!”?
When I get to a computer first thing in the morning, log on to my site and find Poptech with all his pending comments, always replying, “that’s a strawman argument…” or “you’re just smearing..” I can’t help but be reminded of that episode. The thing that makes ad hom and strawman arguments fundamentally weak (to a keen observer) is that they don’t actually refute the claims. In this comment, I demonstrate an exact way to respond to false claims. In fact, with all my exchanges with Andrew, when he has challenged me, I’ve engaged back – both agreeing and modifying my statements where I see if and explaining my reasoning where I disagree. This is how a debate is carried out.
He on the other hand quickly builds strawmen – by stating all that I do is a strawman or a smear rather than explaining why it is wrong (he also ignores parts he doesn’t like – I asked him the question about his list for instance on numerous occasions only to finally get a response once I posted this question on my blog). Instead of challenging my reasoning, he challenges me to prove it’s not a smear – which is self-evidently not true. It’s a cheap and dirty trick to avoid a real debate while seemingly taking the high road. I’m about done wasting my time on such a person.
LikeLike
You have perpetually stated the same strawman arguments over and over. If you understood what a stawman argument is you would realize I do not have to show why it is wrong only that I am not arguing that.
That is a lie, I don’t ignore anything. You don’t reply to my comments but edit them with your comments making it more difficult to try to post a reply. Try replying to comments instead of editing them and try leaving them where I originally posted them. You create a jumbled mess of a discussion and then complain about it.
BTW I replied to that comment but it never showed up on your site.
LikeLike
See this is how I know you are not intellectually honest. You will not read Lomborg’s book but quickly look for anything to attack it. Every published criticism of Lomborg’s work has been refutted,
Kåre Fog – Lomborg Errors:
– Short reply to Skeptical Questions, Sustainable Answers (PDF) (11pgs) (Bjorn Lomborg)
– (Danish) Goodness Price, Policy Without Criticism: Bjørn Lomborg & Ulrik Larsen (PDF) (185pgs) (Bjorn Lomborg)
I am not reading anything you suggest until you read Lomborg’s book. You are too scared to do so.
Regardless I am familiar with the one paper,
Comment On The Science Paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature” By Lacis Et Al 2010 (Roger Pielke Sr., Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, CIRES)
It is clear you will continue to attempt to smear everyone you disagree with by attempting to compare them to religious groups. Sad and pathetic.
LikeLike
“See this is how I know you are not intellectually honest. You will not read Lomborg’s book but quickly look for anything to attack it.”
If you have the balls to say “I don’t do the same for people I criticize” we can continue this discussion.
To Moth: Yes, I have seen that episode. And I know how Andrew argues the day I started my blog, all his comments are essentially that, denial denial denial. Complain that we lie, or are wrong to call him a denier.
It is clear you will continue to attempt to smear everyone you disagree with by attempting to compare them to religious groups. Sad and pathetic.
We don’t ATTEMPT to smear people, we don’t ATTEMPT to compare people to religious people, if we want to make the comparison, we will. If you don’t like being compared to religious people, don’t call us “zealots” or “alarmist” and then say we use ad hominem attacks.
I am not reading anything you suggest until you read Lomborg’s book. You are too scared to do so.
GOLD MINE! The key indicator of a denier is he’ll NEVER do what he asks of you. So he demands YOU waste time reading what HE recommends, before he does the same (usually regardless of whether one is a book, one is a blog post or one is a scientific article, that is to say, he expects you to give equal attention and weight to scientific articles and books written by non-scientists).
LikeLike
It is clear you have no intent on being intellectually honest, so don’t bother recommending I read anything when you refuse to read what I recommended.
I see you have no comment to Lomborg’s rebutal. What did you forget your intellectual honesty when looking for only the smear of his work and not any comment from him on it?
Criticizing is not what you are doing, you are attempting to smear the list which is why you intentionally word things the way you do. You have demonstrated yourself to have no intellectual honesty and therefore not worthy of continuing any sort of debate with.
LikeLike
I see you are going to ban Adam but let this Internet Stalker’s comments through. Something you should know about IPKA,
“…can’t stalk you if you shut the fuck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – IPKA, Bud, Walt M.
That is all I need to know about your lack of Integrity Moth. This will be noted on my page, that you are a hypocrite and allow comments from an admitted Internet Stalker.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/05 at 11:03 am | In reply to Poptech.)
“No – actually, I’m making a point about the results of good science compared to grabbing random papers that together obscure these results without providing a sensible alternative in their own right (except to make a pointless argument that such papers indeed exist).”
