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

[H.A.L.]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 163637

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4915557&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#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


(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/evolution-climate-deniers-the-redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/


A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"


Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

ignore the facts and evidence;
do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/that-denier-vs-septic-thing-again/#more-2959

[Poptech]

can you Idso suckers refute this:

"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments

What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? (http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php)

"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.

Unfortunately, we know that this view is contrary to what often occurs in today's world, where the souls of many are bought and sold daily - some for a proverbial king's ransom and others for but a pauper's penny - to promulgate ideas to which they have not the slightest personal allegiance. I want to state once and for all, therefore, that we at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change do not participate in such commerce, while acknowledging there are likely many scientists on the opposite side of the climate change debate that are equally true to themselves in this regard.

But why should you believe me? Lying and fabrication are equally rampant throughout today's world, making almost anyone's declaration, however adamantly and eloquently delivered, more suspect than believable; and maybe that's what I'm doing here - lying to you.

Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue.

Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that.

So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or to encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be the truth.

In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them?

Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's image.

So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients.

Sherwood B. Idso, President
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

[Yonivore]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 163637
Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?

[RandomGuy]

Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?

You broke it! :bang :ihit




:p:

[RandomGuy]

Picking up with the discussion about Roy Spencer, let's see some of his other work:

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html



True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred.


It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.


But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Ah yes, the theory of evolution is a religion.

Good to know.

[RandomGuy]

What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? (http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php)


what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort.

Mr. Idso hasn't published anything peer-reviewed in more than a decade.

He is the president of a website. :sleep

I would prefer science a bit more up to date. His webiste offers some critiques, but again, nothing overly compelling.

[Poptech]

Picking up with the discussion about Roy Spencer, let's see some of his other work:
Nice Red Herring. It is always the same distractions such as falling back to religious arguments when the debate is lost.

[Blake]

Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?

It's happened before.

4000 posts and HAL pops up.

[Poptech]

Mr. Idso hasn't published anything peer-reviewed in more than a decade.
Lie,

Seventeen years of carbon dioxide enrichment of sour orange trees: final results (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01430.x/abstract)
(Global Change Biology, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp. 2171-2183, October 2007)
- Bruce A. Kimball, Sherwood B. Idso, Stephanie Johnson, Matthias C. Rillig


I would prefer science a bit more up to date.
CO2Science (http://www.co2science.org/) is update weekly with new reviews of peer-reviewed science.

[Yonivore]

It's happened before.

4000 posts and HAL pops up.
Cool.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Idso had to be pressed to admit that he received funding from Exxon and who knows for how long he has been receiving said funding. Tobacco scientists also claimed that their work was not swayed by tobacco funding.

I also noted how Popaspergers avoided the question as to whether any AGW scientists have made a good argument.

[Poptech]

Idso had to be pressed to admit that he received funding from Exxon and who knows for how long he has been receiving said funding. Tobacco scientists also claimed that their work was not swayed by tobacco funding.
Surely you can present evidence of corruption, instead of just baseless smears. He was a skeptic long, long, long before his non-profit organization received any energy company donations.


I also noted how Poptech avoided the question as to whether any AGW scientists have made a good argument.
No alarmist scientists has made a good argument supporting alarm.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Corruption? I realize your asperger need to label something so you can understand it but its not that simple. If you insist on labeling it then call it a conflict of interest.

So then you agree that the earth is warming or that CO2 is the most significant contributor behind the deviation from the ENSO cycle?

You just do not agree with the feedback estimates?

5 years ago did you not believe that Earth was warming at all? When between now and then did you change your position from being anti-AGW to anti-AGW alarm?

[Poptech]

Corruption? If you insist on labeling it then call it a conflict of interest.
Since CO2 affects just about everything this is an illogical argument.


So then you agree that the earth is warming or that CO2 is the most significant contributor behind the deviation from the ENSO cycle?

You just do not agree with the feedback estimates?
I've always believed there is empirical evidence for a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age,

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg

I do not believe man-made CO2 is the most significant contributor to this mild warming. I do not support any alarmist feedback scenarios period.


5 years ago did you not believe that Earth was warming at all? When between now and then did you change your position from being anti-AGW to anti-AGW alarm?
You are confusing believing in a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the little ice age with the cause or primary cause of that warming being man-made CO2. Anti-AGW Alarm has always been my position whether stated as such or not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Could you post a graph actually compiled by NASA-GISS? You know one without the gratuitous range?

[Poptech]

Could you post a graph actually compiled by NASA-GISS? You know one without the gratuitous range?
Why would I post a graph at a scale meant to mislead the average person like NASA-GISS does?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?

I mean setting the range only fractionally larger than the range of data is misleading but making it 10 times bigger is not?

I guess whatever confirms your bias.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So that is intentionally misleading?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also if you are going to try and paint me as psychotic due to having delusions then you need to actually point to the delusions.

I can point to your admission that you believe you have an Axis 1 mental disorder. I certainly can understand why you believe that. I just do not understand why you have not gone to see a mental health professional about it.

If I were to admit that I had psychotic breaks then I would definitely go see one. It seems irresponsible to me that you admit you have a disorder yet do nothing about it. You not have the funding to do so or something?

[Poptech]

The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?
It is misleading to the layman as they only measure temperature in degrees and can easily mistake your graph for degrees not fractions of degrees. I have seen this happen repeatedly with the public. People can make up their own minds as to why this matters. I personally believe it is obvious,

Real Temperatures (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/10/real-temperatures.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is misleading to the layman as they only measure temperature in degrees and can easily mistake your graph for degrees not fractions of degrees. I have seen this happen repeatedly with the public.

So the layman does not understand what a decimal point means? What most people do not understand is how a fraction of a degree in that cycle is significant. Most people see that their seasons go from -5 to 40 degrees.

Even if i were to admit that was a reasonable argument --a 50% positive deviation from the cycle is a 50% positive deviation from the cycle-- why make it 5. Why not make it 1 or 2? Why 5?

Could it be an attempt at obfuscation?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And NASA is unreliable but the axis 1 mental disorder guy is reliable?

That link is to your site. What exactly are your credentials anyway? Besides thinking that you have aspergers and how that makes you special?

[Poptech]

What most people do not understand is how a fraction of a degree in that cycle is significant.
It's not.


why make it 5. Why not make it 1 or 2? Why 5?
Because I have consistently heard people make the false claim that temperatures have increase by 5 or more degrees.


And NASA is unreliable
NASA-GISS is unreliable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That link is to your site. What exactly are your credentials anyway? Besides thinking that you have aspergers and how that makes you special?

[Poptech]

What exactly are your credentials anyway?
Uh… genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist…

[Wild Cobra]

Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?
I'm thinking the forum program must have a 4095 or 4096 posting limit per thread.

[Wild Cobra]

It is misleading to the layman as they only measure temperature in degrees and can easily mistake your graph for degrees not fractions of degrees. I have seen this happen repeatedly with the public. People can make up their own minds as to why this matters. I personally believe it is obvious,

Real Temperatures (http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/10/real-temperatures.html)
I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.

[MannyIsGod]

The graphs ARE in Kelvins.

:lmao x 30483048309843904830984390384490843048

Delta Celsius is the exact same as Delta Kelvin.

[Wild Cobra]

The graphs ARE in Kelvins.

:lmao x 30483048309843904830984390384490843048

Delta Celsius is the exact same as Delta Kelvin.
No, you are the idiot.


I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.

I don't see zero Kelvin as a reference on the chart.

[MannyIsGod]

Um, thats because neither of those Y axis are temperature but temperature ANOMALY. Hence, the DELTA. Thats what you do when you show a CHANGE.

[TE]

The graphs ARE in Kelvins.

:lmao x 30483048309843904830984390384490843048

Delta Celsius is the exact same as Delta Kelvin.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Um, thats because neither of those Y axis are temperature but temperature ANOMALY. Hence, the DELTA. Thats what you do when you show a CHANGE.
Yes, that's what you do to amplify it to see relative differences. Even though I didn't phrase things as good as I should have, there is a purpose to show the variation from absolute.

Both absolute and differential have a place for proper discussion. To show that in the scale if things, it is so miniscule from absolute, it something people need to remember. Take that how you must. You can use it to your advantage to say our small contribution makes a difference, but please don't forget. 0.7 degrees is less than 1/4 of a percent in absolute terms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its the change in temperature, dolt, not the temperature.

K = C + 273 ergot

(1 + 273) - (0 + 273) = 1 - 0 = 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just noticed that Popaspergers edited his admission to aspergers post.

What a coward.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol editing 3 weeks later.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5852868&postcount=226

Better edit that one too. You feel no compunction about posting other people's personal information on your site yet when you reveal something about your broken mind, you edit it once t becomes apparent that its socially unacceptable.

You are axis 2. That pretty much nails it as you are completely cognitive of your obsessive behavior and how your sociopathic behavior is reprehensible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.

Yeah but its a derivative.....

[TE]

Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.

:lmao

"Quantitatively, I mean a change in 814 K to 414 K will certainly be more obvious than a change from 540 C to 140 C"

[Wild Cobra]

Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.
I guess to somone like you who prefers to believe in AGW with no questions, doesn't understand the significance of zero.

Is there or is there not, a place in science for absolute zero?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is it a differential or an issue of zero?

NOBODY KNOWS!!

[Wild Cobra]

Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.
You're about as bright as when the myth busters called a myth busted, when they used 5 PSIG (atmospheric differential) instead of 5 PSIA (absolute.)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone ask him what kelvin and celsius are differentiated by. It should be amusing. He's got me on ignore.

[Wild Cobra]

Back to the sun:

Is climate sensitive to solar variability? (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf); excerpt:


We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used. Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict
will happen over the next few decades,
that cooling could stabilize Earth’s climate
and avoid the catastrophic consequences
predicted in the IPCC report.

[boutons_deux]

can you Idso suckers refute this:

"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments

[Wild Cobra]

can you Idso suckers refute this:

"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments
Is that another one of these places that get maybe 0.002% of their funding from an oil company, so you assume they are biased for the oil company?

[boutons_deux]

"Is that another one of these places that get maybe 0.002% of their funding from an oil company"

"Do Your Own Research" (c) WC

[Poptech]

I just noticed that Poptech edited his admission to aspergers post.

What a coward.
Is this part of your delusions from your Psychosis? You really need to seek treatment as you are now imagining things. Why did you fabricate things in your other posts?

[RandomGuy]

Nice Red Herring. It is always the same distractions such as falling back to religious arguments when the debate is lost.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Roy Spencer's credibility as a scientist.

Perhaps you could help me clear up my confusion about the issue so I can avoid future mistakes, given that I dont' understand the science and have to make judgments about who to believe is probably right.

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

[RandomGuy]

WC,

By all means then put what you are trying to say down, punch up the words until it is what you are trying to get at, and remove whatever you think is my "twist":



"Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "

That, to me, seems to be what you are trying to say about the extra CO2 in our atmosphere.

You will recall your estimation of human contributions is "at most" only 10 ppm.

[Agloco]

I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/GoodGrief.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is this part of your delusions from your Psychosis? You really need to seek treatment as you are now imagining things. Why did you fabricate things in your other posts?

:lol

Thats awesome. I pointed you to a link that you forgot to edit and then you went ahead and edited it. Now I have proof of your edit job and what it was and why you did it if I ever care to use it. It's fun manipulating your OCD mind, monkey.

Your admission of mental illness is verifiable forever. What I want to know is who saw it that embarrassed you to the point that you edited it. If you google poptech aspergers or aspergers irrefutable, your little activity here pops up.

I should go to all of your political enemies and tell them too.

[Poptech]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Roy Spencer's credibility as a scientist.

Perhaps you could help me clear up my confusion about the issue so I can avoid future mistakes, given that I dont' understand the science and have to make judgments about who to believe is probably right.

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
Dr. Spencer's impeccable climate credentials have been presented,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

Your obsession with those who hold religious views different than your own is irrelevant to his climate science credentials and scientific arguments against AGW Alarm. The purpose of every climate science discussion is not for you to demonstrate your religious bigotry.

[Yonivore]

Dr. Spencer's impeccable climate credentials have been presented,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

Your obsession with those who hold religious views different than your own is irrelevant to his climate science credentials and scientific arguments against AGW Alarm. The purpose of every climate science discussion is not for you to demonstrate your religious bigotry.
I don't know but, it makes me wonder if there are any AGCC proponents that also give credence to intelligent design theory.

[Poptech]

Thats awesome. I pointed you to a link that you forgot to edit and then you went ahead and edited it. Now I have proof of your edit job and what it was and why you did it if I ever care to use it. It's fun manipulating your OCD mind

Your admission of mental illness is verifiable forever. What I want to know is who saw it that embarrassed you to the point that you edited it.
Why are you lying and being delusional? You need to seek treatment for your psychosis. Your marijuana use and drug addiction is well documented.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now you deny saying that you believe that you have aspergers?

You did not write the following bolded answers:


React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

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.

and then edit them out in the last couple of days?

[Poptech]

Why are you lying and being delusional? You need to seek treatment for your psychosis. Your marijuana use and drug addiction is well documented. This sort of delusional obsessive behavior is typical of marijuana induced psychosis.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What am I lying about?

[Th'Pusher]

PT are you actually denying that you said you have a mild form of Aspergers?

[Poptech]

You need to seek treatment for your psychosis and drug addiction.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the premise of the question is not delusional. You did accuse me of lying.

What am I lying about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

I think you should change the answer to this particular question on the survey.

[Poptech]

Have you seeked treatment for your drug addiction? You are exhibiting classic symptoms of marijuana induced psychosis as you are now imagining things.

[Th'Pusher]

Have you seeked treatment for your drug addiction? You are exhibiting classic symptoms of marijuana induced psychosis as you are now imagining things.

I'm pretty sure it's sought, but are you actually denying you said you had a mild form of Aspergers?

[Poptech]

Do you use marijuana as well?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use. My closest and dearest friend is a clinical psychologist.

What am I imagining?

[Poptech]

In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use. My closest and dearest friend is a clinical psychologist.
Like I said - a drug addict.

[Th'Pusher]

Do you use marijuana as well?

No I don't. It is a yes or no question. Are you denying that you said you believe you have a mild form of Aspergers? Yes or no?

[Poptech]

Have you ever used Marijuana?

[Th'Pusher]

Have you ever used Marijuana?

No. Are you denying that you self diagnosed yourself with a mild form of Aspergers?

[Poptech]

It is impossible for me to diagnose myself with any such thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everyone here knows that he wrote that survey. Whats interesting is how his mental illness works. He is absolutely obsessive.

What is particularly interesting is that he talks about others credibility as evidence by his listing the resumes of his favorite scientists or when with his Truth series of smear campaigns calling people terrorists, communists, criminals or cartoonists.

It's obviously very important to him.

OTOH, when he himself bears scrutiny such as this latest deception about his admission of aspergers or refusal to discuss his credentials, he just tries to avoid or obfuscate the issue. It underlines a deep shame.

This is why i say that he is axis 2 because he is completely aware of the interpersonal dynamic. His response is very skewed because of the mental illness but the cognizance is unquestionably there.

The thing is that obsessive personalities like his are easy to take advantage of. Once he starts along that track you can steer him so to speak. He obviously regrets filling out that survey. He's trying to make people think he did not. I know that he is just going to start the 'Fuzzy is a delusional drug addict' routine but I really am quite earnest in saying that psychotherapy and other treatments would be very helpful for him.

[Th'Pusher]

It is impossible for me to diagnose myself with any such thing.

Sorry, it is a yes or no question. Are you denying that you said you believe you have a mild form of Aspergers?

[Poptech]

The only person here who has been diagnosed with a mental illness is you FuzzDumbkins. Your drug addiction has caused your psychosis.

The resumes are presented as irrefutable evidence of those scientist's credentials. Everything documented in my truth serious is verifiable.

I have no shame at all regarding my credentials as I am a computer analyst. Unlike your imagined fears I have actually been on the receiving end of personal threats and will keep my personal information private.

Your new perpetual lies about me is due to your humiliation when you failed to debate me. This libelous behavior is linked to your drug addiction. I've never used illegal drugs or misused legal drugs so I do not have your mental illness. Your limited intelligence and weak mind is clearly embarrassing to you or you would not be trying to project your mental deficiencies on other people with your psycho babble. Seek medical treatment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, it is a yes or no question. Are you denying that you said you believe you have a mild form of Aspergers?

[Th'Pusher]

The only person here who has been diagnosed with a mental illness is you FuzzDumbkins. Your drug addiction has caused your psychosis.

The resumes are presented as irrefutable evidence of those scientist's credentials. Everything documented in my truth serious is verifiable.

I have no shame at all regarding my credentials as I am a computer analyst. Unlike your imagined fears I have actually been on the receiving end of personal threats and will keep my personal information private.

Your new perpetual lies about me is due to your humiliation when you failed to debate me is due to your drug addiction. I've never used illegal drugs or misused legal drugs so I do not have your mental illness. Your limited intelligence and weak mind is clearly embarrassing to you or you would not be trying to project your mental deficiencies on other people with your psycho babble. Seek medical treatment.

why won't you answer my question?

[Poptech]

Where did I say this? Please link to my post.

[Th'Pusher]

Where did I say this? Please link to my post.

Are you denying you said you believe you have a mild form of Aspergers? Yes or no? Stop dodging and just answer the question.

[Poptech]

I can find no post where I made this claim.

[Th'Pusher]

I can find no post where I made this claim.

I did not say there was a post that made that claim. I am asking you if you have claimed that you believe you have a mild form of Aspergers. Yes or no? those are your only options.

[Poptech]

It is fascinating how I have been able to identify the drug addicts in these forums and they now seek retribution for being exposed and humiliated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Uh-oh you better edit that one too.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888230&postcount=119

[Poptech]

I am not responding to strawman arguments. Please quote and link to my post.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a question, not an argument.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol Last edited by Poptech; Today at 10:52 PM..

[Th'Pusher]

It is fascinating how I have been able to identify the drug addicts in these forums and they now seek retribution for being exposed and humiliated.

I just told you I have never used drugs? Why are you smearing me and lying about me. Just answer my simple question.

[Th'Pusher]

It's a question, not an argument.

[Th'Pusher]

A very simple question at that. Yes or no?

[Poptech]

:lol Last edited by Poptech; Today at 10:52 PM..
I needed to add your quote.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

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.

Why are you ashamed of it Popaspie?

[Poptech]

This is getting old, let me know when you can quote and link to me making your delusional claims.

[Th'Pusher]

This is getting old, let me know when you can quote and link to me making your delusional claims.

I am not making a claim. I am asking you a question. Just answer.

[Poptech]

FuzzDrugAddict, why are you demonstrating your drug-induced psychosis?


In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You edited it. We both know it. let's show it as it was before your edit again:


React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

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.

[Poptech]

Th'Pusher, please stop with your libel. Either link to my post or retract your libel.

[Poptech]

You edited it. We both know it. let's show it as it was before your edit again:
It was edited to fix spelling mistakes not your libel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not ashamed of it. When I have a concern about things or I believe certain things to be the case I do not just edit my posts and hope that the truth will just go away. What about it would you like to know?

[Th'Pusher]

All right PT. You have dodged enough. You have no credibility in my book because you could not answer the most basic of questions.

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Pusher, please stop with your libel. Either link to my post or retract your libel.

LOL. Libel for asking you a question? :rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was edited to fix spelling mistakes not your libel.

So you finally outright lie. You obviously have an aversion to doing it but you will. That's interesting.

[Poptech]

FuzzDrugAddict, has been embarrassed and humiliated when he could not debate me and is now resorting to libel and smears. This is typical denial behavior of a drug addict. They cannot accept they are wrong and must project their mental illness onto others.

[Th'Pusher]

FuzzDrugAddict, has been embarrassed and humiliated when he could not debate me and is now resorting to libel and smears. This is typical denial behavior of a drug addict. They cannot accept they are wrong and must project their mental illness onto others.

Irrelevant to the indisputable fact that you would not answer my basic question.

[Poptech]

So you finally outright lie. You obviously have an aversion to doing it but you will. That's interesting.
I have not lied. Your perpetual libel on this only confirms your drug induced psychosis. You really need to seek treatment and will have to live with the irrefutable fact that you lack the mental ability to debate me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was edited to fix spelling mistakes not your libel.

So you are saying that the post was originally about me being a drug addict that you had to spellcheck and had nothing to do with you saying at best you had a mild form of aspergers?

[Poptech]

Seek medical treatment, drug addict.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its a new page so we need to make sure this is up on it.


React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.

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.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol at PT's Aspergers preventing him from admitting he claimed he believes he had a mild form of Aspergers.

[Poptech]

FuzzyDrugAddict has been diagnosed with Psychosis,

In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use.


Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And? I talked to doctors about pot. So that means what?

[Poptech]

Seek treatment, drug addict.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The same people post here all the time, aspie. I am not ashamed whereas you have clearly demonstrated that you are. Everyone knows it but moreso now they know that you lie, you edit your posts to be deceptive and you are cognizant of what your behavior is. You are ashamed of it and we are getting an idea of to what lengths you will go to 'hide' it.

We can play the game of me quoting your admission and you trying to link marijuana to psychosis but what do you really think people will think? I can do this all day because we both know you are full of shit. Continue posturing as if that makes it somehow not true as if it just does not paint you more and more as a sociopath.

[Poptech]

I have never been diagnosed with any condition so I have nothing to be ashamed of. Where you have been diagnosed with drug addiction.

We can play the well documented game of your drug-addicted forum stalking as you have already threatened to libel and stalk me throughout the Internet as you do here. This is documented for everyone to see,


I should go to all of your political enemies and tell them too.

Typical drug-induced psychosis.

[Th'Pusher]

PT, I found your arguments on AGW quite compelling. I was really questioning whether or not I had been duped by the alarmist media/scientists, but the fact that you cannot answer my basic question really calls your credibility into question.

[Poptech]

PT, I found your arguments on AGW quite compelling. I was really questioning whether or not I had been duped by the alarmist media/scientists, but the fact that you cannot answer my basic question really calls your credibility into question.
That is a real shame as those arguments stand on their own.

[Th'Pusher]

That is a real shame as those arguments stand on their own.

But the person that conferred them is not credible to me as he is unable to answer a basic question.

[Poptech]

But the person that conferred them is not credible to me as he is unable to answer a basic question.
That breaks my heart and I thought we were making such progress. Man I really thought I convinced you, oh noes.

[Th'Pusher]

That breaks my heart and I thought we were making such progress. Man I really thought I convinced you, oh noes.

It was just a basic question PT. Your inability to answer speaks volumes about your character and as a purveyor of truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Notice how he will lie to me but he won't lie to you but he also will not admit to that which he is ashamed of.


The narcissist's thinking is magical. In his own mind, the narcissist is brilliant, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and unique. Compliments and observations that accord with this inflated self-image ("The False Self") are taken for granted and as a matter of course.

Having anticipated the praise as fully justified and in accordance with (his) "reality", the narcissist feels that his traits, behavior, and "accomplishments" have made the accolades and kudos happen, have generated them, and have brought them into being. He "annexes" positive input and feels, irrationally, that its source is internal, not external; that it is emanating from inside himself, not from outside, independent sources. He, therefore, takes positive narcissistic supply lightly.


The narcissist treats disharmonious input - criticism, or disagreement, or data that negate the his self-perception - completely differently. He accords a far greater weight to these types of countervailing, challenging, and destabilizing information because they are felt by him to be "more real" and coming verily from the outside. Obviously, the narcissist cannot cast himself as the cause and source of opprobrium, castigation, and mockery.

This sourcing and weighing asymmetry is the reason for the narcissist's disproportionate reactions to perceived insults. He simply takes them as more "real" and more "serious". The narcissist is constantly on the lookout for slights. He is hypervigilant. He perceives every disagreement as criticism and every critical remark as complete and humiliating rejection: nothing short of a threat. Gradually, his mind turns into a chaotic battlefield of paranoia and ideas of reference.

Most narcissists react defensively. They become conspicuously indignant, aggressive, and cold. They detach emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. They devalue the person who made the disparaging remark, the critical comment, the unflattering observation, the innocuous joke at the narcissist's expense.

By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the discordant conversant – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. This is a defence mechanism known as cognitive dissonance.

http://samvak.tripod.com/journal86.html

[Poptech]

FuzzyDrugAddict has been diagnosed with Psychosis,

In answer to your question, I have talked to medical doctors and a psychologist about marijuana use.


Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.

Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).

With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.

Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.

[Poptech]

It was just a basic question PT. Your inability to answer speaks volumes about your character and as a purveyor of truth.
I am going to miss all those times you stood up for my character.

[MannyIsGod]

This is a pretty epic meltdown. I really wonder who he's trying to hide this from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is a pretty epic meltdown. I really wonder who he's trying to hide this from.

Thats what I am wondering as well. I am halfway tempted to email greenfyre, skepticalscience, realclimate etc.

With the links. Its not really hard to figure out what hes doing.

[Poptech]

This is a pretty epic meltdown. I really wonder who he's trying to hide this from.
The liar returns, Manny have you been able to quote and cite Dr. Spencer rescinding his conclusions?

[Poptech]

Thats what I am wondering as well. I am halfway tempted to email greenfyre, skepticalscience, realclimate etc.
Further documentation of your Internet Stalking. I obviously humiliated you when you failed to debate me due to your limited intelligence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Further documentation of your Internet Stalking.

Um, me talking to other people is not stalking. Looking up their personal information and posting it on the interwebs OTOH. You have 'Truth' articles on every one of those guys.

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I obviously humiliated you when you failed to debate me due to your limited intelligence.

Nice dehumanization. How is that cognitive dissonance working out for you? I bet it burns knowing that I got you to reveal your mental illness.

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.'

[Poptech]

Um, me talking to other people is not stalking. Looking up their personal information and posting it on the interwebs. You have 'Truth' articles on every one of those guys.
It is documented here that you have threatened to stalk me on the Internet. This behavior is already confirmed as you stalk me throughout these forum posts. Your behavior is well documented here. Every thing stated in those truth articles is verifiable, cited and sourced. Researching this information for an expose is not stalking, you drug addict. Please seek medical help already.


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.
:lmao I was not arguing with drug addicts at Skeptical Science. Your perpetual libel and forum stalking in every thread I comment in is evidence of nothing but your drug-induced psychosis. Please, oh please have them restore everyone of my comments there so you can expose my "behavior". :lmao

[Poptech]

Nice dehumanization. How is that cognitive dissonance working out for you? I bet it burns knowing that I got you to reveal your mental illness.
You revealed nothing but your drug addiction and stalking behavior.

[Poptech]

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

[Poptech]

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.


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.

:lmao The psychotic drug addict is attempting to black mail me! Melt down indeed. This is the second melt-down you have had here.

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. :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

The liar returns

You left?

[Poptech]

Still no quote from Dr. Spencer?

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[Poptech]

You can't provide links and info to back up your lies about Dr. Spencer, this has been demonstrated irrefutably here.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok.

[Poptech]

It is getting embarrassing, your lack of ability to support your arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

It sure is. I'm so embarrassed.

[Poptech]

Now that you have been properly educated on this issue you should not make the same mistake again.

[MannyIsGod]

ok

[Poptech]

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

:tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

WC,

By all means then put what you are trying to say down, punch up the words until it is what you are trying to get at, and remove whatever you think is my "twist":




That, to me, seems to be what you are trying to say about the extra CO2 in our atmosphere.

You will recall your estimation of human contributions is "at most" only 10 ppm.
I don't know if I'm insane or not. Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and expecting different results. I hope you will understand my final attempt here, but honestly, i don't expect you to understand since you didn't the first time.


"Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.
Yes, I say this.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

That is an inaccurate portrayal of my argument.

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.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.
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.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "
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.

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Fuzzy

[RandomGuy]

I came here to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you made against the list.



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1702

[RandomGuy]

It is getting embarrassing, your lack of ability to support your arguments.

You have little room to talk. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32)

[RandomGuy]

Thank you for confirming how devastating the truth is to alarmists.

The truth is your list represents a vanishingly small portion of the available evidence.

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.

[DarrinS]

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.



So you are going to report him to the climate blog, run by the cartoonist? :lmao


Damn, Fuzzy, I realized you were lame, but I didn't know you were a fucking psycho.

[DarrinS]

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.

Fuzzy




HOW

FUCKING

PATHETIC




Are there any ST rules of etiquette against lame-ass shit like this?

Ban this mofo -- PLEASE.

[Poptech]

:lmao Talk about meltdowns - this is epic. I can't wait for all the followup posts from "FuzzyLumpkins" the psychotic drug addict. :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao Talk about meltdowns - this is epic. I can't wait for all the followup posts from "FuzzyLumpkins" the psychotic drug addict. :lmao

PT, are you denying that you said that you believed you suffer from a mild form of Aspergers?;)

[Poptech]

The truth is your list represents a vanishingly small portion of the available evidence.
This is incorrect.


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.
Why would I point out a lie?


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
I never include lies in my work. Let me know when alarmists link to my list so they stop misleading people on the skeptic side of the argument.


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.
Every paper on the list supports skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Cherry picking papers from my list and then falsely applying them to the whole is disengenous.


Sure your list is, barely, what you say is.
The list is exactly what it says it is, which is why it is such a problem for you.


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.
:lmao Keep telling yourself that as it keeps growing!

[Poptech]

PT, are you denying that you said that you believed you suffer from a mild form of Aspergers?;)
Shhh... I have him mass emailing people that my list was updated. Isn't self-marketing great? :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Shhh... I have him mass emailing people that my list was updated. Isn't self-marketing great? :lmao

Ah. You're super smart. You were not answering my direct yes or no question in an effort to execute a diabolical plan to get Fuzzy to promote your website. Nice :downspin:

[Poptech]

The plan does not include you so please help me out.

[DarrinS]

The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?




If you were having a meeting with your boss and showed him a graph of how much your new product has increased the company's profits, and the graph had a range of one dollar, I don't think your boss would be very impressed -- unless he was a complete moron.

[RandomGuy]

The truth is your list represents a vanishingly small portion of the available evidence.


This is incorrect.

Ok, then, how much of the available evidence do you think it represents?

Rough guess, mas o menos 10%

Would you say that all the papers on your lisssst represent evidence that strongly supports your preferred "no harm" thesis?

[RandomGuy]

The list is exactly what it says it is


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1702

[RandomGuy]

The list is exactly what it says it is, which is why it is such a problem for you.

I have no problem with the truth. Follow the evidence to where it leads.

If your no harm theory is right, that is a good thing, in my book.

Prudent risk management, however, requires that we consider the possibility that you and people who share your beliefs are wrong about your favored interpretation of the available evidence.

Because prudent risk management requires that consideration, it is big a problem for you.

[RandomGuy]

If you were having a meeting with your boss and showed him a graph of how much your new product has increased the company's profits, and the graph had a range of one dollar, I don't think your boss would be very impressed -- unless he was a complete moron.

How would that boss react if told to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on something based on incomplete or outdated data? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907322&postcount=345)

[MannyIsGod]

If you were having a meeting with your boss and showed him a graph of how much your new product has increased the company's profits, and the graph had a range of one dollar, I don't think your boss would be very impressed -- unless he was a complete moron.

Lol such a fantastic analogy. No, really. Amazing critical thinking.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe!

[RandomGuy]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Roy Spencer's credibility as a scientist.

Perhaps you could help me clear up my confusion about the issue so I can avoid future mistakes, given that I dont' understand the science and have to make judgments about who to believe is probably right.

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?



Dr. Spencer's impeccable climate credentials have been presented,

[lengthy copy/paste omitted for brevity]

Your obsession with those who hold religious views different than your own is irrelevant to his climate science credentials and scientific arguments against AGW Alarm. The purpose of every climate science discussion is not for you to demonstrate your religious bigotry.

Yet another question you have tap danced around.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

You brought up the issue of credibility with your list of credentials.

Again, as a general question:

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

[DarrinS]

How would that boss react if told to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on something based on incomplete or outdated data? (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5907322&postcount=345)

You unwittingly make a good point for no action on CO2 emmissions.

[RandomGuy]

You unwittingly make a good point for no action on CO2 emmissions.

[snark redacted]

Not really, but if it makes you happy to think that, by all means, be my guest.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you were having a meeting with your boss and showed him a graph of how much your new product has increased the company's profits, and the graph had a range of one dollar, I don't think your boss would be very impressed -- unless he was a complete moron.

That took you two days to come up with or was it just instant stupidity?

If the graph was profit anomaly per unit and it ranged up from .50 to a $1 you bet they would hate it?

Thats the point, dimwit, you fit the graph to the data. Not to make it look small.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you are going to report him to the climate blog, run by the cartoonist? :lmao


Damn, Fuzzy, I realized you were lame, but I didn't know you were a fucking psycho.

I guess. I sent it to everyone on his truth series as well to NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA.

I really think its only fair since he misrepresents their works, groups all us AGW alarmist as drug crazed psychotic liars.

Maybe they do not care but I imagine given the amount of stink he generates as loudly and widespread as he does forum the world over, many of them know exactly who he is and will appreciate the levity that his admission of mental illness gives.

[Drachen]

Dupe!

50000 my ass. more like 25k

[Wild Cobra]

HOW

FUCKING

PATHETIC




Are there any ST rules of etiquette against lame-ass shit like this?

Ban this mofo -- PLEASE.


:lmao Talk about meltdowns - this is epic. I can't wait for all the followup posts from "FuzzyLumpkins" the psychotic drug addict. :lmao
No shit.

You have owned him so completely with your calm bantering. Maybe he's had enough. Don't need to send him to a padded room.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no problem with the truth. Follow the evidence to where it leads.


Oh I so disagree. Did you figure out the CO2 and ocean thing yet?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.



:lmao The psychotic drug addict is attempting to black mail me! Melt down indeed. This is the second melt-down you have had here.

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. :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao

Yeah this wasn't textbook narcissistic rage...

Drug addicts like yourself cannot put anything into context because their brains are so fried they do not even know what reality is.

YOU WILL NEVER!!!!

I AM INVINCIBLE!!!

[DarrinS]

I guess. I sent it to everyone on his truth series as well to NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA.

I really think its only fair since he misrepresents their works, groups all us AGW alarmist as drug crazed psychotic liars.

Maybe they do not care but I imagine given the amount of stink he generates as loudly and widespread as he does forum the world over, many of them know exactly who he is and will appreciate the levity that his admission of mental illness gives.


What you did is fucking pathetic. I'm sure the folks at NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA, really give a rats ass what FuzzyWumpkins on the ST political forum thinks. What a loser. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

What you did is fucking pathetic. I'm sure the folks at NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA, really give a rats ass what FuzzyWumpkins on the ST political forum thinks. What a loser. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
No shit.

Fuzzy is seriously butt-hurt. Isn't he.

LOL...

Had to remove the IGNORE to follow more completely his breakdown. He thinks I don't know Kelvin compared to Celsius...

He always got things wrong and made lame accusations. Just another one against me. Guess his stupidity shouldn't matter. It's more the reason I had him on IGNORE than anything. Just tired of dealing with such a low IQ.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What you did is fucking pathetic. I'm sure the folks at NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA, really give a rats ass what FuzzyWumpkins on the ST political forum thinks. What a loser. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

If that is the case then no skin off my ass. I do imagine the people that he posts pictures of their homes, insults their jobs or conflates with communists, criminals and terrorists will care ona public forun that he promotes will care.

As for the rest well its important that Poptart knows that they know.

[DarrinS]

No shit.

Fuzzy is seriously butt-hurt. Isn't he.


