This is a pretty epic meltdown. I really wonder who he's trying to hide this from.
This is a pretty epic meltdown. I really wonder who he's trying to hide this from.
With the links. Its not really hard to figure out what hes doing.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies
The Truth about Skeptical Science
"If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well." - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
"I will admit that I smoke pot" - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
Your behavior certainly takes the veracity out of your claims of censorship and whatnot towards skeptical science. I think they would get a kick out of it.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-25-2012 at 12:07 AM.
I know, I know: I'm a psychotic drug addict because i talked to a doctor about the effects of pot but even though you would never admit it I know you know and it must piss you off. Your lashing out as a child and trying to clean up your 'mess.'
Why does FuzzyDrugAddict stalk people he does not agree with? I've only seen this behavior with the most extreme alarmists all who I suspected of using drugs.
Um, DarrinS linked your 900+ list and I made a post about it. You came here.
I have posted in these threads for the past 7 years ever since this site opened. I have been arguing climate science in this thread and its variants for quite some time.
I will more than admit that i don't like you much. You are a sociopath that trolls every climate board/site on the net and accuses anyone that disagrees with you as being liars only out to smear you while you scour the internet and who knows what else so you can call them communists, terrorists, criminals, post pictures of their homes and insult their professions.
So this is what I am going to do:
I am going to write an email to every victim of your 'Truth' series and in it I am going to show them your survey, link your edited post and subsequent time disparities, as well as my response and the subsequent responses of other board members about what you initially posted.
I will admit that I smoke pot and that is the basis of your recent smear campaign and then point out how you conflate liberalism with communism, membership with a environmentalist group with terrorism and the like. That will demonstrate the pattern of your behavior.
I will then try to put in context your antisocial behavior and point out that you really are sick but unfortunately would prefer to edit your posts and lie about it rather than seek help. To encourage them to keep on taking what you say with a heap of salt.
I have no idea if those people will really care but I can imagine how I would feel if some loon like you put up a webpage in an attempt to defame me.
If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well.
Go ahead and posture and label me a psychotic but like I said: I know you know; I know how people like yourself behave.
I came here to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you made against the list. When you were unable to debate me on the facts your resorted to your new drug-induced smear campaign.
It is well documented how you have forum stalked me here, trolling every thread with your drug-induced smear campaign. All your threatened actions demonstrate is your stalking obsession.
I have conflated nothing with communism. Earth First is extensively documented at my site as engaging in terrorism. Please let everyone read my completely verifiable facts. Make sure to link to where you failed to debate me and resorted to this psychotic episode delusionally believing you are a psychologist.
Drug addicts like yourself cannot put anything into context because their brains are so fried they do not even know what reality is.
Now I need to make more truth articles!!
Let me make something perfectly clear to you, I WILL NEVER TAKE DOWN MY TRUTH ARTICLES and there is nothing you can do about it. There is nothing you can do about my list either. You will just have to live with the humiliating failure that you could not debate me.
Thank you for confirming how devastating the truth is to alarmists.
This is pure comedy gold.
I don't provide links and info for liars. Your editing has made clear the type of person you are. I see no reason to provide you with more interaction than shallow ridicule.
You can't provide links and info to back up your lies about Dr. Spencer, this has been demonstrated irrefutably here.
It is getting embarrassing, your lack of ability to support your arguments.
Now that you have been properly educated on this issue you should not make the same mistake again.
After review, I rescind the deadline. I am sending it no matter what is done. Putting the finishing touches on it now. If they want to take issue with you for saying what you will then that is their business and not mine.
Nice sig btw. If you seek to defame me by telling people that I smoke pot, good luck with that around these parts.
Yes, I say this."Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.
That is an inaccurate portrayal of my argument.Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.
I am saying that since the oceans are warming, if mankind had zero emissions of CO2, the atmospheric CO2 would still have a large increase. This is because the solubility of CO2 in water is largely temperature dependent. Colder water balances at a larger ratio of CO2 in the water vs. CO2 in the air at colder temperatures than warmer temperatures. I suggest you reference material that explains not only how temperature affects solubility of CO2 in water, but how partial pressure has an effect as well. My guess you you don't understand these sciences, therefor you don't understand my argument. I'm not here to school you on this. It would take too long.
My point here is that since the oceans have increased in temperature slightly, with all other things unchanged, they would have been a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere rather than a net sink. Since mankind did add CO2 to the air, the ocean responds as a net sink to try to achieve the balance dictated by the known sciences.