I still consider the analogy meaningless. I am not grabbing random papers and you just repeat your perpetual strawman about it not being unified theory. It is not a pointless argument that these papers exist as it is frequently claimed they do not.
“No I never make the claim that all have been rejected. You of all people should be aware that a number of them have been highly criticised – you also post some of the rebuttals. Thus some have failed or are no longer acceptable in light of newer evidence.”
I never made any such claim either. Your implication does not fit your analogy because the rejected bin would only exist on the production line from the manufacturer. Thus this can only be implied to mean the author or journal publisher neither of which have rejected these papers. I have frequently admitted that some of them have been criticized but these criticisms have been rebutted. The existence of a criticism does not mean a paper has “failed” or is “no longer acceptable”.
“No – I say the only purpose it to provide a resource and demonstrate that such papers indeed exist.”
This is in relation to “…There is no meaningful expression in the assortment.” and I changed it to falsely implies.
“No, it proves such papers exist, but it does not demonstrate any coherent conclusion at all”
That is not what is stated, “…Such a list does nothing to prove or disprove anything.”
“you admit that it is not a unified theory.”
Yes I have admitted you have stated this strawman argument many times.
“You do actually read what I write? I point out that you admit this – are you making a strawman argument about your own list? Bloody hell, this is stupid.”
Yes you admit it but keep bringing up the same strawman anyway, “It’s just a random collection that supports no conclusions of any sort at all.”
“You problem with semantics which I’ve explained.”
Not at all I believe your description to be nonsensical and false.
“Not “would” – I never stated that. But after explaining why I’ve come to my conclusions and suggestion that you “should” (must) come to an equal conclusion. It’s my opinion, which by all rights I’m entitled to. You don’t need to agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that this quote is wrong.”
I changed this to falsely implies.
“Again, this is a bitch about semantics. You say it’s a resource for AGW “sceptics”, I sat it’s a resource for trolls.”
It is more than that as it is patently false. The list was not created for this purpose regardless of the word used. Though yours is much more derogatory.
“Get over it – I at least state when they are not. You insist that the SCI list is irrelevant (you even finish this post by stating as much! lol) – you can’t have it both ways. This is a more pathetic strawman Andrew. It’s not hypocritical that I include them and so far I’ve got less than 10 of close to 300 papers. I flag them so that readers can check the journals credentials for themselves – I don’t blindly let them use references from journals willing to publish papers of an iron made sun! lol. I’m no longer making the point about your list and SCI listing (what is said in other comments is done and dusted).”
I did not deny that you flagged them but it certainly is hypocritical when you apply one standard to skeptic’s journals and another to your list. Either SCI is a requirement or it is irrelevant, you cannot have it both ways. I have demonstrated it is irrelevant to whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not.
The paper you are referring to failed peer-review and could thus only be published as an opinion piece.
I accept your rejection of SCI as a requirement for a journal to be scientifically valid.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/05 at 11:39 am | In reply to Poptech.)
I’ve updated my rebuttal,
11. He has no problem letting a self admitted Internet Stalker post on his Blog to harass me,
“…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – IPKA, Bud, Walt M.
LikeLike
So you endorse Internet Stalking and harassment? If not you are by allowing him to post.
LikeLike
Andrew, what I do is no different than what you do. Speak my opinion, bash trolls, debunk lies, and find where it’s necessary. You call what I do “harassment” because you are afraid of facts and confrontation, you only pick on people whom don’t know your tactics, I’ve learned them. So the fact you run off every place I find you, is your fault, not mine. I do not “stalk” you, I find mistakes and correct them, or I find trolls and embarrass them.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/06 at 11:22 pm | In reply to ipka.)
Do you support internet stalkers? Do you support people who harass others? I have provided irrefutable evidence in his own words that he stalks me and since you allow him to post that is confirmation you support his behavior.
LikeLike
No Andrew, you didn’t provide any “irrefutable” evidence, you just convinced yourself you’re right and deny everything other people say. My behavior here hasn’t violated any of Moth’s guidelines, nor do I intend to. I don’t need to be rude to somebody like you. You seem to think that what happens elsewhere needs to be dragged into every site and all sites need to block me because of your personal problem with me. By that logic, we should block you from every site given what you’ve done at some point, some time, to some people (according to you, I only need to find one).
