If only you would once take similar effort to evaluate your own sources when you post your mailers and blogs. Introspection is important.
Yes, it explains people like the two of you well.
Keep this in mind a couple decades out when you are proved to be wrong.
If only you would once take similar effort to evaluate your own sources when you post your mailers and blogs. Introspection is important.
Pointing out logical fallacies is not ad hominem. Calling you out for logical consistency as a basis for argument is not ad hominem. Its called a refutation which you typically just ignore.
This is incorrect. The conclusions do not change, just the argument that the paper is used to support, which may not be an argument the author supports but is still valid.
And this observation is based on what? A single image? The site is not right-wing as I am a Libertarian. The information on Sourcewatch is accurate,
The Truth about SourceWatch
It is irrelevant if you consider the editors credible as they did not write the papers. The authors of the papers however are credentialed. Wikipedia is criticized not for a lack of transparency but for the fact that the information on it cannot be trusted due to it's flawed design.SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.
That really does not tell you anything relevant. As the game six degrees of Kevin Bacon is not relevant in the climate science community due to it's small size.
This is incorrect, if they were refuted in the peer-review process they would have failed peer-review and not of been published.
This has been completely refuted,
Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"
About the author:Greenfyre's rambling blog post of lies is something alarmists find when they desperately Google for anything to discredit the list. They ignorantly believe that because a criticism is posted online it must be true. As demonstrated below, absolutely nothing in his post is factually accurate. Many of these corrections to his nonsense were made in the comment section to his blog post but Greenfyre dishonestly refused to make any corrections. Instead he hopes people will reject the list based on his propaganda.
The Truth about Greenfyre
All of these rebuttals are included on the list.Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.
The 'truth' about sourcewatch is from the same blog. it is unsubstantiated. Even wikipedia does a better job citing where they get their material from.
I have a nice idea. How about I get some web-hosting and start blogging about how the members of Poptech are known facists that like the little Hitler mustaches and reenact Hitler's speeches.
As for your 'picture.' It was what? Two paragraphs and a huge picture of the hammer and sickle. So what may be 400 words? Do I really need to quote the cliche?
Your 'truths' are ad hominem. Its the same thing that i was referencing about Buckley. Your red scare may play with the rednecks and those who replace reason with faith but it rings hollow here.
I read the first few lines of your 'refutation' but at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all of that. I found it interesting that you invoked the Holocaust right off the bat though. Not so much that you have somewhat of a point but rather in context to your scaremongering of the red menace.
It tells me that you are very aware of who your audience and you would rather be a demagogue than a man of reason. The entire notion of the list is straight up intellectual laziness or rather the appeal to others to resort to intellectual laziness.
Here is a list of things that you know most of your readers will never read beyond your post. Knowing this instead of trying to make anything resembling an argument or synthesis of what it all 'means' you label them as the gross generalization 'anti-AGW' and call it a day.
You even admit that many of the authors themselves do not conclude that in their works. But hey you have your label. I don't really care what you call yourself.
As for the 6-degrees argument. Please explain to me why over a fifth of the 'skeptic' papers were written by two guys. that what precipitated the idea of expanding it beyond ONE degree of separation because one looked so limited in diversity.
But hey lets ignore the original premise of the blog. Instead lets just go with a blanket dismissal and claims of relative size and call them Communists too.
Its transparent. But thanks for stopping by.
The material is fully cited to two sources. Did you not actually scroll down?
Except Hitler is not mentioned anywhere on the page nor implied. Libertarian positions are the exact opposite of fascist ones.
No it is a fact that Sourcewatch is edited by ordinary web users and funded by the Center for Media and Democracy. The positions taken by the Center for Media and Democracy can accurately be classified as "extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate". Anti-capitalists can accurately be referred to as communists, thus the image. Your feelings about these facts does not change them. It is also a fact that they frequently fail to cite reputable news sources for their criticisms since they rarely exist.
The rebuttal is very thorough so it also properly addresses the Ad hominem attacks made against the list. Your laziness in failing to read further is not of my concern. This does not change the facts that all his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are fully refuted.
That is just absurd. The entire notion of the list is as a resource for skeptics. If you are such a man of reason, answer one simple question,
Are Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers counted on the list? Greenfyre claims they are.
This is just one of many things I irrefutably demonstrate he is wrong about.
This is a strawman argument. The list is explicitly led: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm not "anti-AGW". The purpose of the list is explicitly stated,
Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs
You seem really confused by basic logic. Harold Brooks for instance believes in ACC/AGW yet his papers can be used to support skeptic arguments that tornadoes or damage from tornadoes are not getting worse due to ACC/AGW. The disclaimer is there for authors like him who mistakenly state why their papers are listed. His papers clearly support this argument. The ACC/AGW debate can be very nuanced and is not always so black and white, just like skeptic arguments against Alarm.
