Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[Doc Savage Fan]

We aren't talking about any of those papers, I just happened to make an offhand comment about how he had been accused of misrepresenting research and he lied about it.

You seem very worried that I've pointed out that he lied about something pretty trivial. If you're that concerned about what I wrote, I would imagine you're highly alarmed by his posting.

I think it's trivial and an incredibly lame attempt at character assassination. Anyway, that's my two cents from the peanut gallery.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's trivial and an incredibly lame attempt at character assassination. Anyway, that's my two cents from the peanut gallery.

It wasn't even an attempt at 'character assassination', I just thought it was an interesting note about how shady his website is. He was the one that made it into a topic of discussion by lying about it.

Regardless, I'm not particularly surprised that you would think that and I'll keep this comment in mind in the future next time you accuse someone of dishonesty.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Since you appear to have limited faculties, I suggest checking if one of my articles was cited before I commented in those discussions Inspector Clouseau.

This forum has quite a few of these folks who seem to have a very limited ability to actually engage in reasonably intelligent discussion.

I suggest that you ignore.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It wasn't even an attempt at 'character assassination', I just thought it was an interesting note about how shady his website is. He was the one that made it into a topic of discussion by lying about it.

Regardless, I'm not particularly surprised that you would think that and I'll keep this comment in mind in the future next time you accuse someone of dishonesty.

You have incredibly lofty standards for "honesty" when you disagree with someone. Wasn't it you who previously stated in this thread that Obama was providing leadership in the advancement of nuclear energy, when he actually recommended REDUCING money given to the Office of Nuclear Energy from the previous fiscal year? If I recall correctly, you were actually spinning this REDUCTION as an increase from what Obama recommended the previous year, as if this somehow illustrates that he is taking a leadership position on this issue. Some might say this kind of framing is dishonest as well. Something to think about if self-objectivity ever becomes important to you.

 

[fskimospy]

You have incredibly lofty standards for "honesty" when you disagree with someone. Wasn't it you who previously stated in this thread that Obama was providing leadership in the advancement of nuclear energy, when he actually recommended REDUCING money given to the Office of Nuclear Energy from the previous fiscal year? If I recall correctly, you were actually spinning this REDUCTION as an increase from what Obama recommended the previous year, as if this somehow illustrates that he is taking a leadership position on this issue. Some might say this kind of framing is dishonest as well. Something to think about if self-objectivity ever becomes important to you.

No, I said him increasing his requests for funding year on year was an example of him becoming more friendly towards nuclear power. You are free to disagree with it, but that's just that, a disagreement. He isn't as friendly towards it as the Republicans are, but I never claimed that. In the end you were simply repeating my own statements back to me as your own argument if I remember right.

My standards for honesty are perfectly reasonable. I was straightforward with you about my interpretation of Obama's actions, and you can agree or disagree with them at your leisure. You might think 'disagree with you' means 'lying', but it doesn't.

In this case, the guy tried to claim that people hadn't asked him to remove papers from his site due to his misrepresenting them by feigning ignorance. His reason for feigning ignorance? That only one had as opposed to several (I have no idea if even that's true, btw, as I haven't bothered to check what other scientists might have done so). That's a pretty obvious intent to deceive and you know it. I can only imagine the meltdown from you if I tried to do that, but then again we often don't agree.

You should engage in some self reflection as to why you so frequently accuse other people of dishonesty on here yet when someone pretty explicitly lies you claim that it's a trivial matter and should be ignored. (better yet, you attack other people for pointing the lies out!) Then again, if 'lying' means 'disagree with you', it all makes pretty good sense, no?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I want everyone reading this to notice how many of those I was debating have now resorted to cyber-stalking and personally attacking me in packs. This is expected behavior when alarmists are badly losing an argument and what you can expect if you attempt to present inconvenient facts contrary to their environmental religious beliefs. Like creationists they can only debate emotionally.

You sound exactly like a gamergater/sad puppy/rabid puppy. Almost word for word similar whines about the mean and nasty 'others' picking on you. Only difference is that you're whining about climate change rather than feminists.

 

[brycejones]

This forum has quite a few of these folks who seem to have a very limited ability to actually engage in reasonably intelligent discussion.

I suggest that you ignore.

You are a prime example of this. Maybe we should take your advice and put you on ignore.

 

[brycejones]

eskimospy

Can letters written in scientific journals be peer-reviewed?

Trying to get your post count up?

 

[Subyman]

97% agree! Lie #1.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Curious to know, he found a few papers where the conclusion was drawn improperly to the statistical study, but he offers no counter statistic.

He has found 7 scientists that say they were misclassified (who knows how many he actually contacted, he doesn't provide that information.) There were 12,000 papers examined in the original study. There will always be errors, which is why the sample size is so large.

So I guess the better question would be, what does that author believe the true number to be? 95%? 92%? 40%? Or is he only trying to discredit the paper without offering any additional study on the topic?

 

[Paratus]

Your comment is incoherent, what is a "denier"?

You are clearly an emotional individual who's environmental religious beliefs will not be swayed by logic and reasoning no matter how many facts I present.

A denier in this context is someone who irrationally denies the overwhelming science that the observed world wide warming since the 1850's is being caused by the release of CO2 from fossil fuels use due to economic activity.

As for my "belief" I'm generally easy to persuade with significant peer reviewed research from a reputable journal. So if you have something significant feel free to link it. I'm not interested in continuing to arguing about this 97% however. It has no impact on the science of MMGW. So pick something else.

 

[Poptech]

It wasn't even an attempt at 'character assassination', I just thought it was an interesting note about how shady his website is. He was the one that made it into a topic of discussion by lying about it.

You are truly deranged, as nothing is "shady" about the website and I have not lied about anything.

You made this comment...

I did a quick google search on his website, apparently it ...has had several authors have to publicly request that their papers be removed from it due to a dishonest representation of their findings, etc, etc.

I replied...

Why are you lying and trying to smear me? I run a technology website and several authors have never requested any such thing.

This is not a lie but an irrefutable fact as I have only ever been contacted by one person - Professor Dickerson who was the co-author of one of the papers on my list. The lead author Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. explicitly told me in an email that the paper argues against the IPCC.

The paper was never misrepresented as it was originally listed because it supports skeptic arguments that CO2 is not the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued. The only way for it to be misrepresented is if you make a strawman argument out of why it was originally listed, which is what the deranged Professor Dickerson was doing.

The same paper has been cited by skeptics to support their arguments as it was in Legates et al. (2013).

The science is settled is a mantra that is often repeated by anthropogenic global warming believers to preclude any further discussion of the science. While an extensive evaluation of the intricacies of climate change science is not provided here, it is important to mention that climate change is an important scientific debate that is far from being wellunderstood. The interested reader is urged to consult Betz (2009) and Pielke et al. (2009) for a further examination of the true extent of the climate change discussion and the unknowns in climate science; and to the reports of the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) for compendious examples of alternative scientific views on global warming to those of the IPCC.4 The existence of such diverse viewpoints is important for agnotology, since teaching students about the climate must include discussions of how complicated the Earth’s climate system is and why science cannot possibly, already or ever, have all the answers to every question about climate and its variability and change.

So the question remains why is eskimospy continuing to lie about these events, myself and my website?

 

[Poptech]

A denier in this context is someone who irrationally denies the overwhelming science that the observed world wide warming since the 1850's is being caused by the release of CO2 from fossil fuels use due to economic activity.

Provide a consensus definition of this word from dictionaries. Failure to do so means the usage of the word is incoherent.

As for my "belief" I'm generally easy to persuade with significant peer reviewed research from a reputable journal. So if you have something significant feel free to link it. I'm not interested in continuing to arguing about this 97% however. It has no impact on the science of MMGW. So pick something else.

Which means you are unable to be persuaded by science since you included subjective terminology ("significant" and "reputable") of which an objective criteria cannot be met.

 

[Poptech]

Trying to get your post count up?

No I am trying to get him to answer simple questions which he keeps dodging.

 

[Poptech]

In this case, the guy tried to claim that people hadn't asked him to remove papers from his site due to his misrepresenting them by feigning ignorance. His reason for feigning ignorance? That only one had as opposed to several (I have no idea if even that's true, btw, as I haven't bothered to check what other scientists might have done so). That's a pretty obvious intent to deceive and you know it. I can only imagine the meltdown from you if I tried to do that, but then again we often don't agree.

