Reply With Quote
Not really. What's dishonest is saying that those who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW are the same as 9-11 nutters.
Your brain is obviously melted from previous drug use. How does it feel to be a failure with you libelous lies? I don't fit any of your "patterns" because I don't believe in any conspiracy theories. Even this nonsense is in the rebuttals section,
Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a creationist website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as the editors all support evolution theory but unlike extremists we respect individual's religious views and their right to hold them.
Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging 911, JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.
I don't believe anyone that disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy theory. Instead I know for a fact (because they admitted it) the Alarmists here are brain-damaged stoners.
How does it feel to fail like this?
Not really. What's dishonest is saying that those who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW are the same as 9-11 nutters.
I like how RG recycled his conversation with Cosmored and Mouse. No agenda there.
Alarmists cannot argue the facts so they have to resort to things like Psychobabble.
LOL...
RandomPropagandaGuy...
It is so funny to see you all worked up!
PopTech much be ruffling your feathers!
That is not an answer to my question. You claim that posting on spurstalk and interaction with fuzzy in particular drives site views to your website. If that is true, why did you stop posting here for over 2 years? Site couldn't handle all the traffic fuzzy was generating for you?
Why don't you stop lying?
Puppets do not work for you every day like this, you have to give them incentives. So many puppets now driving traffic like crazy.
I have not lied about anything.
Plant the seed, move on, come back when the season is right again.
Why even use peer reviewed work at all and not just list anything that agrees with what you want to believe? That's your bias but you try to slap on the peer review process and piggy back into some credibility.
It misses the entire point of the peer review process in the first place and is misleading. If the peer review process is indeed authoritative then why are you only picking the stuff you agree with? It's intellectually dishonest.
I'm quite literate and have a good sense of your approach to logic. You are not being explicit.
Then it would not be a list of peer-reviewed papers. The list is very credible and has been cited in the peer-reviewed literature. Which paper on the list is not peer-reviewed?
This statement is illogical and does not make any sense. Nothing is misleading because the list only claims to include papers that support skeptic arguments. What is intellectually dishonest is people like yourself.
"One person from Spurstalk is driving traffic to my site. I notice this single person even though I claim to have millions of pageviews, meaning that visitor accounts for less than one thousandth of one percent of my page views."
Never have laid a hand on my wife. The underlying assumption, that I beat my wife now, or have in the past is false.
Easy enough question to answer for an honest person.
As I said before, and the entire purpose of the thread is to draw such comparisons.
Does the inability to answer honest, fair questions strike you as making someone more, or less credible? or does it affect your opinion of someones intent at all?
You have lied, and continue to lie that I commit logical fallacies, and provably so.
Easy.
LOL ad hominem
>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible
I know they aren't. You know they aren't. They know they aren't.>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible
The fun is in catching them at it.
I would point out the bit in the OP, see if it sounds familiar:
1. It is obvious Andrew thinks himself more intelligent than most.
2. He regards the scientists that posit the catastrophic effects of AGW as being dishonest, and has a non-peer reviewed bibliographic list that will never be submitted as part of any meta-analysis. A good peer-review system would peel quite a bit of it away as being weak support at best.
3. He is here reacting to what he perceives as a campaign against him. Read the constant, crazy-town rebuttals to his critics he posts.
4. Full on criticism of the scientists who dare to be "alarmist"
5. Constant mis-use of the names of the logical fallacies in his accusations. It is obvious he doesn't really know how to use them, or if he does, he is deliberately misusing them.
This rebuttal fails, because it is possible to advocate for one conspiracy theory, while dismissing others.Criticism: Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging 911, JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.
In this case, the rather obvious implication is that the scientists who are spreading "alarmism" are all colluding to misrepresent the "real evidence".
Let's rephrase the criticism and rebuttal to make it a bit clearer.
If, say the only thing on Popular Technology was a list of brownie recipes, and diatribes against people who say they like cake, then it becomes a bit clearer.Popular Technology.net is an anti-cake website.
This is a dishonest ad hominem as we have resources challenging people who hate pineapple upside-down cakes, people who hate chocolate cakes, and people who hate strawberry cakes.
The criticism is completely side-stepped.
This is not dissimilar to what Cosmored does in his thread.
When confronted by something that he can't really fit into his theory, he comes up with an "its plausible" statement that would explain away the fact.
