Saturday, February 16, 2013

RTFR Pops

So Poptech Andrew has popped up at Rabett Run.  Amongst the blather are some discussion of Pop's careful selection of "septical [TM Stoat]" literature.  Glenn Tamblyn went over there and found

So...

I go to poptech's site to have a look at his papers. Where to start? General is the first category so I might as well start there. And the first paper listed is ....(drum roll)

Has the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Changed Significantly Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? (PDF) (Monthly Weather Review, Volume 83, Issue 10, pp. 225-231, 1955)- Giles Slocum
Slocum FWIW was a government bureaucrat, in the Weather Service.  His conclusion, stated in the abstract was:

In this paper, the physical knowledge of atmospheric CO2 is examined and the available nineteenth and twentieth century observations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration are summarized to ascertain the extent to which they corroborate claims that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased since the nineteenth century. In the light of the uncertainty of both physical knowledge and of statistical analysis, it is concluded that the question of a trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration remains an open subject."
Glenn continued
So in 1955 Giles Slocum concluded that not enough was known about CO2levels. Which was exactly true, THEN!

That's why Keeling began his studies just a few years later.
So the 1st paper on poptech's list can best be described as OBSOLETE AND OUTDATED.
Pops tried the old two step
Poor Glenn and his SS "crusher crew" cannot read that the papers are listed chronologically and desperately cherry picks. Those papers were listed to show that skepticism is nothing new. I moved all the pre-1970 papers to the historical section at the bottom of the list.

Oh I do enjoy educating and embarrassing the computer illiterates from Skeptical Science. 
Glenn notices
I go back to have another look, and lo and behold, the Slocum paper is no longer in the General list. It suddenly vanished. After some searching I found it had moved to Historical, way down the list. All in just 15 minutes.

Andrew, YOU ARE PRICELESS! 
but Eli, as is his wont went and read the paper, conveniently available from NOAA.  Why their interest? Well it turns out that while Slocum was skeptical of many of Callendar's choices of records to exclude he was no one's fool.  If bunnies go and read the paper the conclusion in the conclusion, reasonable at the time, was
It may be hoped that the collection of standardized measurements of CO2 can be made a part of the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year program. Once a dependable set of observational data has been assembled, the evidence of the old observations can perhaps be reevaluated. If such new reevaluation proves impracticable, even then a reliable set of new worldwide observations can serve as a basis for comparison in future years.

In summary, the data, at present available, are inadequate as they now stand to prove or disprove a statistically significant trend in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  If and when an upward trend has been demonstrated, and  its cause ascertained, it will then be valid to base physical explanations of atmospheric events on the assumption that CO2 is increasing. Meanwhile, Callendar’s interesting extrapolations (through the 22d century) of the effects of burning up of the world’s fuel, stimulate the interest of the speculatively minded.
This paper provided strong motivation within the Weather Bureau for funding the Keeling measurements on Mauna Loa as part of the 1957-58 IGU.  Moreover, Slocum was exactly right, the Keeling measurements quickly lead to to re-evaluation of the older records, indicating that Callendar's selection was the correct one and pointing to reasons why many of the older measurements were problematic.  The Slocum paper also has an important listing of early measurements.   RFAOTFR Pops. 

Eli might be taking bets on Poptech deep sixing this one.

167 comments:

Anonymous said...

Eli's "amongst the blather" = Comments spouting hating of the military and all persons who are members, condoning of illegal acts in an ends justifies the means race to the finish.

Pops you are on your own, you stepped in it.


Anonymous said...

I have heard say that when Willard Anthony gets down in the dumps(probably after agreeing to another Stephen Goddard post) he has been heard to mutter "At least I am not Poptech".

Anonymous said...

Agreed Anon, Andrew Kahn (aka Poptech) is on his own. A fit consequence for a cyberstalker and fraudster.

Hopefully Eli will be so kind as to save us from enduring Kahn's psychopathic behaviour at Rabett Run.


Fanged bunny.

dhogaza said...

You do realize that you're not allowed to criticize PopTart's selections without allowing him to weigh in first, right?

It's not the content of the paper that counts, it's PopTart's classification that counts ...

KAP said...

I'll take that bet. Poptech doesn't deep-six anything. Some time ago, I pointed out that his list contained a reference to Loehle 2007, even though that paper had been superceded by (and essentially disowned as a result of) Loehle & McCullough 2008. Did Poptech thank me for pointing that out, and remove Loehle 2007 from his list?

Heck no. He continued to defend his use of it. Nothing ever, ever leaves poptech's list once it's there, no matter how old, obsolete, or even retracted it is.

carrot eater said...

There is always something better to do with your time, than talk to that guy.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Poptech is one of the new breed of aggressively stupid trolls who pattern themselves after Duane Gish (of the infamous Gish Gallop). The goal is to bury the opponent under an avalanche of stupidity and lies to massive for refutation--and of course if the opponent doesn't refute each and every one in detail, you declare victory. It ain't science.

EliRabett said...

The primary driver for posting this was to show how the paper helped drive weather bureau support of the Keeling measurements. IEHO it was thus a very important marker.

Agreed, that abusing bags of wind for sport is below bunnies, but it is amusing on occassion.

J Bowers said...

Lewandowsky could fill the rest of his career with studying Poptech.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

J. Bowers: "Lewandowsky could fill the rest of his career with studying Poptech."

Nah! Once he'd read through the program, there's not much else to learn.

Marion Delgado said...

Eli, "lead" no more replaces "led" than "red" replaces "read." Just food for thought.


http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lead.html

dhogaza said...

There are other issues with poptart, one being his use of "popular technology.net", which presumably is an attempt to attach his efforts with the magazine of that name.

There's also a "poptech.org", run by someone whose first name is "Andrew", which appears to be legitimate.

Our "andrew" is not that andrew, coincidence or is our andrew a fake andrew?

dhogaza said...

Our poptech has skills that go beyond global warming ...

http://ipka.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/populartechnology-net-by-andrew-khan/

Quite a piece of work, our Andrew.

Captain Pithart said...

My favorite debunking of the Poptart list is back from 2009, by Greenfyre:

I say airplanes cannot fly because they are made of metal and metal is heavier than air. Here are 10 papers that say metal is heavier than air, and here are 10 more that say airplanes are made of metal. These 20 papers therefore support skepticism about man made airplanes being able to fly.

There are some others, such as those by Carbon Brief, Skeptical Science.

dhogaza said...

But poptart refuted Greenfyre! Planes don't fly!

Sheesh.

He's apparently a fucking phone support person who has also built PCs ... overturning science and open source software.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"I say airplanes cannot fly because they are made of metal and metal is heavier than air. Here are 10 papers that say metal is heavier than air, and here are 10 more that say airplanes are made of metal. These 20 papers therefore support skepticism about man made airplanes being able to fly."

There's a pattern to Andrew's career:

"The argument that IE6 was actually more secure than Firefox in 2006 because it had more security vulnerabilities is a misleading one: it only works if you ignore all the reports of in-the-wild malware actually using IE6 exploits to install itself. It's rather like saying bank A was more secure than bank B last year because a security audit found the bank fixed 100 insecure locks, windows and security cameras and bank B only fixed 50- while ignoring the fact that bank B was robbed several times in the last year because the security problems weren't fixed until long after the bad guys found out about them.

Arguing that bank B was more secure requires that you ignore all those inconvenient bank robberies at bank B and concentrate on the security 'vulnerabilities' at bank A, even if they were fixed before anybody took advantage of them!

The author of Firefox Myths/Poptech blog has done just that. For one thing he pops up all over the internet under various names telling us that Firefox is insecure with x vulnerabilities."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explorer_unsafe_for_2.html

Now he pops up everywhere telling us that AGW science is unsound because x papers support sceptic arguments.

Whatever could be the link?

http://dontsurfinthenude.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/safest-web-browser.html

Andrew said...

"Anonymous said... Agreed Anon, Andrew Kahn (aka Poptech) is on his own. A fit consequence for a cyberstalker and fraudster."

LMAO, no one knows my last name, not even delusional Firefox Fanboys who are still crying about an expose done on them. I also have never cyberstalked anyone, let alone have I ever committed fraud. Sad to see so many lies stated here but what else would you expect from the gutter of the Internet.

Andrew said...

"KAP said... I'll take that bet. Poptech doesn't deep-six anything. Some time ago, I pointed out that his list contained a reference to Loehle 2007, even though that paper had been superceded by (and essentially disowned as a result of) Loehle & McCullough 2008. Did Poptech thank me for pointing that out, and remove Loehle 2007 from his list?

Heck no. He continued to defend his use of it. Nothing ever, ever leaves poptech's list once it's there, no matter how old, obsolete, or even retracted it is.
"

First of all you have NEVER pointed anything out to me. Second corrections have been made to the list and will continue to in the future. You are confusing a published correction (which is completely normal in the scholarly literature) with a "retraction". The correction (Loehle & McCulloch 2008) is on the list following the original paper. Loehle 2007 continues to be cited and has never been retracted, thus it will never be removed. Get over it.

Andrew said...

"a_ray_in_dildo_space said... Poptech is one of the new breed of aggressively stupid trolls who pattern themselves after Duane Gish (of the infamous Gish Gallop). The goal is to bury the opponent under an avalanche of stupidity and lies to massive for refutation--and of course if the opponent doesn't refute each and every one in detail, you declare victory. It ain't science."

Poor Dildo, still cannot provide an objective criteria for determining who is a "climate scientist".

I don't pattern myself after any creationists since I am religiously agnostic. I also don't "troll" anywhere as I am only here to directly respond to all your lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. I am glad I could help educate you.

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said... There are other issues with poptart, one being his use of "popular technology.net", which presumably is an attempt to attach his efforts with the magazine of that name."

What a moron, there is not such magazine. Do you also need an education on magazines? Man is that embarrassing, LMAO!

FreewheelinFrank said...

"LMAO, no one knows my last name"

Surely you do, Andrew Khan?

http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said... Our poptech has skills that go beyond global warming ...

http://ipka.wordpress.com/...
"

Wow, this is sad now you are linking to nonsense from an admitted cyberstalked?

"…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed." – Bud [Walt M.] other sockpuppet IPKA.

Firefox fanboys like Frank are a nasty bunch too bad they don't get their facts straight because they are not that bright. I only post as Poptech or some obvious variation of (depending on what is available) or Andrew. This is very well documented throughout the Internet and I have never used a sock puppet. I've challenged every false charge to validate my IP and they either ignore it or fail.

Andrew said...

'Captain Pithart said... My favorite debunking of the Poptart list is back from 2009, by Greenfyre:

There are some others, such as those by Carbon Brief, Skeptical Science.
"

Completely outdated and refuted nonsense,

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

We can add Captain Pithart to the growing list of computer illiterates who do not know how to use Google Scholar.

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.

Fail.

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said...
"LMAO, no one knows my last name"

Surely you do, Andrew Khan?
"

Poor Frank, still a sucker and a dumbass after all these years. Try finding an Andrew Khan near Atlantic City, NJ you moron. How is it possible for me to "accidentally" post my last name online when I have NEVER used it EVER?

Anonymous said...

Well Andrew, you do make yourself even more ridiculous by making an appearance where you're obviously unwelcome, but you're much better appreciated in absentia. At any rate, I doubt you'll win any converts with your inane "defense." You're like the delusional person who wants to represent yourself by cross-examining yourself in front of a jury. We can just watch in rapt amusement as you self destruct. Popcorn!

Taylor B

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said... But poptart refuted Greenfyre!"

Yes, in extensive detail. Lets, learn more about Greenfyre,

The Truth about Greenfyre

Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.


"He's apparently a fucking phone support person who has also built PCs ... overturning science and open source software."

Um no, I used to be a computer technician over ten years ago, part of the job involve phone support. Currently I am a computer analyst. I also use and recommend open source software such as Open Office (Libre Office) so I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, wait you read that on the Internet.

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said... Now he pops up everywhere telling us that AGW science is unsound because x papers support sceptic arguments."

Name one place liar.

Andrew said...

"Taylor B said... Well Andrew, you do make yourself even more ridiculous by making an appearance where you're obviously unwelcome, but you're much better appreciated in absentia. At any rate, I doubt you'll win any converts with your inane "defense." You're like the delusional person who wants to represent yourself by cross-examining yourself in front of a jury. We can just watch in rapt amusement as you self destruct. Popcorn!"

If misinformation was not stated about my list I would not be here. I am absolutely certain I will never win a single "convert" to any sort of skepticism at this blog but that is not why I am here. While I am confident I will win converts in relation to debunking the nonsense stated about my list with those here who are intellectually honest.

If you wish to present an actual argument please do so, instead of ad hominem related analogies.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"How is it possible for me to "accidentally" post my last name online"

I know, you just accidentally typed a random surname that just happens to begin with the same letter as your own into a blog comment box. Something we all do all the time.

http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said... "How is it possible for me to "accidentally" post my last name online"

I know, you just accidentally typed a random surname that just happens to begin with the same letter as your own into a blog comment box. Something we all do all the time."



You seem really confused, why would I "accidentally" type my last name in when I NEVER use it online ANYWHERE? Please locate this Andrew "Khan", we would all like to meet him, including me. What a dumbass.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"Currently I am a computer analyst"

Funny how you suddenly became a computer analyst when you started taking an interest in AGW.

From:

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=30720.msg254287#msg254287

To:

http://home.comcast.net/~supportcd/About.html

Well of course "computer analyst" has more authority when talking about computer models than A+ and Dell certified.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TAU0T0630CLLOSLK4

FreewheelinFrank said...

"why would I "accidentally" type my last name in"

Hmmm..., let's see.

Because you often post as Andrew K, and this time you let your fingers run away and type your full name.

Not as if we all type our names regularly enough to do it without thinking, is it?

http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514

Andrew said...

"Currently I am a computer analyst"

Funny how you suddenly became a computer analyst when you started taking an interest in AGW.
"

No, I became a computer analyst when I was hired as such. Your idiocy of not knowing the relevance of what you find on the Internet is not my concern. This is really sad.

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said... "why would I "accidentally" type my last name in"

Hmmm..., let's see.

Because you often post as Andrew K, and this time you let your fingers run away and type your full name."


You have established yourself as the ultimate Internet dumbass who has been baited for all these years. Oh, how I wish I could see your face when you found out what was going on.

Find an Andrew "Khan" near Atlantic City, NJ dumbass. Come on Internet sleuth. This is so much fun.

Anonymous said...

Andrew said... "Poor Frank, still a sucker and a dumbass after all these years. Try finding an Andrew Khan near Atlantic City, NJ you moron."

Funny, no one mentioned Atlantic City; only Poptech did. He couldn't have meant Egg Harbor Township, NJ, could he?

http://tinyurl.com/PoptechLivesHere

No, I'm not going to argue with you, Poptech; like I said, I'm just eating popcorn.

Taylor B

Andrew said...

Taylor, yes it looks like there are some "A Khans" near Atlantic City, NJ. Let Frank figure out if they are named "Andrew" or not. I specifically mentioned near Atlantic City, NJ as I have plenty of other places for a reason. Frank is a very dumb individual that falls for all sorts of bait.

Captain Pithart said...

Wow, seems like we're having a significant outbreak of Andrew here... Does it go away, or should we all abandon blog??

Peter Hartmann (NOT MY REAL NAME, JUST A TYPO!!)

EliRabett said...

First, Eli would remind everybunny that there are majic words at Rabett Run. Before anybunny starts whining, this is Eli's blog and there are rules.

Second, Eli would remind Pops that there is a lot of proof that folks on his list were funded by Exxon Mobil and they even acknowledged the support in publications in some cases

Jeffrey Davis said...

Please don't bring him up again.

ligne said...

"You have established yourself as the ultimate Internet dumbass who has been baited for all these years. Oh, how I wish I could see your face when you found out what was going on."

ligne kindly requests the wisdom of the little bunnies: would this quote be an instance of technique 1 or 2?

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

J Bowers said...

"Funny, no one mentioned Atlantic City; only Poptech did."

That would explain the long silence from Poptech after Sandy. Little doubt there are more silences to come over the years. Every cloud...

Andrew said...

"EliRabett said... Second, Eli would remind Pops that there is a lot of proof that folks on his list were funded by Exxon Mobil and they even acknowledged the support in publications in some cases"

Um no, you have the same handful of names as before such as Soon and Baliunas, where they explicitly stated, "The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support". At least seven more have been removed from this smear,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

No matter how bad you failed at math (Glenn) you do not get anywhere near 9 out of 10 authors since there are over 1500 authors on the list.

Josh, I've commented on your other post, since you incorrectly listed three papers that do not mention Exxon.

Andrew said...

"J Bowers said... "Funny, no one mentioned Atlantic City; only Poptech did."

That would explain the long silence from Poptech after Sandy. Little doubt there are more silences to come over the years. Every cloud..."


Yes, I was quite busy volunteering my time helping clean up and putting people's live back together.

The storm itself was not unprecedented as it did not even flood as bad as 1962.

"At the Atlantic County Utilities Authority wastewater treatment plant on Route 30, tidal records date to the March 1962 storm, where workers measured the maximum height at 9.6 feet, ACUA President Rick Dovey said. The water level during Sandy was slightly less, at 9.5 feet, Dovey said."

Andrew said...

"Wow, seems like we're having a significant outbreak of Andrew here... Does it go away, or should we all abandon blog??"

Peter, you so assuredly claimed that the list was "debunked", certainly you would want to support this argument with something from the nonsense you linked to? It cannot all be wrong? Even you can cherry pick an argument out of that refuted nonsense.

Andrew said...

"ligne said... "You have established yourself as the ultimate Internet dumbass who has been baited for all these years. Oh, how I wish I could see your face when you found out what was going on."

ligne kindly requests the wisdom of the little bunnies: would this quote be an instance of technique 1 or 2?

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
"

So what sort of prize do I get when I show that I baited poor dumb Frank and all the other Internet idiots years ago? Master puppeteer?

Andrew said...

Looks like my posts are being censored here. Do I need to make copies at my site?

Interesting you omit the time stamps,

"Andrew said...

Poor Glenn and his SS "crusher crew" cannot read that the papers are listed chronologically and desperately cherry picks. Those papers were listed to show that skepticism is nothing new. I moved all the pre-1970 papers to the historical section at the bottom of the list.

Oh I do enjoy educating and embarrassing the computer illiterates from Skeptical Science.

16/2/13 6:55 PM


Glenn Tamblyn said...

HA HA HA

I go back to have another look, and lo and behold, the Slocum paper is no longer in the General list. It suddenly vanished. After some searching I found it had moved to Historical, way down the list. All in just 15 minutes.

Andrew, YOU ARE PRICELESS!