The ocean is absorbing approximately half of what we currently emit. If we emitted more, the ocean would absorb more. If we emitted less, the ocean would absorb less. It's all about the ratio needed to achieve balance. This balance will be a ratio where the ocean needs about 98% of the CO2 from between the atmosphere and ocean. The atmosphere will be about two percent. Fractions of a percentage change makes a large difference at to if the ocean wants more CO2, or want to release more. This fraction of a percentage changes only need a fraction of a degree change in temperature.Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.
You are probably getting this from my argument that if the ocean did not change in temperature, the ratio would remain constant. Lets say for example that it wants to maintain 98% of the CO2 between the sum of the ocean and atmosphere CO2. At a current approximate rate of 8 GtC per year, that means over 100 years, 800 GtC would be added to the system. With the atmosphere retaining 2% of this, it would only increase by 16 GtC, or by about 8 ppm.Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "
My point is that we are not the only source. Since the ocean is changing temperature, it wants to be a source too. Both sides are pushing to be sources. Only one of the two can be a net source.
Using easier numbers just for an example. Let's assume we have balance of 98:2. We have 10,000 units. We have 9,800 units in water and 200 units in the air above the water. If we increase the temperature of the water enough to change the calculated balance to 97.6:2.4, then the system will equalize to that. Equalization will occur when the water has 9,760 units and the air has 240 units. We didn't add the 40 units. It was achieved by the change in temperature
Now let's use the same 10,000 units and keep the temperature stable. Let's add another 100 units (man-made) into the system. Our 10,000 number now becomes 10,100. Since the equilibrium is at 98:2, the water will absorb 98 units leaving 2 in the air. Our new mix is now 10,098 to 202. We added 100, but 98% of it was dissolved.
Now we do both. We increase temperature and we add 100 units. We have 10,100 units at a 97.6:2.4 ratio for equilibrium. We now have 9,857.2 units in the water and 242.4 units in the air. Only 2.4 more units out of 100 than if we didn't add the 100.
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
Below is what I emailed.
Dear Site Administrator or Similar Associate,
I am a poster on a sports website, spurstalk.com. It's a very diverse site and includes one of the most nefarious locales on the internet: a lightly moderated political forum. I post as under the username FuzzyLumpkins.
On said forum, there is a thread entitled Why I think Climate Change Denial is Little More than Pseudoscience. It's original thread went up to 4002 posts and has recently started its second iteration. the previous incarnation can be found HERE and its current form will most certainly be on the front page. For most of you, this will have an obvious link and for the rest it will become more clear shortly.
To cut to the chase, about a month and a half ago a member of the forum posted a link to the <large number>+ Skeptical Science Papers from a site many of you are probably familiar with: populartechnology.net. I did a bit of research and found blogs and the like about the contents regarding the relatively small collaborative scientists who wrote the papers, contradictions within the works, umbrage from included scientists, etc. I am sure most if not all of you are familiar with the list. It seems like its been getting a lot of play lately. I made a post about it.
I think you can guess what happened next: Poptech shows up. He began posting his litany of rehearsed answers and began his megalomaniac claims of being irrefutable. Anyone who disagreed with him were liars and he has now gone to the point recently of claiming that skeptics that disagree with him are drug addicts mostly because I have said that I smoke pot and I know how to push his buttons. More on that in a second.
Anyway I quickly tired of having him rehash his canned answers and decided to go a different tact. Anyone that has dealt with him or had any discourse with him quickly realizes that he is not 100% right upstairs. He is singularly obsessive and completely inflexible and puritanical about anything that deviates from his worldview. Anything that he deems socialist precludes something as being capitalist. Any link justifies conflation and is absolute. His views on your stereotypical US 'right' agenda are absolute. His forums are really his database for his political views and canned answers. You can read as his sophistry is cataloged and evolves. If you go there and read them they are the stereotypical rightist views. Stuff like drugs are bad, alcohol is good, AGW is false, unions are bad, laissez faire is the way to go, flat tax is good, socialized medicine is bad, etc. Any deviation from that is irrefutably wrong. From what I understand he goes across the interwebs to spread his gospel.
I began to get him to go through his canned responses. It started off with me trying to figure out his method but quickly became me trying to get his obsessiveness rolling. I was going to see what I could get him to do. I worked out his puritanical approach to economics but then I came upon the 'Truth' series on his site. Most of you are probably familiar with it because with each of you he considers his political enemies he has one on you. He labels people as communists, terrorists, criminals, or posts pictures of your homes and tries to demean your professions. It's really scummy stuff. So, I decided to have him go through that. Some of the lengths that he went through to dig up stuff on you guys is pretty alarming. Pun intended.
At the end after arguing with him for quite some time, I conceded a point. Sorry greenfyre, it had to do with you indeed being associated with those he labeled as terrorists. Its asinine, I know. Why this was important will be clear in a moment. The next day I log on to find that he had started a thread which boiled down to Laissez Faire is great. It consisted of a bunch of youtube advertisements from the Heritage Foundation, Koch Brothers, and the Cato Institute. After discussing the particular industries that the board members of the Heritage Foundation worked for I decided to see what we could get him to do. I had his obsession rolling and I had given him the narcissistic feedback he needed to feel comfortable. I put a checklist about a particular Axis 2 mental disorder in front of him. The link for it is from the NIH and can be found HERE. He criticized my first posting which I conceded by correcting, put it back in front of him and lo and behold he filled it out. Below is what he wrote.
Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.
Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings
Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing
Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women
Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.
Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.
Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.
Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.
Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.
Now the link to his original post is HERE, but despite it being written on 5/4/2012 you can see that he edited it to ridicule me and conflate me with psychotics nearly three weeks later on 5/24/2012. I guess it took him awhile but I think he finally realized or someone he knows realized what he had written. But not to worry my response immediately following the original post where I quote what he wrote is HERE. Also there are HERE and HERE where there are other posters talk about or link his admission which as you can see none of which have been edited. If you want read the postings that lead up to and follow the linked posts and it becomes pretty clear what went on.
I will leave it to the individual to judge what they consider true or flase from what he wrote but one thing is clear: he claims he thinks he has a Axis 1 Mental Disorder. Now if you look a bit into aspergers and NPD, you will quickly find that they are often misdiagnosed for each other. A simple google search of 'aspergers narcissist misdiagnosis' will pull reams of articles and studies on the particular misdiagnosis. The main difference between sociopathic personality disorders like NPD and and autism spectrum mental disorders likeaspergers is that the latter is unaware of what his action are doing to the people he interacts with while the former is aware but just doesn't care.
I have thought about this and concluded he is probably the former. One of the things that narcissists do is devalue or dehumanize people that they consider threats or critics so they can dismiss them. Most of us have been labeled as what he considers undesirables. In my case, he has taken an admission of having smoked pot to label me as a psychotic drug addict. Others have been labeled as communists, criminals, terrorists or otherwise ridiculed so he can dismiss you out of hand. He has done this with every major AGW site on the internet. Every one. That and as you can see he says 'I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online.'
Now I am not above some introspection. If you read that site, it demonstrates that I can be a hothead who does not suffer fools and I wrestle with the ethic and moral implications of manipulating mentally ill people. I worry may be antisocial behavior of my own. At the same time I have tried to point out what he is susceptible to and that there are people out there that can help him. He is to the point where I am such a threat in his mind though that he just repeats the litany of how he devalues me and completely denies ever to admitting having the disorder. He is nothing if not disconcerting.
Regardless, I also think that given what he has done to you guys with his 'Truth' series, perhaps some of you will appreciate this context of this particular individual. That is my hope anyway. I also hope that somehow he can get the help that he really does need.
Finally, I would like to mention that I appreciate the empirical approach that you guys take towards your blogging and reporting and I believe you are fighting the good fight. I hope for the best in your endeavors.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-25-2012 at 05:49 AM.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
Aside from your stated purpose, you don't have the honesty to point this out anywhere on the page.
If you were intellectually honest, you would point out this fact at the top of your website.
That you do not bother to do so says volumes. It would not trouble you in the slightest that someone sympathetic to your viewpoints might think that this evidence is the only scientifically valid evidence about our climate. Neither are you going to lose any sleep if some with even less critical thinking skills than you possess can't see the weaknesses in your arguments.
The when I started combing through your precioussss lisssst, I found, unsurprisingly, material that only thinly supports your claims, if interpreted very generously. From what I have read of other critiques, others have come to similar conclusions.
Sure your list is, barely, what you say is.
The truth is, when weighed against the bulk of other available evidence, and viewed with honest skepticism, it is hardly compelling evidence to support the "harmless" theory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)