Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[fskimospy]

Look at populartechnology.net. It appears to be his blog. If so, he cited himself as one of the experts supporting his claims. If so, yet another example of the rampant dishonesty and lack of ethics of the anti-climate change shills.

lol, is that true? If so, that page is awesome. At the bottom of the page when it describes how impartial it is, it literally links to itself talking about how impartial it is.

You can't make this shit up. Hilarious.

 

[fskimospy]

Strawman argument as I never claimed I wrote any climate papers.

You said you have been cited many times. What are these citations?

 

[fskimospy]

His "findings" are a thorough rebuttal of Cook et al. (2013) so it is not possible for older papers to critique his in anyway.

Of course they are in every way that matters. His critique is to say that the 97% consensus is not accurate. If he is arguing that Cook's paper is inaccurate but that the 97% consensus is correct then everyone is wasting their time.

If you are just trying to argue that then just tell us so we can ignore you. Otherwise, those papers are quite important and by your argument require peer reviewed rebuttals, which I'm sure you will be providing shortly. (when?)

Are you illiterate?

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

What is that nonesense even? It's a mishmash of low quality journals, letters to the editor and other bullshit like that. What kind of idiot would compile something like that?

"Significant" is subjective. Why are you dodging the question?

How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?


Hand-waving response.


You provide a blog post at the Guardian and another blog written by someone who thinks they are a bunny rabbet.

If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to their scope is the paper wrong?

Why are you intent on misrepresenting why his papers were rejected by those journals?

I'm not at all intent on representing why his papers were rejected. The journals presented him with dozens of problems he chose not to fix. If you don't want to believe that, it's up to you.

 

[Poptech]

You said you have been cited many times. What are these citations?

They are linked in other things I already posted.

 

[fskimospy]

They are linked in other things I already posted.

As someone who has been cited in so many journal articles you should be proud of them. We just want to celebrate your academic success with you. Can you list them?

 

[Poptech]

Of course they are in every way that matters. His critique is to say that the 97% consensus is not accurate. If he is arguing that Cook's paper is inaccurate but that the 97% consensus is correct then everyone is wasting their time.

Dr. Tol is specifically arguing that the cartoonist's methodology is fatally flawed and thus his conclusions worthless. He is not making your strawman argument.

If you are just trying to argue that then just tell us so we can ignore you. Otherwise, those papers are quite important and by your argument require peer reviewed rebuttals, which I'm sure you will be providing shortly. (when?)

Why would I be making your strawman arguments?

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

What is that nonesense even? It's a mishmash of low quality journals, letters to the editor and other bullshit like that. What kind of idiot would compile something like that?

Those are peer-reviewed refutations of the papers your provided and more that you thought you would be able to surprise me with.

So you are ignorant of scholarly journals and their document types as well?

Which journal is low quality?

Which refutation is a letter to the editor?

I'm not at all intent on representing why his papers were rejected. The journals presented him with dozens of problems he chose not to fix. If you don't want to believe that, it's up to you.

Which journals presented him with these so called problems? Keep in mind ERL has well known alarmists on then editorial board and Dr. Tol's rejection there was purely political.

 

[Poptech]

As someone who has been cited in so many journal articles you should be proud of them. We just want to celebrate your academic success with you. Can you list them?

Of course I am very proud but no need to engage your red herring at this time since you have failed to respond to many of my requests already.

 

[Poptech]

lol, is that true? If so, that page is awesome. At the bottom of the page when it describes how impartial it is, it literally links to itself talking about how impartial it is.

You can't make this shit up. Hilarious.

There is no page that describes how impartial Popular Technology.net is.

 

[fskimospy]

Dr. Tol is specifically arguing that the cartoonist's methodology is fatally flawed and thus his conclusions worthless. He is not making your strawman argument.

Why would I be making your strawman arguments?

Why are you dodging the question? Either you think the 97% figure is right or you don't. If you don't, then address the other supporting papers. We've already covered why Tol didn't know what he was talking about. (he has a history of embarrassing retractions, btw)

Those are peer-reviewed refutations of the papers your provided and more that you thought you would be able to surprise me with.

So you are ignorant of scholarly journals and their document types as well?

Which journal is low quality?

Which refutation is a letter to the editor?

They most certainly aren't. Did you bother to read your own links?

