|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to Mothincarnate|
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 2 2011, 07:00 PM|
| Rebuttal to "http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/many-genuine-sciences-papers-supporting-confidence-in-the-agw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/"
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.
Preface: His list is a strawman argument. No credible skeptic has ever claimed there are no peer-reviewed papers that mention "anthropogenic global warming". The claim has always been by alarmists that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. This is one of the reasons why the list of http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html was created. The fact that it is frequently claimed by alarmists that there are thousands of "http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php" supporting their position in the IPCC report makes his list redundant.
Note: His original wording accompanying his list was filled with misinformation that is detailed http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3990. This post addresses his new wording.
1. He ironically starts off discussing his dislikes of doomsday predictions, describing them as, "guessing, without meaningful evidence."
I could not agree more and find Alarmism, defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic" to fit this criteria.
2. He creates a meaningless analogy to chocolates that has nothing to do with science or AGW.
Science is based on the scientific method and reproducible results not analogies to boxes of chocolates.
3. He falsely implies that papers on the Popular Technology.net list have been rejected by the manufacturer, "...while others are from the reject bin."
None of the papers on the list have been rejected by the author(s) or the journal they were published in. Implying anything else would not fit into his analogy.
4. He falsely implies there is no purpose to the list, "...There is no meaningful expression in the assortment."
The purpose of the list is explicitly stated,
Purpose: 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;
5. He falsely claims that the list does not prove anything, "...Such a list does nothing to prove or disprove anything."
The list proves these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,
"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?" - John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate
6. He keeps repeating this strawman argument that the list is not a unified theory, "Itís just a random collection that supports no conclusions of any sort at all."
No claim is ever made that the list is a unified theory but rather a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.
7. He presents a totally nonsensical and false description of the list, "...the list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative Ė indeed many of the papers even contradict each other Ė but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW 'scepticism'."
He continues with his perpetual strawman argument about the list not being a unified theory which has been explained to him ad nauseum; no claim is ever made that the list is a unified theory but rather a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Some papers on the list may be mutually exclusive but they cannot contradict each other because the list is not a unified theory, it is a resource. These are included because the list does not discriminate between competing independent theories. Collectivists are more likely to reject the existence of independent thought.
8. He falsely implies that I would surely agree with a totally nonsensical and false description of the list, "Iíve gone on to ask if Iím correct in stating that... [...] As you can see from his comment above, he surely must."
I would never agree with such nonsensical and false statements based on a strawman argument.
9. He falsely implies that the real purpose of the list is for "trolls" to use against alarmists, "...is little more than a random scattering of bricks that he has laid out so that the so-called AGW 'sceptics' can hurl them at us 'alarmists' or 'warmist' and has little to do with scientific reasoning and investigation. Itís just an easy go-to place for the busy troll to stop by, chose a paper and demand others in the blogosphere 'prove it wrong'."
This is absolute nonsense as the purpose of the list has nothing to do with this. If what he claimed was true then there would be no reason to categorize them. The fact that he feels compelled to create his own list demonstrates that he considers the Popular Technology.net list as a credible threat to his beliefs.
10. He hypocritically includes journals in his list not in the SCI, yet uses lack of a SCI listing to reject journals presented by skeptics,
"http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/anti-vaccination-vs-agw-denial/#comment-1266" - Mothincarnate
From his list,
- Seppšlš and Jokela (2010) - Biology Letters (Not SCI listed)
- Legras, Mestre, Bard and Yiou (2010) - Climate of the Past (Not SCI listed)
- Bosello, Roson and Tol (2007) - Environmental & Resource Economics (Not SCI listed)
- Rahmstorf, Archer, Ebel, Eugster, Jouzel, Maraun, Neu, Schmidt, Severinghaus, Weaver and Zachos (2004) - Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Not SCI listed)
- Antilla (2010) - Public Understanding of Science (Not SCI listed)
- Feinberg and Willer (2010) - Psychological Science (Not SCI listed)
- Church, White, Aarup, Wilson, Woodworth, Domingues, Hunter, Lambeck (2008) - Sustainability Science (Not SCI listed)
SCI (Science Citation Index) 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 17,000 peer-reviewed journals.
11. He endorses the practice of Internet stalking on his Blog by allowing a self-admitted Internet stalker to post there,
"Öcanít stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, youíll be followed." Ė Bud [Walt M.] other sockpuppet IPKA.
"Why should I care if he stalks you?" - Mothincarnate
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 3 2011, 08:09 AM|
| Update: Mothincarnate is surprised that I do not accept his strawman arguments and false claims about the Popular Technology.net list,
"http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/250genuine-sciences-papers-supporting-confidence-in-the-agw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/#comment-1551" - Mothincarnate
Who would accept strawman arguments and false claims about their work?
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 4 2011, 08:41 PM|
| Update: Mothincarnate demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty by refusing to read a suggested book,
"I will not read grey literature on how broken climate science is as much as I won't read books on rune stones and herbal medicine." - Mothincarnate
The book I suggested was,
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683 (BjÝrn Lomborg, 2001)
BjÝrn Lomborg is a credentialed scientist,
BjÝrn 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)
BjÝrn Lomborg has refuted all published criticisms of his work,
Kare Fog - Lomborg Errors:
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/102-file/Reply_to_Skeptical_Questions.pdf (PDF) (11pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/39-file/GodhedensPris.pdf (PDF) (185pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)
Howard Friel - The Lomborg Deception:
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf (PDF) (27pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 10 2011, 08:07 PM|
| Update: Mothincarnate childishly created a YouTube video to personally attack me,
Ironically the video mentions these specific sites,
1. I forced the video's creator [http://'http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3990'] to completely retract his post of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments.
2. I so thoroughly discredited the "GWSH" (Global Warming Super Heroes) website [http://'http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/'] that it went off line.
3. I made Skeptical Science resort to http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-censorship-of-poptech.html' at their website when they realized they were getting their http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html'.
4. I never debated the list at http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html' since it was never brought up there.
The video is some sort of deranged alternative universe of what happened, because I was never afraid to comment at those sites. He equates censoring my comments to me "retreating", pure hypocrisy and further confirms my theory that he is a child.
Update: He is now censoring comments from the video.
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 10 2011, 08:31 PM|
|Update: Mothincarnate continues with his previous dishonest behavior of lying about someone being unable to respond to him when he originally censored the replies, then later moved them off the original thread in a sad attempt to make the commenter looked like he is being "punished" for bad behavior and when he now replies he does so in the text of your original message making it impossible to follow the conversation or even know that he did reply as you will not get an email from WordPress about it. It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion in this manner but these are the desperate tactics alarmists use when they cannot win arguments.|
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 15 2011, 06:21 PM|
| Update: I contacted Peter Ridley to get his side of the story since he is mentioned in Mothincarnate's posts,
|Posted by: Andrew Mar 29 2011, 03:47 PM|
| Update: I contacted Adam Jayne to get his side of the story since he is mentioned in Mothincarnate's posts as well,