Rebuttal to Greenfyre - Poptart Gets Burned
Andrew
  Posted: Apr 21 2011, 06:37 AM


Chief of Staff


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,484
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04



Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "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.

The Truth About Greenfyre


1. Greenfyre begins by referencing his previous rambling blog posts of lies that have been completely refuted,

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"

Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

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,

Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers


3. In an apparent attempt to demonstrate he is as computer illiterate as the authors at Skeptical Science, Greenfyre references their worthless "analysis",

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

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 refuted,

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 "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" 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,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?


6. Greenfyre references unreliable sources because he is unable to find any legitimate criticisms from reputable news sources.

The Truth about SourceWatch

Exxon Secrets $$$ Funded by Greenpeace

- Greenpeace (Discover the Networks)
QUOTE
Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]

In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and  now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."

According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]

An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices  carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.

Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018.

- Greenpeace (Activist Cash)
QUOTE
Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.

Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]

Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.

Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”

Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”


7. For a complete hat-trick Greenfyre references a smear site funded by a convicted money launderer,

The Truth about DeSmogBlog
Top
Andrew
  Posted: Apr 22 2011, 08:27 PM


Chief of Staff


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,484
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04



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.
Top
Andrew
  Posted: Apr 24 2011, 07:59 AM


Chief of Staff


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,484
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04



Update: The following comments were censored from Greenfyre's dishonest website,

QUOTE (Poptech)
QUOTE (JMurphy)
There were lots of problems found with Poptech’s little list over at Skeptical Science – warning, there are about 800 comments there, many of them Poptech’s usual spamming, word-play and bizarre beliefs.

PT on April 20, 2011 at 7:04 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

All the alleged “problems found” about the list at skeptical science I refuted or the post including my refutation was deleted. Any legitimate criticisms mentioned there were corrected on the list.


QUOTE (Poptech)
QUOTE (Greenfyre)
"[1] As soon as you can show that a ) they are remotely relevant to what I posted or said, b ) why you are so scientifically illiterate as to cling to the fiction of “proofs” c ) how your Straw man, Appeal to Ridicule arguments deserve anything more than contempt, d ) how any of these demands relate to the point that the alleged research in question is bogus nonsense. [and don't spam my comment section with your response ... just put it on your blog & I'll look at it there]

[2] You making a bunch of inaccurate & irrelevant accusations framed in numerous logical errors (Straw Man, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Ridicule, Red Herring, etc) and completely failing to address the actual points does not constitute a “refutation.”

All you have demonstrated is that you don’t seem to be able to even understand the Climate Brief articles, much less respond to them rationally.

[3] You quibbling details and at best demonstrating that your list is merely hopelessly, laughably irrelevant rather than utterly, hopelessly, laughably irrelevant does not actually constitute a “refutation” either.

As I note in this article, given that you fill the list with papers that do not support your claim in any way, the surprise is that it is merely 900 and not 90,000. Demonstrating that your fraud list is actually 0.2% of the literature rather than 0.1% or lower does not give it any added credibility.

[4] Let me know when it would matter or why anyone would care.

[5] Good, I look forward to you NOT harrassing me with any more of this irrelevant nonsense.
"

PT on April 20, 2011 at 7:25 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

[1] It is relevant because you stated, “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.”

b ) my use of the word “proof” here has nothing do with the mathematical/scientific definition of the word.

c ) I have not stated a strawman argument here nor made an appeal to ridicule.

d ) These demands relate to the false charge that, “90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists” not your strawman.

I have never spammed your comment section ever, I have always directly replied to a comment.

It is clear you are unable to provide the proof to support these false allegations.

[2] Everything I stated was accurate and I actually point out that the criticisms are strawman arguments, I do not make any.

[3] What I stated in that post was irrefutable, it has nothing to do with quibbling with details. His whole argument is based on search totals that are impossible to verify and filled with erroneous results.

[4] Can you provide me with the 1001 results for any of his Google Scholar searches? The more you dodge this, the more you demonstrate you cannot defend that post. I can promise you I will be relentless on this point if you refuse to concede something so obviously irrefutable.

I am very eager to hear your response to 3 and 4 as I would like to do a blog post on the computer illiteracy of alarmist blogs, the question is – will it include you? Because these points are not debatable they are how Google Scholar works.


QUOTE (Poptech)
QUOTE (Greenfyre)
"Quibbling details. Pielke posted on his blog that you should remove all papers by him and his father, and being the arrogant little ideologue that you are you actually argued that he didn’t understand his own work.

Others have stated quite publicly that their work does not belong on fraud lists like yours, and you stated that you understood science much better than they, thereby revealing both your dishonesty and and your utter cluelessness.

Spare us the craven and obvious dishonesty … try acting with actual integrity for once.
"

PT on April 20, 2011 at 6:57 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

No what I argued was he did not understand why his papers were listed and I made changes to the list because of that post to make it more clear. The fact remains I have never received an email from Pielke Jr. or ANY scientist on this issue.

I am acting with integrity, which is why I included the disclaimer,

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic arguments against AGW alarm.

Pielke Jr.’s post was addressed here,

Rebuttal to “Better Recheck That List”


QUOTE (Poptech)
QUOTE (Greenfyre)
That would be new, but even if now true, you have undermined your credibility in so many other ways (lying, irrational & irrelevant comments, abusing peoples time and energy, etc) that it simply isn’t possible to take you seriously anymore.

Here’s a deal … you remove all of the errors, lies and frauds on your website, and dealing with your comments will be my #1 priority 24/7.

As it is (ie looking at your comments & website), it simply isn’t possible to believe that accuracy about anything concerns you.

PT on April 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

What would be new? I always post as Poptech (or some obvious variant, depending on what is available) if possible.

I have not lied about anything, all my comments are rational and on topic.

There are no errors, lies or frauds on my website.


QUOTE (Poptech)
QUOTE (Greenfyre)
I will get to your drivel when I get to it. The way to have your comments posted immediately is to consistently be honest, factual and relevant.

As it is the number of errors and lies in your comments means it is a lot of work to clean them up, and despite your delusions of adequacy you are neither important nor interesting enough to either censor or make a priority.

PT on April 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

Apparently being honest, factual and relevant is a way to have your comments censored here. No matter as they all will appear on my site so the world can see your dishonesty.

BTW if I am so unimportant and uninteresting then why do you have so many childish blog posts about my website?


QUOTE (Poptech)
PT on April 21, 2011 at 7:55 am | (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

This article is completely refuted,

Rebuttal to “Poptart gets burned again, 900 times”
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Rebuttals | Next Newest »

Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive