Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to "Does size matter?"


Posted by: Andrew Mar 13 2012, 03:45 PM
Rebuttal to "http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/does-size-matter/"

Out of desperation, alarmists continue to cherry-pick the same refuted nonsense ad nauseam. This time it comes from another alleged "research" scientist [Mike] who did not get a proper research education,


1. Are alarmists intimidated of men bigger than them?

"Does size matter? Now, while I am not talking specifically about the size of a man’s penis here, I will touch on that briefly. We are all aware of the jokes about men with small penises and subsequent feelings of inadequacy driving big cars or owning big dogs or posing with photos of big fish. This particular Freudianesque hypothesis has even been used in commercials aimed at shaming young men into driving sensibly." - uknowispeaksense

Apparently so, as "size" concerns are not my problem since I am 6'4'' and wear size 13 shoes. While I do own an incredibly versatile SUV, I also drive a compact car.


2. It is ironic that depending on which alarmist you talk to the list is either big or small. They cannot seem to make up their minds,

"This brings me to the subject of big lists. What is it about some climate deniers that makes them think a big list of names of people or papers makes their position valid?" - uknowispeaksense

The problem for them is the list is of sufficient size that it cannot be ignored or hand-waved away as they have pathetically tried to in the past. What is valid is that skeptic arguments are supported by the peer-reviewed literature. Lacking a proper education he incorrectly calls climate skeptics "deniers". This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers,

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - http://newsbusters.org/node/10730

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html


3. As explicitly stated, the purpose of the list is 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;

"It would, if they were interested in sourcing quality information as opposed to quantity." - uknowispeaksense

What is considered "quality" is subjective. The list is intended to be all inclusive and does not discriminate against inconvenient peer-reviewed papers alarmists do not like.


4. Lacking a proper research education he failed to discover that greenman's video has been completed refuted,

"A classic example is the “Global Warming Petition Project” [...] there is an excellent YouTube video from greenman3610 that explains how ridiculous this big list is." - uknowispeaksense

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/05/rebuttal-to-video-crock-of-week-32000.html (Popular Technology.net, May 14, 2010)

It is not surprising an alarmist would use a cartoonist and Al Gore disciple to make their arguments.


5. Formal training in "climate science" is not needed to compile the list,

"Next is the big list of “peer reviewed” papers at the popular technology blog site which boasts “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm”. ...For a start, the person running the website is a Computer Analyst and his three contributing website authors are a Computer Engineer, a Computer Scientist and an Electrical Engineer. I’m not too sure their areas of expertise qualify them to determine good climate science from dodgy climate science." - uknowispeaksense

My formal education in the physical sciences and writing of research papers during my University education as well as my extensive experience as a computer analyst are more than sufficient for this task. What is considered "good" or "dodgy" is subjective.


6. The Electricity Journal (6 papers listed) and Iron and Steel Technology (1 paper listed) are peer-reviewed journals,

"It might explain why some of these “peer reviewed” papers are published in journals like The Electricity Journal, Iron and Steel Technology" - uknowispeaksense

The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1040-6190)
- http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf (PDF)
- "http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600875/authorinstructions" - Guide for Authors, The Electricity Journal
- "http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-%28%23066%29.pdf" - Richard Cohen, Editor, The Electricity Journal

Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)
- "http://www.aist.org/magazine/about.htm" - Iron & Steel Technology


7. New Concepts in Global Tectonics (1 paper listed) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal,

"my absolute favourite the New Concepts in Global Tectonics" - uknowispeaksense

New Concepts in Global Tectonics is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1833-2560)
- "http://www.ncgt.org/category.php?id=10"
- "http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=57" (PDF) - Dr. Choi, Editor, New Concepts in Global Tectonics


8. He uses a red herring by bringing up an unrelated editorial published in the same journal,

"the editor of which recently declared that because Japanese seismologists failed to predict the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami of a year ago, that the entire Theory of Plate Tectonics is patently incorrect." - uknowispeaksense

What does this have to do with Endersbee's paper? Absolutely nothing. Endersbee's paper has nothing to do with challenging the Theory of Plate Tectonics. It deals exclusively with climate change,

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, March 2007)
- Lance Endersbee



9. The late Lance Endersbee was highly credentialed,

"Lance Endersbee, who as far as I can make out from his “peer reviewed” paper, has no professional affiliations or qualifications for that matter." - uknowispeaksense