Yes, and I'm tempted to write a strongly-worded letter to WattsUpWithThat and ClimateAudit to report his behavior. What a weirdo. Who does that? I imagine Manny and RG are even cringing at that shit.

[Wild Cobra]

If that is the case then no skin off my ass. I do imagine the people that he posts pictures of their homes, insults their jobs or conflates with communists, criminals and terrorists will care ona public forun that he promotes will care.
Really?

You have proof?

Ill I see is him adding fuel to your paranoia.

[DarrinS]

If that is the case then no skin off my ass. I do imagine the people that he posts pictures of their homes, insults their jobs or conflates with communists, criminals and terrorists will care ona public forun that he promotes will care.

As for the rest well its important that Poptart knows that they know.


Like calling people "parts changer"?

You've tried to insult my profession too, but I don't need to "report you" to anyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Like calling people "parts changer"?

No shit.

Fuzzy gets a small dose of his own medicine, and he freaks out.

What a loser.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, and I'm tempted to write a strongly-worded letter to WattsUpWithThat and ClimateAudit to report his behavior. What a weirdo. Who does that? I imagine Manny and RG are even cringing at that shit.

If a climate scientist went to a web forum and talked about a struggle with mental illness and was from realclimate what do you think poptech would do? Do you think he might make an addendum to his 'Truth' series?

He edited his post and then started calling me a psychotic drug addict because I have smoked pot befor and he was embarrassed by his admission. Someone wondered who he was trying to hide it from. I figured it was them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like calling people "parts changer"?

You've tried to insult my profession too, but I don't need to "report you" to anyone.

I don't post the shit on a my public site that I promote.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Do these posts answer your question about what I think the relationship between C and K are:

10/24/07 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2022332&highlight=273.15#post2022332)

4/3/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2372955&highlight=273.15#post2372955)

9/26/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2789868&highlight=273.15#post2789868)

12/5/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2944768&highlight=273.15#post2944768)

1/14/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3027266&highlight=273.15#post3027266)

2/6/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3087404&highlight=273.15#post3087404)

4/4/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3256549&highlight=273.15#post3256549)

7/21/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3577333&highlight=273.15#post3577333)

8/5/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3612996&highlight=273.15#post3612996)

1/20/11 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4913656&highlight=273.15#post4913656)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't post the shit on a my public site that I promote.
Well, if you didn't stalk him so much, you wouldn't see it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really?

You have proof?

Ill I see is him adding fuel to your paranoia.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html

Thats a picture of a guy and his home up on his site where he is trying to promote for his political gain.

[DarrinS]

What I have here is a letter from a poster on the SpursTalk political forum.

:lmao

http://physicsworld.com/blog/Dr%20James%20Hansen.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, if you didn't stalk him so much, you wouldn't see it.

I've seen it because Darrin posts it all the time.

[Wild Cobra]

What you did is fucking pathetic. I'm sure the folks at NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA, really give a rats ass what FuzzyWumpkins on the ST political forum thinks. What a loser. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

:cry I'm going to tell my mommy :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy...

Do these posts answer your question about what I think the relationship between C and K are:

10/24/07 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2022332&highlight=273.15#post2022332)

4/3/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2372955&highlight=273.15#post2372955)

9/26/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2789868&highlight=273.15#post2789868)

12/5/08 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2944768&highlight=273.15#post2944768)

1/14/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3027266&highlight=273.15#post3027266)

2/6/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3087404&highlight=273.15#post3087404)

4/4/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3256549&highlight=273.15#post3256549)

7/21/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3577333&highlight=273.15#post3577333)

8/5/09 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3612996&highlight=273.15#post3612996)

1/20/11 (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4913656&highlight=273.15#post4913656)

It only shows that you have no clue what a domain shift is.

[TeyshaBlue]

What I have here is a letter from a poster on the SpursTalk political forum.

:lmao

http://physicsworld.com/blog/Dr%20James%20Hansen.jpg

Funny..tbh.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html

Thats a picture of a guy and his home up on his site where he is trying to promote for his political gain.

Gained from already public information.

My God.

I agree, you are one sick fucking paranoid puppy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gained from already public information.

My God.

I agree, you are one sick fucking paranoid puppy.

Why am I not held to the same standard then? He publicly posted his admission.

I think you are sweet on him still.

[Wild Cobra]

It only shows that you have no clue what a domain shift is.
Doesn't sound like a proper description.

Care to elaborate?

[Wild Cobra]

Why am I not held to the same standard then? He publicly posted his admission.

I think you are sweet on him still.
Are you too blind to see he was playing on your paranoia all along?

It all started when he made the remark he wished he could tell someones IP address, clearly in wanting to see how many responses were actually the same person. You and ElNoKnow got the wrong idea, and he has been playing on your own misconception/paranoia since.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doesn't sound like a proper description.

Care to elaborate?

Do you know what a domain is?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you too blind to see he was playing on your paranoia all along?

It all started when he made the remark he wished he could tell someones IP address, clearly in wanting to see how many responses were actually the same person. You and ElNoKnow got the wrong idea, and he has been playing on your own misconception/paranoia since.

Uh-huh. And he says he likes the promotion he is getting.

Its a win-win, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you know what a domain is?
It means too many different things. I'm not a mind reader. Spit it out, or drop it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It means too many different things. I'm not a mind reader. Spit it out, or drop it.

I am trying to explain it like I would to my 7th graders.

In terms of a function what is the domain?

[Wild Cobra]

Uh-huh. And he says he likes the promotion he is getting.

Its a win-win, right?
It it fact or fiction?

It most certainly pushes your buttons, so he uses such tactics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It it fact or fiction?

It most certainly pushes your buttons, so he uses such tactics.

Its funny everytime I make a claim the both of you start the I know you are but what am I routine.

This is boring especially coming from someone of your intellectual prowess.

Lets keep to the basics of functions.

[DarrinS]

I am trying to explain it like I would to my 7th graders.

In terms of a function what is the domain?



I don't think you should be around any 7th graders. And don't make me report you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think you should be around any 7th graders. And don't make me report you.

Report me. Nice. Is that how you think of it in your mind? I ratted him out?

[Wild Cobra]

I am trying to explain it like I would to my 7th graders.

In terms of a function what is the domain?
I fail to see how that applies here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I fail to see how that applies here.

That's the point. I am trying to explain it to you so you can understand. This is just step 1. Now do you know what the domain of a function is?

[Wild Cobra]

That's the point. I am trying to explain it to you so you can understand. This is just step 1. Now do you know what the domain of a function is?
How does that relate to showing different scales on a graph, or posing the question of why absolute zero isn't used to show actual relativity?

I know what a domain is in mathematics. What's next.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How does that relate to showing different scales on a graph, or posing the question of why absolute zero isn't used to show actual relativity?

I know what a domain is in mathematics. What's next.

Its not a matter of scale. The domains are simply shifted. Celsius has an endpoint of -273 whereas Kelvin has an endpoint of zero. AFAIK the positive end is openended. -273 C = 0 K and as they increase they increase at exactly the same scale ie -272 C = 1 K.

The kelvin is simply a domain shifted function of C ie F(C) = C + 273.

[DarrinS]

:lmao

http://s15.postimage.org/fsc0q5wmz/newspaper.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin I posted it here and sent out like 9 emails. Characterizing it as an op-ed in the NYT or public rally speech is fun by I targeted specific individuals and had no desire to broadcast it to the world for a reason.

