Chief of Staff
Group: Admin
Posts: 9,017
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04
|
Update: Mothincarnate is now lying that he "corrected" where I have taken offense. He has done no such thing and linking to a comment of mine he lied about does not excuse this dishonest behavior. All of his dishonest comments about me were pointed out on his blog but he edited that comment and injected in one of his rants. This has been posted in response to his claims, | QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
February 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Incorrect you have not corrected any of my complaints where I took offense. You made flat out untrue statements about my position. Linking to the quote does not excuse this behavior.
1. You lied that ‘Adam’ “recruited” me to comment on your blog.
2. You lied that I considered a social science paper (Free speech about climate change) the same as a natural science paper.
3. You lied that I was ignoring “scientific evidence” and simply demanding the right to be unconvinced.
4. You lied that I believe any scientist who expressed confidence in AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.
5. You falsely implied I presented you two books as a peer-reviewed scientific argument.
ect..
This are egregious lies that you have failed to correct and I will make sure that anywhere they appear they are exposed as the dishonesty they represent. |
His reply,
| QUOTE | MothIncarnate says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm
See, this is exactly why I’ve given up the stupid merry-go-round with you – neither of us get anything but a little older.
1. I corrected this; grow up! I explained that you suddenly appeared after I first mentioned you for the first time. As Adam’s a fan of yours, I naturally suspected him to have recruited you. You said he didn’t, so I left is an open suggestion for your sudden appearance..
2. “You lied that I considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” – man you have problems! I didn’t, you did yourself >>>> YOUR TITLE = “850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm” which includes “Free speech about climate change (Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)- Christopher Monckton” Either YOU “considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” or you admit not all your papers are relevant scientific literature!!!!
3. NO! You warp scientific understanding… haven’t I made that clear on the list post?!?!?!?
4. NO – you told me that those scientist that criticise this AGW “scepticism” and effectively those most common in scientific communication on AGW represent such a group.
5. NO! I said that you expect me to learn something from grey literature that I’m missing from the scientific process – YOU’RE the one mixing things up and warping what others are saying.
etc = BS
I corrected 1, as it was a presumption that I didn’t make clear, otherwise you’ve warped my words for the rest and yet again, wasted my time…. |
I replied,
| QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
February 26, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Your continue to represent complete dishonesty so this will all be copied to my site for the record.
1. No you have not corrected this, it still explicitly says, “When I pointed out as much and the pointlessness of Poptech’s list, he seemed to have recruited Poptech’s own Andrew for support“. I’ve already explained to you multiple times that I was never recruited. If someone asks me to comment on something I will admit they did. I am the last person that cares if someone asks me to come comment on something or if anyone knows about it. It is not an open suggestion, it is a false claim. The irrefutable fact is he never did and you have not corrected this.
2. The title is …”AGW Alarm” defined on the list as, “relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” That paper appears in the socio-economic section. I have never made a claim anywhere that the list only includes natural science papers rather that they are all peer-reviewed. What is considered “relevant” is subjective. Socio-economic papers are an important part of the debate otherwise there would not be a WGII and WGIII section of the IPCC report. Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report “relevant scientific literature”?
3. I am well aware of many of your papers on your list. The only thing you have made clear is your intent to misrepresent my position by lying about it. As I stated before I do not consider the scientific evidence you have presented as convincing to support AGW Alarm. That is not ignoring it, that is finding it not convincing. Now you are accusing me of a new lie, that I “warp scientific understanding”.
4. Quote me because I stated no such thing. Are you even capable of following conversations you have on your own blog? You stated, “Apparently (as Poptech/Andrew informed me) it does and the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.” Your statement clearly implies that I believe any scientist who believes AGW theory represent a small group of sheltered alarmists. I never stated anything like this at all, my comments were in direct response to your use of websites like RealClimate.org and the late Dr. Schneider’s personal website.
5. I made no claim that any book was equivalent to any scientific process. I suggested you read two books which BTW reference the scientific literature because they present some of the skeptic’s arguments in a very readable narrative.
I haven’t warped anything, I’ve quoted you EXACTLY, you have failed to quote me in context for any of your lies. Keep it up as I will keep a record of your dishonesty and show it every time your site is brought up in reference to mine. |
He replied,
| QUOTE | MothIncarnate says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Geez, did you choose that pink horse or the cart? I’m so over circular discussions.
1. I’ve simplified it even further – why does it matter so much anyway?
2. Basically you’re list isn’t focused necessarily on the science behind the AGW theory then. Thank you for the clarification (thus Adam’s demand is pointless)
3. Get over it – aren’t you calling me deranged, fixated on Monckton and like a scared child? Don’t you think you’re the pot calling the kettle black?
