Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Yonivore]

Do you understand you are "debating" brain-dead stoners who do not respect you and have no problem lying about anything? What part of they are laughing at you do you not understand?

Who's put more effort into communicating with the monkeys, you or me.

I'm having fun at the zoo and taunting the primates into screeching and flinging poo. you're trying to teach them sign language and still having poo flung at you.

Who's the one not understanding their position here?

[Poptech]

Who's put more effort into communicating with the monkeys, you or me.

I'm having fun at the zoo and taunting the primates into screeching and flinging poo. you're trying to teach them sign language and still having poo flung at you.

Who's the one not understanding their position here?

I am well aware you have put more time in, which is my whole point. I am not here attempting to teach them something as you cannot teach brain-dead stoners anything. I am just correcting their misinformation about my work and then I move on, which is solely for the few intellectually honest people reading this not them.

[Th'Pusher]

You know there is a schism in the denier movement when PopTech and Yoni can't come to terms. Complete lack of consensus

[Yonivore]

I am well aware you have put more time in, which is my whole point.

Actually, I haven't. I don't have a website I spend all my time in here defending against a few primates that like to screech an fling poo.

I am not here attempting to teach them something as you cannot teach brain-dead stoners anything. I am just correcting their misinformation about my work and then I move on, which is solely for the few intellectually honest people reading this not them.

So, how's that working for you?

[Yonivore]

You know there is a schism in the denier movement when PopTech and Yoni can't come to terms. Complete lack of consensus

Yeah, right.

[Poptech]

So, how's that working for you?

Very well, as I received numerous emails thanking me from these forums and they are now recommending my articles. This is something that almost always happens once people learn the truth in these debates which is why I do it. I definitely do not try to convince the brain-dead stoners of anything.

[Wild Cobra]

Very well, as I received numerous emails thanking me from these forums and they are now recommending my articles. This is something that almost always happens once people learn the truth in these debates which is why I do it. I definitely do not try to convince the brain-dead stoners of anything.

I'll bet a lot of people simply don't care to approve of you openly, for fear of being retaliated on by others. Warmers and alarmists seem to maintain a first grade bully type persona.

[Poptech]

I'll bet a lot of people simply don't care to approve of you openly, for fear of being retaliated on by others. Warmers and alarmists seem to maintain a first grade bully type persona.

All the time, most people don't want to deal with the abuse and I don't blame them. Alarmists will go after you in real life if they have your personal information as many are completely deranged so fair warning. Just look at what FuzzyDumbkins threatened to do with the limited information he has, now while he is acting as one of my puppets if someone does not plan for this ahead of time it can be disturbing. I am used to this abuse but I cannot imagine other people would want to deal with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do citations metrics like "Impact Factor" take into account how something was cited? Regardless there are only 10 cites out of over 225 listed that were not positive and they are easy to spot on that list as they do not include a link.


Please stop spreading misinformation, I do not have a list of "anti-AGW scientific papers", I have a list of papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarmism. Again read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list,

Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

Ahh yes your robotic canned answers precipitated by your axis disorder.

It's not anti-AGW. It's pro AGW-skeptic!

BTW who is the arbiter of what makes a pro AGW-skeptic argument that you can attribute other peer reviewed works to? Could it be the cherry picking autistic narcissist working outside of the peer review process? I bet it could be.

You fail to grasp that your labels are just how you set your cherry picking bias. They are not excuses for the selection process.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All the time, most people don't want to deal with the abuse and I don't blame them. Alarmists will go after you in real life if they have your personal information as many are completely deranged so fair warning. Just look at what FuzzyDumbkins threatened to do with the limited information he has, now while he is acting as one of my puppets if someone does not plan for this ahead of time it can be disturbing. I am used to this abuse but I cannot imagine other people would want to deal with it.

laying down the victim card but couldn't help but maintain you were in control before going right back to the victim card.

I am using the exact same rationale you use in your blog. I am reporting the truth. You filled out that survey and admitted to a mental illness as well as checking off many behaviors common for an antisocial personality disorder. If one of your rivals being a cartoonist or an eco-terrorist is important enough to post for the entire web to see then I think your mental illness is just as relevant. Think of it as a 'truth series' about yourself.

[Poptech]

It's not anti-AGW. It's pro AGW-skeptic!

Again, incorrect it is effectively "anti-Alarmism".

BTW who is the arbiter of what makes a pro AGW-skeptic argument that you can attribute other peer reviewed works to? Could it be the cherry picking autistic narcissist working outside of the peer review process? I bet it could be.

Puppet boy read the rebuttals.

Criticism: The editor is not qualified to compile the list.

Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers and two years of physics is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not the editor.

You fail to grasp that your labels are just how you set your cherry picking bias. They are not excuses for the selection process.

Criticism: The list has been cherry-picked.

Rebuttal: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a 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."

