Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> populartechnology.net http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379993344 Message started by # on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm

Title: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm

The subject site (not to be confused with populartechnology.org) has apparently been around for a while (Copyright © 2004-2013, according to the home page), but I've only recently heard of it. It claims "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology", but seems to be a hard-line climate science denial/anti-renewables site.

I can't find any record on sourcewatch or Desmog Blog. The site does not list full names of personnel. There's no declaration of funding or other links that I can see. Whois shows it registered via a proxy which has apparent links to criminal activity.

Among other things, the site boasts "1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm". It's frequently quoted as an authority to discredit SkepticalScience.

Additional information would be much appreciated.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 2:40pm

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

What's wrong hash this site has your knickers in a knot....???

It actually got a hold of articles within the skeptical science computers when they got hacket.

Don't know if criminals run this site or not, but I would bet that crims would be attracted to the money.

The AGW religions gravy train is well known through out the whole world, even mafia bosses in Italy have been scamming the EU's ETS.

So while I cant confirm or deny that they maybe criminals, I would put my bets on the money trail.

Why don't you focus on some of the literature that tries to disprove anthropogenic global warming rather than trying to attack the person.....??????

The only reason I say John Cook is this or that is because of the garbage he writes........!!!!

Skeptical Science computers hacked - ties to Al Gore

Quote:

"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 5:30pm

# - Just go by the validity or otherwise of the arguments they present. It's not really relevant who's behind it.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:06pm

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

This is incorrect we believe there is such a thing as climate science. We are also not "anti-renewables" but rather anti-government subsidies of renewables.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

I can't find any record on sourcewatch or Desmog Blog. The site does not list full names of personnel. There's no declaration of funding or other links that I can see. Whois shows it registered via a proxy which has apparent links to criminal activity.

Why would our site be listed on smear sites like sourcewatch (can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection) and Desmog Blog (funded by a convicted money launderer)?

We have zero funding and are not associated with anyone.

Oh please, Domains by Proxy is used by Internet registrars like GoDaddy.

It is absolutely impossible for you to find any information about us because no such information exists online. When you understand Internet security you don't post personal information online.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:06pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

...
We have zero funding and are not associated with anyone.
...

The mere fact that you have the resources to monitor an obscure Australian forum tends to belie that assertion.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:26am

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

...
We have zero funding and are not associated with anyone.
...

The mere fact that you have the resources to monitor an obscure Australian forum tends to belie that assertion.

Your inability to understand how I found this post, simply demonstrates a lack of technical understanding - it does not demonstrate any evidence of funding.

It is quite an honor to be a part of your conspiracy theories.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

# - Just go by the validity or otherwise of the arguments they present. ...

Your style is not my style. In fact, I doubt I have the qualifications to adopt your style. Not being qualified to judge the information, I fall back on judging the source. The first port of call was naturally to check the usual sources, then to ask others. This site has somehow avoided scrutiny to date, so there's no credible assessment of its integrity. The secretiveness is the only indicator.

The site's a bit of a Gish Gallop: so many assertions that some are bound to slip by without due scrutiny. Unravelling the fabric will take a while. I'll do my best; it will be a learning experience for me.

The easiest target will probably be the "1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm". Is there a reliable way to check the bonafides of journals?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:10pm

OK, http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php looks like it might be what I'm after. Now to figure out how to use it.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:18pm

Whats wrong hash

TRUTH HURT.....................??????

Its a good site if you're looking for the truth......!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

... if you're looking for the truth......!!!!

I am. That's why I'm checking.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:25pm

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

... if you're looking for the truth......!!!!

I am. That's why I'm checking.

good knock yourself out........!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Your "usual sources" are all biased and completely unreliable. The site has not avoided scrutiny, it has been relentlessly attacked with baseless accusations. Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

The site's a bit of a Gish Gallop: so many assertions that some are bound to slip by without due scrutiny.

Incorrect, our site has nothing to do with creationists as we all support evolution. We do not engage in half-truths, lies or strawman arguments. To the contrary an extensive amount of time is spent rebutting these made against our work.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

The easiest target will probably be the "1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm". Is there a reliable way to check the bonafides of journals?

You will find nothing that has not been refuted in extensive detail in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section on the list.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

OK, scimagojr looks like it might be what I'm after. Now to figure out how to use it.

Incorrect, journal ranking metrics can only determine the "popularity" of a journal not it's scientific validity.

I highly doubt you will choose to be intellectually honest and I am limited to not being able to post links here until an unheard of 100 posts. No other forum I have ever visited has such an absurd requirement.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Whats wrong hash

TRUTH HURT.....................??????

Its a good site if you're looking for the truth......!!!!

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

Funny that!

A hurdle that trips up the charlatans and tricksters

You know who they are don't you oh darkest batman?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:18am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Do any of these papers explain the warming trend over the past 50 or 60 years?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:53am

Poptech wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

... Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
...

Is secretiveness consistent with credibility?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Do any of these papers explain the warming trend over the past 50 or 60 years?

Yes, there are extensive sections on cosmic rays and solar forcings.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:01am

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:53am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

... Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
...

Is secretiveness consistent with credibility?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our personal information is private but our published information is all verifiable, as it is all fully cited and sourced.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:05am

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:53am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

... Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
...

Is secretiveness consistent with credibility?

I have no idea what you are talking about. ...

Why should I trust a shadowy, secretive mob, of unknown allegiances?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:31am

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Do any of these papers explain the warming trend over the past 50 or 60 years?

Yes, there are extensive sections on cosmic rays and solar forcings.

Do Cosmic Rays change the frequency of radar transmissions?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:35am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am:

...
Do any of these papers explain ...

Chimp, this mob has spent years accumulating internally consistent teachings. Much like a religious cult. Be careful not to drink the Kool-Aid.

For me, the most cogent warnings lie in their secretiveness.
The claim is privacy;
- is the secrecy a necessary aspect of privacy or;
- is privacy a cover for the secrecy?

Either way, the phrase "honest and open" exists in that form for good reasons. There comes a time when a choice must be made between secrecy and credibility.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

Their brand of truth seems to struggle against the rigor and transparency of a simple scientific peer review process

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Do any of these papers explain the warming trend over the past 50 or 60 years?

Yes, there are extensive sections on cosmic rays and solar forcings.

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:53am:

Poptech wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

... Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
...

Is secretiveness consistent with credibility?

I have no idea what you are talking about. ...

Why should I trust a shadowy, secretive mob, of unknown allegiances?

So now we are a "shadowy, secretive mob", lol? Your conspiracy theories are fascinating. You have no reason to trust anything I say, which is why everything is fully cited and sourced.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Do Cosmic Rays change the frequency of radar transmissions?

You bet they do...!!!!!

Its written in the altimeter literature.....!!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:57am

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:59am:

...
Do any of these papers explain ...

This is it........?????

All your searching has yielded this insignificant bit of information......?????

I wonder what a judge in a court room would say.....!!!!

I know he would say..................

Take this hash from my court room cause he's a waste of space & time.......!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Do Cosmic Rays change the frequency of radar transmissions?

You bet they do...!!!!!

Its written in the altimeter literature.....!!!!!

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:47pm

Apparently populartechnology.net is just one person. Probably explains the need for secrecy.

I wonder about those other names on the site though. Imaginary friends, perhaps?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

I know, its really quite pathetic how few the number of AGW denialist puppet clown freaks there are in their religious cults. Although I must admit that the potency of their stench and foul putrid odours is well over 0.76 mS/s.N

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:55pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

At what temperature? Conductivity is usually measured with reference to a temperature.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm

Another response:
Quote:

As far as I know, there's only one person behind Popular Technology - a particularly virulent person. He's been banned from many websites because of his inflammatory tone and tendency to cyberstalk people he engages with (e.g., find out their personal address and phone number and post it in the discussion forum). My advice: I wouldn't give the guy the time of day.

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

OK. I apologise. I was just eating a poptart. Now will you answer the question?

Do you have any scientific training?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:06pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

You mad bro? :P

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:09pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

OK. I apologise. I was just eating a poptart. Now will you answer the question?

Do you have any scientific training?

Can cosmic rays cause soft errors in DRAM?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:13pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

Apparently populartechnology.net is just one person. Probably explains the need for secrecy.

I wonder about those other names on the site though. Imaginary friends, perhaps?

Nope, the other contributing editors all exist but only Karl is a frequent contributor besides myself.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Incorrect, there is one editor myself and 3 contributing editors. I have only been banned from a handful of alarmist and left wing websites for their inability to debate me. It is an absolute lie that I have ever "cyberstalked" anyone making your accusation libelous. It is not illegal to compile and post contact information that is available in the public domain online. What I have done on multiple occasions is demonstrate the computer illiteracy of online bullies by providing them with this information.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:19pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

...
Do you have any scientific training?

If the site is to be believed: no.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:22pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Do you see how your reaction might validate the
Quote:

... inflammatory tone and tendency to cyberstalk ...

comment?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:24pm

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

# - Just go by the validity or otherwise of the arguments they present. It's not really relevant who's behind it.

Exactly: science is simply feedback and therefore only fact can prove useful to its continued story!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:27pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

What is this dangerous characters name on this forum ?? ::) ::) :o

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:29pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

OK. I apologise. I was just eating a poptart. Now will you answer the question?

Do you have any scientific training?

Can cosmic rays cause soft errors in DRAM?

Noice: what is the answer to this question??

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:30pm

That's a shame. You see, I was just wondering if there is any money in it. I'm qualified in Environmental Science and Chemistry, and I'm really starting to find that some of Ajax's arguments about the Ocean bulging and the rainfall over australia are very convincing. (Is he a friend of yours?) I worked on General Circulation Models as part of my thesis, so I'm sure I would be a good catch so to speak.

I'm pretty well versed on the Classical Mythology too, and sang in quite a few G&S productions in my time, and I'm really good at Photoshop, so as far as graphs from Uranus are concerned, I could easily do that. Overall, I think I could probably do the Monkton bit quite well if he ever carks it.

How much would it be worth if I switched sides?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

..and vaguely answered: DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALL GOOD SCIENCE HAS ERROR VALUE?? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? ;) ;)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

OK. I apologise. I was just eating a poptart. Now will you answer the question?

Do you have any scientific training?

Can cosmic rays cause soft errors in DRAM?

Of course they can. Now answer my question.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:41pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

What is this dangerous characters name on this forum ?? ::) ::) :o

Dangerous? I don't know about that. A bit creepy, perhaps. Poptech

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

...
Do you have any scientific training?

If [Populartechnology.net] is to be believed: no.

This is incorrect I took Honors physics my senior year (12) in high school (secondary school), have two years of university training in physics, have worked with research scientists on nuclear waste research and have worked on published peer-reviewed research papers.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:46pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

..and vaguely answered: DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALL GOOD SCIENCE HAS ERROR VALUE?? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? ;) ;)

Good reply. It would be even better without the smileys and the colour.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:48pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

...
Do you have any scientific training?

If [Populartechnology.net] is to be believed: no.

When did you drop out of University?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Do you see how your reaction might validate the [quote]... inflammatory tone and tendency to cyberstalk ...

comment?[/quote]
Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. After which please provide an example of me performing such an act.

You need to learn not to believe everything you find using Google.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

...
Do you have any scientific training?

If [Populartechnology.net] is to be believed: no.

When did you drop out of University?

After I graduated.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:51pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... there is one editor myself and 3 contributing editors. ...

That would make you
Quote:

Andrew (Computer Analyst)

as declared on the site.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

... I took Honors physics my senior year (12) in high school (secondary school), have two years of university training in physics, have worked with research scientists on nuclear waste research and have worked on published peer-reviewed research papers.

So; some training, but no qualifications. Which your secretiveness prevents you substantiating.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:52pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Shh! I'm asking Poptarts.

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

OK. I apologise. I was just eating a poptart. Now will you answer the question?

Do you have any scientific training?

Can cosmic rays cause soft errors in DRAM?

Of course they can. Now answer my question.

I don't answer questions from online bullies.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:54pm

You usually need three or four years for that. You only mentioned two, or was physics a minor?

Quote:

I don't answer questions from online bullies.

Even if you just did 2 years, you should be able to answer that question.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:55pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... there is one editor myself and 3 contributing editors. ...

That would make you
Quote:

Andrew (Computer Analyst)

as declared on the site.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

So; some training, but no qualifications. Which your secretiveness prevents you substantiating.

I never claimed to be a scientist but I do have university training in Physics, my field is computer science and I am employed as a computer analyst.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:55pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

You usually need three or four years for that. You only mentioned two, or was physics a minor?

A requirement of my major.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:56pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

... Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. ...

Did I use the word? Did I report a use of the word?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:57pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

I worked on General Circulation Models as part of my thesis, so I'm sure I would be a good catch so to speak.

How many computer scientists were present at your dissertation?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:00pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

... Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. ...

Did I use the word? Did I report a use of the word?

You just claimed my comment might validate the quote libelously accusing me of "cyberstalking".

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:03pm

OK. Well welcome to the forum if you want to stick around and have some logical argument. At least you should know the difference between accuracy and precision.

Did you do much Atmospheric Physics?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:05pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

I worked on General Circulation Models as part of my thesis, so I'm sure I would be a good catch so to speak.

How many computer scientists were present at your dissertation?

I used General Circulation Models. I didn't design them.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

..and vaguely answered: DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALL GOOD SCIENCE HAS ERROR VALUE?? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? ;) ;)

Good reply. It would be even better without the smileys and the colour.