For example, this is a collection of letters:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO270009/epdf

Which journals presented him with these so called problems? Keep in mind ERL has well known alarmists on then editorial board and Dr. Tol's rejection there was purely political.

Nice attempt to preemptively discount the journals that told him that his paper sucked. I have no doubt that this is what you will do because you're not interested in science or evidence. Those sources that say what you want to hear are good, those that tell you inconvenient things are biased against you. You are irrational.

Again though, can you link us to those articles that you provided input to? I'm very interested to evaluate your credentials.

 

[Poptech]

Look at populartechnology.net. It appears to be his blog. If so, he cited himself as one of the experts supporting his claims. If so, it's yet another example of the rampant dishonesty and lack of ethics of the anti-climate change shills.

Strawman argument, I never cited Popular Technology.net as an "expert" but as a source.

Name one thing I have lied about.

Name a skeptic that is against the climate changing.

 

[fskimospy]

strawman argument, i never cited popular technology.net as an "expert" but as a source.

Name one thing i have lied about.

Name a skeptic that is against the climate changing.

just tell us the papers you were cited in. How hard is this.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Do you think cap and trade regulations helped curb sulfur emissions and acid rain?

The cap and trade exchanges have been racked with corruption with no one knowing just which credits are real and which are not. Billions have been, well nobody really knows.

In the end this is a card game and the only winner is the dealer (of the credits).

We've had some progress is some areas but chalking that up to cap and trade is an illusion. The promoters of cap and trade may wish to attach the exchange to the small progress but, again, nobody knows which credits are real so ... nobody knows.


Brian

 

[Bowfinger]

Strawman argument, I never cited Popular Technology.net as an "expert" but as a source.

Name one thing I have lied about.

Name a skeptic that is against the climate changing.

I have zero interest in playing your dishonest duhversionary games, sweetie. If you want to engage in grown-up discussions, offer us solutions instead of smoke.

 

[Brian Stirling]

What exactly will get worse?

We have already done a great deal of damage and even if we stopped releasing net CO2 today the climate will continue to be stressed from the accumulated quantities of CO2 already released. Doing little or nothing to curb CO2, as advocated by, well, guys like you, WILL make things worse -- much worse. The liberal game of cap and trade will be only a red wise and beautiful woman hair better.

So yeah, things will only get worse.


Brian

 

[Poptech]

Either you think the 97% figure is right or you don't. If you don't, then address the other supporting papers.

The 97% figure is bogus propaganda and has long been refuted. I have addressed your red herring argument multiple times already.

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

We've already covered why Tol didn't know what he was talking about. (he has a history of embarrassing retractions, btw)

What we have covered is your failure to provide a single peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper.

They most certainly aren't. Did you bother to read your own links?

For example, this is a collection of letters:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO270009/epdf

Eos is a newspaper, not a research journal so it does not handle comments on articles in the same format as other scholarly journals.

Nice attempt to preemptively discount the journals that told him that his paper sucked. I have no doubt that this is what you will do because you're not interested in science or evidence.

Your mean "journal" not "journals" as the others rejected his paper because it was not topical to their scope. All I have provided was evidence unlike your unsubstantiated allegations.

Those sources that say what you want to hear are good, those that tell you inconvenient things are biased against you. You are irrational.

Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

Again though, can you link us to those articles that you provided input to? I'm very interested to evaluate your credentials.

Sure, when you get around to answering all my questions you dodged.

 

[Poptech]

just tell us the papers you were cited in. How hard is this.

How hard is it to answer simple questions?

How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?

 

[Poptech]

I have zero interest in playing your dishonest duhversionary games, sweetie. If you want to engage in grown-up discussions, offer us solutions instead of smoke.

Child, be an adult and answer these.

Name one thing I have lied about.

Name a skeptic that is against the climate changing.

 

[Poptech]

We have already done a great deal of damage...

What damage exactly?

 

[Bowfinger]

Child, be an adult and answer these.

Name one thing I have lied about.

Why, right here, to offer but one example:

Name a skeptic that is against the climate changing.

It is a blatantly dishonest way to try to reframe the issue. Your sophomoric games aren't nearly as clever as you think.

 

[Poptech]

Why, right here, to offer but one example:
It is a blatantly dishonest way to try to reframe the issue. Your sophomoric games aren't nearly as clever as you think.

That is not a lie but an example of your carelessness with words.

 

[Brian Stirling]

What damage exactly?

Jesus Christ you act like a fucking child ... why, but why, but why, but why!

