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

[Poptech]

I would define lying as including the deliberate withholding of information, generally with an intent to deceive.

Deliberately withholding information that might be considered relevant to an impartial observer is definitely not a hallmark of intellectual honesty.

This post is a VERY typical one of yours. You don't outright state any falsehood, but most definitely leave out some rather important information.

You do not define "support", i.e. what are the criteria?

You do not define who determines if it "supports"?

You do not, in the interest of full, intellectually honest, disclosure, disclose how strongly any of those papers support a "skeptic argument".

My analysis of your list at the time was that the answers to the above questions are:

Anything that could be even minutely contradictory to AGW.
Poptech is the sole arbiter.
Generally weakly, according to my haphazard sample.

Conspiratorial argumentation, I did not deliberately do anything let alone with an intent to deceive. The list is fully cited and sourced as there is nothing to hide.

The criteria for support is that the papers are either explicit to a skeptical position, were written by a skeptic, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology not me.

So again you spread misinformation as I am not the sole arbiter.

How "strongly" something supports a skeptic argument is purely subjective, alarmists like yourself believe some to be weak while skeptics would believe them to be strong.

Further nowhere do you fully acknowledge the peer reviewed papers that do support AGW. While I can't fault you for making a case, I can fault you for not providing any reasonable commentary on the papers that do, or providing a good-intentioned, impartial reader some links. Of course, that could just as well be laziness, I suppose.

Is deliberately withholding relevant information an intellectually honest thing to do?

Perpetual strawman argument, papers that support AGW have nothing to do with my resource nor do I claim they do not exist. Any reader of my resource who is literate would clearly know that it relates to the skeptic side of the argument as it is explicitly led: "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"

[Poptech]

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

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

Puppet boy, how does it feel to believe for two years you "got me" now knowing I trolled you? Stoners are so easy to manipulate. It was not as good as my last name troll though, which continues on to this day. So either you never followed through on your promise to email my enemies or they laughed at your stoner email. Which is a shame as I actually have a whole campaign setup targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. So you were not that useful a puppet.

[Poptech]

Fuzzy ,

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

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

Yeah, he demanded I take down all my Truth articles or he was going to release the spam. Obviously that never happened,

The Truth about DeSmogBlog
The Truth about Greenfyre
The Truth about RealClimate.org
The Truth about Skeptical Science
The Truth about SourceWatch
The Truth about Jon "Stewart"

etc...

[Poptech]

"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."

I am the puppet master and all thanks to Michael Lewis' book for the inspiration,



When I saw the hook on the cover I thought of dumb ass.

[Poptech]

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

I stand corrected but he did approve my friendship request.

[Th'Pusher]

Conspiratorial argumentation, I did not deliberately do anything let alone with an intent to deceive. The list is fully cited and sourced as there is nothing to hide.

In your estimation, would the majority of the scientists that authored the papers you cite in you list agree or disagree with AGW?

[Th'Pusher]

I stand corrected but he did approve my friendship request.

Btw- yoni isn't on your internet friend list.

[Poptech]

In your estimation, would the majority of the scientists that authored the papers you cite in you list agree or disagree with AGW?

It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am the puppet master and all thanks to Michael Lewis' book for the inspiration,



When I saw the hook on the cover I thought of dumb ass.

So you read the book thought you might have some form of mental disorder but refuse to get evaluated. Well played. This line would make sense if you had not gone back and edited all of your posts admitting to it and then your campaign to deny ever having said it in the first place. I think your line was that I was drug addled and that you never said that. You even edited the posts themselves to say that.

Honestly, it was one of the better meltdowns over an outing I have ever seen. That multi-boxing sex offender at the fires of heaven and Narutoboy are the only better one I've seen.

Do you feel that the mentally ill should be allowed to own guns?

[Poptech]

So you read the book thought you might have some form of mental disorder but refuse to get evaluated. Well played. This line would make sense if you had not gone back and edited all of your posts admitting to it and then your campaign to deny ever having said it in the first place. I think your line was that I was drug addled and that you never said that. You even edited the posts themselves to say that.

Honestly, it was one of the better meltdowns over an outing I have ever seen. That multi-boxing sex offender at the fires of heaven and Narutoboy are the only better one I've seen.

Do you feel that the mentally ill should be allowed to own guns?

