|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to Greenfyre - Poptart Gets Burned|
|Posted by: Andrew Apr 21 2011, 06:37 AM|
| Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/poptart-gets-burned-again-900-times/"
Greenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true.
1. Greenfyre begins by referencing his previous rambling blog posts of lies that have been completely refuted,
His absolute lack of integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has never updated his original posts to correct any of the lies that were pointed out to him. In comparison the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list has had many corrections to it to fix various legitimate criticisms. As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.
2. Greenfyre then references the nonsense from the Carbon Brief that has also been completely refuted,
3. In an apparent attempt to demonstrate he is as computer illiterate as the authors at Skeptical Science, Greenfyre references their worthless "analysis",
Not only can he not count to 450 he apparently cannot count past 1000 either, as he is unable to provide the 1001 result for any of Rob's Google Scholar searches.
4. Greenfyre repeats the same lies that have already been http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595,
Lie - not actually peer reviewed,
Truth - He fails to support this statement. Every counted paper and listed journal is peer-reviewed.
Lie - known to be false
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are known to be false and all published criticisms have been refuted by the authors.
Lie - irrelevant
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are irrelevant.
Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant),
Truth - He fails to support this statement. The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a911028287" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 700 papers published since 2000 on the list.
Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial.
Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack. All the papers support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
5. Greenfyre repeats the same lie from the Carbon Brief, "The first post shows how 90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists."
It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".
(1) Greenfyre fails to provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.
(2) Greenfyre fails to prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.
(3) Greenfyre fails to prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.
In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Their responses follow,
6. Greenfyre references unreliable sources because he is unable to find any legitimate criticisms from reputable news sources.
Exxon Secrets $$$ Funded by http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
- http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7222 (Discover the Networks)
- http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131 (Activist Cash)
7. For a complete hat-trick Greenfyre references a smear site funded by a convicted money launderer,
|Posted by: Andrew Apr 22 2011, 08:27 PM|
| Update: Greenfyre dishonestly continues his smear campaign falsely claiming I am a poster using the screen name of "agwscam" at the Huffington Post, "PopTart (aka agwscam ) is spewing all over HuffPo now" and censoring my replies to his comments.
Fact: I always use "Poptech" or some obviously similar screen name such as "PT" depending on what is available or allowed.
|Posted by: Andrew Apr 24 2011, 07:59 AM|
| Update: The following comments were censored from Greenfyre's dishonest website,