Page 125 of 161 FirstFirst ... 2575115121122123124125126127128129135 ... LastLast
Results 3,101 to 3,125 of 4001
  1. #3101
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I posted a link to that effect a few pages back. WC came immediately to mind when I first saw it.
    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.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  2. #3102
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog




    Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?



    I suppose it is much easier to attack the character of people and discredit them than it is to address their ideas. (e.g. "denier", "racist", "Islamophobe", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).


    "Why I think Climate Change Denial is little moer than pseudo..." blah blah blah -- you get the idea.
    If only you would once take similar effort to evaluate your own sources when you post your mailers and blogs. Introspection is important.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #3103
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread le.

    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.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #3104
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html
    Thats nice they come to their own conclusions.
    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.

    Also that site certainly likes calling people communists. The Red Scare all over again. I really wish Buckley was still around. The right has gone back to the 1950s.

    They also seem to enjoy accusing people of being communists. There 'write-up' on sourcewatch had the hammer and sickle emblazoned at the top.
    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
    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.
    Whats interesting is that the people that run the site only use their first names and its unknown who they are or what they come from. It does not surprise me that you consider them credible considering your deceptive nature. I found it interesting that they criticized wikipedia for lack of transparency.
    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.

    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.

    and this where they talk about the papers on the list many of which were refuted in the peer review process.
    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"
    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.
    About the author:

    The Truth about Greenfyre
    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.
    All of these rebuttals are included on the list.
    Poptech is offline

  5. #3105
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  6. #3106
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    The material is fully cited to two sources. Did you not actually scroll down?

    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.
    Except Hitler is not mentioned anywhere on the page nor implied. Libertarian positions are the exact opposite of fascist ones.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Poptech is offline

  7. #3107
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread le.

    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."
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3108
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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
    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%
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3109
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I suggest doing better research next time.
    List on Poptech.
    Let's take the first sample:

    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,"
    This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".

    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
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #3110
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification
    (Geology, Volume 37, Number 12, pp. 1131-1134, December 2009)
    - Justin B. Ries et


    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.
    So only 10 of 18 species studied actually were harmed. Nothing to worry about, right?

    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.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3111
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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."
    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"

    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.
    Again, not quite the smoking gun that poptech seems to want to make it out to be.

    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.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3112
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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%
    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.
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3113
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    List on Poptech.
    Let's take the first sample:
    First sample? That is skipping over hundreds of papers so you can cherry pick the list.

    This study is used to show how increased levels of CO2 "won't be that bad".

    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
    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.

    So only 10 of 18 species studied actually were harmed. Nothing to worry about, right?

    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.
    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.

    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"

    Again, not quite the smoking gun that poptech seems to want to make it out to be.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3114
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The material is fully cited to three 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 whey 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.
    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.

    At the end of this process, though, I could at least start to have Needle give us some more-definite answers. Needle can do a lot of interesting analytical things, but pretty much all analysis begins with counting. Christian thought the top 10 authors contributed 186 of the papers. Needle's query now shows 200. Christian discovered that #3 author Bruce Kimball's 28 papers were all co-authored with #1 author Sherwood Idso. I saw so many connections that I had Needle calculate a Six Degrees of Sherwood Idso rating, which shows that 308 of these papers can be connected to Idso through just co-authorship of things listed here.
    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.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  15. #3115
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Holocaust!! Communist!! Look at me!! Get outraged!!! Holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!holocaust!! Communist!!
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  16. #3116
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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".

    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
    You clearly missed the point. That doesn't surprise me and I don't expect I can enlighten you either.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  17. #3117
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448

    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.


    .
    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?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #3118
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    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?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  19. #3119
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #3120
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,427
    Why are you using the allegedly low standards of your adversaries as an excuse not to do any better?
    Winehole23 is online now

  21. #3121
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  22. #3122
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  23. #3123
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Wild Cobra is offline

  24. #3124
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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:
    Optimized cases imply total irradiance changes during 1880 - 1993 in the range
    0.18% - 0.77%.
    I've used 0.18% for 1750 to 2004, since I've been comfortable with that as a conservative estimate. 0.77% though.... Wow...

    I don't think it would be more than 0.24% though.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-29-2012 at 03:15 AM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  25. #3125
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.

    resource.

    A resource doesn't assume the argument. Youre indoctrinating. that much is transparent.
    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.
    Poptech is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •