View Full Version: Rebuttal to Gringo at Yahoo Answers

Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to Gringo at Yahoo Answers


Title: Rebuttal to Gringo at Yahoo Answers


Andrew - December 14, 2014 05:57 AM (GMT)
Rebuttal to "PopularTechnology...Expertise.... Seriously Delusional?"

After being completely refuted and thoroughly humiliated for trying to post lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work, a poster who goes by the name of "Gringo" at Yahoo Answers deleted his previous two Yahoo Answers discussions so he could pretend his embarrassment did not happen ["As some of you may have noticed, I've decided to delete my 2 earlier 'questions' aimed at Poptech (owner of PopularTechnology.net)" - Gringo] and decided to launch into an unhinged ad hominem laced tirade against me using an almost ten-year old debate about Firefox. Since my refutation of this nonsense was voted down (at the bottom click on "3 Hidden Answers") and I ran out of space to respond there, I will do so here. Only emotionally irrational individuals would accept such baseless deranged nonsense as truth.

In typical hand-waving fashion Alarmists never provide any examples to back up their bullshit. I have not stated a single lie about anything as all my claims are fully cited and sourced. Instead, I have repeatedly challenged all Alarmists to support their fraudulent allegations and they either dodge or ignore the request. This dishonest behavior is quite transparent but it does not stop desperate Alarmists from attempting to use it to smear me.

As for my background, I do work in IT and have for over 20 years. I only ever post as Poptech (or a very similar and obvious derivative depending on what is available) while all the other "aliases" that have been applied to me are incorrect. These names were falsely applied to me as a result of a smear campaign by Firefox fanboys (who can be quite nasty) for daring to criticizing their behavior and their believed infallible web browser. The reality is that many people were re-posting my work all around the Internet after I began poking holes in the Firefox fanboy's religion with a 2005 article titled, "Firefox - A New Religion?" and these posts were being incorrectly applied to me. I have on multiple occasions requested the IP addresses to support their baseless "sock-puppet" claims but they repeatedly failed to provide such evidence. The few times they did manage to present these they were either not from NJ or not from my ISP. A complete lack of any factual evidence did not stop them from spreading these libelous lies.

My original article was followed by many more criticizing Firefox,

Firefox Unleashes Spyware (March 17, 2005)
The Firefox Update Conspiracy (April 20, 2005)
Firefox Fanboys Regroup to Spam More (December 1, 2005)
Opera is Faster, More Secure and More Compliant than Firefox (January 3, 2006)
Google Spams SpreadFirefox to IE Users (April 26, 2006)
Internet Explorer 6.x More Secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006 (September 8, 2006)
Firefox Admits only 0.18% using Firefox 2.0 (October 31, 2006)

Which were picked up by the Technology Community,

Is Firefox a new religion? (The Tech Report, February 10, 2005)
Firefox Users Unleash Spyware (Icronic, March 18, 2005)
Firefox Unleashes Spyware (Linux.com, March 18, 2005)
Firefox Unleashes Spyware (NT Compatible, March 19, 2005)
The Firefox Update Conspiracy (OSDir, April 22, 2005)
Popular Technology: The Firefox Update Conspiracy (Linux Today, April 23, 2005)
Firefox Fanboys Regroup to Spam More (Linux.com, December 2, 2005)
'Opera Is Faster, More Secure, More Compliant Than Firefox' (OSNews, January 4, 2006)
Why Firefox is NOT 'Safer, Faster, Better' (GilsMethod, July 30, 2006)
'IE 6.x More Secure than Firefox 1.x in 2006' (OSNews, September 9, 2006)
Firefox Admits only 0.18% using Firefox 2.0 (Linux.com, October 31, 2006)
Is it really the safest IE6? (CHIP Magazine, March 2007)

...however, this only appeared to have enraged its fanboys even more and they came after me harder which included very nasty emails, legal threats against my ISP and Internet stalkers from the Firefox community who harassed me where ever I went online. Though this has seriously died down over time - likely because they are getting obliterated in the browser wars either by Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.

All the contributing authors do exist and have posted articles on the site, Karl here: "Mastering the Firefox Search Bar", Doug here: "Windows Wish List" and Mike here: "America's Technological Wall is Falling". Unfortunately they have time consuming (and paying) jobs and only contribute to articles now, while Karl has been promoted to Copy Editor.

The public forums have over 200 members (there were a couple hundred more but inactive accounts were removed about 5 years ago) of which over 90 members have commented on or started a discussion there. The forums are now mainly used by me to archive and compile information. They are still used for some discussion but much more so when they were started, as they were very active for the first couple of years (2004-2008). Regardless, nothing I post there anymore is an attempt to start a discussion but members are free to comment if they wish and some do. I just do not have the time to invest in the forums anymore and have instead concentrated on the website which has been very successful. Popular Technology.net is now referenced by hundreds of independent sources throughout more than 25 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community.