Puppet boy, I used Michael Burry's condition from the book as bait hoping you would email my enemies and I could start a campaign targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. The editing of the posts was setting the hook which you still have in your mouth like a brain damaged stoner. You are such a dumbass, you still don't get it. The fact that you think it was a melt-down just shows you how good I am at this. Oh and my last name is really Kahn too, ROFLMAO!

[Th'Pusher]

Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.

[Poptech]

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that is not a definition of AGW. Regarding this definition: "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."

All skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

I already answered your question which will not change,

It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.

[DarrinS]

JUST use the general definition: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In your estimation do the majority of the authors of the papers you cite agree or disagree with the wiki entry definition of AGW?

pretty basic stuff her PT.

The skeptic argument isn't really about the greenhouse effect. It's about wheather or not these changes will be catastrophic. The current "pause" in warming began before ST existed as a website.

[Wild Cobra]

Puppet boy, I used Michael Burry's condition from the book as bait hoping you would email my enemies and I could start a campaign targeting climate alarmists who attack people with autism spectrum disorders. The editing of the posts was setting the hook which you still have in your mouth like a brain damaged stoner. You are such a dumbass, you still don't get it. The fact that you think it was a melt-down just shows you how good I am at this. Oh and my last name is really Kahn too, ROFLMAO!

Must you point out the obvious that everyone sees?

[Wild Cobra]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and that is not a definition of AGW. Regarding this definition: "Global warming is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."

All skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

I already answered your question which will not change,

It is not a list of scientists so I would have no idea, the only thing I can speak to is that the hundreds of skeptic authors do not support any alarmist conclusions. Regardless you would still need to clearly define AGW, so does this mean a contribution of 0.9% or 90%? Many skeptics support an insignificant or inconsequential anthropogenic contribution to climate change but misrepresenting their position by lumping them in with Alarmists would be disingenuous.

It would really be stupid for anyone to to say temperatures have not increased since 1700 since the sun has increased it's contribution to the energy balance since then.

[Wild Cobra]

The skeptic argument isn't really about the greenhouse effect. It's about wheather or not these changes will be catastrophic. The current "pause" in warming began before ST existed as a website.

I wonder just how stupid the warmers have to be to not understand this simple truth you just stated?

[unleashbaynes]

climate deniers. Gonna go ahead and quote Toby here but there really isn't a position on this anymore than there's a position over which temperature water boils. We will see catastroohic effects from climate change in our lifetimes. There is no debate.

[boutons_deux]

I wonder just how stupid the warmers have to be to not understand this simple truth you just stated?

there is no pause, no cooling, 2014 is hottest on record, almost all the "hottest year on record" have been since 2000. you're parroting the BigCarbon LiES.

[spurraider21]

climate deniers.

what does it mean to deny climate?

[unleashbaynes]

what does it mean to deny climate?

it means eat you overly technical er

[spurraider21]

it means eat you overly technical er

[Yonivore]

it means eat you overly technical er

That's what I thought.

[boutons_deux]

more "facts" from the world-wide AGW conspiracy to ignore

California Drought Is The Worst In 1,200 Years

The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years, according to a new scientific study published Thursday.

The study provides the state with breathtaking new historical context for its low reservoirs and sinking water tables, even as California celebrated its first good soaking of the season.

Analyzing tree rings that date back to A.D. 800 — a time when Vikings were marauding Europe and the Chinese were inventing gunpowder — there is no three-year period when California’s rainfall has been as low and its temperatures as hot as they have been from 2012 to 2014, the researchers found.

“We were really surprised. We didn’t expect this,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/california-drought-worst-1200-years-new-study-says/

[Wild Cobra]

Here is the abstract if anyone wants to read it:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...62433/abstract

[Yonivore]

more "facts" from the world-wide AGW conspiracy to ignore

California Drought Is The Worst In 1,200 Years

The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years, according to a new scientific study published Thursday.

The study provides the state with breathtaking new historical context for its low reservoirs and sinking water tables, even as California celebrated its first good soaking of the season.

Analyzing tree rings that date back to A.D. 800 — a time when Vikings were marauding Europe and the Chinese were inventing gunpowder — there is no three-year period when California’s rainfall has been as low and its temperatures as hot as they have been from 2012 to 2014, the researchers found.

“We were really surprised. We didn’t expect this,”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/california-drought-worst-1200-years-new-study-says/

What caused the drought, worse than the current on, 1,200 years ago?