ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Continually molested and you still come back for more. You are ridiculously pathetic. I can't believe you claim to possess a post graduate degree FFS :lol:
Scan it and pm it to me and I'll publicly apologise :lol: where did I claim I possessed a post graduate degree? your lack of basic comprehension comes to the fore once again you really think you're part of intellectual elite dont you? when you're continually owned on all topics yet you continue to spout your ignorance to the unsuspecting dopes like mcdunce who are happy to suck you off at any opportunity
|
|
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:
Climate science is a broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds
you mean you dont understand this? are you really that stupid?
why do you keep bringing up John Stewart? he has nothing to do with this. does that bother you because thats where you get all your science and news from? the comedy channel? seriously?
what kind of scientists do you think produced the models? ie the ones that have always been wrong?
why dont you dispute the peer reviewed papers linked on the blog? why are you attacking the blogger?
could it be a YOU problem?
and what about the quotes from actual scientists who claim their work has been misinterpreted deliberately by John Cook?
why are you so enamored by John Cook? why do you believe him over 31000 scientists? whats so special about some dope from Queensland?
bump got nothing Draupkick?
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Mate, you have nothing. I already provided a source that states that your own sources are misrepresentation... And all you can do is link back to the same fucking site :lol:
You need to wake up. You're clueless and bordering on dangerous with the absolute garbage you peddle. I seriously would not be surprised at the headlines of "Man known as "ricecrackers on internet forum shoots up public school".
You're a moron, and that is clear to see for anyone who actually reads a single post of yours. I seriously wish you well in life, because you're at such a self-implemented disadvantage that you're giving yourself the odds of someone with Down's syndrome becoming a millionaire through using their intellect.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Draupnir wrote:Quote:After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so. My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does. Source.Good one Ricey :lol: not much of a reader are you Quote:
Disclaimer: Even though the most prolific authors on the list are skeptics, the inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain 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 Alarmism. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
and here is an entire thread devoted to the subject http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019too bad your 5 minute google skills didnt factor it Edited by ricecrackers: 30/6/2015 04:17:59 AM bump
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupkick wrote:whh whha I'm mad at you. I dont like you exposing my gullibility and oh oh alright my stupidity and I cant deal with it so I'm just going to get mad at you and insult you. I'm going to follow you around the forum and hate on you because you made me look dumb and I dont like it
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Can't call it following you around when you're the one bumping stale threads for a response :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
Poptech
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 27,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Some great quotes straight from your links: Quote:Criticism: Authors on the list are not scientists.
Rebuttal: Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. Quote:Criticism: Authors on the list are not climate scientists.
Rebuttal: Climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds. So in other words, your "proof" about how ACC is incorrect was, uh... written by non-environmental scientists. That's in addition to everything else that I already provided you with, you know, the part where the sub heading of the site calls itself impartial only for the author of all this garbage to writeup articles about how communist and socialist Jon fucking Stewart is :lol: I know you only want to fit in with a community of people Ricey, but this is a joke :lol: Go to the library, get a high school chemistry and biology book, lock yourself in a room with them for a few days and shut the fuck up. You are embarrassing. These have been clarified even more since you managed to misinterpret them and failed to quote them in their entirety, Criticism: Some authors on the list are not scientists. Rebuttal: Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, some peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. The most prolific authors on the list are physical scientists such as ISI Highly Cited Researchers Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Criticism: Some authors on the list are not climate scientists. Rebuttal: There is no objective criteria that can be used to determine who is a "climate scientist". The field of climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds. Very few climate scientists have a Ph.D. in Climatology like skeptical scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. Well known alarmist scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org has a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, Phil Jones the Director of the Climatic Research Unit of Climategate fame has a Ph.D. in Hydrology, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Hockey Stick author Michael Mann has a Ph.D. in Geology. So you argument is a strawman, not only were most of the papers on the list written by scientists but there is no objective criteria for determining who is a "climate or environmental scientist". Jon "Stewart" Leibowitz has outright admitted he is a socialist on CNN and no claim was made that he is a communist. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html
|
|
|
|
Poptech
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 27,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. R What part of this rebuttal do you want to dispute? Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"That alarmists never used Roger Pielke Jr.'s papers to support their arguments or that they outright attack him by calling him a " Climate Misinformer"?
|
|
|
|
Poptech
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 27,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Your "charges " are from pseudoscientific websites that have already been debunked by the authors that they misrepresent FFS :lol: My website is a technical website and has never claimed to be a scientific website so your statement makes no sense. Not to mention it is not possible for it to be debunked by a strawman argument. 1. State the author and the paper that is on the list that was misrepresented. (Make sure to check that it is actually listed) 2. State the reason why this paper was misrepresented. (Make sure to quote me) Failure to complete these basic tasks makes your claim worthless. Draupnir wrote:I actually think you might be the bloke responsible for that site, in all seriousness. Not only do both of you use sentence structure in the same ways on forums, but both of you have a penchant of using the amazingly shitty comeback of "why are you lying?" and "why do you lie?" when faced with actual facts.
If that's the case, fuck me dead, you need more help than you can get around here, Andrew :lol: I am the actual editor not him, so it has now been demonstrated that you are a conspiracy theorist. Edited by poptech: 1/7/2015 06:47:25 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol: all of a sudden poptech comes on and defends his site. Oh ricey you make me laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Wait a minute.....? Are we supposed to believe you just happened to stumble onto this forum to defend your website?
Some random act of chance...?
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
This is freaking hilarious .
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Could ricey be Andrew K? :lol: Or did he just fire off a PM for some blackup? :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Magnificent :lol: =d> =d>
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
scotty21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
To be fair ricey has always been fried. Draupnit and mcjules just pushed him over :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Could ricey be Andrew K? :lol:
Or did he just fire off a PM for some blackup? :lol:
-PB 
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Ricey would have contacted Poptech (the site owner of the BLOG populartechnology) to step in to do the leg work. Poptech did a similar thing on Whirlpool Forums quite a while back, where he was banned and the mods introduce a rule specifically for the climate change thread that non-peer reviewed literature links or irrelevant links were disallowed and posts would be removed. Repeat offenders would be banned. I think I have seen Poptech on other forums also, so he is a bit of 'merc for hire', so to speak. To those of less scientific 'understanding', the list provided on Poptech's blog are probably created to give the impression that there is a massive dissent from the overwhelming majority position that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. When you scrutinise the papers and authors, you will often find there is no dissent or the authors are not regular or current publishers in RELEVANT journals (sorry Poptech, Energy & Environment is not a relevant journal, for example) or the research paper is irrelevant to AGW. It's worth noting that the John Cook 97% support for AGW, was not the first paper conducted on the issue of consensus. Naomi Oreskes conducted one nearly a decade earlier (where there was actually 100% support from regular pertinent scientists publishing in pertinent journals) and there is at least another, IIRC. Ultimately, the IPCC reports are the best summary of the available evidence and research, so is always the best go to point. Locally in Australia, there is the CSIRO reports. http://www.climatechange2013.orgEdited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 1/7/2015 11:19:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:Ricey would have contacted Poptech (the site owner of the BLOG populartechnology) to step in to do the leg work. Poptech did a similar thing on Whirlpool Forums quite a while back, where he was banned and the mods introduce a rule specifically for the climate change thread that non-peer reviewed literature links or irrelevant links were disallowed and posts would be removed. Repeat offenders would be banned. I think I have seen Poptech on other forums also, so he is a bit of 'merc for hire', so to speak. To those of less scientific 'understanding', the list provided on Poptech's blog are probably created to give the impression that there is a massive dissent from the overwhelming majority position that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. When you scrutinise the papers and authors, you will often find there is no dissent or the authors are not regular or current publishers in RELEVANT journals (sorry Poptech, Energy & Environment is not a relevant journal, for example) or the research paper is irrelevant to AGW. It's worth noting that the John Cook 97% support for AGW, was not the first paper conducted on the issue of consensus. Naomi Oreskes conducted one nearly a decade earlier (where there was actually 100% support from regular pertinent scientists publishing in pertinent journals) and there is at least another, IIRC. Ultimately, the IPCC reports are the best summary of the available evidence and research, so is always the best go to point. Locally in Australia, there is the CSIRO reports. http://www.climatechange2013.orgEdited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 1/7/2015 11:19:10 AM May I sincerely ask how did you stumble onto this site and particular conversation. As before the seemingly random act of joining this forum to comment on this particular thread seems dubiously coincidental??