16/2/13 6:58 PM"


Glenn acts like a confused child to something I already stated I did, which was specifically to address his cherry picking and strawman argument. The Slocum paper is still there and I have no plans of removing it but it is much more clear to the context of why it was listed now. The list is simply a resource for skeptics. After which Glenn tried his hand at counting which was an embarrassing failure as well."

Anonymous said...

Great, it's Poptech aka Mastertech aka Andrew K aka GeneralAres (add a dozen or so other IDs) again, the hobbyist climate scientist / IT consultant / web browser expert / writer of optimizerguides and full time idiot.

The guy who despite all these occupations finds sufficient time to write all of his forums posts (as Andrew, Doug, Karl and Mike) as well as fill his blog with references to papers he does not understand, spams the entire internet with links to his useless sites (http://optimizeguides.com/, http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.htmland the infamous Poptech list) AND is active in each and every single forum, news article and blogpost containing the words 'climate change', or so it seems. A small selection:

- http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5911349#post5911349
- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/global-warming-science-denial-scepticism-t5955-140.html
- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164149
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
- http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition?page=6
- http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1088371&start=80
- http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/11059-35-optimize-windows-optmization-guide
- http://gamebattles.majorleaguegaming.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20788270#post20788270
- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?252235-Climategate-review-clears-scientists-of-dishonesty&s=b3a20f32a19a5169b9dc40c9854d88ba&p=2790927#post2790927


Poptart is someone who simply cannot take criticism. None whatsoever. Whatever he says is always right. Whenever someone criticizes his allegations, he believes that by writing a simple rebuttal the case is closed.

And this guy is the denier's librarian when it comes to digging up science which they believe supports their denial arguments. LOL


- James Randi skeptics forum: banned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164149)
-

Andrew said...

More anon ad hominem spam. As already stated I only use Poptech or some obvious derivation of and Andrew not the lies from the Firefox fanboys. Notice all the links discussing climate change show the poster as "Poptech". I certainly don't write all the posts in my forum which has over 200 members but I am the most prolific poster without question. I have never posted as Doug (D on the forums), Karl (Karl on the forums) or Mike (Z on the forums). I am not employed as an IT consultant but a computer analyst as already stated.

Actually I only show up in any discussion involving lies, misinformation or strawman arguments stated about my list which is the only reason I am here. I do not post it anywhere let alone spam anything. Like anything else, I get involved in various discussions on climate change while I am at a certain site. I have nothing to hide with my posts as I use Poptech everywhere I post.

I have made various clarifications and corrections to the list from valid criticisms not lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. I am willing to debate any of my rebuttals with anyone, anywhere but those who are intellectually honest either concede or disappear as those have here.

I am still waiting for someone to present a valid argument from one of their "links" that applies to the current version of the list.

Instead we get rabid spamming by pathetic individuals.

Anonymous said...

I just happens, Mastertech, that the coincidences are just too many.

Now why on earth would someone completely unrelated to you spam the web with links to your FirefoxMyths and Optimize sites? Someone who just happens to write in a similar style as you do? Why on earth would a Mastertech write "I never worked for Dell I said I am Dell certified" in a forumpost if Mastertech is completely unrelated and unknown to you?
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=264376

And why would a renowned blogger critical of your Firefoxmyths site
state that different commentators all share the same IP address, the same one believed to belong to the author of the Myths site (you)?

http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/#comment-7918

And why would every single really skeptical person who just happens to disagree with you on whatever subject reach the same conclusions as I do? That you have a looooooong history of deceit on the web with your spamming, your idiotic claims, your multiple nicks (David Dobsen, David H. Drew, FFeLEET, GeneralAres, Jim, Joe Somebody, Mike G., MT, NewsHound, Realist, TheHardTruth, Thor, Vincent, PopTech, Mastertech, Andrew K)?
http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html

Is that all a coincidence? Or a conspiracy perhaps?



"I am still waiting for someone to present a valid argument from one of their "links" that applies to the current version of the list."

The valid arguments have been posted numerous times. The problem is that you do not fully grasp what 'valid' actually means nor are you in a position, given your profound lack of scientific expertise, to determine what is scientifically valid and what is not.

Unfortunately, this total lack of scientific expertise does not stop you from cherry-picking single lines out of real scientists' journals and presenting them as evidence for your denial cause.

Itsnotnova detailed your fuzzy selection criteria very well in this 2011 post: http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/


Anonymous said...

Well Poppy can sort out this supposed confusion as to his real identity by simply telling us who he really is, together with some details that will allow us to validate the authenticity of his claim.

Very simply, the ball is now in his court. I'm not holding my breath for a helpful response though.

Fanged Bunny


Anonymous said...

Poppy projecting again,

"Instead we get rabid spamming by pathetic individuals."

LOL.

Fanged Bunny

David B. Benson said...

Has the attack of Andrewitis about run its course?

Andrew said...

"by simply telling us who he really is"

That will never happen.

Anonymous said...

Poppy,

"That will never happen"

Oh come on Poppy what are you afraid of? You need to do better much than that lame retort Andrew.

You should also know better, never say never Andrew.

Fanged Bunny

Steve Bloom said...

Eli: "this is Eli's blog and there are rules."

You make funny joke. OTOH it may mean that you're about to post the Trollhammer video again as a cute way to say you refuse to use one.

This is a public space, many read who do not post, and we have:

"Trolls Win: Rude Blog Comments Dim Allure of Science Online, Experts Say"

And it's not just this post, as it was after all Poptart-baiting intended to draw out the stupidity (for the Bunny's amusement, I guess), but many other RR posts that get lesser amounts of the same crap.

Just sayin'.

Andrew said...

The computer illiteracy of the scientific community is not surprising. Internet "Trolling" is, "To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding."

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/troll.html

That is something I do to Internet idiots like Frank and other Firefox Fanboys whom I bait for fun. Refuting nonsensical claims here about my list is not "trolling". Intent matters, learn the difference so you do not look like Internet noobs.

J Bowers said...

"The storm itself was not unprecedented as it did not even flood as bad as 1962."

March 1962. Remind us again of the month Sandy made landfall and its location, and you could also remind us of how much area it covered and how much energy it had.

J Bowers said...

Forgot the money quote from Poptech's own Sandy link:

"It is likely that inland winds had never been as strong or of a multihour duration in the modern era across central and northern areas; perhaps not since an 1821 hurricane ravaged the region,” Robinson wrote. “While precipitation was not excessive over most of the state, the far southern coastal region had a deluge that statistically happens once every 200 years."

Dikran Marsupial said...

Poptech, while you are here, I just thought I should point out that one of the papers on your list:

Robert H. Essenhigh, "Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide", (Energy & Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)

Has been refuted by subsequent paper appearing in that same journal:

Gavin C. Cawley, On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide, Energy & Fuels, volume 25, number 11, pages 5503–5513, September 2011. (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u)

You claim that your list is a resource for skeptics. If that is the case, you will be doing them a favour by taking Prof. Essenhigh's paper off your list, as it is the sort of argument that gives skeptics a bad name, just ask Fred Singer

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html

Actually pruning your list to remove some of the other obviously incorrect arguments pointed out by Singer would also increase the utility of your list for the skeptics.

Captain Pithart said...

@Dikran: You mean Fred Singer, the alarmist zealot right behind Pope Spencer I.?

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/99-climate-realism-through-the-mists-of-misconceptions.html

I can't describe how much I love this picture :))

pH

Bill Smithson said...

I remeber having a long interchange with poptech a few years ago on the Delingpole blog. What quickly became apparent is that like most people promoting a conceptual product the marketing tended to overstate the content. While the rhetoric is that it is a collection of scientific papers that dispute or are sceptical of AGW, the reality is that the vast majority of the papers listed accept both the scientific understanding of the 'greenhouse effect' and most accept the direct observatIonal reality of AGW.

In a desperate attempt to get the numbers up irrispective of the actual content of the papers research that is merely sceptical of some aspect of AGW get included, or which identify a possible benefit of warmer climates with increased CO2. However the argument that higher CO2 is beneficial to crop growth is looking dubious as better free air experiments are conducted that show that water and nitrogen are by far the dominant limiting factors on growth and at best higher CO2 allows some plants to survive drought more succesfully. A benefit in a world where extreme drought is increasingly likely to be sure. But hardly a ringing refutation of the science of AGW.

Most of the poptech list is like that. Very little is focused on the science of AGW, even less attempts to refute the basic science, it is quibbles around the edges or about the degree of danger that climate change may represent.

It is highly reminiscent of the list of papers that used to be found on some creationist sites that would be touted as evidence that evolution was in doubt, but on examination always turned out to be totally accepting of the evolutionary process, just disputing the fine detail.
With a few total crank papers thrown in.
Like the Iron sun and Gerlacher nonsense in the poptech list!

izen

Anonymous said...

For some unclear reasons the bunnies lost my latest (comprehensive) reply to Poptart whom I too have had the 'pleasure' of discussing with quite a few times over the years.

The blog itsnotnova did an excellent description of Poptech's 'list of confusion' back in 2011.

I highly recommend everyone (including Andrew or whatever his name du jour is) to read it.

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

Andrew said...

Ah looks like more of the "SS Crusher Crew" has arrived,

Dikran, the existence of a paper commenting on another does not make it "refuted". No paper will be removed from the list unless the paper is retracted by the journal so get over it. The list is a resource for skeptics and does not discriminate against skeptic arguments.

Your buddies already tried the fake appealing to the well being of skeptic rhetoric. Are you guys still this amateurish that you do not even know how to coordinate your pathetic attempts at manipulation? Oh, that is right you censored all my comments at Skeptical Science.