We live in a finite space called the biosphere. We are adding pollutants that cause more of the suns energy to stay within the biosphere resulting in an increase in temperature.

The idea that we have no impact on the biosphere is, well I can't quite find the words to describe the level of delusion that is necessary to deny we have an effect. Fly above the nation at night and tell me we have little effect as you can hardly find a place free from light -- unnatural light! We've moved mountains and split the atom and will, in a comparatively short span of a few centuries, exhaust the supply of sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels. A supply that took half a billion years to produce.

There are, of course, other forces at work that provide camouflage for the deniers. Volcanic releases, contribute significant CO2 and in a billion years the suns output will have increased enough to make life on Earth unlivable.

We should do more to forestall the day when the Earth becomes unlivable.


Brian

 

[Poptech]

Jesus Christ you act like a fucking child ... why, but why, but why, but why!

We live in a finite space called the biosphere. We are adding pollutants that cause more of the suns energy to stay within the biosphere resulting in an increase in temperature.

The idea that we have no impact on the biosphere is, well I can't quite find the words to describe the level of delusion that is necessary to deny we have an effect. Fly above the nation at night and tell me we have little effect as you can hardly find a place free from light -- unnatural light! We've moved mountains and split the atom and will, in a comparatively short span of a few centuries, exhaust the supply of sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels. A supply that took half a billion years to produce.

There are, of course, other forces at work that provide camouflage for the deniers. Volcanic releases, contribute significant CO2 and in a billion years the suns output will have increased enough to make life on Earth unlivable.

We should do more to forestall the day when the Earth becomes unlivable.

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious.

 

[Brian Stirling]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious.

Pop, you're an interesting guy and quite a unique one for this board. I checked out your other posts covering the 8 years you've been on here and this is what I find:

Total number of posts = 124
Total number of different topics = 9
Number of topics involving climate = 6
Number of posts on climate = 98

So, 67% of all topics are about climate and 79% of all posts are about climate. You're kind of a one topic kind of guy.

My analysis is that you are a paid shill for industry and have done a poor job disguising your activities. The folks paying you need to remind you to "appear" more diverse so as to avoid suspicion.


Brian

 

[Moonbeam]

Pop, you're an interesting guy and quite a unique one for this board. I checked out your other posts covering the 8 years you've been on here and this is what I find:

Total number of posts = 124
Total number of different topics = 9
Number of topics involving climate = 6
Number of posts on climate = 98

So, 67% of all topics are about climate and 79% of all posts are about climate. You're kind of a one topic kind of guy.

My analysis is that you are a paid shill for industry and have done a poor job disguising your activities. The folks paying you need to remind you to "appear" more diverse so as to avoid suspicion.


Brian

I got the impression he wanted peer reviewed rebuttal to a matrix math issue. Math is math, I would think. It's mathematically correct or it isn't, seems to me. It was shown to mathematically incorrect by math people. The request for peer review made me suspicious that games were being played or so it seemed to me.

 

[fskimospy]

The 97% figure is bogus propaganda and has long been refuted. I have addressed your red herring argument multiple times already.

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

You don't seem to understand what peer review is. Every one of those links I clicked on were collections of letters, not peer reviewed articles.

What we have covered is your failure to provide a single peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper.

It's interesting to watch you shift the goalposts. Instead of looking at the criticisms of his paper and trying to address them you have now decided to ignore them unless they are peer reviewed.

His paper was so quickly dismissed and of such low impact it did not merit people submitting journal articles to rebut it. By your logic its very failure serves to make it immune to criticism. This is not rational.

Eos is a newspaper, not a research journal so it does not handle comments on articles in the same format as other scholarly journals.

No. It publishes peer reviewed articles and it also publishes other things. What you tried to claim was 'peer review' were letters in it. There is a difference.

Your mean "journal" not "journals" as the others rejected his paper because it was not topical to their scope. All I have provided was evidence unlike your unsubstantiated allegations.

I have provided very specific criticisms that you and Dr. Tol can't account for. A rational person would look at that and reconsider their position.

Does ERL have well known climate alarmists on its editorial board?

Again with the excuses. Apparently Dr. Tol thought it was a good enough journal to submit his work to, but when his work was judged to be faulty then of course it's the work of 'alarmists' and not his own failures.

Sure, when you get around to answering all my questions you dodged.

Now would be a good time.