Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[fskimospy]

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 did a quick google search on his website, apparently it has popped up repeatedly as a denier website, 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.

This poptech guy (who I assume runs the denier website) is also apparently all over reddit and other forums, where if you search his name you immediately come up with some pretty interesting/insane comments.

 

[Paul98]

ROFLMAO! This is hilarious.

The earth is warming and we are all going to die!

 

[umbrella39]

LOL at the recently active shill account owner. Fucking yawn and plonk. Your friends list says it all.

 

[Paratus]

I did a quick google search on his website, apparently it has popped up repeatedly as a denier website, 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.

This poptech guy (who I assume runs the denier website) is also apparently all over reddit and other forums, where if you search his name you immediately come up with some pretty interesting/insane comments.

Either he's cynically trying to drum up eyeballs for his "impartial" 😀 site by pretending to be a denier or more likely he's emotionally invested in his incorrect position. In either case it won't matter what facts or science I post. They will roll right off him like water off a duck.

Besides you've pretty thoroughly trashed his argument. Not sure there's anything more for me to add.

 

[Joepublic2]

The pope can sit around and say w/e he wants from his pope bubble and our resident alarmists can post dozens of threads about it but it's very clear that actually "fixing" it (not just paying lip service by playing musical chairs with pollution like carbon credits or outsourcing to places with no environmental laws) is a political non-starter. US and to an even greater extent Europeans simply don't care. I guess they have real problems to worry about.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ar-the-bottom-of-things-worth-worrying-about/

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349665523968

Keep on pissing into the wind, though.

 

[fskimospy]

The pope can sit around and say w/e he wants from his pope bubble and our resident alarmists can post dozens of threads about it but it's very clear that actually "fixing" it (not just paying lip service by playing musical chairs with pollution like carbon credits or outsourcing to places with no environmental laws) is a political non-starter. US and to an even greater extent Europeans simply don't care. I guess they have real problems to worry about.

Keep on pissing into the wind, though.

This has always seemed like a really weird argument to me, similar to ones that creationists use. Climate change is either real or it isn't. Whether or not the US population THINKS its real is immaterial, it just let's us know how foolish we're being.

Whether or not we SHOULD be worrying about something is not at all related to whether or not people currently ARE worrying about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

This has always seemed like a really weird argument to me, similar to ones that creationists use. Climate change is either real or it isn't. Whether or not the US population THINKS its real is immaterial, it just let's us know how foolish we're being.

Whether or not we SHOULD be worrying about something is not at all related to whether or not people currently ARE worrying about it.

The CBD does not like worry. It's upsetting to the ego. It's an attack by reality on their bubble altered reality.

 

[1prophet]

Instead of attacking each other like a bunch of hooligans at a football match, how about exploring and implementing methods to extract excess co2 in the atmosphere

http://www.cnet.com/news/miracle-tech-turns-water-into-fuel/

'Miracle' tech turns water into fuel

German cleantech company Sunfire GmbH has unveiled a machine that converts water and carbon dioxide into synthetic petroleum-based fuels.

If we're going to make a move away from fossil fuels, it's not going to happen overnight; too much of our existing infrastructure and technology is based on coal and petroleum, which would take a lot of time and money to replace.

Sunfire GmbH/R. Deutscher However, synthetic fuels would be a good interim option, especially if they could be cleanly produced -- as Sunfire GmbH has done. The Dresden-based cleantech company has unveiled a rig -- the first of its kind -- that uses what it calls "Power-to-Liquid" technology to convert H2O and CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons -- synthetic petrol, diesel and kerosene.


The technique is based around the Fischer-Tropsch process developed in 1925, combined with solid oxide electrolyser cells (SOECs). The SOECs are used to convert electricity -- supplied by renewable sources such as wind and solar -- to steam. Oxygen is removed from this steam to produce hydrogen.


In the next step of the process, this hydrogen is used to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) -- harvested from the atmosphere, precipitated at biogas facilities or gathered using waste gas processing -- to carbon monoxide (CO); and the resultant H2 and CO are then synthesised into high-purity fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Excess heat from the process is then used to create more steam -- ensuring an efficiency rate, Sunfire claims, of 70 percent.


The rig, at this stage, is for demonstration and feasiblity purposes; its capacity for CO2 recycling is currently at around 3.2 tonnes per tonne fuel, and it has the capacity to produce a barrel of fuel per day. The cost of designing and building the rig was "seven figures", half of which came from public funding received from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Sunfire GmbH

 

[Joepublic2]

This has always seemed like a really weird argument to me, similar to ones that creationists use. Climate change is either real or it isn't. Whether or not the US population THINKS its real is immaterial, it just let's us know how foolish we're being.

Whether or not we SHOULD be worrying about something is not at all related to whether or not people currently ARE worrying about it.

Well, unfortunately for us we live in a democratic republic. If the voting public doesn't see it as a problem nothing is going to be done about it, period.

The CBD does not like worry.

I thought CBD was epitomized by worrying TOO much, as many of your and other's previous posts have alluded to. Your opinions aren't even internally consistent. Make up your mind so I decide how I'm going to laugh at you today, clown.

 

[Poptech]

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.

So you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist whom is always wrong?

 

[Paratus]

Instead of attacking each other like a bunch of hooligans at a football match, how about exploring and implementing methods to extract excess co2 in the atmosphere

http://www.cnet.com/news/miracle-tech-turns-water-into-fuel/

'Miracle' tech turns water into fuel

German cleantech company Sunfire GmbH has unveiled a machine that converts water and carbon dioxide into synthetic petroleum-based fuels.

If we're going to make a move away from fossil fuels, it's not going to happen overnight; too much of our existing infrastructure and technology is based on coal and petroleum, which would take a lot of time and money to replace.

Sunfire GmbH/R. Deutscher However, synthetic fuels would be a good interim option, especially if they could be cleanly produced -- as Sunfire GmbH has done. The Dresden-based cleantech company has unveiled a rig -- the first of its kind -- that uses what it calls "Power-to-Liquid" technology to convert H2O and CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons -- synthetic petrol, diesel and kerosene.


The technique is based around the Fischer-Tropsch process developed in 1925, combined with solid oxide electrolyser cells (SOECs). The SOECs are used to convert electricity -- supplied by renewable sources such as wind and solar -- to steam. Oxygen is removed from this steam to produce hydrogen.


In the next step of the process, this hydrogen is used to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) -- harvested from the atmosphere, precipitated at biogas facilities or gathered using waste gas processing -- to carbon monoxide (CO); and the resultant H2 and CO are then synthesised into high-purity fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Excess heat from the process is then used to create more steam -- ensuring an efficiency rate, Sunfire claims, of 70 percent.


The rig, at this stage, is for demonstration and feasiblity purposes; its capacity for CO2 recycling is currently at around 3.2 tonnes per tonne fuel, and it has the capacity to produce a barrel of fuel per day. The cost of designing and building the rig was "seven figures", half of which came from public funding received from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Sunfire GmbH

It's a step in the right direction. A few comments however.

The process is basically carbon neutral as the CO2 removed from the atmosphere will be returned. Some CO2 equal to the amount of carbon stored at anytime in tanks or processing will be removed from circulation.

Obviously you want to use solar, nuclear, wind, or waste energy from another process and not use fossil fuel to generate this stuff.

 

[First]

LOL at the recently active shill account owner. Fucking yawn and plonk. Your friends list says it all.

Bahaha, love his friends list.

 

[Poptech]

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.

So you did not click on any of the links and do not understand scholarly journal document types?

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.

Where have I asked for a non-peer-reviewed comment? Dr. Tol's paper is peer-reviewed and if any of those were valid they would have been published, let me know when you can produce a peer-reviewed comment on his paper.

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.

Not only was it not dismissed but it is taken very seriously and a comment was submitted. Your inability to find it is not my problem. You also do not understand the scholarly literature.

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.

Yes it publishes peer-reviewed articles and it publishes peer-reviewed comments. "Letters" are a scholarly document format for short communications, they are not the same thing as "Letters to the Editor". In certain journals they are either for original research or for commenting on previously published articles. In journals like PNAS "Letters" are for commenting on previously published articles.

Letters are brief online comments that allow readers to constructively address a difference of opinion with authors of a recent PNAS article. Readers may comment on exceptional studies or point out potential flaws in studies published in the journal. Letters may not include requests to cite the Letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 500 words and five references, and must be submitted within 3 months of the online publication date of the subject article. Unsolicited Letters are welcome.

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.

You haven't provided any such thing, if it was valid then it would have been peer-reviewed.

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.

That is not an excuse but the reality of the situation. Cook et al. (2013) was published in ERL since the authors knew they would be protected by its editorial board. When commenting on a paper it is standard procedure to submit your criticism to the same journal, which is the only reason Dr. Tol (who is the 20th most cited climate scholar in the world) did so.

Now would be a good time.

You continue to dodge all my questions, typical.

 

[Poptech]

I did a quick google search on his website, apparently it has popped up repeatedly as a denier website, 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.

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

This poptech guy (who I assume runs the denier website) is also apparently all over reddit and other forums, where if you search his name you immediately come up with some pretty interesting/insane comments.

Now you are cyber stalking me in addition to trying to smear me with lies?

 

[Poptech]

Either he's cynically trying to drum up eyeballs for his "impartial" 😀 site by pretending to be a denier or more likely he's emotionally invested in his incorrect position. In either case it won't matter what facts or science I post. They will roll right off him like water off a duck.

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.

 

[Poptech]

LOL at the recently active shill account owner. Fucking yawn and plonk. Your friends list says it all.

LOL at the resident clown who cannot form any sort of a valid argument.

 

[fskimospy]

So you did not click on any of the links and do not understand scholarly journal document types?

The letters are not peer reviewed, yet on your site you claim that links to non peer reviewed letters are peer reviewed rebuttals to published, refereed papers.

This is either ignorance on your part or a deliberate dishonesty. Either way, no good.

Where have I asked for a non-peer-reviewed comment? Dr. Tol's paper is peer-reviewed and if any of those were valid they would have been published, let me know when you can produce a peer-reviewed comment on his paper.

You don't understand what peer review is/no true scotsman fallacy.

Not only was it not dismissed but it is taken very seriously and a comment was submitted. Your inability to find it is not my problem. You also do not understand the scholarly literature.

One of us doesn't, that's for sure.

Yes it publishes peer-reviewed articles and it publishes peer-reviewed comments. "Letters" are a scholarly document format for short communications, they are not the same thing as "Letters to the Editor". In certain journals they are either for original research or for commenting on previously published articles. In journals like PNAS "Letters" are for commenting on previously published articles.

Nothing in your link or your quote says that letters are peer-reviewed, because they aren't. How do you not know this?

If you think otherwise, please provide documentation from PNAS explicitly stating that letters are subjected to the peer review process before publication. If they do so, this will be extremely easy to find.

I'll be waiting.

You haven't provided any such thing, if it was valid then it would have been peer-reviewed.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

That is not an excuse but the reality of the situation. Cook et al. (2013) was published in ERL since the authors knew they would be protected by its editorial board. When commenting on a paper it is standard procedure to submit your criticism to the same journal, which is the only reason Dr. Tol (who is the 20th most cited climate scholar in the world) did so.

And he was rejected due to errors in his paper, as was the case at several other journals as well. If it's not an excuse, then what is it?

You continue to dodge all my questions, typical.

I continue to try and educate you, which admittedly is probably a waste of my time.

I will ask for the fourth or fifth time: WHAT ARTICLES HAVE YOU PROVIDED INPUT TO?

This should be extremely easy for you to answer.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Liar.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

Now you are cyber stalking me in addition to trying to smear me with lies?

By 'cyber stalk' you mean 'googled your screen name'. You show up quite frequently, and the quick perusal of the results were not flattering.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Hey Pop, a couple words of advise...

I have to tell you that I'd never heard of you before and when I saw your post yesterday my bull shit detector was screaming like a siren in London during the Blitz. This doesn't happen often and is in contrast to my reaction to Eskimospy with whom I've had an ongoing debate this past week. There was just something about your posts that triggered my suspicion.

The high frequency of posting on this one topic AND the fact that you excreted a high volume of well complied links -- most folks here, even the very serious ones, don't have so much info to push out at the drop of a hat. And, given the fact that you've been registered here for 8 years and had only 124 posts the fact the you spammed so much on this one topic really set me off.

So, I go to your profile and look up your post history and as I'm perusing the 5 pages worth of posts I'm immediately struck by how few topics you've posted on -- little more than 1 topic per year. I'm also struck by how many were on climate.

So, I get my notebook and make three columns: one listing each unique topic, another for each unique topic on climate, and the third counting each post on climate. I then compile that list and, well, I've never seen the signature for a paid troll so clearly in my life.

So, here's what I'd recommend to avoid being outed in the future...

First, pretend to be interested in other topics even if your not -- you need to up your post count on topics outside of your compensated field.

Second, try to resist pumping out your link laden posts as it's a signature act of a paid shill. Not saying you can't post links but do so more judiciously.