LikeLike
I agree, you’ve not, as Andrew has done, insulted, resorted to name calling and childish peer-pressure challenges, spammed (and used “efficient” methods to spam anywhere my list post may be linked), ignored or avoided genuine intellectual discussion by providing a view and simply stated any counter-point is a “smear”… No, of the actions thus far carried out on my blog by either you or Andrew should lead any sensible person to ignore and censor Andrew if anyone. Of course, when I attempted to do this, Andrew chucked a major spit, insulted the hell out of me, incorrectly labelled me a deranged, intellectually dishonest liar, with very little integrity that fears facing the “truth of my ideology” like scared little child being told that there’s no santa, who is out to smear Andrew and those he supports with random strawmen. I attempted to correct any fallacious comments I made about him (something he has largely ignored and not corrected himself in his characterisation of me) and tried to continue a reasonable conversation. Now, hypocritically, after his endless ranting about me, my work, my refusal to change my stance on Lomborg or the Heartland Insititute and my apparent censorship (which still persists in his mind because I refuse to leave his posts all over my blog to graffiti it up) he insists I censor someone else whom he has a problem with elsewhere? I’ve been sure that Adam is a teenager for some time, but Andrew is certainly an adult – but his activities, whilst I’m still sure he is an adult, remind me of the egotistical blinkered vision akin to that of puberty.
LikeLike
Then I will have no problem letting Adam post his position on these events on my site.
LikeLike
FYI,
I actually heard Lomborg being interviewed on Hack on the way home today and I have to say that I largely agree with him. If you got over your immature blind rage for a few moments, you’d realise in my writing that I don’t believe bio-fuels will save us, I don’t think penalising carbon emission is productive, I don’t think a few degrees increase is necessarily devastating (providing better awareness, education and policies are utilised – this is where your work is a big FAIL) and the true way to progress is in innovation and development. He and I seem to meet on many fronts – more than I suggest the two of you do as you still seem to think the AGW theory is highly suspect, something Lomborg doesn’t seem to agree with.
As usual, I have to conclude that it’s the fight and the attention that you’re after and not scientific understanding.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/03 at 10:33 pm | In reply to Scott Mandia.)
The Skeptical Science link has been completely refuted and shown that his number is meaningless because it is base on erroneous results,
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
LikeLike
They have since corrected the numbers and the point stands.
That your list of articles is extremely small compared to all articles available on the topic.
LikeLike
False, my post is updated to address that. The “updated” numbers are meaningless because they are unverifiable and are based on erroneous results. These erroneous results include,
Lulu Dark Can See Through Walls [Book] (B. Madison, 2006)
“When someone steals her purse and her identity, high-school junior and reluctant girl sleuth Lulu Dark investigates.”
Is this one of the high impact journals skeptics cannot get published in?
LikeLike
Moth, he is not after attention, he is after scaring people into thinking AGW is not worth any regulations, no matter how true/untrue it is.
If all government agencies said “We’ll tax nobody and regulate nothing, even though AGW is completely true and worth alarming over” He’ll shut up, because it doesn’t hurt his pocket, that’s all he cares about.
I agree with most anti-regulatory arguments, that it may do more harm than good, and will not necessarily save us from AGW’s negative impact. I know the difference between “I don’t want to pay a Holocaust memorial tax” and “The Holocaust didn’t happen”.
Do deniers know the difference between “I don’t want to pay a carbon tax” and “There’s no CO2 that’s ever causing climate change”?
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
(Orginally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 11:08 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
The Stalker has not chased me off any sites, I have simply had nothing further to comment on them or my comments were censored.
I see Mothincarnate continues to lie that I ignored him or when he does not get an immediate response declares I did not respond or some other propaganda tactic. It is not possible to reply properly when you edit someone’s posts and move them from their original location. So I am not bothering rereading my posts that have been moved to try and decipher what you commented on and where.
My rebuttal has been updated to correct these lies.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 11:11 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
I ignore the Stalker’s comments but have refuted all the nonsense everyone else has stated, especially all that you have here. Your lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are fully documented in my rebuttal and will be archived indefinitely.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 11:33 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
All of those have been completely refuted in detail,
Rebuttal to “450 more lies from the climate change Deniers”
Rebuttal to “Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies”
Rebuttal to “Meet the Denominator”
Rebuttal to Mothincarnate
The GWSH post was completely refuted in the comments to it.
The evidence is in the comments to the list, I have received many more emails from other credentialed scientists. A small sample of these include Dr. Goklany, Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen, Dr. Carter, Dr. Motl, Dr. Singer, Dr. Green, Dr. Hoffman ect… All have PhDs and relevant scientific training.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 11:35 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
Again you edit and reply in my comment, it is impossible for me to know you have replied without manually checking the post to see if you did. Why are you unable to reply normally so I receive an email that you did? Oh that is right, this way you can lie and claim I am unable to reply to you as use it as propaganda.
LikeLike
Again you childishly censor my replies to this section. Time to update my rebuttal.
LikeLike
I am very sensible and always debate in only a logical fashion. Someone not agreeing with your subjective opinion has nothing to do with “not debating in a logical fashion”.
Your censorship of my comments to your “punishment room” has been noted in my rebuttal. It only makes you look like a child but you don’t care about how you look so it should have no effect on your thinking.
LikeLike
Calling me a stalker and ignoring my comments isn’t “sensible”.
Anybody notice that he admitted he “ignored my comments” and not “nonsense”? He admits my comments are not nonsense!
LikeLike
Andrew, calling people troll, liar, stalker is childish.
LikeLike
I’m done being baited into his world through what can only be described as peer-pressure insults. If I don’t respond, or don’t meet his expectations, I’m any one of his various slurs. It’s something I’ve not seen since I left high school. I’d like to count how many times he has in all his comments here, written “liar/lie” “child/childish” “smear” “stawman” “misinformation” “propaganda” “intellectually dishonest” etc, how many times he’s reminded me that it’s going on to his rebuttal thread, how many plugs to his own pages and how many times he’s referred to actual science (instead of, “I don’t believe it is a problem”). I’m sure it will be heavily skewed to the former; his argument is little more than catch-phrases and side steps, without my substantiation. He’s simply full of it and if he thinks it should be find for my censoring of you and not to reply to you himself, I don’t see why he should expect me to pay him any favours.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 11:55 am | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
I don’t sit around and visit your site as I don’t care about it. I only posted here to correct all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you made about my list. I have addressed all these in my rebuttals. I am not going to perpetually monitor your site to see if you edited one of my posts. When you learn how to properly reply to a comment and leave the comments where I placed them I will consider responding to them. In the mean time feel free to run around lying that I am not responding to your comments fast enough because I have no idea that your responded or you have moved them making it impossible to properly follow the discussion anymore.
Regarding your “clarification” what sort of delusional insane reasoning would lead you to believe I would accept you nonsensical and false strawman arguments? Unless I say “I accept that”. Take it as NO every time.
LikeLike
Ahahaha.
Andrew says “I don’t sit around and visit your site as I don’t care about it.”
But when you put out a list, with substance, he complains : “The fact that he is even attempting this demonstrates the perceived threat the Popular Technology.net list is to him. Is he scared rational, independent and open-minded people might not support his alarmist mantra? I say yes.”
Same guy we’re talking about here? Of course, hypocrite Andrew. He pretends to not care, but he stalks your site for things to troll, and then accuses me of stalking him. By Andrew’s logic, the fact he EVER replies or writes “rebuttals” is because he knows we are a threat to his credibility and agenda (I don’t need to say who’s rational and scientific, the fact he is threatened and annoyed is all that matters now). He’s afraid of independent readers thinking for themselves and not buying everything he says.
LikeLike
Heh I found this amusing also – Andrew your a terrible liar.
LikeLike
Really, what did I lie about? I don’t visit this site, I don’t even care about it – Seriously. I only come here if I am alerted that you commented on my work. In this case I received an email that you replied to my comment. I realize all these advancements in technology are above your heads but this is not my problem.
LikeLike
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 12:00 pm | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
Efficiently having a conversation in a WordPress blog is using the built in email feature that notifies me of your replies. I understand you don’t know how the technology workds. Since you have no interest in having an honest discussion but continue to edit my posts so I will be unable to know your replied without perpetually monitoring the comments, get used to not getting replies to your comments.
I have already documented your propaganda tactic in my rebuttal so every single person on the planet who knows how WordPress works will see your dishonestly in claiming I did not reply by the tactics you are using. It may fool computer illiterates but not those intellectually honest.
LikeLike
Wow you are absolutely deranged, I was replying to the relevant points and as the conversation went on I attempted to focus directly on the main parts not every strawman argument you injected into the conversation as you wer ignored the main points of what I was saying. You even admitted I replied to it later on and yet you continue to lie about it. Now you are bringing it up in some sad and pathetic new strawman. It must be nice to keep creating new made-up arguments so you can fight against them, pretending you can actually win a real debate with me.
I have extensive qualifications in computer science and understand the science very well. You clearly lack the very basic scientific education as you state multiple lies, misinformation and fabricate strawman arguments for those you cannot debate.
I will indefinitely correct all lies, misinformation and strawman arguments made about my work.
LikeLike
“I will indefinitely correct all lies, misinformation and strawman arguments made about my work.”