4. What do you think of the majority of the scientific community, literature and scientific bodies that concur with the high confidence in the AGW theory then?
5. You’ve warped this entirely – reread what I actually wrote. I said you’ve done your “personal research” and suggested I read those books – what’s your hang up on this?
Yes, you have warped what I’ve wrote and also demonstrated hypocrisy. Please, just move on and bitch about me on your thread |
I replied,
| QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
February 26, 2011 at 11:04 pm
1. There is nothing magic about knowing how to use the Internet efficiently. It matters because it was not true.
2. You still have not corrected this blatantly false statement, “How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who considers Monckton’s article on free speech on climate change in the same league as say an independent study in PNAS which returns the same conclusions as previous studies in like scientific journals?“. Whatever strawman argument you have created about my list is irrelevant to the truth. No where have I stated that my list only includes natural science papers and nowhere did I confuse any natural science papers with social science papers. You failed to answer the question, “Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report ‘relevant scientific literature’?”
Adam already clarified his “demands”,
“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
3. Get over you misrepresenting my position? “How does demanding that one has the right to say they’re unconvinced by the science behind AGW counter scientific evidence to the contrary?” I never made any such argument.
My comments (deranged ect…) were in direct response to your behavior when I attempted to get you to correct blatantly false statements made by you about me.
4. 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.” This is a blatant lie. 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. That is not what you said, “He also informed me his ‘personal research’ has lead to his conviction and suggested I read the questionable grey literature;“. By calling it ‘grey literature’ you are implying I was presenting it as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed science paper. I made no such claim all I asked was that you to read two books. You continued this false implication at the end of your post, “apart from this list above providing a good resource for those who actually wish to learn about the subject from respected journals as opposed to questionable journals, grey literature…“. |
He replied,
| QUOTE | 1. [So you admit your that narcissistic that you regularly google yourself to see if anyone's talking about you? I'd have stayed with the claim Adam recruited me if that's the case]
2. [fixed]
[so it's effectively a null point - prove the list is crap (ie. Greenfryre, GWSH, SkS, my own mentioning that it represents a fragmented, haphazard scattering of opinions and random papers, many of which contradict each other: all of which you feel, Andrew, that you have thoroughly "debunked") - but don't really bother to do so...?]
3. [Fixed]
[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]
4. [So what do you think of, say, the scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports? How about the scientists listed above? Either their work (my list doesn't support contradictory ideas, so we can conclude that the work above all helps construct our wall of scientific understanding) is part of your "alarmist" group.. or, what?]
5. [I thought I clarified this?!?! Well, just in case it still wasn't clear enough, I've made it bleeding obvious] |
I replied,
| QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
February 28, 2011 at 12:06 am
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. |
He replied,
| QUOTE | 1. [You don't quit - I fixed it. I merely suggested that to pay such close attention to who is talking about you, regardless of what technological wizardry you possess, is, in my humble opinion, a little odd]
2. [I'm sure if hoards of little 'Adams' can along, demanding the same thing, you would take a like stance - that they make a good point. I don't know why your so concerned about such semantics.]
[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]
3. [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]
[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]
4. [Fixed]
5. [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]
[lol - I learnt about scientific scepticism, not burying my head in the sand, thanks] |
I replied,
| QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
February 28, 2011 at 10:31 pm
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. |
He replied,
| QUOTE | 1. [Tell me how you learnt about my initial mention of you and I won't need to guess... I can't just state that your an efficient IT wizard now can I? This is really getting silly I might add]
2. [You've condoned Adam's ludicrous demand that I debunk you entire list (whether he actually meant me to or not is inconsequential - the point remains) therefore he and most likely yourself believe your list challenges the scientific confidence we witness within the scientific community at large]
3. [So, in short, I'm correct in stating that your list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative - indeed many of the papers even contradict each other - but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW "scepticism? If so and you agree with as much, I will happily delete the entire content surrounding my list, state only this about your list (with my personal conclusion that it was inappropriately thrust upon me because it doesn't stand as a sensible alternative to the conclusion drawn and supported by the majority of the scientific community) and we can be done with it. Sound fair?]
[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.]
4. [What of sourcewatch then? Please don't feel the need to repliy (and therefore leading me to correct as much) if you concur with my points above - I'll just delete these comments entirely as I'm bored with all this]
[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]
[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.] |
I replied,
| QUOTE | Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
March 2, 2011 at 10:08 am
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. |
He replied,
| QUOTE | 1. [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.. ]
2. [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]
3. [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 fact that you continue to ignore this question makes you look bad.]
4. [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'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]
[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.]
[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.] |
I replied,
| QUOTE | 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. |
|
Rebuttal to the Deranged Mothincarnate, Corrected
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Posted: Feb 24 2011, 09:09 PM