Third, endeavor to minimize the trite posts of a few words as that is the hallmark of someone looking to up there post count to provide justification for your paycheck.

Fourth, don't stay away so much, it makes it look like your busy servicing the other forums and blogs you're paid to troll on.


Brian

 

[Poptech]

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

Roger Pielke Jr. never contacted me to remove any papers, as I have never received a single request from him in writing, why is that?

Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

Pielke's years old post has no relation to the current version of the list. When the list was first published in 2009 an alarmist notified Roger Pielke Jr. (Ph.D. Political Science) that some of his papers as well as his fathers appeared on it. Contacting him was intentional as Roger Pielke Jr. is someone who spends extensive amounts of time arguing against alarmist positions but outright refuses to be labeled a skeptic and will spend just as much time arguing that he is not. He is thus great for alarmists to use for soundbites against skeptics. No attempt was ever made to imply a specific personal position to him or any of the authors. All of this was explained to him in the comments to his blog post. The irony here is every single alarmist using Roger Pielke Jr.'s comments to attack the list would never use his papers in support of their arguments.

By 'cyber stalk' you mean 'googled your screen name'. You show up quite frequently, and the quick perusal of the results were not flattering.

Why are you now cyberstalking me, is this normal behavior for you? Have you been that embarrassed in this discussion that you want to physically go after me?

 

[Poptech]

So, I get my notebook and make three columns: one listing each unique topic, another for each unique topic on climate, and the third counting each post on climate. I then compile that list and, well, I've never seen the signature for a paid troll so clearly in my life.

So, here's what I'd recommend to avoid being outed in the future... [...]

Second, try to resist pumping out your link laden posts as it's a signature act of a paid shill. Not saying you can't post links but do so more judiciously.

Third, endeavor to minimize the trite posts of a few words as that is the hallmark of someone looking to up there post count to provide justification for your paycheck.

Fourth, don't stay away so much, it makes it look like your busy servicing the other forums and blogs you're paid to troll on.

Brian

If I was not so effective in my arguments you would not feel the need to try and smear me here with such reprehensible lies. So I appreciate letting me know how effective I am and how much you fear me. In the future I would recommend seeking medical advice for your conspiracy based paranoia.

 

[Poptech]

eskimospy failures are mounting and it is getting embarrassing:

1. eskimospy failed to state how many papers are in the climate science literature.

2. eskimospy failed to state how many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).

3. eskimospy failed to rebut the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper.

4. eskimospy failed to provide a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper.

5. eskimospy failed to provide evidence why Dr. Tol's paper was rejected from multiple journals.

6. eskimospy failed to understand the difference between the scholarly document format "Letters" and "Letters to the Editor".

 

[fskimospy]

Roger Pielke Jr. never contacted me to remove any papers, as I have never received a single request from him in writing, why is that?

Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

Why are you now cyberstalking me is this normal behavior for you?

Your "rebuttal" thread explicitly confirms what I said with a quoted email from Professor Dickerson.

Dickerson's email:

Please remove this article from your list of 'skeptics'

Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases (PDF) (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, pp. 413, November 2009) - Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

Russell Dickerson's original quote that I supplied:

The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

That is a person listed as asking for their paper to be removed from your site, something you say never happened.

Your original statement:

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

You are a liar.

 

[Poptech]

That is a person listed as asking for their paper to be removed from your site, something you say never happened.

I did not lie you said "authors" (plural). Dickerson was the sole person a (co-author) who ever contacted me. This is directly addressed in my rebuttals section:

Criticism: Many authors/scientists have demanded their papers be removed from the list.

Rebuttal: Only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and this paper was removed after it was determined that defending it's inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though he was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. "Please remove this article from your list of skeptics"). The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and stated that their paper argues against the IPCC.

So you have nothing but I am sure you will continue to cyberstalk me, as I can sense your embarrassment is growing.

Why are you now trying so hard to personally attack me, are your arguments no longer holding water?

 

[Brian Stirling]

If I was not so effective in my arguments you would not feel the need to try and smear me here with such reprehensible lies. So I appreciate letting me know how effective I am and how much you fear me. In the future I would recommend seeking medical advice for your conspiracy based paranoia.

I do hope your patron(s) take the time to review your posting history and perhaps they can see for themselves just how effective you are. I can't imagine that they'd be happy with your failure to obscure your focus.

You really need to improve your trade craft...


Brian