And I will indefinitely correct all lies, misinformation, and strawman arguments, denials, semantic games, spitting contests that I see. You call it stalking, I call it troll bashing.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 12:08 pm)
You continue with this behavior so it will be exposed,
Update: Mothincarnate is a dishonest, childish individual who cannot debate anyone so he censors their replies to his punishment area and intentionally does not reply to comments but edits yours, this way you will have no idea he replied and he can run around lying that you “ignored” his comments. This is a typical propaganda tactic alarmists use when their lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are exposed.
LikeLike
Andrew has fans?
LikeLike
Surprisingly there’s a few people out there who want to hear that everything is alright and we can continue as per normal. So yeah, he’s able to tell a comforting bedtime stories so he has fans.
LikeLike
None of this is for any “fans” but so people can read what I actually wrote that you effectively prevent from happening here by attempting to reduce the importance of my comments by childishly moving them to this “punishment” area. I keep attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt but then you pop up somewhere else or in another one of your post to just repeat the same lies about my work or myself.
I could careless about GWSH, the only reason I posted there was to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments they stated about my work. I don’t traffic these sites but if post crap about my work I will reply. Nor do I care why you stopped posting there.
You created this “punishment” area to childishly attempt to discredit my comments. You don’t reply to my comments because you know I would get an email so I can properly respond, my lack of response are not concessions or agreements they are simply that it is not worth my time if you are going to behave in this manner.
“From the moment you’ve enter my site, you’ve clearly not attempted to understand who I am and what I represent – but taken a grudge against my attitude towards your list.”
YOU ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE ON THE PLANET! What did you attempt to learn about me before you called me a “loon”? Listen, I don’t care about your “attitude”. I care if you are stating the truth or a lie about my work. I care if you are stating a fact or misinformation about my work. I care if you are stating my argument or a strawman argument about my work.
I have not lied about anything you said, let alone you or your behavior. I have explicitly quoted what you said. You want to pretend to have “moral superiority” when you don’t.
“You wouldn’t require such levels nor would you persist if you believed in yourself and your work.”
Your argument is absolutely insane, I do believe in my work that is why I am defending it from your smear job. Oh sure you can disagree with me but you cannot lie about me, state misinformation about my work or pretend that your strawman arguments have anything to do with my work.
Regarding the number who read my site, it is in the millions a year. There is no “bedtime” stories as everything I state is fully cited and sourced that there is no cause for alarm.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I haven’t done anything to GWSH, I simply corrected all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments they made about my work in those posts. It is not my problem they made two nonsense posts about my list. I am not interested in that site and could careless about other topics they brought up. Tell them to stop making those posts and I will not show up if you have a problem with me being there.
“and YET you’ve don’t nothing – every last insult you’ve made about me, every last rant you’ve flown into is still live and held “indefinitely”. If anything,”
This is incorrect, the rebuttal linked off the list now goes directly to the one addressing your new introduction. It explicitly states that you have corrected the introduction. I have also edited the old rebuttal and removed the more intense wording if you bothered to check but I will archive it as you have shown to continue state nonsense on other sites about me and have created a childish YouTube video. You are also archiving the original introduction and thus another reason for me to archive the rebuttal, again hypocrisy.
I have not stated any false claims about you. You are a hypocrite for a number of reasons, you also complain about Pete Ridley but have not problem with IPKA’s behavior. Notice I have said nothing about ANY of your other commentators but only ONE who has explicitly stated his intent is to stalk me,
“…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – IPKA AKA Bud, Walt M.
By allowing him to post, you are endorsing his behavior. If you cannot see the hypocrisy here then I cannot help you.
LikeLike
“…if you bothered to check…”
No, I don’t care so greatly, of what you think and so intensely of what people are stating about me.
“I have not stated any false claims about you.”
You’ve done nothing but. You say I lie. I don’t. You say I misinform. I don’t: In both case I state only my own opinion, which I make clear. You say everything is a strawman or a smear, when I make clear what my views are, why I come to such conclusions and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.
Yes you are the hypocrite: I no longer make any attacks at you at all where I have the ability to control as much. You do. I try to explain my reasoning, you merely say it’s a smear / a strawman / propaganda etc – you fail entirely to explain your reasoning, but simply return with statements as if they’re enough in themselves (these statements are in fact true strawman arguments, Andrew). In every possible way, I’ve tried to reason, compromise, explain and retract unfair comments – you’ve done the exact opposite all along! You’re indignant retort and strawman arguments are all you have to offer. Again; yes you are a hypocrite who fails to utilise scientific reasoning instead drawing on catch phase tactics of political debate.
As for the other post; much of it was about my concern about Pete – as much as I mentioned you, the true concern regarding that sick individual. You could only see yourself. As for comparing Pete to Ipka – that’s entirely different. Ipka hasn’t stalked me, attempted to draw out personal information, inspired hate about me on other sites or stalked people that he was aware knew me. What Ipka has done to you (or you feel has done to you) elsewhere is none of my business. As I’ve explained; you’re entitled to post Adam’s nonsense if you wish – it’s none of my business – even if he uses your platform to bitch about me. It’s crap at best and I won’t lose sleep over it. If Ipka over steps polite debate, he will be warned and if he keeps it up, he will be restricted to the alfoil hat. So far he’s done none of this and obsessing over this one quote you have from him is pathetic and none of my concern.
LikeLike
What you have lied about I quoted and replied to, what you stated misinformation about I quoted and replied to and the same for your strawman arguments.
“I no longer make any attacks at you at all where I have the ability to control as much.”
ROFLMAO!!! You really expect anyone to believe your childish YouTube video was not an attack? You continue to move my comments to your “punishment room” in a childish attempt to belittle them, that is also an attack. You can’t have it both ways big boy, if don’t like the heat then change your behavior. If you think I am going to back down from your BS behavior you are obviously delusional.
“you fail entirely to explain your reasoning”
Lie, prove it.
Your behavior regarding IPKA shows you have no integrity at all and everything I have stated about you is completely warranted. This is your integrity not mine. You obviously support Internet Stalking. This is fully documented on my rebuttal page for the world to see.
LikeLike
I’m sorry… what? I continue to lie? Um.. I’ve made it quite clear that I have drawn my own conclusions and I’ve also included your own statements in your defence – leaving it up to the reader to make up their own mind. This is not lying nor is it misinforming. To propose that I modify my statements further is to suggest that I don’t have the right of free speech. You’re really pathetic pushing such agendas so hard.
Did you see my post regarding my cartoon? I make it quite clear that it’s a joke! It’s so silly, how could anyone take it seriously? You must have a glass jaw if you find it an attack and if so, you’re really in a silly position fighting reason so obsessively when clearly you put yourself in line for criticism.
Prove it? Are you kidding? I’ve explained that instead of explaining what’s wrong with my arguments, you write them off as “smears”, “lies”, “strawmen”, “propaganda”… etc – the proof is on this page!
RE: Ipka. Do I need to simply it further (geez…)? Pete actively collects personal information on people he doesn’t like and on people they know and uses it. So far, all I’ve witnesses from Ipka is that he utterly disagrees with you and actively pursues the relevant debate – you’re simply hiding behind indignation rather than facing his like a man. He’s not collecting or spreading personal information about you – if anything, you’ve shared more of his personal information by constantly posting your quote. I have no reason to quarantine him – how hard is this for you to understand? You can’t demand it or attempt to bait me into it (ie. “Your behavior regarding IPKA shows you have no integrity at all and everything I have stated about you is completely warranted. This is your integrity not mine.”) – luckily, I’m not after your approval and (as I’ve previously stated) until such time as Ipka’s comments warrant action, I have no reason to do so (how would you like me quoting you referring to me as deranged, that wherever my post is linked, yours will also automatically “stalk” and the myriad of other insults you’ve hurled from your space as example as to why you should be censored from that comment thread? I’m sure you’d take it as further evidence of my derangement – yet you’re doing here it yourself!!). I’ve seen no evidence of his stalking on this site that in anyway compares to Pete Ridley. He seems to want to actively debate with you – man up to it or shut up with your complaining unfairly of my refusing to unjustly censor someone you have a problem with elsewhere.
LikeLike
You have failed to provide proof of your claims.
When I stated you continue to lie that is correct,
“He also fails to understand that no-one with scientific training would find his list at all interesting” – LIE.
The stalker has admitted his purpose is to stalk me this is irrefutable. I briefly attempted to have a debate with him but quickly realized he had no intention of honestly debating and was just interested in personally attacking me. When I realized he was the moron I stopped attempting to debate on another forum for the same reason, I stopped conversing with him all together and will NEVER waste my time on him again. He is one of the dumbest people I have ever met online, even if he were to have a complete lobotomy I do not believe it would be possible to talk to such a mental midget. The guy is a brain dead idiot and if he dropped dead tomorrow it would actually do the world a favor. He is the ultimate waste of life that would have probably been better if he were aborted because people like him will argue that the sky is not blue. What is even sadder is he thinks he has the remote intelligence to debate me. My IQ at birth was higher than his is now. From his worthless behavior I suspect he is at a minimum a pot user or is on some other drug. I have dealt with wastes of life like him before and immediately recognized the signs of drug use, though he will deny it but they are obvious.