Andrew said...

"Bill Smithson said...
I remeber having a long interchange with poptech a few years ago on the Delingpole blog. What quickly became apparent is that like most people promoting a conceptual product the marketing tended to overstate the content. While the rhetoric is that it is a collection of scientific papers that dispute or are sceptical of AGW,"


So you only remember your strawman arguments? Why am I not surprised. I've never argued your strawman arguments. The papers all "support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Therefore it includes papers that can acknowledge the existence of AGW (in some form) but do not support alarmist conclusions. The intent of the list was always to be an all inclusive resource for all skeptic arguments and does not discriminate.


"It is highly reminiscent of the list of papers that used to be found on some creationist sites..."

Ah the tired creationist ad hominem. This is sooooo old and worn out.


"Like the Iron sun"

Really? Where is such a paper on the list? Come on liar.

Andrew said...

"The blog itsnotnova did an excellent description of Poptech's 'list of confusion' back in 2011.

I highly recommend everyone (including Andrew or whatever his name du jour is) to read it."


ROFLMAO!!!! Are you a complete moron like him too? Don't tell me you are just as incompetent and did not know that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature!

Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion" #2

"An alarmist spammer who comments at Jo Nova's site by the screen name "Blimey" and around the Internet as "itsnotnova" continues doubling down on his insanity. After having his original blog post completely refuted he decided to add new lies, misinformation and strawman arguments to it. He is so incompetent that he did not even read the list correctly (Lie #4) or understands that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature (Lie #13)."

Oh this is my favorite, the author is such a complete moron. It is a priceless read of pure idiocy.

Pick your favorite piece of idiocy from his post so I can embarrass you with it here.

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember somewhere that "NikFromNYC", who posted on another Greenfyre thread, was outed as one of Poptech's socks.

I also seem to recall that there was an admission of mental instability.

Any links to confirm these suspicions would be received with interest.


Bernard J Hyphen-Anonymous XVII


(I think therefore I am not a robot.

QED)

Andrew said...

Then you have a horrible memory, no one has ever been "outed" anywhere as a sockpuppet of me, including "NickFromNYC". I've challenged all claims to verify my IP and they either fail or drop the accusation.

The anon comments are getting really desperate and loony.

David B. Benson said...

No, another boring day of Andrewitis.

Anonymous said...

"The anon comments are getting really desperate and loony."

And this coming from someone with multiple identities who posts his nonsense every single time someone on the World Wide Web even dares to question the validity of his little list/complains about Windows XP or merely claims how much they prefer Firefox over any other browser.

Now matter how insignificant the forum, the news-article or the blog, there's always a good chance Andrew and his band of merry sock-puppet ID's will pop up to claim how much superior his knowledge on whatever the issue discussed is.

Priceless Andrew/Realist/MasterTech/David Dobsen/FFeLEET/GeneralAres/Joe Somebody/Mike G./ NewsHound/Thor/Vincent!

PS I love your forum posts where you promote HIV/AIDS denialists. Very informative. I bet Dr Lewandowsky thinks the same.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3536

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Andrew, you are almost right. While letters in Nature are indeed peer reviewed, now, this is not the case in every journal. For example, Science does not peer review letters (in Nature the equivalent contributions are referred to as correspondence). In PNAS, letters do not seem to be peer reviewed (at least they don't show a review history) and are only published online. So basing what you say on the policies of a single publication is not valid.

Andrew said...

Apparently I dragged out the anon conspiracy theorists cyberstalkers (Frank and his loon friends). You keep obsessively repeating this sockpuppet nonsense with no evidence to support any of it. All of those sockpuppet lies are from Firefox Fanboys over seven years ago and they never held up. Go search Google, any idiot (even you) can see I always use Poptech/Andrew with ZERO valid claims of any sort of sockpuppets being used. You repeat the same nonsense like a brain dead monkey on Ritalin.

Notice I am not the one posting as Anonymous.

I don't and have never promoted HIV/AIDs "denialism", I use the forums for compiling research and you find these on all sorts of topics I am interested in. I can make anything I want hidden from public view. This was brought up before by the same smear merchants and I never hid it because there is nothing to hide. Notice the title says "HIV/AIDs Controversy Resource" because I was interested in what scientific arguments there were in this area. I have never made any AIDs related posts to the main site and likely never will.

Talk about pathetic.

Andrew said...

Hey Rattus, are you even following the conversation? How am I "almost right"? What I actually stated was,

"Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature.

I did not mention "all" journals let alone "Science" nor am I basing it on a single publication. The moron specifically linked to a "Letter" from Nature. But you want more examples? Here you go,

Geophysical Research Letters
Physical Review Letters

The argument was very simple, the idiot was claiming I was counting "letters to the editor" as peer-reviewed papers. You are free to find an example on the list, I will wait and listen to the crickets.

I understand it is actually impossible for anyone here who is intellectually honest to concede anything but I will take the silence as enough.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Andrew, those aren't letters in the sense that most people would think of them. They are journals containing original research papers of somewhat limited length with a quick turnaround time. In general when the word "Letters" is included in a journal title it indicates that sort of a paper format.

Andrew said...

Rattus, I AM WELL AWARE OF THIS, TRY FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION.

Captain Pithart said...

HITLER!!

Can we go now? ...

dhogaza said...

Well, I don't know about other people, but until PopTart disappears, I see no reason to read here.

Signal to noise ratio on blogs need to be distinguishable from zero, after all.

Anonymous said...

Conversation? What conversation? (munch, munch)

Taylor B

Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew wrote "I have made various clarifications and corrections to the list from valid criticisms not lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. I am willing to debate any of my rebuttals with anyone, anywhere but those who are intellectually honest either concede or disappear as those have here."

And yet when I point out that Prof. Essenhigh's paper has been refuted, Andrew simply runs away and refuses to discuss the content of the rebuttal. You have just made it clear that you are in fact not willing to engage in rational debate.

By the way, journals generally don't retract a paper for being incorrect, generally they only do this if there has been some sort of malpractice, so that is an absurd criterion.

Your list is essentially a trap for skeptics rather than a resource, as Fred Singer points out, if you encourage skeptics to use arguments that are obviously incorrect, you are setting them up to make fools of themselves, and marginalise those who actually do have a grasp of the basic science. I don't want that, and I would have thought it isn't something you would want either.

Anonymous said...

"I don't and have never promoted HIV/AIDs "denialism", I use the forums for compiling research and you find these on all sorts of topics I am interested in"

BS. As with your anti-AGW list, you just happen to compile only the fringe opinions on AIDS/HIV along with peer reviewed papers which you THINK support these fringe opinions.

Under the caption "Websites" you have compiled 7 sites, ALL promoting AIDS/HIV denialism.

You even dedicate an entire post to list notorious AIDS/HIV denier Peter H Duesberg's bio, his most notable achievements and his particular hypothesis.

AND you post a link titled "List of High Profile AIDS Dissidents".


PS Your opinions on homosexuality give a good insight in the sort of person you are.


"Homosexuals needed to be classified as people with sexual disorders."

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=836&st=0
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=1820&st=10

Andrew said...

Dikran, you declared Essenhigh's paper to be "refuted" because there exists a comment on his paper, this does not make it so. I have seen no retraction nor concession from Dr. Essenhigh. You seem really confused, it is not my job to "discuss" any of the papers on the list as I did not write them. If you wish to discuss the paper I suggest contacting Dr. Essenhigh. I just checked and the paper is still listed in the journal so it will remain on the list.

Dr. Singer has never made your strawman argument relating to the list. You are not even making any sense. The list is a simply a resource for skeptics to locate these papers and to prove they exist. I know you guys really don't like the list and it causes you all sorts of problems based on the 17 specific discussions you guys created in your forums relating to me but this is REALLY not my problem.

Something in your brain is not registering properly. Go compare notes with the other idiots at Skeptical Science, what part of "this tactic will never work" do you not understand? You guys REALLY need to get smarter. It is like constant amateur hour with you guys.

Andrew said...

Man, I must really be winning the argument for the anons to bring out smears like this.

I am well aware my resource only has contrarian views on HIV/AIDs as that was the whole point. I was interested to see what I could find. Read it, ignore I really don't care, as I was interested if such contrarian arguments had any scientific support. None of it changes the fact that I never posted a single article to the main site on the issue and likely never will.

You will find I am not politically correct and never will be.

In you rabid determination to smear me you failed to noted that I stated in the same discussion, "You draft a law up saying homosexuals should be allowed to have hospital visitation rights and I will sign it." Which is why the context of my position that I believe homosexuality to be a sexual disorder is scientifically and not religiously based. I still hold this view, which is actually a very logical argument. You having been brainwashed with knee jerk political correctness that you cannot accept rational debate on controversial subjects is expected. I hold no animosity towards homosexuals in any way and work with them everyday. I believe their personal life is their business and no one should be able to infringe on their right to privacy. My current position on marriage is that government should not be involved in it at all and no business should be forced by law to provide benefits or special treatment to heterosexual or homosexual couples.

Anyway, this is a new low.

Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew, a few simple questions:

(i) Have you read Essenhigh's paper?

(ii) Have you read the paper that refutes Essenhigh's paper?

(iii) Do you care whether Essenhigh's paper is correct?

(iv) Have you read Fred Singers American Thinker article (that I linked to earlier in the thread) that argues that "deniers" (his word not mine) are giving true skeptics a bad name by holding on to scientific arguments that are clearly incorrect (Essenhigh's argument being one of them, although Singer doesn't actually name names)?

