tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post457706391444659223..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: RTFR PopsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger190125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4940927130995139372016-02-07T20:16:31.379-05:002016-02-07T20:16:31.379-05:00Hey abusing bags of wind is what passes for sport ...Hey abusing bags of wind is what passes for sport here.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38768512085911650462016-02-05T05:27:52.189-05:002016-02-05T05:27:52.189-05:00Dudes, you're commenting on a 2 year old threa...Dudes, you're commenting on a 2 year old thread conversing with a deranged nutbag. Don't feed the troll, and when his meds kick in, he'll go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90018242179575506812016-02-05T03:38:33.463-05:002016-02-05T03:38:33.463-05:00Kevin, obviously you cannot read English - my list...Kevin, obviously you cannot read English - my list contains peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments, the list does not explicitly support any of those - it simply acknowledges that they exist. <br /><br />You are not an arbiter of which skeptic arguments are debunked or non-starters. <br /><br />IF E&E papers are worthless than so are the IPCC reports.<br /><br />My list does not contain a large amount of "mainstream climate science", it does contain some papers that can support more than one argument.<br /><br />"Your list does not support skeptic arguments..."<br /><br />You have finally made a factual statement about the list.<br /><br />If Doug Cotton actually published a peer-reviewed paper in a scholarly journal it would be included on the list but alas he has not.<br /><br />You can save yourself a lot of time by reading the rebuttals section but since you are apparently illiterate, I am not sure if that would be much help.<br /><br />Criticism: There are no papers on the list that argue against AGW.<br /><br />Rebuttal: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997), Raschke (2001), Singer (2002), Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006), Karlen (2008), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Zhao (2011), Beenstock et al. (2012) and more.<br /><br />Your obsession with Disney borders on deranged.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40046004189524459122016-02-04T18:42:30.536-05:002016-02-04T18:42:30.536-05:00Andrew - obviously it is you that cannot parse Eng...Andrew - obviously it is you that cannot parse English. Your list claims to support skeptic arguments; you do not do that with incorrect information.<br /><br />What your list is in actuality is a bibliographic resource that consists mainly of debunked skeptic arguments, non-starters, worthless E&E type 'peer-reviewed' papers, and then a large amount of mainstream climate science that in no way, shape, or form should be construed as 'skeptic' arguments.<br /><br />Your list does not support skeptic arguments - it makes a mockery of them.<br /><br />Of course the difficulty lies in the fact that those papers that *do* provide a healthy challenge to the IPCC reports are generally *more* 'alarmist' than the consensus view; e.g., sea-level rise or ice-sheet collapse.<br /><br />It's the sun! It's the wind! It's cosmic rays! It's the gravity of Jupiter! Venus aligned with Mars! You might as well cite Doug Cotton or one of his many sock-puppets.<br /><br />I'd like to see a list of just 5 or 10 papers that actually provide a scientific challenge to AGW that haven't been already debunked, corrected, or deemed 'not even wrong' - can you provide that list? I doubt it.<br /><br />In the meantime, I hope those glass slippers don't give you blisters.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84700253300126458412016-02-04T12:44:41.131-05:002016-02-04T12:44:41.131-05:00Poor Kevin, the purpose of the list is to provide ...Poor Kevin, the purpose of the list is to provide a bibliographic resource and demonstrate these papers exist, not pretend to be an arbiter of any scientific argument, as you delusionally believe yourself to be.<br /><br />Your reading comprehension problems are some of the worst I have run across - again, I am simply providing a bibliographic resource of papers classified as "supporting skeptic arguments" but the "list" is not explicitly supporting any of those argument(s), it is only acknowledging that they exist.<br /><br />It is not possible for me to live by your strawman arguments.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57919329541041613122016-02-04T09:16:07.054-05:002016-02-04T09:16:07.054-05:00Andrew, since what I quoted and what you quoted *b...Andrew, since what I quoted and what you quoted *both* say they support skeptic arguments - but as you know and admit, they don't - I fail to see your point.<br /><br />You will have to explain how providing *wrong* theories, interpretations, etc. *supports* a position. As I said, it's a strange logic you live by.<br /><br />Me, I prefer to argue a position based on *correct* theories, interpretations, etc. If someone is feeding me unreliable information they themselves become by transference unreliable.<br /><br />You have the full set of glass slippers. Hopefully you'll find a hammer someday and figure out a way to break free of them.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36242092891662785072016-02-04T00:38:33.228-05:002016-02-04T00:38:33.228-05:00Kevin, there is no conflict just your reading comp...Kevin, there is no conflict just your reading comprehension problems. The Preface is not the stated Purpose:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Purpose" rel="nofollow"><b>Purpose:</b> To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;</a>Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13666579792613833772016-02-03T23:25:53.039-05:002016-02-03T23:25:53.039-05:00Andrew,