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:Ricey would have contacted Poptech (the site owner of the BLOG populartechnology) to step in to do the leg work. Poptech did a similar thing on Whirlpool Forums quite a while back, where he was banned and the mods introduce a rule specifically for the climate change thread that non-peer reviewed literature links or irrelevant links were disallowed and posts would be removed. Repeat offenders would be banned. I think I have seen Poptech on other forums also, so he is a bit of 'merc for hire', so to speak. To those of less scientific 'understanding', the list provided on Poptech's blog are probably created to give the impression that there is a massive dissent from the overwhelming majority position that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real. When you scrutinise the papers and authors, you will often find there is no dissent or the authors are not regular or current publishers in RELEVANT journals (sorry Poptech, Energy & Environment is not a relevant journal, for example) or the research paper is irrelevant to AGW. It's worth noting that the John Cook 97% support for AGW, was not the first paper conducted on the issue of consensus. Naomi Oreskes conducted one nearly a decade earlier (where there was actually 100% support from regular pertinent scientists publishing in pertinent journals) and there is at least another, IIRC. Ultimately, the IPCC reports are the best summary of the available evidence and research, so is always the best go to point. Locally in Australia, there is the CSIRO reports. http://www.climatechange2013.orgEdited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 1/7/2015 11:19:10 AM May I sincerely ask how did you stumble onto this site and particular conversation. As before the seemingly random act of joining this forum to comment on this particular thread seems dubiously coincidental?? I have been watching this site as spectator for a while and thought it would be beneficial to say something when Poptech stepped in to 'obfuscate' (although I was tempted earlier).
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Editor Andrew K (Computer Analyst)Copy Editor Karl (Computer Scientist)Contributing Authors Doug (Computer Engineer)Mike (Electrical Engineer) Is this not the exact thing ricey would have a crack about, people talking about shit that isn't even their field? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
You're all just cultural marxists attacking the intelligista #standUpForCrackers #illRideWithCrackers #jeSuisCrackers
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:You're all just cultural marxists attacking the intelligista #standUpForCrackers #illRideWithCrackers #jeSuisCrackers #truth #cannotsilence
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:cultural marxists and marxists use deception, personal attacks and various marginalisation techniques to push their pseudo-scientific dumbing down agenda. History has shown that the intellectuals in society are the first targeted for assassination when a marxist revolution takes hold of a nation.
we've seen the evidence of this many times over with countries like China, Russia and Cuba all stuck in another era due to a stunting of innovation. Any technology that is developed is either imported or stolen from free market developed nations for a price.
If you want to get a better understanding of Draupkick's tactics, read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. yep it's no secret that "ultra capitalist" usa is the world leader in innovation. Meanwhile in europe and Australia...
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
:lol: wow
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:benelsmore wrote:I remember watching Al Gore's movie when I was like 16 and saying to my science teacher at the time: why are there no scales on his graphs. The teacher didn't know what to say.
I think climate change ie: we're all going to be floating and the sun is going to kill us is overblown. Using figures that are not matched to the fact that warming of the globe is cyclic is in fact alarmist.
When you drill holes into the earth up to 1,000m deep + you sometimes get evidence of world changing events come up with it ie: sea shells at a depth of 100m deep 300km from the coastline. Coal. While climate change alarm and the race to alternatives is nothing to be afraid of, the paranoia is somewhat overblown. I suppose the problem is racing to an alternative as well. In my industry the more you try to rush the more things go wrong. Like those magnets in the wind farms you mentioned. I had no idea how dangerous they were to make but in the push for efficiency they are adopted. Well of course. Governments are under pressure to be green at any cost. Maybe people need to be more 'aware' of how things are made instead of just being 'environmental warriors'. If only the government wasn't held to ransom by people with agendas......
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote::lol: all of a sudden poptech comes on and defends his site. Oh ricey you make me laugh its not me :?
|
|
|
|