Your derangement and reading comprehension problems are truly insane. Why would I have a rebuttal to this point on my list then?

I never claimed no one did, I explicitly claimed that several had not. It was to make a point about your dishonesty and now it has been exposed for everyone to see.

Just to demonstrate how dishonest you are, not only did you not check which authors had contacted me but you felt free to repeatedly make this libelous accusation with no evidence. To add to that you are now making libelous accusations about my intent, as I said before you are truly reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Poptech]

You sound exactly like a gamergater/sad puppy/rabid puppy. Almost word for word similar whines about the mean and nasty 'others' picking on you. Only difference is that you're whining about climate change rather than feminists.

Thanks for proving the point of the post your quoted.

 

[Paratus]

Provide a consensus definition of this word from dictionaries. Failure to do so means the usage of the word is incoherent.


Which means you are unable to be persuaded by science since you included subjective terminology ("significant" and "reputable") of which an objective criteria cannot be met.

Tell you what, in your own words tell me why climate change isn't happening, or isn't caused by man, or isn't a problem - whatever you feel the facts are.

I can be persuaded by a logical arguement supported by observable facts. Why don't we give that a try?

 

[Bitek]

Holy christ. PT has to be one of the most singularly annoying posters I can remember.

From jersey too.... Fits.

 

[Meghan54]

Poptart......that's what his name reminds me of. Nothing of substance.

 

[Paul98]

I keep on waiting for some sort of evidence against man made global warming. You would think if it wasn't actually real there would be lots of evidence against it, and yet I continue to see none.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conspiracy based paranoia is something medical professionals can help you with. I suggest checking if one of my articles was cited before I commented in those discussions Inspector Clouseau.

Looking at another poster's history online and then attempting to attack them with is a form of cyber-stalking used by those who are desperate because they are losing the argument.

Notice how you are trying to derail the debate with your cyber-stalking? This is typical alarmist behavior.

I take such charges seriously. I believe they are exactly the charges that can be leveled by the cognoscenti and the quack with very little an ordinary person like myself can do to distinguish which from which. There is little to separate the faith of the religious and the believer in the scientific method. I can forgive the religious because they have needs they don't understand, but to shill for something as important as this for money, would, in my opinion, make one a bottomless sack of shit.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Do not look behind the curtain ... of a purposely semantic rope-a-dope.

Pop, and his allies, rely on changing the subject from the science to ... arguments about whether it is 97% or 93%. We've had page upon page of arguments more-or-less in the vein of 'taste great / less filling'.

I'm not an evolutionary scientist but feel comfortable accepting the reality of it because the mechanisms make sense. I'm similarly not a climate scientist but once again I accept the reality of climate change because the mechanisms make sense AND because I know man has had a profound impact on the planet.

About 200 years ago, at the dawn of the industrial revolution when the total global industrial output was vastly less than 1% of what it is now we still had strong indicators of our impact. Many places were black from the soot of coal fires. Long before that thousands died from disease owing to the human waste in the Thames river.

It is hard to imagine how the environment should be unaffected by human activity when that activity is hundreds of times greater than when Great Briton was blackened with coal soot.


Brian

 

[umbrella39]

This forum has quite a few of these folks who seem to have a very limited ability to actually engage in reasonably intelligent discussion.

I suggest that you ignore.

Says one of the 3 friends of a recently resurrected shill here. Yeah, great advice!

 

[umbrella39]

You are a prime example of this. Maybe we should take your advice and put you on ignore.

Done.

 

[Poptech]

Tell you what, in your own words tell me why climate change isn't happening, or isn't caused by man, or isn't a problem - whatever you feel the facts are.

I can be persuaded by a logical arguement supported by observable facts. Why don't we give that a try?

All skeptics believe the climate changes, the debate is how much if any is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and any potential of future impacts.

When you are a little more intellectually honest with my debate with eskimospy I may reconsider getting involved in this discussion with you.

 

[Poptech]

Poptart......that's what his name reminds me of. Nothing of substance.

Megaphone....that's what your name reminds me of. Something that makes a lot of annoying noise.