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:11pm

Anyway, we have one contributor here who is highly enamoured by the various proclamations of Arnie Gundersen. As a computer analyst at one time in the nuclear waste industry, I'm sure that you can set him right.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

... Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. ...

Did I use the word? Did I report a use of the word?

You just claimed my comment might validate the quote libelously accusing me of "cyberstalking".

Did I "claim" it might? Did I ask whether you saw how it might?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

I'm just looking after you. You say some intelligent things sometimes, but people ignore them because of the smileys and Technicolor.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:18pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

Not really - the answer is actually WIDELY available in basic scientific TEXT BOOKS.

You don't even need to conduct extensive searches in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Are your basic abilities as a computer analyst equally impressive?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:20pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... I have only been banned from a handful of alarmist and left wing websites for their inability to debate me. ...

Were you debating? Were you bullying? Do you see how your behaviour here might give rise to that question?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:28pm

...there can be no more stronger adhesion to irrational thought and macevelian hypocrisy than when a priest conveniently selects when to abandon his ethics and beliefs and when to hide behind them.

(Chimp_Logic, circa 2013)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:31pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

OK. Well welcome to the forum if you want to stick around and have some logical argument. At least you should know the difference between accuracy and precision.

Did you do much Atmospheric Physics?

I did not take any courses on atmospheric physics. Physics I focused on mechanics and Physics II focused on electricity and magnetism. I am not in computer engineering so I very rarely use the knowledge in my job.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:33pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

Not really - the answer is actually WIDELY available in basic scientific TEXT BOOKS.

Depends on the text book. Please cite your source (I am unable to cite anything due to the ridiculous posting limitations).

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:34pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

I'm just looking after you. You say some intelligent things sometimes, but people ignore them because of the smileys and Technicolor.

Lol, only the sword of wisdom can cut the strings of mara!

Wake up muso: arise !! :)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:35pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... I have only been banned from a handful of alarmist and left wing websites for their inability to debate me. ...

Were you debating? Were you bullying? Do you see how your behaviour here might give rise to that question?

Always debating but I only respond to bullies in kind. On certain forums you are only allowed to be bullied and not defend yourself if you do not accept the declared position the forum admins hold.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

This is widely debated.

Not really - the answer is actually WIDELY available in basic scientific TEXT BOOKS.

Depends on the text book. Please cite your source (I am unable to cite anything due to the ridiculous posting limitations).

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:38pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

I'm just looking after you. You say some intelligent things sometimes, but people ignore them because of the smileys and Technicolor.

Lol, only the sword of wisdom can cut the strings of mara!

Wake up muso: arise !! :)

you must excuse muso - his stances are not consistent

His viewpoints can be purchased and contaminated with self interest

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:38pm

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... I have only been banned from a handful of alarmist and left wing websites for their inability to debate me. ...

Were you debating? Were you bullying? Do you see how your behaviour here might give rise to that question?

On this one I stand up for debate.

There are many fascist tryhards on the internet trying to shutdown debate. Of course, this is the nature of the world and the cause of many a trouble so once again I STAND UP FOR DEBATE.

;) ;)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:39pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

Incorrect, I was doing research at a university on nuclear waste disposal not in the industry, where the funding originated I have no idea. I was assisting with all the computer software and hardware used for testing. The project was successful and the research published.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:44pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

All good. OK, I'll get off your case. Are you prepared to defend some of the articles on your website?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm

You alarmist bed wetters are truly PATHETIC......!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:35pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... I have only been banned from a handful of alarmist and left wing websites for their inability to debate me. ...

Were you debating? Were you bullying? Do you see how your behaviour here might give rise to that question?

Always debating but I only respond to bullies in kind. On certain forums you are only allowed to be bullied and not defend yourself if you do not accept the declared position the forum admins hold.

yEP, FASCISTS ABOUND! Tom Hanks was on David Letterman the other day saying there was only one plot: the escape from oppression!

;) ;)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:46pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Do you see how your reaction might validate the [quote]... inflammatory tone and tendency to cyberstalk ...

comment?

Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" ...
[/quote]cyberstalking

Quote:

... the attacker harasses a victim using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. A cyberstalker relies upon the anonymity afforded by the Internet to allow them to stalk their victim without being detected. ...

Much like sexual harassment, the crime may not be in what the perpetrator thinks they're doing, but in how the victim feels about it. Does compiling information and posting it in a particular context qualify? That depends on the victim's perception.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

These forums restrict news users from posting links until they have made a ridiculous 100 posts. No other forum I have ever visited (and I have visited a lot) has such a high limit. Ones that do put it around "20" to protect against spammers. The limit here restricts debate.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:48pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

I'm just looking after you. You say some intelligent things sometimes, but people ignore them because of the smileys and Technicolor.