What are you talking about? Over 180 of the papers on the list were not written by two authors, what kind of poor math is this? The needlebase site explicitly states "Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso". It is the same flawed argument and irrelevant to the authors being credentialed and their papers being peer-reviewed.
I suggest doing better research next time.
Last edited by Poptech; 04-29-2012 at 07:58 AM.
Dunning-Kruger as a Vicious Cycle
Dunning and Kruger often refer to a "double curse" when interpreting their findings: People fail to grasp their own incompetence, precisely because they are so incompetent. And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence form incompetence people get stuck in a vicious cycle.
"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."
900 out of how many papers total?
If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers
900/200000= 0.45%
List on Poptech.
Let's take the first sample:
This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".Ocean Acidification:
Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Issue 23, pp. 9316-9321, June 2009)
- Rebecca A. Gooding et al.
"Our findings demonstrate that increased [CO2] will not have direct negative effects on all marine invertebrates,"
Unfortunately, the animals studied don't form the basis of the aquatic food chain. The damage from ocean acidification comes from killing off plankton species, and coral not starfish.
Disinenguous use of science #1
Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
(Geology, Volume 37, Number 12, pp. 1131-1134, December 2009)
- Justin B. Ries et
So only 10 of 18 species studied actually were harmed. Nothing to worry about, right?We show that 10 of the 18 species studied exhibited reduced rates of net calcification and, in some cases, net dissolution under elevated pCO2. However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all.
Seriously? that is supposed to be less alarming?
It is about what one would expect in a complex ecosystem. Ask any good biologist if losing 50% of an ecosystems divsersity is not going to harm things.
More cherry picking. "look the permafrost in this one area is really old, nad has survived past warm spells" with the implication "artic permafrost won't go away if it gets warm"Permafrost:
Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic
(Science, Volume 321, Number 5896, pp. 1648, September 2008)
- Duane G. Froese, John A. Westgate, Alberto V. Reyes, Randolph J. Enkin, Shari J. Preece
"We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation."
Again, not quite the smoking gun that poptech seems to want to make it out to be.Climate models predict extensive and severe degradation of permafrost in response to global warming, with a potential for release of large volumes of stored carbon. However, the accuracy of these models is difficult to evaluate because little is known of the history of permafrost and its response to past warm intervals of climate. We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.
Seems to be a pretty definite pattern.
Scientists are saying "this is complex and requires more information"
The deniers running Poptechs website have cherry picked papers to make their case, at the expense of all the rest of the science that doesn't.
I guess if you want a thin fig leaf of credibility for a pseudoscientific political movement, that will suffice.
If you want reality, or a more fair view of the science involved, not so much.
Body of what "work" and using what database? There is no such number. Obtaining numerical result totals by searching databases for key words will tell you nothing other than those words appear in that number of papers. It does not give you the context the words are used.
I hope you are not using Google Scholar as it cannot be used for this task. I very much enjoy proving people wrong when they incorrectly try to use Google Scholar this way.
Last edited by Poptech; 04-29-2012 at 07:25 AM.
First sample? That is skipping over hundreds of papers so you can cherry pick the list.
That is not the argument. The argument is that increased CO2 can be beneficial to marine life. This argument is supported by this paper and even mentioned explicitly,
"The positive relationship between growth and [CO2] found here contrasts with previous studies, most of which have shown negative effects of [CO2] on marine species, "
There is nothing disingenuous about using peer-reviewed science to support a position on climate change that is less alarming.
Now you are exaggerating, they never stated they were "lost" but this is irrelevant to the main point of the paper,
"However, in seven species, net calcification increased under the intermediate and/or highest levels of pCO2, and one species showed no response at all. These varied responses may reflect differences amongst organisms in their ability to regulate pH at the site of calcification, in the extent to which their outer s layer is protected by an organic covering, in the solubility of their s or skeletal mineral, and in the extent to which they utilize photosynthesis. Whatever the specific mechanism(s) involved, our results suggest that the impact of elevated atmospheric pCO2 on marine calcification is more varied than previously thought."
Contrary to alarmist claims increased CO2 is not necessarily harmful to marine life.
It is a strawman argument that any of the papers are claimed to be "smoking guns" as you will not find this term used anywhere on the list.
That paper clearly provides evidence of permafrost that survived for over 700,000 years during a longer and warmer climate. This clearly supports skeptic arguments for a reduction in alarmist claims to the potentional extent of permafrost melting.
It would be dishonest to include peer-reviewed papers that did not support skeptic arguments on a list explicitly led this, thus the papers cannot be "cherry picked".