Anonymous said...

I am reading Andrew's comments in Firefox and they are coming up as gibberish.

Can anybody tell me where I should go to get my money back???

FreewheelinFrank said...

"You have just made it clear that you are in fact not willing to engage in rational debate."

You might as well expect Inhofe to remove one of his 400 scientists who object to the consensus on AGW, even if they say they support the consensus and action on AGW. 400 is a better excuse than 399! They said something he considers sceptical so they stay on the list whether they like it or not.

To Andrew the fact that the paper exists is evidence of scepticism, to which whether or not it turns out to hold any water is irrelevant.

The more that exist, the more the excuse for brutish scepticism.

Not even new when Inhofe used it, the approach is obviously flawed: If AGW were wrong, one name, one paper would be enough.

It's quantity over quality, just like Andrew's previous bugbear: the supposed insecurity of open source software due to vulnerability count.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=1111

EliRabett said...

Andrew, many thanks for the Roger Pielke Jr. impersonation, but please wipe the spit off the inside of our screens as you leave.

J Bowers said...

"You will find I am not politically correct and never will be."

A real maverick. Impressed. Really. That showed 'em.

Andrew said...

Dikran, I have read the papers and article when they were published which is irrelevant. You still seem really confused. The existence of a paper that comments on another does not make Essenhigh's "refuted". It is up to Dr. Essenhigh to defend his work not me.

The list has nothing to do with what I believe to be "correct" as that is irrelevant to the purpose of the list. The purpose of the list is as a resource and I trust skeptics who use the resource to make that determination on their own. I do not discriminate against any such published peer-reviewed paper, let alone care about your opinion on any issue.

What part of the paper will never be removed unless it is retracted by the journal do you not understand? You have been told this repeatedly and are still trying the same failed tactics.

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said...
"You have just made it clear that you are in fact not willing to engage in rational debate."

You might as well expect Inhofe to remove one of his 400 scientists who object to the consensus on AGW, even if they say they support the consensus and action on AGW. 400 is a better excuse than 399! They said something he considers sceptical so they stay on the list whether they like it or not."


If I was making up any such list, I would remove the name of the scientist if listed in error but my list has nothing to do with the personal opinion of any of the authors as explicitly stated in the disclaimer,

"Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm"

And I certainly will never remove any published peer-reviewed papers simply because another paper comments on one of them and someone declares it "refuted".

To me the fact that the paper exists is evidence of it's existence.

If AGW was correct, one name, one paper would be enough.

My position that increased "security" is a myth of Open Source software has not changed,

Over half of Android devices have unpatched vulnerabilities, report says

That does not mean I do not use and recommend open source software, I just have no illusions as Fanboys who do not work in the industry do.

J Bowers said...

"If AGW was correct, one name, one paper would be enough."

As much as I hate to, I have to say that's a stroke of genius from Poptech. When tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers implicitly and explicitly accept AGW, while only a few dozen reject it, reduce the test of AGW to just one single paper. Poptech's gold star from Morano is surely in the post.

Andrew said...

"J Bowers said...

When tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers implicitly and explicitly accept AGW, while only a few dozen reject it
"

This is pure fantasy as most climate papers do not even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

David B. Benson said...

Still under the weather with the same disease I see.

Andrew said...

And then there was a 404 error, like magic.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

Internet Lesson #2: "sock puppets"

Sock puppet (defined) "an extra online identity created by a member of a discussion forum, etc, to agree with opinions submitted under his or her usual online name"

This has nothing to do with having different online identities at different sites. The anon posters here are really not that bright.

Anonymous said...

Andrew, your light shines so brightly, we must all avert our gaze. As we bunnies have been granted the exquisite privilege of being graced by your eminence for this brief moment, we shall gratefully cast rose petals, or something, to cushion your every step toward the exit to internet immortality as a brilliant example of Dunning-Kruger. Thank you for making your case so irrefutably clear.

Taylor B

J Bowers said...

im·plic·it (m-plst)
adj. 1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed
Adv. 1. implicitly

jyyh said...

Thanks Andrew for selectively quoting me. Are you still much into hacked material?

Dikran Marsupial said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew wrote: "What part of the paper will never be removed unless it is retracted by the journal do you not understand?"

Journals do not retract papers because they are incorrect. What part of that do you not understand?

Your criterion for removing a paper is absurd and shows considerable ignorance of the nature scientific publishing. Incorrect papers are dealt with in two ways: Firstly the journal publishes refutations (e.g. as in the case of Essenhigh). Secondly papers are ignored by the research community and they tend not to get cited very often (other than in refutations or as a reference to old ideas that are now known to be incorrect).

Andrew also wrote: "The purpose of the list is as a resource and I trust skeptics who use the resource to make that determination on their own."

As I said, your list is a booby trap for skeptics as most of them (like you) are unable to determine whether the papers are correct or not. All you are achieving by including papers such as Essenhigh's is to set skeptics up to make fools of themselves by promulgating arguments that are easily shown to be incorrect. Well done, if you want to minimise the strength of the skeptic side of the debate, it is hard to think of a better approach than the one you have taken.

ligne said...

"""
My position that increased "security" is a myth of Open Source software has not changed,

"Over half of Android devices have unpatched vulnerabilities, report says"
"""

except the problem they're discussing there isn't primarily in the open source part of the release process. patches in upstream Android simply aren't making their way out to end users due to the laziness, incompetence and downright irresponsibility of the handset manufacturers and carriers who control the (essentially closed-source) later stages.

on a vaguely related note, i don't think i'd heard of Duo before. good to see Dug is doing well for himself; he's a nice guy and an excellent programmer :-)

ligne said...

DM: "As I said, your list is a booby trap for skeptics as most of them (like you) are unable to determine whether the papers are correct or not."

i think you're misunderstanding the audience for this list. they're not going to care about what the papers actually say. as with the Oregon Petition, it's only the big number at the top that matters.

Andrew said...

Dikran, I am well aware journals do not retract papers because you declare them "incorrect". My criteria for removing papers does not discriminate against papers simply because others have made declarations against them.

The paper commenting on Essenhigh's was not published as a "refutation", you declared it as such. When papers are directly commented on in the peer-reviewed literature, standard procedure is to allow the original author to publish a rebuttal. This was not done in Essenhigh's case since Crawley's comments were published as a separate paper and not a comment on Essenhighs'. The existence of a published criticism does not make a paper "refuted". If this was the case it would be quite easy to declare everything in the peer-reviewed literature refuted.

Citations are merely a determination of popularity not scientific validity.

Skeptical Science is the true booby trap since your site promotes that children's books such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" to be peer-reviewed papers on global warming.

My list is simply a resource and does not remove papers unless they are retracted from the journal so get over it. So long as they are listed by the journal and indexed in bibliographic databases they will appear on the list. Unlike the censorship that goes on at Skeptical Science I do not hide papers you do not like from skeptics.

Your delusions are noted, as I do not consider some hack like yourself from Skeptical Science to be the arbitrator of what is scientific truth.

Andrew said...

"ligne said... except the problem they're discussing there isn't primarily in the open source part of the release process. patches in upstream Android simply aren't making their way out to end users due to the laziness, incompetence and downright irresponsibility of the handset manufacturers and carriers who control the (essentially closed-source) later stages."

Just because a piece of software is "open-source" does not mean it is more secure. Un-patched proprietary software is the main source of exploited security vulnerabilities on those systems, this problem is no different with open-source software and systems. This myth is truly exploded when you look at the number of vulnerabilities found, such as over 1000 since Firefox and almost 4000 for Linux. Open Source proponents never mention these numbers and instead resort to spin and excuses.

Andrew said...

"jyyh said... Thanks Andrew for selectively quoting me."

Which anonymous poster are you?

Andrew said...

"ligne said... i think you're misunderstanding the audience for this list. they're not going to care about what the papers actually say."

This is incorrect as I have scientists and scholars contact me all the time, thanking me for the resource.

Anonymous said...

Poppy is trying to deep six this thread....he really is quite pathological. Him challenging people to check his IP is a little silly as Poppy is likely bouncing it.

Poppy says that "scientists and scholars" contact him "all the time" to thank him. If they were real practising and credible climate scientists they would not need to rely on a much flawed lists from a nobody on the inter tubes. So call me skeptical.

But being a fair bunny, I'll give Poppy a chance to support his claim by providing us here with the correspondence from these folks, with enough information to support their validity and to confirm that the person who sent it is real.

Go for it Poppy, if people are thanking you "all the time" you should have thousands of emails from "scientists" and "scholars" by now :o) No squirming, no obfuscating, no arguing, in other words, no excuses please Poppy, just the goods.

Hugs and kisses
Fanged Bunny

Andrew said...

Anon, please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "credible climate scientist".

Regardless, I have not been saving these emails since they amount to,

"Thank you very much for such a valuable resource.

Sincerely,
[Scholar Name]"



One I have recently received says,

"Hello. I recently saw the list, and I approve.

[Scholar Name]"



You are also free to not believe the list has millions of hits and increasing all the time my web traffic statistics say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Epic fail anonymous Poppy :)

You cannot demonstrate the authenticity of what you posted. Until then you have got nothing :)

Shucks, and I thought that you might actually rise to the challenge.

Hugs and kisses
Fanged Bunny
(not it should matter, but I'm a male bunny sending you those xs and os)

Andrew said...