Sending it anonymously also has a purpose. None of those guys can publish that and it have any sort of credibility. I just wanted them to know and more importantly have PopTart know that they know.

Why do you think he edited all his posts from his admission to having an autism spectrum disorder to claims of me being a psychotic drug addict? You think it's cause he wanted more web hits?

Consider that maybe just maybe he does have a personality disorder as he did claim to have. Think about it.

[Poptech]

Ok, then, how much of the available evidence do you think it represents?

Rough guess, mas o menos 10%

Would you say that all the papers on your lisssst represent evidence that strongly supports your preferred "no harm" thesis?
This has not been determined and is irrelevant to the fact that the amount of papers that explicitly mention "anthropogenic global warming" is small.

The list does not represent a "no harm" thesis as it is only a resource. Papers supporting such a thesis can be found on the list.

[Poptech]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

You brought up the issue of credibility with your list of credentials.

Again, as a general question:

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

Guilt by Association (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299371/guilt-association-patrick-j-michaels) (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO, May 9, 2012)

My friends on the left make much of the apparent correlation between creationism and skepticism about assured climate disaster. It is the “some–all fallacy” writ large. “Some” climate scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design, a variant of creationism, also question the high-sensitivity climate model. Therefore “all” who hypothesize that warming has been overblown must also question evolution; i.e., they are ignorant dolts. [...]

The “some” of the fallacy is the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, a climate physicist who argues (as do I) that the “sensitivity” of climate to dreaded carbon dioxide has been overestimated in computer models. Spencer also believes in intelligent design.

Spencer’s chosen form of belief to explain the mystery of the first life on Earth is hardly germane to a rational discussion of his interpretation of climate findings. There are plenty of productive and successful scientists who go to church — most of which preach that God created man. And there are plenty of good scientists who don’t.

So far as I can tell, the percentage of climate skeptics who are also religious is about the same as among the entire population of climate scientists in general. Some apocalyptic warmists believe in God, too, you know. At the University of Virginia, where I spent 30 years in the Department of Environmental Sciences, most of my colleagues didn’t attend church, but some did. There was little correlation between their religious beliefs and their scientific success. While the atmospheric scientists in that department were known for their skepticism about the upcoming climate disaster, none were churchgoers. [...]

Let’s stop conflating the creationist hoi polloi with skeptical climate scientists. The mystery about how life arose on earth is simply unrelated to global-warming science, no matter what those scientists might believe.

[Poptech]

I guess. I sent it to everyone on his truth series as well to NASA-GISS, BEST, IPCC, and NOAA.
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


I really think its only fair since he misrepresents their works, groups all us AGW alarmist as drug crazed psychotic liars.
I have not misrepresented anything. Only drug addicts like yourself are psychotic liars.


Yeah this wasn't textbook narcissistic rage...
The emphasis was on laughter not rage. :lmao

[Poptech]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/who-is-deep-climate.html

Thats a picture of a guy and his home up on his site where he is trying to promote for his political gain.
:lmao Those pictures were all freely available online.

[RandomGuy]

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

Guilt by Association (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299371/guilt-association-patrick-j-michaels) (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO, May 9, 2012)

I can see it now.

DUN DUN DUN! (open to theme song)

PopTech, esq.
Starring "Poptech, avenging liberatarian superstar"


"Your honor, I have brought forward an expert scientist, here are all of his credentials. Please ignore his other statements equating non-scientific theories with valid scientific ones, and focus only on what I want you to, because the people bringing that up are bigots with a firm bias against bullshit".

[Poptech]

What I have here is a letter from a poster on the SpursTalk political forum.

:lmao

http://physicsworld.com/blog/Dr%20James%20Hansen.jpg

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Poptech]

:lmao

http://s15.postimage.org/fsc0q5wmz/newspaper.jpg
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[RandomGuy]

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?



You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.


He wasn't stating a relgious belief, sporto.

He was assigning validity to a non-scientific theory, and equating that to a valid scientific theory.

That pretty much meets any reasonable definition of pseudo-science.

[Poptech]

You think it's cause he wanted more web hits?

Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful. :lmao

This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads. :toast

[Poptech]

He wasn't stating a relgious belief, sporto.

He was assigning validity to a non-scientific theory, and equating that to a valid scientific theory.

That pretty much meets any reasonable definition of pseudo-science.
Why are you a religious bigot?

[RandomGuy]

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html


"evolutionism" :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Why are you a religious bigot?

(edit)

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that Roy Spencer believes intelligent design is as valid a theory as evolution.

[Poptech]

Why are you not applying an appropriate amount of honest skepticism to Roy Spencer's work?
All I do is apply honest skepticism which is why I am not making ad hominem arguments against Dr. Spencer like you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful. :lmao

This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads. :toast

The email was exclusively about your mental disorder and how it manifests. You going to write an article title "The Truth About My Aspergers Disorder?"

[Poptech]

The email was exclusively about your mental disorder and how it manifests. You going to write an article title "The Truth About My Aspergers Disorder?"
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.


Implied:


"Randomguy says that Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones"

Random guy is a religious bigot.

Therefore, I, PopTech say Randomguy is wrong about Roy Spencer"


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:



Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

---------------------------------------------------

Person A = RandomGuy
Claim X = Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones
Person B = Poptech
Attack = Random guy is a religious bigot

[Poptech]

The religious bigots are all very easy to spot as they obsess on discussing creationism like RG does.

[RandomGuy]

All I do is apply honest skepticism which is why I am not making ad hominem arguments against Dr. Spencer like you are.

Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones.

He could very well be right, about his climate science claims, I lack the inclination to really dig into it.

However, when one has indications that a person engages in poor reasoning, one should be a bit more skeptical of that persons' interpretation of data.

That is quite logical and appropriate.

If I have a less than credible expert interpreting data one way, and another credible expert telling me something else entirely, it is only logical to assign the latter a higher probability of being correct than the former.

[RandomGuy]

The religious bigots are all very easy to spot as they obsess on discussing creationism like RG does.

Do you believe creationism a credible theory? You seem to want me to ignore it for some reason.

[Poptech]

Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones.

He could very well be right.

However, when one has indications that a person engages in poor reasoning, one should be a bit more skeptical of that persons' interpretation of data.

That is quite logical and appropriate.

If I have a less than credible expert interpreting data one way, and another credible expert telling me something else entirely, it is only logical to assign the latter a higher probability of being correct than the former.
Applying your religious bigotry to his climate science arguments is an ad hominem and does not change his climate science credibility. Dr. Spencer is highly credible and has impeccable climate science credentials,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

You are correct though that if we were discussing creationism, Dr. Spencer would not be qualified. His qualifications only relate to atmospheric science.


Do you believe creationism a credible theory? You seem to want me to ignore it for some reason.
I support evolution theory but I also respect people's religious beliefs and am not a religious bigot like yourself.

[RandomGuy]

The reason you want me to ignore it, is because you know I am right.

The "religious bigot" charge, and accusing me of "obsessing" over it, are rather obvious ploys to change the subject.

Your ego will not allow you to admit I have made a good point.

You have dimissed this as an "ad hominem" when it is clearly not, and, in the process provably committed that logical fallacy yourself.

