To be fair ricey has always been fried. Draupnit and mcjules just pushed him over :lol:

Who fried Ricey?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Magnificent :lol: =d> =d>

Could ricey be Andrew K? :lol:

Or did he just fire off a PM for some blackup? :lol:

-PB

LOL

-PB

This is freaking hilarious .

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...?

:lol: all of a sudden poptech comes on and defends his site. Oh ricey you make me laugh

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.


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

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"?

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

Can't call it following you around when you're the one bumping stale threads for a response :lol:

-PB

bump

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.

bump

got nothing Draupkick?

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

Seriously the funniest guy on the forums :lol:

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:

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.

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.

Your "charges " are from pseudoscientific websites that have already been debunked by the authors that they misrepresent FFS :lol:

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 definitely starting to feel sorry for you.

You cannot respond to a single charge.
You might be able to fool dopes like mcdunce and the rest of the juvenile M80 circle jerk club with your deflections, lies and feeble character assassination attempts, but you wont fool me or anyone else with more than half a functioning brain.

Remember that. the more you lie, the more you're lying to yourself.

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 am actually starting to feel sorry for you. R

not much of a reader are you


and here is an entire thread devoted to the subject
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019

too bad your 5 minute google skills didnt factor it

Edited by ricecrackers: 30/6/2015 04:17:59 AM

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?

Source.

Good one Ricey :lol:

Some great quotes straight from your links:





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.