[Poptech]

I am using the exact same rationale you use in your blog. I am reporting the truth. You filled out that survey and admitted to a mental illness as well as checking off many behaviors common for an antisocial personality disorder. If one of your rivals being a cartoonist or an eco-terrorist is important enough to post for the entire web to see then I think your mental illness is just as relevant. Think of it as a 'truth series' about yourself.

You are a good puppet reporting what I wish to be reported and increasing traffic to my website. Just like those who believe my last name is Khan. Remember there is nothing you can do about my truth series. My web traffic continues to increase exponentially, especially to the truth series so many more will be forth coming. How does it feel to be so helpful to me?

[DarrinS]

Lol @ Fuzzy threatening to spam people.

[Cry Havoc]

You are a good puppet reporting what I wish to be reported and increasing traffic to my website. Just like those who believe my last name is Khan. Remember there is nothing you can do about my truth series. My web traffic continues to increase exponentially, especially to the truth series so many more will be forth coming. How does it feel to be so helpful to me?

One person visiting your site counts as significantly increasing traffic?

[Poptech]

One person visiting your site counts as significantly increasing traffic?

Try millions.

[Th'Pusher]

Criticism: The list has been cherry-picked.

Rebuttal: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose of the list is clearly stated, "To provide a 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."

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.

It's amusing that you think that is an irrefutable rebuttal. You just keep stating it over and over again without refuting anything.

[Poptech]

Just because it does not discriminate between skeptical viewpoints and it explicitly states the purpose of the website does not change the fact that the list is by definition cherry picked.

Using your logic the IPCC reports are cherry picked because they failed to included most of these papers.

[Th'Pusher]

Using your logic the IPCC reports are cherry picked because they failed to included most of these papers.

People can and do make that claim.

You're obviously free to make a website with whatever content you want, but because the focus is so narrow, you really can't make any reasonable argument that the content is not cherry picked. It would be analogues to me creating a website that only logged the San Antonio Spurs wins. Even if I explicitly state the site is a reference for Spurs Wins!, it doesn't change the fact that the data is cherry picked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Rebuttal: The editor's university education writing research papers and two years of physics is all the qualifications that is needed to compile such a list, since the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as

so is that what you have down on your resume? College writing experience and two years of physics? You don't even have a degree in an applicable science do you?

You basically say that you are qualified because you say so. IT'S IRREFUTABLE!

And stating your bias doesn't justify the bias, dimwit. You need to rethink your canned answers.

[Th'Pusher]

Try millions.

You almost have 300 YouTube channel subscribers. How many of those do you attribute to Fuzzy?

[Poptech]

so is that what you have down on your resume? College writing experience and two years of physics? You don't even have a degree in an applicable science do you?

You basically say that you are qualified because you say so. IT'S IRREFUTABLE!

So you are illiterate too? What I clearly stated was that the level of requirements necessary to compile such a list are not high since any paper that was not written by a skeptic or explicitly making a skeptic argument was determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by someone with the qualifications to make such a decision not me. So again, dumbass I know you have brain damage because of the drugs but please try to understand what someone is saying.

[Poptech]

People can and do make that claim.

You're obviously free to make a website with whatever content you want, but because the focus is so narrow, you really can't make any reasonable argument that the content is not cherry picked. It would be analogues to me creating a website that only logged the San Antonio Spurs wins. Even if I explicitly state the site is a reference for Spurs Wins!, it doesn't change the fact that the data is cherry picked.

That is still wrong because for the list to be cherry picked it would have to claim to be just on climate change and leave out pro-alarmist papers. Since I make no claim that pro-alarmist papers do not exist it cannot be cherry picked. You apparently do not understand what cherry picking is.

Are you implying I am claiming that pro-alarmist papers do not exist?

[Th'Pusher]

That is still wrong because for the list to be cherry picked it would have to claim to be just on climate change and leave out pro-alarmist papers. Since I make no claim that pro-alarmist papers do not exist it cannot be cherry picked. You apparently do not understand what cherry picking is.

Are you implying I am claiming that pro-alarmist papers do not exist?

If I make no claim that the Spurs do not lose any games and they are not referenced on my hypothetical site, are the data still not cherry picked?

parsing. I'm surprised yoni and you didn't get along better. He loves to parse.

[Poptech]

You almost have 300 YouTube channel subscribers. How many of those do you attribute to Fuzzy?

The YouTube channel is not even focused on but it has received a couple hundred thousands views regardless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you are illiterate too? What I clearly stated was that the level of requirements necessary to compile such a list are not high since any paper that was not written by a skeptic or explicitly making a skeptic argument was determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by someone with the qualifications to make such a decision not me. So again, dumbass I know you have brain damage because of the drugs but please try to understand what someone is saying.

The requirements are met because you think you get to speak for other people. IOW, because you say so. So where is Idso's proxy?