Sorry, I am not going to post private emails with personal information from people I respect and like I said I don't save them.

Feel free not to believe me.

Anonymous said...

Another epic fail by anonymous Poppy. He really is just all talk and bluster. When asked to deliver the goods he fails, repeatedly ;)

Silly Poppy, he is perfectly fine reposting and reading stolen correspondence, but will not share supposedly legitimate correspondence with him.

Dance poppy dance! But will you dance with me? ;)

Hugs and kisses
Fanged Bunny
xo

Andrew said...

Anon, you actually did give me a good idea. But, no I will not share private emails that include personal information from people I respect.

Look at those traffic stats spike.

David B. Benson said...

The attack of Andrewitis has yet to subside I see.

Andrew said...

Look at that endorsement,

"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Skeptical Science

FreewheelinFrank said...

"If AGW was correct, one name, one paper would be enough."

Not true, as there is a chain of evidence.

You would have to prove that A) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and B) the atmosphere is saturated with it as far as warming goes.

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was established over a century ago, and the fact that the atmosphere is not saturated over half a century ago.

As you believe "AGW is not correct", you just need two papers, one to overturn each of those factual observations.

Of course they don't exist, which is why even Singer and Spencer and the other "sceptics" back away from such claims.

"This myth is truly exploded when you look at the number of vulnerabilities found, such as over 1000 since Firefox and almost 4000 for Linux."

Poor old Andrew, never learns.

Vulnerability count means nothing by itself. Vulnerabilities have to be exploitable, and known about before they are patched to affect security.

How many times over the years has Firefox had to tell its users they were open to attack from the internet? And users of the proprietary browser from the well-known software company that you recommend so highly?

http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2012-4792

Denial of basic physics is not a worry in a computer technician (assuming you're not going to deny which direction electricity flows), but denial of computer security issues is.

"The attack of Andrewitis has yet to subside I see."

Call Dr Van Helsing.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."

Oh dear, we're back to selectively quoting critics to make it look like they actually approve of you again are we? How juvenile.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2006/01/scum.html

J Bowers said...

A scholar is not necessarily a scientist or academic.

Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew wrote "The paper commenting on Essenhigh's was not published as a "refutation", you declared it as such."

LOL, the paper was written as a rebuttal; I should know, I wrote it!

"When papers are directly commented on in the peer-reviewed literature, standard procedure is to allow the original author to publish a rebuttal."

In this case, I think you will find that Prof. Essenhigh did not submit a response to my paper. Prof. Essenhigh had a perfectly cordial discussion of the issues before I submitted the paper. As a courtesy, I provided him with a draft of my paper well before I submitted it for his comment, and he was unable to refute any of the arguments I presented.

"This was not done in Essenhigh's case since Crawley's comments were published as a separate paper and not a comment on Essenhighs'."

No, comments papers normally are published. Until time travel becomes available, errors that get past peer-review are unlikely to be found before the original paper appears in print, so the comment will necessarily be a paper in a later volume. In some journals these are explicitly labelled as being comments, in others they are not. In any case, Prof. Essenhigh knew the comment was going to be submitted and had every opportunity to submit a response, but the simple fact is that he didn't.

"The existence of a published criticism does not make a paper "refuted". If this was the case it would be quite easy to declare everything in the peer-reviewed literature refuted."

This is incorrect, comments papers are reviewed, so if they don't robustly show that the original paper was flawed, they don't get published.

The simple fact is that journals do not retract papers because they are incorrect (no matter who says so). Generally they are only retracted if there is good evidence of research malpractice. So your criterion for withdrawing papers from your list is ridiculous, and your inability to curate the list makes it a booby trap for the unsuspecting.

Dikran Marsupial said...

Appologies for spelling mistakes etc. in my previous post, I was obviously writing a bit too fast; happily I am sure Andrew will ignore them and only respond to the substantive point, which is that journal do not retract papers simply because they are wrong.

As it happens, by comment on Essenhigh's paper was the third such comment I have written. Only in one case did the authors of the original paper submit a rebuttal (and a rebuttal of our subsequent refutation of their rebuttal!). There was nothing at all unusual about the way the journal handled my comment on Prof. Essenhigh's paper.

J Bowers said...

LOL +1

Anonymous said...

I, too, confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list.

Indeed, the fascination due a train wreck, a grotesquerie, a horror show - a collection of miscategorized/misinterpreted papers (interpreted by PT as only he can, often in contradiction to the authors mere opinions about what they have written), of refuted papers (Lindzen and climate sensitivity, as an example), of papers never evaluated for scientific merit (see Energy and Environment), of papers long left in the uncited dust of history as not being worth the time (too many to count, and why bother), and some of complete and utter nonsense (Gerlich and Tscheuschner's 2nd law objections as a prime example).

If, as I opine, the quality of an argument can be judged on the quality of the evidence, this list is in fact a refutation of the 'skeptic' point of view - if there is nothing better in support of their arguments, then they are clearly incorrect. And Poptech has thus performed a valuable (albeit overly noisy and obnoxious) service to science by so clearly demonstrating the scantity of skeptic support.

KR

ligne said...

"Just because a piece of software is "open-source" does not mean it is more secure."

if no-one sufficiently knowledgeable spends the time reviewing the code, no it's not. and yeah, that doesn't necessarily happen (the low-entropy-SSH key bug that hit Debian a few years ago would be an example. that was a fun afternoon, that was....).

but once a vulnerability is discovered, you're not stuck waiting for $vendor to get their act together and fix it. that might be months after the bug was initially reported (see Adam Gowdiak's recent battles with Oracle). they may choose to ignore it until there's exploit code in the wild (see Adam Gowdiak's recent battles with Oracle).
they may well choose to implement a purely cosmetic fix, rather than actually correcting the underlying bug (see Adam Gow...well, i think you get the picture).

and if they don't consider it worth patching, or they no longer support that product and insist you upgrade, then you get to keep both pieces. better luck next time!

"This myth is truly exploded when you look at the number of vulnerabilities found, such as over 1000 since Firefox and almost 4000 for Linux."

that's just a list of all the CVEs containing the search string *anywhere*. most of the second page of the linux results are Adobe Flash-related vulns that affect all their supported platforms, and the ffx results includes at least one browser-agnostic Java vuln.

wait, haven't you just committed the same mistake you were accusing SkS of up-thread? who is the computer illiterate now, eh? ;-)

"Open Source proponents never mention these numbers and instead resort to spin and excuses."

because they're meaningless: they only tell you how many bugs have been found, not how many are still latent.

it also doesn't account for severity -- i'll take a million local DoS bugs in driver code i don't have loaded over a single remote-root pre-authentication vulnerability that is being actively exploited.

Andrew said...

ligne, anyone can write "open-source software" and many do, see Sourceforge and Github. Claiming that all projects have someone "knowledgeable" to the look at the code is both naive and irresponsible. Cherry picking popular open-source projects that have been around for a long time with both large and competent teams as representative of the entire open-source community is misinformation.

"that's just a list of all the CVEs containing the search string *anywhere*. most of the second page of the linux results are Adobe Flash-related vulns that affect all their supported platforms, and the ffx results includes at least one browser-agnostic Java vuln."

Yes, this is correct, it includes vulnerabilities that can affect the Linux platform which is what a Linux user could potentially experience. The same is true for someone using Firefox. The point is that vulnerabilities affect software regardless of if it is open-source or proprietary software.

"because they're meaningless: they only tell you how many bugs have been found, not how many are still latent."

This is incorrect, some of the most destructive exploits have occurred with vulnerabilities that have already been patched such as Code Red and Slammer.

Just because an exploit does not affect you does not mean it is not a potential problem.

Andrew said...

"FreewheelinFrank said... Vulnerability count means nothing by itself. Vulnerabilities have to be exploitable, and known about before they are patched to affect security."

Incorrect, vulnerabilities are exploitable by definition and some of the most destructive exploits have occurred with vulnerabilities that have already been patched such as Code Red and Slammer.

"How many times over the years has Firefox had to tell its users they were open to attack from the internet?"

I am well aware Firefox developers do everything they can to minimize publicity on the hundreds of security vulnerabilities they have patched in new releases over the years. That does not mean they do not exist.

The lesson is very simple, regardless of the platform you use, you should make sure it is patched.

Andrew said...

"Dikran Marsupial said... LOL, the paper was written as a rebuttal; I should know, I wrote it!"

"Refuted" and "rebuttal" are too different things.


"In this case, I think you will find that Prof. Essenhigh did not submit a response to my paper. Prof. Essenhigh had a perfectly cordial discussion of the issues before I submitted the paper. As a courtesy, I provided him with a draft of my paper well before I submitted it for his comment, and he was unable to refute any of the arguments I presented."

My past research on these issues has found similar arguments to be at worst incorrect and at best misleading.


"No, comments papers normally are published. Until time travel becomes available, errors that get past peer-review are unlikely to be found before the original paper appears in print, so the comment will necessarily be a paper in a later volume. In some journals these are explicitly labelled as being comments, in others they are not. In any case, Prof. Essenhigh knew the comment was going to be submitted and had every opportunity to submit a response, but the simple fact is that he didn't."

I made no argument that comment papers were not published. My argument has to do with fact that the title does not say, 'Comment on "Essenhigh..."' and appears to have been published as a separate paper which would not grant the author the courtesy of easily publishing a rebuttal. I find that rather suspect because the journal clearly has published comments explicitly titled as such before.


"This is incorrect, comments papers are reviewed, so if they don't robustly show that the original paper was flawed, they don't get published."