If you think I am not speaking to him out of fear than you are just as utterly delusional because I will comment anywhere and debate anyone as my comment history irrefutably demonstrates. The fact that I refuse to comment with someone who’s only intent is to stalk me should tell you something but you are so desperate for anyone to agree with you that you resort to him, pathetic. I know you don’t give two shits about someone stalking and harassing you but that is because your a sad pathetic individual.
Oh yes and if I ever met anyone that stalked me I would personally knock them the fuck out. Lets really man up and have him give me his name and address but he will not because he is a scared little bitch who thinks I am bluffing as he continues to post from his parents basement.
Oh and you can quote me on all of this.
LikeLike
Geez… well, I can’t take back now what’s written on Mandia’s blog can I? Feel free to bitch and moan about this non-retractable statement because indeed, the very authors you highlight on your list find the list interesting… 4FS! (otherwise take that as a retraction as much as I’m able to do)
Following you around on the net is quite different to collecting personal information and using it (as I continue to state!!!) and until such time as his language here is inappropriate, I have no reason to censor him!!!! You of all people shouldn’t be fighting this so hard after the venom you yourself hurled at me for censoring you!
“My IQ at birth was higher than his is now.”
OMG – how old are you honestly? What a pathetically childish statement and incredibly hypocritical following, “he had no intention of honestly debating and was just interested in personally attacking me”. Grow up!
“…stalked me I would personally knock them the fuck out.”
Now this and the following behaviour is an open threat against another reader. This is strike two – next one and you’re black listed. This is far from what I would suggest by “man up” – more the adolescent thuggery behaviour most of us civilised individuals left in the playground – so again, grow up. And such behaviour is exactly what I was referring to in “Intimidation: The Fail Safe Reply to Climate Science” thank you for providing an example of what happens with someone incapable to providing a reason rebuttal – it really demonstrates your limited capacity.
LikeLike
Go ahead black list me! Do you REALLY think I care? Seriously?
It is not a threat but a promise to anyone that stalks me. No such promise has ever been made to anyone else because they don’t stalk me. Climate Scientists don’t stalk me, they are much more respectable then that. My comments have absolutely nothing to do with your propaganda article you posted and nothing to do with a failure to rebut anything. I have posted at RealClimate, Skeptical Science and every other major pro climate change site without ONCE making any such promise to anyone else because, guess what… none of them stalk me. Yes I agree Internet Stalking is playground behavior and that fact that you condone it here only means you endorse it.
I have rebutted everything from those who do not stalk me, prove me wrong.
LikeLike
You’re last comment.
No, it does not mean that I condone anything.
It just means that Ikpa has done nothing on this site to merit censorship. Not only have you threatened him, you now promise to back it up. You fail to understand that I’ve no right to censor him for behaviour I’ve not witnessed. Your behaviour on the other hand is disgusting. Pure and simple. You’ve failed to realise how much I’ve tried to accommodate you and address your complaints – I’ve done all of which is within my control. You’ve continued to escalate to what can only be described as (please excuse me borrowing one of your catch phrases) deranged, self-important hatred. You can’t even take a light-hearted joke (ie. the cartoon). It’s all attacking you – but yet the only one actually making threats and resorting to name calling is you.
I do think you care because you keep coming back here, when I’ve left your inaccurate threats insulting me well alone. You claim it’s only fix misinformation about you – but I’ve already done all I can! No, you keep coming back because you do care.
I have no doubt you’ve rebutted everything under the sun you disagree with – it doesn’t mean you’re right however, but we’re allowed to disagree, believe it or not.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/11 at 12:24 pm | In reply to MothIncarnate.)
No I don’t visit your site, I was only alerted to this post thanks to my methods. Correcting lies, misinformation and strawman arguments is not fighting for fights sake it is correcting these things. What is wrong with your new post is addressed in my rebuttal to it. What you cannot do is state lies or misinformation about my work or myself. If you know how to properly comment do so and don’t move my posts but you cannot resist your childish behavior. I replied to Mandia’s site when I got the email about it.
LikeLike
(Originally submitted on 2011/03/14 at 12:11 am)
First of all that “article” by Clive Hamilton is one of the most irresponsible pieces of propaganda I have ever read. It is filled with massive amounts of distortions and misinformation falsely misrepresenting many of the well known people it mentions with fringe extremist groups. It’s laughable attempts to link the horrific shooting of a U.S. Congress women to the Tea Party cannot be defended on any grounds. It is like some sort of ignorant caricature of whom it is discussing.
I don’t care about your views, I care if you state lies, misinformation or make strawman arguments about my work. My “threats” related to making sure people would be aware of these. I have not threatened you in any personal way. So quit the victim act.