In the end we get to what he is really worried about, "How nonetheless PopularTech.net's denier list has become so popular is beyond me." Yet his unhinged rant is the result of the epic embarrassment he suffered by me after flailing around desperately trying to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed papers list with his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. The irrefutable fact that Gringo had his ass handed to him so bad he resorted to deleting two of his Yahoo Answers discussions so he can pretend it never happened speaks for itself.


Update: In his "updates" Gringo becomes even more deranged, racking up ad hominems, lies, strawman arguments and psychobabble at a furious pace.

Andrew - July 30, 2015 01:32 AM (GMT)
Ironically the Answer by some anonymous hack [Jeff M] which was chosen as the "Best" is simply filled with more misinformation and strawman arguments. Since my refutation of this nonsense was voted down (at the bottom click on "3 Hidden Answers") and I ran out of space to respond there, I will do so here. Many of these responses can be found in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
What he does post often does not state what he claims it states.

The only thing claimed about any paper on the list is that it can support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.

Criticism: Some papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UAH.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
His linked articles are often out of date "An example being the cooling of the oceans up to 2008 thereby claiming that they are in a cooling trend when in reality: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON... "

Criticism: Some papers on the list are outdated.

Rebuttal: Scientific papers do not become "outdated", they can only be falsified and even then they can still remain useful for future research to build upon or adapt from. Scientists have called for various scientific theories to be declared "outdated", from the Big Bang to Evolution but without providing objectively valid arguments that actually falsify them. This is a form of scientific censorship based on ideological biases and personal prejudices with the intent to persuade people from reading certain papers, when in reality the papers may very well be correct.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
He also posts responses and comments to other peer reviewed pubs.

Criticism: Supplemental Papers are counted.

Rebuttal: Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk so they are not confused with the counted papers. Supplemental papers include (but are not limited to): Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Discussions, Erratum, Rebuttals, Rejoinders, Replies, Responses, Supplemental Material, Updates and Submitted papers.

Criticism: Some papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
He has links in his list that even call into question the greenhouse effect while others call into question the feedbacks, the climate sensitivity, claiming that regional warming is the cause of global warming and decreasing ice mass loss, and so on.

Criticism: Some of the papers are mutually exclusive.

Rebuttal: The list is a bibliographic resource not a unified scientific theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. Anyone open minded would accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
He picks and chooses, cherry picks, takes things out-of-context, distorts what was actually said, and does pretty much anything to try and throw a wrench into reality.

Criticism: The list has been cherry picked.

Rebuttal: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise." Using this logic the IPCC reports are "cherry picked" because they failed to included most of these papers.

None of the papers have been taken out of context or distorted.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
Poptech: You list many different peer reviewed studies that your followers take out of context. One example, which I listed above, was the ocean cooling phase up until roughly 2008. The measured data shows that the ocean surface warming continues despite the claim of cooling.

First of all we have no "followers", as this is not a cult like Alarmism is. Second, alleging that because someone who referenced the list may have taken one of the papers out of context is completely irrelevant to the list and is an invalid argument. The editors have no control over what other people do and we are certainly not responsible for their actions.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
You also bring up fallacious arguments asserting that as temperature have come before CO2 increase in the past CO2 can't possibly cause temperature increase. Or at least you link to journals showing that CO2 increased after temperature rise in the past in a list claiming doubt on present CO2 induced warming.

"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"

"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."

This is a strawman argument, as no such argument is stated on the list. The list does include a section titled: CO2 Lags Temperatures but this is included to support relevant skeptic arguments on this topic such as:

Ancient ice shows warming ahead of CO2 (UPI)
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist)
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be (Sherwood Idso, Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory)
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics)

QUOTE (Jeff M)
Or at least you link to journals showing that CO2 increased after temperature rise in the past in a list claiming doubt on present CO2 induced warming.

This is a valid skeptic argument, thus such papers on the list would support this argument and that is why they are included.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
You also have an entire section showing that solar input has changed Earth's temperature in the past. You have a small section devoted to 'climategate'. and so on.

All of which can support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
Here's a question. Without doing this whole he said/she said thing do you know how and why increases in CO2 causes warming on an advanced scientific level? Do you know what measurements and what data shows that CO2 is the major forcing with the current warming?

Skeptics all understand this topic very well but do not necessarily agree with these statements. You will find many papers on the list that argue that CO2 causes an insignificant amout to much less warming than Alarmists claim. You will also find many papers that argue that CO2 is not the major forcing in the last hundred years.

QUOTE (Jeff M)
The point being that the majority of the listed papers do not have anything to do with AGW/ACC in any shape or form and do not call into question the reality of it. quite a few of the papers cited say absolutely nothing about human caused anything as what they are studying are things such as solar input or past variations in climate with known forcings.

This is a strawman argument, as this claim is not made on the list.

Criticism: Some papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UAH.




Hosted for free by zIFBoards