No one there is a "denier" as we all believe the climate changes and the holocaust happened. You should not improperly use terminology like this.
Yes if you want real peer-reviewed science to support skeptic arguments you use real peer-reviewed science.
What is considered "fair" is subjective.
Last edited by Poptech; 04-29-2012 at 07:50 AM.
Its funny that you hold sourcewatch accountable because they supposedly never use third party sources then use two source that you claim to be three that do exactly the same thing. Which is it going to be? Posting other blogs that claim what your blog says is fun and all but its tantamount to a circle jerk. If you are going to take sourcewatch to task for lacking independent verification the very least you could do is the same yourself.
As for the picture. Way to dissemble. Anyone can play the facist/communist ad hominem tactic. That was my point. If you want to sit there and justify name-calling and putting up gratuitous pictures so you can play as a demagogue then go right ahead. Its not like its an even remotely new tactic. The 'conservative' movement in the US misses Mr. Buckley so much.
10 authors did 200 of them. Your right my math was off. So TEN people contributed to over 20% of the papers at that time. That is zero degrees of separation. 10 guys and over 20% of the total. i would suggest you read needlebase before making claims entirely off of the le as if that was the totality of each step of the approach.
You don't even deny that its a small cohesive group that is writing your papers but that the overall comunity is small. You fail to even quantify that.
As for the last all I have to say is:
resource.
A resource doesn't assume the argument. Youre indoctrinating. that much is transparent.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-29-2012 at 02:12 AM.
Holocaust!! Communist!! Look at me!! Get outraged!!! Holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!
You clearly missed the point. That doesn't surprise me and I don't expect I can enlighten you either.
Do you do a broad overview of scientific research and provide context for where the research papers you cite fall within the entirety the field or do you simply post papers which tend to agree with what you want?
Also, when newer research occurs that contradicts your older articles do you link to those articles in order to give an accurate assessment of what scientists are finding out?
Why are you asking for a standard you don't get from the alarmists?
Why are you using the allegedly low standards of your adversaries as an excuse not to do any better?
Me?
or Manny...
I was basically asking him that, but in different words. I didn't say it was acceptable.
You are missing a point also I think. Care to guess what I mean? I'd like to see if Random can figure it out, but I think it's over his head. Besides, my post to him can't be more than several minutes old right now. I'd like to see what he has to say.
You hes calling you a hypocrite. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out but subtlety is typically lost on you.
Only read a little bit so far, but this looks interesting:
INFERENCE OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE VARIABILITY FROM TERRESTRIAL TEMPERATURE
CHANGES, 1880 - 1993
Part of summary:
I've used 0.18% for 1750 to 2004, since I've been comfortable with that as a conservative estimate. 0.77% though.... Wow...Optimized cases imply total irradiance changes during 1880 - 1993 in the range
0.18% - 0.77%.
I don't think it would be more than 0.24% though.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-29-2012 at 03:15 AM.
Yes, that is correct I used two sources not three (I meant three links) but neither is another blog. What I said was they frequently fail to cite reputable news sources for their criticisms because these rarely exist. You seem rather upset that people are not going to consider Sourcewatch reliable anymore once they are aware of it's background.
It is not a game when those are the views held by the organization. So unless you are going to claim they do not hold anti-capitalist views this is a moot point. You seem very confused about political ideologies as I am not a conservative and was not much of a fan of the late Mr. Buckley. I am sure your stereo type has worked well for your up until this point but continuing to use it when I have explicitly stated I am a Libertarian reeks of desperation.
Yes your math was way off as you falsely stated that 2 authors wrote 1/5 of the papers. Why do you so carelessly make false statements like this? For some highly credentialed scientists 20 papers is only a fraction of their voluminous publishing history. Why do you find that unusual? Or are you just unfamiliar with all of this?
You also seem confused about whom you are talking to. I am well aware of every single article written about the list. There was no need to write a rebuttal to the Needlebase article because there was nothing to rebut. Nothing in their analysis is remotely unusual or in anyway invalidates the list.
The one point about the Needlebase article you need to know is that it was outdated almost immediately after it was published since the list is dynamic and continuously updated. So why are you referencing something that is inaccurate?
Do you even read the sources you link to? Needlebase shows 356 unique authors. That is not a small cohesive group as you falsely claim.
Still the number of the most prolific authors in the climate science community is relatively small and if any sort of analysis was done with alarmist papers you would see even more direct associations.
Sorry to break it to you but it is a resource despite your denial. A "resource" doesn't have to assume anything, it just needs to contain material. Nothing is being indoctrinated because nothing is being taught. Why are you intentionally stating lies?
Last edited by Poptech; 04-29-2012 at 07:54 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)