There is no “rage” as no one “hates” you. I simply have a problem if you state lies, misinformation or make strawman arguments about my work. This is not a personal problem with you. Why can you not comprehend this?
The rest of your rant comes off as paranoid and delusional.
LikeLike
To moderator : you are authorized to edit my comment as you see fit, I trust you will not misrepresent what I say (not that I have a reputation to keep anyway).
Did you notice Andrew said “I have not threatened you in any personal way. So quit the victim act.” meaning he is afraid to deny ever threatening people? Why can’t he stick to his original libertarian ideals that “Libertarians would never physically threaten another scientists like Ben Santer had done,”
As you can see, HE is the person who doesn’t have the comprehension skills, he apparently doesn’t know the difference between saying “I am tempted to beat somebody” and saying to a person “I intend to do beat you” (which he actually has said).
I don’t care about your views, I care if you state lies, misinformation or make strawman arguments about my work.
Funny, he must be talking about himself. We don’t care what Andrew thinks either, we care if he states lies about science and attempts to spread misinformation. We defend science and facts because, if you insist on phrasing it this way, we are afraid of people being mislead by misinformation and lies.
What did you attempt to learn about me before you called me a “loon”?
Andrew, we learn all about you from the person who can’t possibly misrepresent you, YOURSELF.
Listen, I don’t care about your “attitude”.
Yeah you do, or you wouldn’t have one. You continue to come back and “defend” yourself and then post on your forums your “refutation” against criticism, because you have such a delicate and fragile ego that demands attention, approval and respect 24/7. If you had things your way, I’d bet good money you’d have people like myself and moth murdered (I dare you state otherwise). You pretend to enjoy laughing at us, yet you know we bother you and you can’t take it.
LikeLike
A good example of your summing up would be that he was the first (and other than my response, the only) comment made on youtube in reply to my cartoon – doesn’t sound like someone who doesn’t really care.
LikeLike
Obviously I “care” if you state nonsense about my work or myself. What I don’t “care” about is your general opinions on everything else. Maybe to clarify further as you seem concerned with emotional nonsense, I don’t care if you “like” me or “hate” me. You have a difficult time separating your emotional arguments from your logical arguments, I have no such problem.
LikeLike
By the way guys, I think we should concede and admit.
YES, Andrew, we ARE trying to discredit you, your work, and people you cite, because it’s deserved.
But no, we don’t need to lie about it, and smear isn’t the best word. We don’t stalk you, no more than you do to us (us meaning myself, Mothincarnate, and any other sites which state the truth about your misinformation)
And I don’t need to claim any moral high ground, I don’t wear gloves with a denier or liar in front of me.
LikeLike
I’ve not tried to comment on his list post and with that post and his insult threads having been looked at by me only a couple times, I’d hardly say that I’ve been stalking him. Also, as I’ve fixed every “insult” that he has brought to my attention where I feel merit is deserved (ie. its not clearly my opinion or without explanation), I also doubt I can be considered to smearing him unjustly. But you’re right – I make my reasons why I think his list is meaningless from a scientific perspective.
It’s funny – as is usually the way, his pre-emptive and persistent claims seem to suit his behaviour more so than mine, hence why I’ve given up addressing him directly.
LikeLike
Obviously I “care” if you state nonsense about my work or myself. What I don’t “care” about is your general opinions on everything else. Maybe to clarify further as you seem concerned with emotional nonsense, I don’t care if you “like” me or “hate” me. You have a difficult time separating your emotional arguments from your logical arguments, I have no such problem.
As usual, Andrew is accusing others of what he does himself.
Are you saying Andrew, if we liked you and lied in favor of you, you’d care enough to correct us?
This is fully documented on my rebuttal page for the world to see.
Quoting a line of a person saying “You can’t be stalked if you choose not to, your privacy is your choice and fully in your control” is not fully documenting anything about stalking. You have admitted you do the same thing in defense of yourself.
You manage to hold 2 separate standards for us and yourself. (Not that that’s wrong, just saying that you do)
LikeLike
From now on, I’ll comment on the “stalking quality” of your comments so as Andrew’s feelings can’t be hurt that I’m allowing your comments.
LikeLike
Good call. Thanks.
(Forgive me that I fail to see what “personal attacks” have to do with stalking quality, but I assume Andrew can tell us)
LikeLike
Since I am obviously not getting through to you, I will now be contacting Peter Ridley as he has not done anything to me and whatever your problem with him is not of my concern.
Updates coming soon…
LikeLike
Third strike – you’re banned.
LikeLike