Your ego will not allow you to answer the question


If a scientist equates a non-scientific theory to a scientific one does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

Because the obvious answer, i.e. "Yes, one should assign less credibility" would then mean one of the scientists advancing your "skepticism" isn't as strong of an advocate as you want everybody to believe.

The inability to answer questions like this are exactly what twoofers talking about faked plane crashes on 9-11 do, when you confront them with information that indicates their positions are weak.

[RandomGuy]

Applying your religious bigotry to his climate science arguments is an ad hominem

The only logical thing to do is to reject a theory until it is proven.

Prove my statements constitute an ad hominem attack.

I have given you the format.

You will have to work hard to get around this though:


Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones

Further, the topic under discussion is his credibility, and the comments bear a direct bearing on that.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

I ... am not a religious bigot like yourself.

Prove I am a religious "bigot".

Again, your claim, your burden of proof.

I am not a religious bigot.

[Poptech]

The reason you want me to ignore it, is because you know I am right.

The "religious bigot" charge, and accusing me of "obsessing" over it, are rather obvious ploys to change the subject.

Your ego will not allow you to admit I have made a good point.

You have dimissed this as an "ad hominem" when it is clearly not, and, in the process provably committed that logical fallacy yourself.

Your ego will not allow you to answer the question
No I do not believe you are right, your arguments is both a red herring and an ad hominem. Dr. Spencer's religious belief in creationism has no bearing on his climate science arguments. He has no theological qualifications,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)


Because the obvious answer, i.e. "Yes, one should assign less credibility" would then mean one of the scientists advancing your "skepticism" isn't as strong of an advocate as you want everybody to believe.
Why should people use your religious bigotry and ad hominem arguments to lie about Dr. Spencer's climate science arguments?


The inability to answer questions like this are exactly what twoofers talking about faked plane crashes on 9-11 do, when you confront them with information that indicates their positions are weak.
Continued ad hominem against skeptics. You consistently demonstrate your logical fallacies.

[Poptech]

Prove I am a religious "bigot".
Do you bring up creationism in climate science discussions?

[RandomGuy]

No I do not believe you are right, your arguments is both a red herring and an ad hominem. Dr. Spencer's religious belief in creationism has no bearing on his climate science arguments. He has no theological qualifications,

Meh.

You are pulling a rather standard conspiracy theorist ploy now.

Ignoring, dimissing, and repeating, and obfuscating. Like reposting his credentials will erase the man's equating non-scientific theories to scientific ones.

Any reasonable skeptic would say that indicates flawed thinking on one subject, and would then apply much more skepticism to his other statements, even ones he is qualified for.

No one here would believe for a second that you would not say the exact same thing if the expert in question advocated AGW theory and the theory that it could potentially cause some serious harm.

[RandomGuy]

Do you bring up creationism in climate science discussions?

So you can't prove it?

I didn't think so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RG, i think its a very good point. Is a scientist that puts something without any empirical evidence on the same level as a theory with extensive and diverse empirical evidence credible. Or is he prone to confirmation bias?

From my experience most scientists I have talked with separate the notions of faith and empirical science. That is not to say that a supreme being or diety is by definition precluded but rather that there is as of now no confirmable empirical basis for use in science.

[Poptech]

You are pulling a rather standard conspiracy theorist ploy now.

Ignoring, dimissing, and repeating, and obfuscating. Like reposting his credentials will erase the man's equating non-scientific theories to scientific ones.

Any reasonable skeptic would say that indicates flawed thinking on one subject, and would then apply much more skepticism to his other statements, even ones he is qualified for.
Still with the ad hominem? His climate science credentials have nothing to do with his religious beliefs,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

There is no question he has no theological qualifications but we are discussing climate science. Any reasonable skeptic would not apply someone's religious beliefs to their climate science arguments.


No one here would believe for a second that you would not say the exact same thing if the expert in question advocated AGW theory and the theory that it could potentially cause some serious harm.
I have never brought up a person's religious beliefs when discussing climate science. The difference is you are showing your religious bigotry as many alarmists do.

[Poptech]

So you can't prove it?
I already did.

[RandomGuy]

RG, i think its a very good point. Is a scientist that puts something without any empirical evidence on the same level as a theory with extensive and diverse empirical evidence credible. Or is he prone to confirmation bias?

From my experience most scientists I have talked with separate the notions of faith and empirical science. That is not to say that a supreme being or diety is by definition precluded but rather that there is as of now no confirmable empirical basis for use in science.

The fun thing is that I don't have to prove AGW or not.

The title of the thread isn't "I think AGW is real"

I can talk about it, to be sure, but all I really have to do is wait for the deniers attracted to the topic to be themselves.

"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience"

I prove my case when people like PopTech can't honestly answer questions, commit provable logical fallacies, falsely accuse me of logical fallacies, and fail to prove things when asked to do so, all of which he is doing and has done.

[RandomGuy]

I already did.

Really?




"Your honor, I proved that I am right, because I said I was right".


:lmao


The continuing adventures of "PopTech, esq."...

[RandomGuy]

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Again, as a general question:

If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really?




"Your honor, I proved that I am right, because I said I was right".


:lmao


The continuing adventures of "PopTech, esq."...

He's already come up with his canned answers which his narcissism internalizes as irrefutable truth. Once he does that its like talking to a robot. What he is leaving out is that he has proven it to himself and in all things regarding him that is all that matters.

His cognitive dissonance is interesting. But few other than WC buy his posturing.

[Poptech]

The fun thing is that I don't have to prove AGW or not.

The title of the thread isn't "I think AGW is real"

I can talk about it, to be sure, but all I really have to do is wait for the deniers attracted to the topic to be themselves.

"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience"

I prove my case when people like PopTech can't honestly answer questions, commit provable logical fallacies, falsely accuse me of logical fallacies, and fail to prove things when asked to do so, all of which he is doing and has done.
The only reason I posted to the topic was to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments state about the list. Exposing your constant use of logical fallacies (including those in your opening post) was just a bonus. Your thread actually makes no sense and is completely illogical,

Who denies the climate changes?

[Poptech]

If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
Where does Dr. Spencer compare creationism to climate science?

[RandomGuy]

,

Who denies the climate changes?

The same kinds of people whose narcissism doesn't allow them to answer questions when the honest answers indicate their positions are weak. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5907873#post5907873)

[Poptech]

Where have I denied the climate changes?

[RandomGuy]

The only reason I posted to the topic was to correct the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments state about my list.[/b]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1702

[Poptech]

Your picture does not make any sense.

[RandomGuy]

Where have I denied the climate changes?

Irrelevant to the irrufutable fact that bla bla bla.

There is a beer waiting for me, it is far more interesting to me at this point than you are.

Sorry. You will have to wait.

Maybe you can study some energy data or something useful while I am gone.

Google is that away, -----------------> make yourself useful.

[Poptech]

I am attempting to understand your illogical thread.

Who denies the climate changes?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your picture does not make any sense.

I am not surprised you don't get it or at least refuse to acknowledge that you get it.

I will help becuase it really is not that hard. There is Gollum and its a picture of him holding a list in place of the One Ring of Tolkein fantasy.

Two things.

1) You are Gollum.

2) Now let's do some critical thinking here. How was Gollum towards the One Ring in both movies and books?

I am going to go eat. Have fun figuring it out and then making up a canned answer for it for the next time he posts it.