In the future, write something worth aski...Andrew,<br /><br />In the future, write something worth asking about.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68167649476317750632016-02-03T23:19:52.455-05:002016-02-03T23:19:52.455-05:00Andrew writes,"The stated purpose of the list...Andrew writes,"<i>The stated purpose of the list is not to "support skeptic arguments" but to demonstrate that these papers exist."</i><br /><br />Which of course conflicts with this:<br />"<a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Preface</b>: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)]."</a><br /><br />You now have almost the full set of glass slippers.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64617500516724317982016-02-03T22:56:33.958-05:002016-02-03T22:56:33.958-05:00Brandon, in the future ask before embarrassing you...Brandon, in the future ask before embarrassing yourself.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78124076527578021992016-02-03T22:54:44.071-05:002016-02-03T22:54:44.071-05:00Kevin, you need to learn how to read and to stop q...Kevin, you need to learn how to read and to stop quote mining. The stated purpose of the list is not to "support skeptic arguments" but to demonstrate that these papers exist.<br /><br />I am simply providing a bibliographic resource of papers classified as "supporting skeptic arguments" but the list is not explicitly supporting any of those argument(s), it is only acknowledging that they exist.<br /><br />The list is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not a scientific argument.<br /><br />Alarmists like yourself always get delusions of being arbiters of scientific truth. Hint: you are not.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5183843149590567512016-02-03T22:38:15.812-05:002016-02-03T22:38:15.812-05:00Andrew,
It's not possible to prove disingenui...Andrew,<br /><br />It's not possible to prove disingenuity either.<br /><br />I do have a heuristic for such circumstances: the side with the most consistent logic and exhibits the least sophistry wins.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91273377938078157762016-02-03T22:32:43.821-05:002016-02-03T22:32:43.821-05:00Andrew - do I need to repeat - well, obviously I d...Andrew - do I need to repeat - well, obviously I do - you do not *support* an argument by providing people with *wrong* information. <br /><br />So, since your stated purpose is to support skeptic arguments, but you provide these same skeptics with incorrect arguments, you are both hurting their cause, their level of knowledge, and the general public discourse.<br /><br />Rather than *supporting* an argument, you merely provide a large pile of shit- then hope that some of it will stick on the wall when flung.<br /><br />I guess that makes you General of the We Fling Poo brigade. The dress uniform includes a pair of glass slippers.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20460986209975244892016-02-03T22:24:56.429-05:002016-02-03T22:24:56.429-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44762028189932507982016-02-03T22:24:55.990-05:002016-02-03T22:24:55.990-05:00Poor Kevin, is confusing his subjective opinion wi...Poor Kevin, is confusing his subjective opinion with scientific truth and is distorting the purpose of the list by quote mining. The stated purpose is actually:<br /><br />"To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism"<br /><br />Which means it is simply showing that these papers exist. The list is not an arbiter of the strength of any scientific argument nor is it making one. <br /><br />I am doing a phenomenal service to the public by providing them with an extensive resource of published papers that alarmists have claimed in the past did not exist.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23250101997499196402016-02-03T22:02:22.724-05:002016-02-03T22:02:22.724-05:00Brandon, it is not possible to dodge a strawman ar...Brandon, it is not possible to dodge a strawman argument.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22015897782936085772016-02-03T22:00:49.082-05:002016-02-03T22:00:49.082-05:00Andrew, the stated purpose of your 'bibliograp...Andrew, the stated purpose of your 'bibliographic resource' is to '... support skeptic arguments against ...."<br /><br />Except it doesn't.<br /><br />You cannot support an argument by being wrong.<br /><br />So, when you point to papers that are wrong, you do not *support* an argument, you actually weaken it. You also do disservice to good faith debate and the general public discourse. None of which I'm sure bothers you, in fact many would say that's the real motive behind the compendium. <br /><br />A glass slipper awaits you.<br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59248407014078843642016-02-03T21:27:52.357-05:002016-02-03T21:27:52.357-05:00Andrew,
It is best not to think after quote minin...Andrew,<br /><br /><i>It is best not to think after quote mining.</i><br /><br />It's best not to dodge after context-switching, but thanks for playing.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42450452351602642552016-02-03T14:32:38.982-05:002016-02-03T14:32:38.982-05:00Poor Kevin, he does not understand what a bibliogr...Poor Kevin, he does not understand what a bibliographic resource is.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45835508471867335922016-02-03T14:19:28.635-05:002016-02-03T14:19:28.635-05:00Meds? Who do I look like Peter Miesler?Meds? Who do I look like Peter Miesler?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85622486710446453972016-02-03T07:56:36.050-05:002016-02-03T07:56:36.050-05:00It's an strange philosophical position to defe...It's an strange philosophical position to defend a 'bibliographic resource' that promotes completely contradictory views. Some might say that's nearly the textbook definition of insanity.<br /><br />There's a glass slipper waiting here for Andrew to try on.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86374738460758952292016-02-03T05:49:06.084-05:002016-02-03T05:49:06.084-05:00Hey Andrew, in one of your manic phases again, I s...Hey Andrew, in one of your manic phases again, I see. Dude, take your meds!<br /><br />How many peer-reviewed publications do you have, Andrew?<br /><br />[Crickets]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21917720838805579832016-02-03T01:41:55.467-05:002016-02-03T01:41:55.467-05:00It is best not to think after quote mining.It is best not to think after quote mining.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36215832463204655512016-02-03T01:26:22.639-05:002016-02-03T01:26:22.639-05:00Andrew,
Then this is already being done as I am b...Andrew,<br /><br /><i>Then this is already being done as I am both a professional and expert in compiling bibliographical resources.</i><br /><br />And I was thinking your list of papers had something to do with CO2 and climate.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25939404412129437972013-06-12T00:51:30.834-04:002013-06-12T00:51:30.834-04:00In the beginning was the LIST
And then came the S...In the beginning was the LIST<br /><br />And then came the Strawman Arguments<br /><br />And the Arguments were without form.<br /><br />And darkness was upon the face of the alarmists.<br /><br />And they spoke among themselves, saying, "Our arguments are a crock of shit and they stinketh".Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.com