That argument can be used as to why the paper was published in the first place and does not support the comment paper being any more valid. I have also never argued that comment papers were not peer-reviewed. Are you arguing that the existence of a peer-reviewed comment paper makes the original refuted?

The only criteria for removing a paper off the list is if it is retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because a comment paper exists on it, someone has declared it "refuted" or made other ad hominem arguments against it.

David B. Benson said...

Paging Dr Van Helsing. Paging Dr Van Helsing. Please use the newest white courtesy telephone...

Andrew said...

To make this clear, this has been added,

"Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism."

FreewheelinFrank said...

"Incorrect, vulnerabilities are exploitable by definition..."

Not by your definition. You need to look up the word "potential".

It's the vulnerabilities that are exploited and used in attacks that matter.

Saying one browser is more secure than another because it has had fewer published vulnerabilities is silly if it has exposed its users to more attacks.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/10/in-a-zero-day-world-its-active-attacks-that-matter/

How is this relevant to AGW? Because you use the same stupid approach, shouting about the number of vulnerabilities in Firefox or the number of papers sceptical of AGW (by your definition) without looking critically at the evidence.

It's not the number that matters, or the larger number of papers supporting AGW: it's the fact that your collection of papers don't amount to anything, and the papers supporting AGW do: a very credible theory.

Blind on browser security, blind on global warming. It's not hard to see the connection:

http://dontsurfinthenude.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/safest-web-browser.html

Andrew said...

Potential as in if someone will, not if it can be done. Any vulnerability can be exploited otherwise they would not be vulnerabilities and no one would waste time patching them.

Poor dumb Frank is referencing a journalist (Krebs) with no computer science or security training who is arguing with someone from a security software company (Trend Micro). Maybe you failed to read what I stated above but the most damaging security exploits were done to systems where patches were available, they were not "zero day". "Zero day" vulnerabilities is something the media religiously over hypes to make scare stories that have no bearing on real life. When you read security company blogs that show online examples of such "exploits" they reference obscure URLs in countries like Russia that do not even show up in search engines. It is never at any website you would go to or would even find.

Fanboys like Frank should not be so dishonest about their browser of choice as being "so secure" when it has been exposed to over 1000 security vulnerabilities over the years.


"it's the fact that your collection of papers don't amount to anything,"

Still the same strawman arguments. The list makes no claim to be any sort of unified theory but simply a resource. It has only two purposes: (1) to be a resource for skeptics and, (2) to prove these papers exist.

The list amounts to quite a bit considering the amount of effort that has gone into trying to discredit it, which has utterly failed. I also am well aware of how serious the SS crusher crew takes it by how much time they invested on it and still do (they think I don't know - thanks mole).

Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew writes "My past research on these issues has found similar arguments to be at worst incorrect and at best misleading."

O.K., then, pick an argument given in my paper and explain why it is incorrect. I call your bluff.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"vulnerabilities is something the media religiously over hypes to make scare stories that have no bearing on real life."

Microsoft funded research says security issues exaggerated? Bit like Exxon funded research says the risks of global warming exaggerated. What's needed is a bit of, what's the word? Scepticism.

"When you read security company blogs that show online examples of such "exploits" they reference obscure URLs in countries like Russia that do not even show up in search engines."

That's right. Nobody looks up exploits in a search engine. You visit a web site that's been hacked, or whose ad servers have been hacked, and get directed to an obscure URL in Russia which dishes up the exploits.

For somebody who likes to label people "computer illiterate", your ignorance of computer issues is astounding.

Andrew said...

Dikran, I am not here to debate your paper that is for Essenhigh to do if he wishes. I am talking about your "story" with the events surrounding the publication of your paper and I do not believe them until verified, sorry.

None of which will change it's placement on the list.

Dikran Marsupial said...

Bluff called, and your hand was clearly empty.

It was YOU that raised the question of whether my paper was correct, when you wrote "My past research on these issues has found similar arguments to be at worst incorrect and at best misleading.", so saying that you are not here to debate the paper is just transparent evasion - you tried a bluff suggesting you had looked into the science, and you blew it.

It is ridiculous that you don't believe my paper was a comment on Essenhighs, given that the abstract begins:

"A recent paper by Essenhigh (Essenhigh, R. H. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 2773−2784) (hereafter ES09) concludes that the relatively short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (5–15 years) establishes that the long-term (≈100 year) rise in atmospheric concentration is not due to anthropogenic emissions but is instead caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature, which is attributed in ES09 to “other natural factors”. Clearly, if true, the economic and political significance of that conclusion would be self-evident and indeed most welcome. Unfortunately, however, the conclusion is false; it is straightforward to show, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon."

How much more clear could it be?

I have pointed out to you repeatedly that papers are normally only withdrawn by journals in cases of scientific malpractice. If that is the criterion for withdrawing them from your list, then it is basically an admission that your list is not curated, and as a result is a booby trap for skeptics.

Andrew said...

"Microsoft funded research says security issues exaggerated? Bit like Exxon funded research says the risks of global warming exaggerated."

Typical computer illiterate statement from an ignorant Fanboy.


"That's right. Nobody looks up exploits in a search engine. You visit a web site that's been hacked, or whose ad servers have been hacked, and get directed to an obscure URL in Russia which dishes up the exploits."

Yes that can be a problem if you use open source ad servers,

Hackers Hit OpenX Vulnerabilities
OpenX Ad Servers Hacked to Distribute Malware

Otherwise it is largely a big yawn. Zero Day!!! Better run and hide from the Interwebs.

J Bowers said...

Bookmarked :)

Andrew said...

Dikran, I was NOT talking about the contents of your paper as I don't care about that nor does the list. When I said,

"My past research on these issues has found similar arguments to be at worst incorrect and at best misleading."

It was in reference to your STORY surrounding the publication of your paper, because I don't believe you. Why does the title not say, "Comment on..."?

Are you arguing that the existence of a peer-reviewed comment paper makes the original refuted?

Why would I remove a paper because some hack from Skeptical Science says I should? Are you off your meds? Did you not read the Criteria for Removal?

Obviously the list is curated, it was not put together by magic.

Dikran Marsupial said...

Andrew wrote "Are you arguing that the existence of a peer-reviewed comment paper makes the original refuted?"

No, of course I am not. I am arguing that you should curate your list to remove those papers from the list that are known to be incorrect. To do that, you do need to consider the arguments presented in the comment paper on a case by case basis. If you are unable to make this determination, then your list will inevitably contain papers making arguments that are known to be wrong, and hence is a booby trap for unwitting skeptics.

Yes, I have read your criterion, and I have pointed out what is wrong with it repeatedly. Papers are generally only withdrawn from journals in exceptional cases where there is evidence of malpractice, not because they are known to be wrong. That criterion is ineffective as any sort of quality control, as there are lots of bad papers that make it into print, but very very few that are the result of scientific malpractice.

I suggest you learn the difference between "curate" and "compile", they are not the same thing.

Incidentally, calling me a hack is just an ad-hominem, and impresses nobody. I am not suggesting you remove Essenhigh's paper on my say so. I am suggesting you read up on the arguments on both sides of the discussion and make an informed scientific judgement. If you are unable to do this, then frankly you ought not to promote your list, because it will be likely to contain booby traps that you are unaware of.

Andrew said...

Dikran, I am well aware you "believe" the paper to be incorrect but this is irrelevant to the purpose of the list which does not include making any such determinations.

As an example of how other scientists view these papers, Essenhigh (2009) was recently positively cited by Humlum (2013) with no mention of your paper. Proving my point.

Using an online dictionary, define "curate" and cite your source.

I have a better idea, how about I laugh hysterically every time some hack from Skeptical Science gives me "advice". If I was not clear enough before, No paper will be removed unless it meets the criteria for removal so get over it.

Andrew said...

I added a note just for you,

* Positively cited by Humlum et al. 2013

Dikran Marsupial said...

Actually Humlum citing Essenhigh's paper without mentioning that there had been a paper refuting it is an indication of something wrong with Humlum's paper rather than mine. In science, where there is a "controversy", the practice is to cite both papers and to explicitly point out that the issue is contested. Again, you are just demonstrating that you don't understand academic publishing.

Again you are just dodging the issue. For your list not to be a booby trap for unwitting sceptics, there needs to be some form of quality control to remove papers that are known to be wrong. Your criterion will not achieve this, as papers are generally only retracted in cases of scientific misconduct, and you can repeat "No paper will be removed unless it meets the criteria for removal" as many times as you like, but it won't change the fact that the criteria are ridiculous.

Dikran Marsupial said...

By the way, the definition of "curate" I had in mind was something along the lines of:

"select, organize, and present (suitable content, typically for online or computational use), using professional or expert knowledge:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/curate--2

Note particularly "using professional or expert knowledge". The reason there are booby traps in your list is because you appear not to be able make a judgement about whether the papers are scientifically sound or not.

Andrew said...

Or they do not believe your paper refutes anything and saw no reason to cite it. I see no reason why they are obligated to cite papers they believe to be incorrect or as you would say, "Incorrect papers [...] are ignored by the research community and they tend not to get cited very often".

Quality control already exists on the list, see the criteria for inclusion. The list has nothing to do with your opinion of any of the papers.

"select, organize, and present (suitable content, typically for online or computational use), using professional or expert knowledge:"

Then this is already being done as I am both a professional and expert in compiling bibliographical resources.

I've searched the list extensively but could not locate any such "booby-traps", all the links go to valid URLs. Looks like anyone using the resource will find real peer-reviewed papers.