In this case PoopDeck is essentially saying "It is plausible that I am not a conspiracy theorist, because I hate these other conspiracy theories."
Proving this to a reasonable degree is easy, even if PopTart dissembles, because he will be unable to ascribe the scientists who are spreading "alarmism" any honest motives whatsoever.
I don't know if this perfectly meshes with the current conversation going on in this thread but, it is germane to the OP and the general conversation of Anthroponegic Global Climate Change and those who are skeptical of it.
Five years ago, in an article led, "How the Science Got Settled," Mark Steyn do ented a set of abuses by the AGCC crowd that demonstrated they were actively trying to corrupt the data, monopolize the debate and silence critics. To my knowledge, the following issues he raised in his article have never been answered for. But, in addition, I think that these things alone are sufficient cause for the AGCC crowd to be a bit more understanding of why skeptics are the way they are -- particularly when no one has acquitted the AGCC crowd of what was alleged then...
1) The Settled Scientists have wholly corrupted the process of "peer review."
Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited "hockey stick" graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Professor Jones's reply:Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
And you'll be glad to hear they did!I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.
2) The Settled Scientists have refused to comply with Freedom of Information requests by (illegally) deleting relevant do ents.
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on Feb. 3, 2005:
And, indeed, the CRU subsequently announced that they had "inadvertently deleted" the requested data.The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
3) The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) "hide the decline" — that's to say, obscure the awkward fact that "global warming" stopped over a decade ago.
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
4) The Settled Scientists have tortured the data into compliance with political requirements.The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
From the computer code for one of the "Mann" models:
Yet perhaps the most important revelation is not the collusion, the bullying, the politicization and the evidence-planting, but the fact that, even if you wanted to do honest "climate research" at the Climatic Research Unit, the data and the models are now so diseased by the above that they're all but useless. Let Ian "Harry" Harris, who works in "climate scenario development and data manipulation" at the CRU, sum it up. Mr. Harris was attempting to duplicate previous results—i.e., to duplicate all that science that's supposedly settled, and the questioning of which consigns you to the Climate Branch of the Flat Earth Society. How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
Thus spake the Settled Scientist: "OH F**K THIS." And on the basis of "OH F**K THIS" the world's enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world.ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?
OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
Back in the summer, I wrote in a column south of the border:
In response to that, the shrieking pansies of the eco-left had a fit. The general tenor of my mail was summed up by one correspondent: "How can you live with your lies, dumb*f**k?" George Soros's stenographers at Media Matters confidently pronounced it a "false claim." Well, take it up with Phil Jones. He agrees with me. The only difference is he won't say so in public.If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None. Admittedly the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you're stuck living in.
Which is a bit odd, don't you think?
Phil Jones and Michael Mann are two of the most influential figures in the whole "climate change" racket. What these do ents reveal is the greatest scientific scandal of our times - and a tragedy. It's not just their graphs but their battle lines that are drawn all wrong. Science is never "settled," and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist. And the dismissal of "skeptics" throughout the Jones/Mann correspondence is most revealing: a real scientist is always a skeptic.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-18-2014 at 01:44 PM.
This brings up a VERY important point.Criticism: The list uses "weasel words".
Rebuttal: Qualifiers are not "weasel words", but an accepted method by the scientific community to express a level of confidence. Rejection of the use of qualifiers would mean rejection of the IPCC reports and the use of such terms as "consensus". The IPCC AR5 WG1 'Summary for Policy Makers' liberally uses qualifiers, "A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high".
Honest debate, and honest science uses qualifiers. They are not only important, but vital to understanding, and open debate.
Next we have PoopyPants criteria for inclusion:
Where is the qualifier for "support"? Strongly support? Weakly support?Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means they are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, 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.
Or if one prefers:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/
Poopy's list, on its face does not adhere to any general sense of intellectual honesty.2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
Eyup.In response to that, the shrieking pansies of the eco-left had a fit.
I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)
Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.
Is intellectual honesty important?
If so, what is it? If not, why not?
I will, answer first, as that is fair.
Yes.
and
Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/
So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.
Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?
If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?
And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?
Pretty straightforward questions.
Random...
You are really making a fool of yourself.
Cognitive dissonance is tough on him. He goes back and edits.>Implying they're interested in being honest or credible
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions