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

[Yonivore]

I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.

In the context of a bunch of anonymous posters in an internet forum, I disagree. It is petty.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In the context of a bunch of anonymous posters in an internet forum, I disagree. It is petty.

Yeah but then again you are pretty nihilist when asked to examine what you think of anything done here so that doesn't mean much. I think from your vantage point everything done here is petty.

[Yonivore]

Yeah but then again you are pretty nihilist when asked to examine what you think of anything done here so that doesn't mean much. I think from your vantage point everything done here is petty.

You don't need to think it anymore, everything done here, in my opinion, is petty and insignificant. Unless, and until, something significant (enough to be recognized by the world outside this forum) is realized from the interactions here, it will remain petty and insignificant.

[DarrinS]

I don't think there is anything petty about axis 1 and antisocial disorders.

People who live in glass houses...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5910380

[Poptech]

And of course he edited all his posts because he meant it to be that way.

aspergers
trolling with an admission of mental illness which you feel you need to hide.

You are now my puppet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

People who live in glass houses...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5910380

One is an admission of mental illness and the coverup. Mine is emailing people he writes smear campaigns on about it.



I wish big bird would do one on mutual exclusivity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are now my puppet.

I'm convinced by this just as much as by your editing. .

I'm sure you have heard the expression: "if it walks like a duck. . . ." Actually I imagine your mental illness makes nuance between seeming and reality like that difficult, aspie.

[DarrinS]

Fuzzy ,


Are these the guys you spammed with your attack on Poptech?



Super creepy dude that pops up from under the table at 0:40 is the cartoonist who runs SkS.

[DarrinS]

Same two tried to publish "research" that showed climate skeptics were crazy by using anonymous online polls (sound familiar?). Paper was rejected. Fail.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Poptart. Darrin wants to work for you. He has new material for you.

I really like the part where Darrin accuses RG of ad hominem. You two are a lot alike.

[Th'Pusher]

I left because I was bored...

I was referring to Yoni. He fell into a deep depression when Mitt lost.

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously, had I known I was going to instigate some grade school squabbling, I would have found another source.

No kidding.

I haven't heard that rubber/glue thing since maybe 3rd grade.

[Wild Cobra]

Delicious delicious wikipedia...



You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:



http://www.populartechnology.net/200....html#Criteria

Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.

Essentially:

"I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."






Just to get back to the OP. Thanks PopTech. Go stand in the corner with Cosmored. He bounces around forums about as much as you seem to.

That is his intent and you are falling for it. If you think you are going to get intellectually dishonest people (especially stoners) to conceded something you are delusional. My article - '97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them' absolutely destroys the credibility of the Cook et al. (2013) paper. It effectively demonstrates that their methods are fatally flawed and their conclusions worthless.

As for my list of papers, AGW proponents and Alarmists delusionally believe they hold the intellectual high ground with the peer-reviewed literature so they want to make your life as miserable as possible for citing something they want to pretend does not exist = peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. My resource is the best and most comprehensive on the Internet for peer-reviewed papers that skeptics can use to debate. RandomGuy knows it as do all other Alarmists, which is why they relentlessly attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. It is all hand-waving to avoid accepting that these papers exist.

Yes, he is intellectually dishonest on a very frequent basis.

Sometimes I call him RandomPropagandaGuy.

[Wild Cobra]

So Poptart did you ever go get help? Have you seen a mental health professional about your mental illness. Did you at least make sure that it was 'only' aspergers and not an antisocial personality disorder like the survey you filled out indicates? Has anyone I emailed about your sickness brought it up to you?

It's you Fuzzy toilet sucker who needs help.

lumpkin
The act of oral sex performed on a man while defecating.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lumpkin

[Wild Cobra]

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy

I'm sure glade i have better things to do than be an internet forum score keeper.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni is well aware of who I am.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.

You are still falling for it and do not realize it. They do not respect you here and are laughing at you regardless of the sources you provide. You are not going to convince them of anything on climate change no matter the sources you use because they are not intellectually honest and most of them are stoned. This is an ideological crusade for them not an honest debate. You can provide whatever sources you like and I can give you the playbook of how they will respond five pages of discussions out, why do you think I left? They are also a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who engage in psychobabble. I have debated on hundreds of forums and am being completely honest with you.

They want to frame me as "controversial" because I am actually a threat to them and they want to scare you from using my sources.

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

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seems WC has been drinking.

[Yonivore]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

[Th'Pusher]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

Because mitt lost

[boutons_deux]

Now I remember why I quit posting...

... now that your memory worked, will you stop posting again?

[Poptech]

I can start with this.

For one thing, your repeated claims that I committed "ad hominem" logical fallacies, and further, resorted to appeal to popularity logical fallacies.

You failed to reasonably demonstrate either assertion, despite being asked repeatedly.

Any attempt to undermine a person's argument using character attacks or attacking their motives can be considered an ad hominem logical fallacy whether you explicitly make an argument or not while doing it.

I did not lie as you repeatedly engage in this behavior.

[Poptech]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose an alternate theory to incessant self-googling would be an email notification. I still think PT is a self-googler, as it would fit with his "avenger" mindset and pattern of behavior. He has a cause, and that requires active searches.

Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy, automation is not "self-googling", let alone the usage of basic web analytics. The only "cause" I have is to correct misinformation stated about my work and or make clarifications when necessary.

[Wild Cobra]

Seems WC has been drinking.

Not yet, though I am getting quite the collection.

I might sip on some of this later:

http://bardstownwhiskeysociety.com/b...collection.php





http://www.thirstysouth.com/2014/09/...wheat-whiskey/

[Poptech]

Delicious delicious wikipedia...

Please stop demonstrating your computer illiteracy and learn to cite reliable sources.

You attempt to excuse or obfuscate this cherry picking is by to hiding behind your stated purpose, as if it shields you somehow:

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;

The stated purposed is quite clear as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. Which paper supporting a skeptic argument did I intentionally leave off the list?

Yet nowhere, do you acknowledge or provide any links to anything that does not agree with you, or to any paper that does not.

This argument is incoherent, why would I provide papers that do not support skeptic arguments in a resource that was created only for papers that support skeptic arguments?

Essentially: "I'm not cherry picking because I state up front that I am cherry-picking, but I since I say that is my purpose, I'm really not cherry picking, nuh-uh."

Where does the list claim to be a comprehensive resource on climate change?

[Th'Pusher]

Yoni is well aware of who I am.

As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

Fuzzy may be on to something with this narcissist stuff...