J Bowers said...

"Quality control already exists on the list"

ROTFLMFAO

Dikran Marsupial said...

I point out that Andrew's criterion does not provide quality control as generally papers are only retracted from a journal (his criterion) due to scientific malpractice (e.g. plagiarism), not because the papers are of low quality.

Andrew writes "Quality control already exists on the list, see the criteria for inclusion."

Surely you can see that is not in any way an adequate response to the criticism?

Sorry Poptech, a properly curated list of skeptic papers (including a discussion of criticisms of papers where appropriate) would be a genuinely useful resource for both "sides" of the debate. However, the more silly arguments that you make, such as this, the more abundantly clear that you are not the right man for the job.

J Bowers said...

Here's a resource for sceptic papers, curated and categorised.

AGW Observer

ligne said...

"anyone can write "open-source software" and many do, see Sourceforge and Github."

anyone can write closed-source software too.

"Claiming that all projects have someone "knowledgeable" to the look at the code is both naive and irresponsible."

the security auditing doesn't have to be in-house. for example, the OpenBSD security goons have been performing an ongoing security audit for the last decade and a half, as have taviso and friends at the Google security team.

fwiw, some of the best audits i've seen are by people outside the project. it's easy to miss problems when you're too familiar with the code.

access to the source code makes drive-by code audits much easier and more pleasant. with some notable exceptions (Calibre's bug-filled automounter springs to mind here...) open source projects on the whole seem to be more responsive to reports, especially as it's possible to provide a mitigating patch at the same time as the report.

"Cherry picking popular open-source projects that have been around for a long time with both large and competent teams as representative of the entire open-source community is misinformation."

except that's where the vast majority of the users are. complaining that all the Github projects with an installed base of two (the developer's laptop, and the developer's desktop) is stupid.

"This is incorrect, some of the most destructive exploits have occurred with vulnerabilities that have already been patched such as Code Red and Slammer."

agreed, but that's not just open source problem, as demonstrated by your choice of two Microsoft products as examples.

"Just because an exploit does not affect you does not mean it is not a potential problem."

not entirely, no. but a vulnerability that can only be exploited locally, or by an authenticated user, or only affects unusual hardware configurations, or doesn't allow arbitrary code execution is waaaay less dangerous.

ligne said...

PT's link: "security vulnerability [...] Also referred to as security exploits"

uuuuh, nope.

i see they also manage to mis-expand "CVE" (it's "exposures", not "exploits").

ligne said...

"Any vulnerability can be exploited otherwise they would not be vulnerabilities and no one would waste time patching them."

vulnerabilities are bugs. why wouldn't you patch bugs?

""Zero day" vulnerabilities is something the media religiously over hypes to make scare stories that have no bearing on real life. "

by definition, zero day bugs are being actively exploited. so if you're running that software, you are already at risk *and there's nothing you can do about it*.

*that*'s why they're a big deal.

don't take an over-excited media response as a reason to kneejerk. that's just as moronic as blindly lapping up the hype.

"When you read security company blogs that show online examples of such "exploits" they reference obscure URLs in countries like Russia that do not even show up in search engines. It is never at any website you would go to or would even find."

...until you visit a site that contains an html injection bug, or accidentally follow a spam link, and -- oops! -- you just got compromised.

dhogaza said...

"When you read security company blogs that show online examples of such "exploits" they reference obscure URLs in countries like Russia that do not even show up in search engines. It is never at any website you would go to or would even find."

It would never happen to websites like, oh, nbc.com.

Right.

(just to pick the most recent, as opposed to only, example.)

dhogaza said...

ligne quotes our troll:

"Any vulnerability can be exploited otherwise they would not be vulnerabilities and no one would waste time patching them."

and responds:

"vulnerabilities are bugs. why wouldn't you patch bugs?"

The bug needs to be analyzed in order to understand just how serious a vulnerability might be. Typically fixing the bug is simple, once the bug is understood, as the vast majority are highly localized.

So, right, why wouldn't you?

Some are much harder to fix, such as the recent java exploits which take advantage of a design flaw in the security model, and which is proving hard to fix as basic design flaws tend to lead to pervasive issues throughout the code.

David B. Benson said...

Attack has yet to subside; still feverish.

Andrew said...

"anyone can write closed-source software too."

Of course, I am not arguing that just because software is proprietary it is more secure but specifically the opposite that just because software is "open-source" does not mean it is more secure.


"the security auditing doesn't have to be in-house. for example, the OpenBSD security goons have been performing an ongoing security audit for the last decade and a half, as have taviso and friends at the Google security team."

Yes it happens but relying on the possibility of a third party auditing open-source software is even more naive.


"access to the source code makes drive-by code audits much easier and more pleasant. with some notable exceptions (Calibre's bug-filled automounter springs to mind here...) open source projects on the whole seem to be more responsive to reports, especially as it's possible to provide a mitigating patch at the same time as the report."

No such data exists to determine who is more responsive to reports. Having a quick "patch" that breaks other functionality or causes the software to crash is not always a solution. Software vendors like Microsoft do extensive testing of patches to minimize unintended problems. Outside of a few major open source projects this almost never happens.


"except that's where the vast majority of the users are. complaining that all the Github projects with an installed base of two (the developer's laptop, and the developer's desktop) is stupid."

Then you cannot use generalizations that are misinformation, such as "open-source is more secure".


"agreed, but that's not just open source problem, as demonstrated by your choice of two Microsoft products as examples."

I never said otherwise, as I was specifically addressing "zero-day" vulnerabilities regardless of how the software is developed.


"not entirely, no. but a vulnerability that can only be exploited locally, or by an authenticated user, or only affects unusual hardware configurations, or doesn't allow arbitrary code execution is waaaay less dangerous."

Obviously all vulnerabilities are relative but even a DoS vulnerability can be considered serious if say a doctor is performing a life threatening operation remotely or say ground troops being overrun cannot call in air support.


"i see they also manage to mis-expand "CVE" (it's "exposures", not "exploits")."

"Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a dictionary of common names (i.e., CVE Identifiers) for publicly known information security vulnerabilities."

All vulnerabilities are exploitable given enough time and resources.

Andrew said...

Dikran, please provide the objective criteria for the following phrases your used,

"quality control", "low quality", "adequate response", "properly curated", "genuinely useful resource", "right man for the job"

The list has nothing to do with your subjective opinion on anything and never will.

Andrew said...

"dhoagie said... It would never happen to websites like, oh, nbc.com."

The NBC hack was a "zero-day" vunerability? Really? It was not exploiting patched Java and PDF exploits? Are you even following the conversation?

Dikran Marsupial said...

Sorry Andrew, I have better things to do than teach you to the English language. If you can't cope with criticism (which is, whether you appreciate it or not, constructive) that is your problem.

Andrew said...

Just an update, I am unable to confirm any sort of concession from Dr. Essenhigh and Dikran is now challenged to produce evidence of such claims or be deemed a liar.

FYI, Ranting is not "constructive" criticism and using subjective language does not make something objective.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

To be deemed a "liar" by Poptart is the equivalent of an endorsement by Diogenes.

Poptart wouldn't know the truth if it bit his pecker off.

Gator said...

"If, as I opine, the quality of an argument can be judged on the quality of the evidence, this list is in fact a refutation of the 'skeptic' point of view - if there is nothing better in support of their arguments, then they are clearly incorrect. And Poptech has thus performed a valuable (albeit overly noisy and obnoxious) service to science by so clearly demonstrating the scantity of skeptic support."

KR's point is crucial.

A good scientific theory unifies the evidence.

Crap "theories" point everywhere and expect you to believe 10 mutually exclusive things before breakfast.

I.e., the climate is so stable that puny humans could never affect it, yet we could have missed 1 deg spikes in global temperature with a duration less than 100 years. Sure, that all makes sense!

It would be a fun exercise to pair up contradictory papers on PT's list. Well, not fun enough for me to waste time on it...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Gator: "A good scientific theory unifies the evidence.

Crap "theories" point everywhere and expect you to believe 10 mutually exclusive things before breakfast."

And then there's denial, which just says, "Squirrel!!!"

Andrew said...

Dild@, let me know when you have any remote evidence to backup his "story".

Gator, since the list is not a unified theory but a reference you would be arguing a strawman. As explicitly stated,

Criticism: Some of the papers are mutually exclusive.
Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a unified theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. It should be noted that skeptics accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.

David B. Benson said...

Its back!

Gator said...

Pop -- I'm not arguing a strawman, as I am not arguing with you. Learn to read.

Although if you were serious about trying to understand what is going on, you might try to understand something about how science works and what that means about your precious collection.

Andrew said...

Gator, you are arguing a strawman based on the "exercise" you suggested in relation to my list. This would the equivalent of doing such an exercise using any other bibliographic resource and ultimately meaningless.

I am well aware of how science works which is why it is made quite clear that the list is simply a resource not a theory and this does not change no matter how many new strawman arguments you come up with.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Poptart: "I am well aware of how science works..."

Bwaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa! Oh, Dude, stop. Yer killin' me!

Andrew said...

Poor Dild@, still confused.

Anonymous said...

sorry just read this could not help myself


In the beginning was the LIST

And then came the Assumptions.

And the Assumptions were without form.

And darkness was upon the face of the skeptics .

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

In the beginning was the LIST

And then came the Strawman Arguments

And the Arguments were without form.

And darkness was upon the face of the alarmists.

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "Our arguments are a crock of shit and they stinketh".