This just further demonstrates his lack of a proper research education,

Lance A. Endersbee, B.C.E. (Hons) University of Melbourne, Australia (1949); M.E. University of Melbourne, Australia (1967); Field Engineer, Scientific Services Division, Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, Australia (1950-1951); Engineer and Executive Engineer, Dams and Tunnels Design Section, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Australia (1952-1957); Hydro-Electric Commission, Tasmania, (1957-1974); Project Design Engineer, Great Lake Power Development, Tasmania (1958-1962); Warren Memorial Prize, Institution of Engineers, Australia (1963); Advisor, Dam Design and Hydro-Electric Power Development, United Nations (1964); Chapman Medal, Institution of Engineers, Australia (1967); Vice-President, International Society for Rock Mechanics (1966-1970); Chairman, National Committee on Engineering Education, Institution of Engineers, Australia (1973–1975); Honorary Associate, School of Civil Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia (1974); Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Monash University, Australia (1976-1988); National Energy Advisory Committee, Monash University, Australia (1977-1980); Honorary Member, Engineering Institute of Canada (1979); President, Institution of Engineers, Australia (1980-1981); AO, Officer of the Order of Australia (1981); Member, Advisory Committee in Science and Technology, National Library, Australia (1982); Peter Nicol Russell Memorial Medal, Institution of Engineers, Australia (1986); Pro Vice-Chancellor, Monash University, Australia (1988-1989); Professor Emeritus, Monash University, Australia; (Died: October, 2009)


10. He brings up the perpetual strawman argument that papers can only be listed to debunk "AGW",

"..but this raises the question, do these papers actually debunk AGW? The answer is no." - uknowispeaksense

It is explicitly stated on the list that papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism. This means papers can be listed that support the existence of AGW (in some form) but also support skeptic arguments against it being alarming or cause for concern.


11. He lies about whether the papers on the list have been read,

"The person running this blog site likely hasn’t actually read any more than the abstracts of those papers, spotted a phrase or two that could be interpreted as shedding some doubt on some minor part of the AGW or human induced climate change hypotheses" - uknowispeaksense

This is incorrect as a couple hundred papers on the list have been read in full. All of the abstracts have been read as well as the conclusions for all papers where a full version was available online. The papers that were not read in full were added after another credentialed skeptic who had read them in full used them to support an argument elsewhere.


12. He lies about why the paper, Frank et al. (2010) is listed,

"A classic case in point is this paper on the list from Frank et al. To the uninitiated this might appear to say that climate model predicted warming is out by as much as 80% where in fact it says “~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming” which is of course not the same thing." - uknowispeaksense

This paper was clearly listed because it supports skeptic arguments against Alarmism, specifically catastrophic feedbacks. A position confirmed by Dr. Frank,

http://www.sciencewatch.com/dr/nhp/2011/11maynhp/11maynhpFran/ (Science Watch, May 2010)

"Using temperature reconstructions and the concentration of CO2 gases trapped in ice cores, we found that for every °C temperature increase, CO2 in the atmosphere increased by ~8 parts per million. This is 80% smaller than some previous high-end estimates, and correspondingly suggests a reduced risk of catastrophic feedbacks." - Dr. David Frank


13. He lies about the contents of Frank et al. (2010),

"This paper supports the position that the current rate of warming as being both anthropogenic and serious in nature, which actually opposes the claim of the blog site to be presenting “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm”." - uknowispeaksense

The word, "serious" does not appear anywhere in the paper nor is it implied.


14. He lies about the intention of the list,

"Of course, when quality isn’t as important as quantity and the intention is to deceive, ...or to nitpicking papers they know will be too technical for laypeople to understand." - uknowispeaksense

Again, "quality" is subjective. The purpose is explicitly stated on the list, "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." All the papers are fully cited and sourced, there is nothing to hide let alone deceive. A copious amount of notes and detailed rebuttals are provided addressing almost every concern imaginable.


15. He closes with an emotional filled rant,

"The quality doesn’t matter to these people and it doesn’t matter to that proportion of the public who wish to remain wilfully ignorant because the truth is too scary, or those who are generally anti-establishment or the plain gullible whose scientific ignorance prevents them from understanding what comprises quality science. It is easier for this last group to accept simplistic garbage than the often complex real science. In my opinion, there must be a change in our education systems in the teaching of science and it needs to start in the early years. Of equal importance to the teaching of facts in various disciplines is the teaching of scientific conventions so that future generations are better able to recognise dodgy lists for what they are, know the difference between a climatologist and an engineer, and recognise that computer analysts aren’t well credentialed enough to compile lists of “peer reviewed papers” that actually do what they purport." - uknowispeaksense

"Quality" again is subjective and means different things to different people. Alarmists are not interested in the truth, they are interested in cherry picking the science and censoring what they emotionally do not agree with. Then of course insulting everyone who does not agree with their discrimination methods to fuel their superiority complex.

I am still waiting for someone to provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

It must be news to every computer analyst in existence that they are not credentialed enough to compile reference lists.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 13 2012, 07:16 PM
Update: 'Mike' replied,
QUOTE
Thankyou for visiting my blog. Having a real job, I don’t have time to go point by point through your lengthy opinion but I do appreciate you spending so much time on it. I will just make a couple of points.

I don’t appreciate your accusation that I am linking you with holocaust deniers. To suggest that my use of the word ‘denier’ is designed to do so is absurd….and people in glass houses………………..

Dodgy editors making quotes about how legitimate their “peer reviewed” journal is, is akin to people using the bible to justify the accuracy of the bible.

But alas, you can go on believing that your dodgy list is legitimate and those of us who actually know a thing or two will continue knowing that it isn’t. Good luck. I hope you have a happy, allbeit wilfully ignorant, life.

I have a very real job too, I just am able to work much smarter than the average alarmist and not much time was spent at all as I type very quickly. I do not appreciate your lack of an education where you should have learned proper terminology. I believe the Holocaust happened and I also believe the climate changes. The quote from the editor was in support of the journal being peer-reviewed, if it does not have a peer-review process then you need to falsify his claim, something you have failed to do. Surprisingly, it never takes long for an alarmist to bring up their anti-religious obsessions. Since I am agnostic and support evolution theory you have no where to go here.

The list is completely legitimate, fully cited and sourced.

You have failed to show;

1. That the counted papers on the list were not peer-reviewed.
2. That the counted papers on the list cannot support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Your failures are noted.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 13 2012, 08:21 PM
Update: Mike replied,
QUOTE
If it is you judging my failure, I’ll take that as a compliment. By the way, misquoting people is dishonest. What do you have against the word ‘male genitalia’? It is the anatomically correct term to use. Had I meant scrotum, testes and male genitalia I would have used the word ‘genitalia’ that you have incorrectly attributed to me. I was referring specifically to male genitalia, but then that is just you being true to form. Accuracy and honesty aren’t really your strong points.

1. I have never claimed that your list of “papers” are not peer reviewed and I challenge you to show me where I have.
2. The counted ‘papers’ do support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW alarm, just not a scientific one because they have been published in obscure unrelated or industry-based journals and journals with patently dodgy track records. The papers from reputable journals dont actually refute AGW/ACC but merely pick around the edges of some methodologies.

You see, what you fail to realise is that by including really dodgy entries in your list, you are setting the bar very low and it really reflects badly on your overall position simply because you’ve demonstrated that you don’t really care about quality. One bad apple, does spoil the batch,

Now this is where you get repetetive in your final reply and break the rules of my blog.

The forum software auto-corrects certain words to keep the discussion out of the gutter where people like you like to take it.

You have admitted,

1. All the counted papers are peer-reviewed.
2. All the counted papers support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

You have failed to provide an objective criteria for determining a "quality" journal. Instead you just make unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks against journals that publish papers you find inconvenient, it is pathetic.

It is a strawman argument that papers are listed only to refute ACC/AGW.

You fail to realize that by not receiving a proper education you never learned what the word "subjective" means nor when you are making subjective arguments. You have been taught to be emotional not logical, it is definitely a failure of the school system.

I could careless about the "rules" of your blog because I am posting everything to my site.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 13 2012, 09:43 PM
Update: Mike replied,
QUOTE
You can’t help yourself. Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. I hope you post a link to this blog so that your followers can see how dishonest you are.

Everything I have stated has been supported and completely honest. The link has always been there at the beginning of the rebuttal. I do not have any "followers" because I do not have a superiority complex but I do have some well read skeptics who understand sarcasm better than you.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)