Lol, only the sword of wisdom can cut the strings of mara!

Wake up muso: arise !! :)

you must excuse muso - his stances are not consistent

His viewpoints can be purchased and contaminated with self interest

I dunno- atleast he/she talks!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:49pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

Hey PT

I also found it odd that you have to accumulate 100 posts.

Its so you can't make your point.

After all this environmental forum is full of and run by alarmists that are true to the cause.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:50pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

==>you don't have to put the url in the fancy mark up language thing do you!??! :-? :-?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:50pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

Hey PT

I also found it odd that you have to accumulate 100 posts.

Its so you can't make your point.

After all this environmental forum is full of and run by alarmists that are true to the cause.

Lol, ajax is afraid irrelevancy :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:52pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

All good. OK, I'll get off your case. Are you prepared to defend some of the articles on your website?

I always defend the articles on my website but I am not interested in discussing every one here as I do not have that sort of time.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:53pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

I'm just looking after you. You say some intelligent things sometimes, but people ignore them because of the smileys and Technicolor.

Lol, only the sword of wisdom can cut the strings of mara!

Wake up muso: arise !! :)

That's the whole idea, so get your sword out and start cutting. I'm sure there is a good swordsman hidden within ;D

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:54pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

Hey PT

I also found it odd that you have to accumulate 100 posts.

Its so you can't make your point.

After all this environmental forum is full of and run by alarmists that are true to the cause.

It is very hard to present a compelling argument without sources. I mainly need to when defending my articles and that is next to impossible without posting links. This gives a huge advantage to seasoned posters here.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:00pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:36pm:

how have you been restricted or limited from posting/

I can't do anything about the forum policy, but if you want to post links, post the url and I'll add the link to your post if its safe. I use Linux here so I can check most links safely. I don't think I'm affected by the supersized image tag, but don't try it.

You're only 30 posts away from posting links.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm

I see that you've met Ajax. You two should get along fine. He's extremely well qualified as a denialist because he denies the Moon Landings and 911 - and I think the JFK assassination as well? Maybe the Elvis is alive mob too? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:19pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Firstly you being the mod should welcome PT on the forum.

Secondly I don't personally know PT but welcome him on here.

Thirdly manmade global warming is the biggest scam presented to the human race.

About 9/11 can you seriously look me in the eye and tell me that those buildings weren't demolished...???

The moon landing like I told you the lunar module after it had landed looked like someone had taken to it with Mr.sheen and a rag.

Kennedy, well I do know he wanted to stop the war in Vietnam, I guess the military industrial complex didn't have the same views.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:28pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

URLs are blocked, I would have to butcher the link and it is not worth the effort.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

I see that you've met Ajax. You two should get along fine. He's extremely well qualified as a denialist because he denies the Moon Landings and 911 - and I think the JFK assassination as well?

I have no idea what a "denialist" is but I am only a skeptic of ACC/AGW Alarm and have no interest in discussing those other topics which are red herrings.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:17pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

... I am only a skeptic of ACC/AGW Alarm ...

There are many who claim to be sceptics, but turn out to be far less. Do you believe that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:22pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:

Thank you Ajax. ;D (Allow me to stop laughing for a minute).

And Elvis is alive too?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:23pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Do you see that your clumsy attempt at intimidation validates the quoted response? Do you see that your behaviour (in which you admit to indulging "on multiple occasions") is, at best, consistent with the bullying of which you accuse others? Do you see that your exploitation of the openness of others, while yourself indulging in secretiveness, is no more than cowardly?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:24pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

You alarmist bed wetters are truly PATHETIC......!!!!

LOL - Monckton. That's priceless. You quoted Monckton.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

About 9/11 can you seriously look me in the eye and tell me that those buildings weren't demolished...???

I think I'm going to have a seizure here from laughing too much.

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

Quote:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

... I am only a skeptic of ACC/AGW Alarm ...

There are many who claim to be sceptics, but turn out to be far less. Do you believe that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

1. No one computer literate cites Wikipedia. Are you admitting you do not understand how unreliable and worthless Wikipedia is?

2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" as no comprehensive poll has ever been done to determine this.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:46am

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

Another response:
Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. After which please provide an example of me performing such an act.

If not then I expect you to retract your libelous accusations.

I protect my privacy because I am free to do so.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Rider on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am

so #....you want to provide a link to your website? if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:52am

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

You alarmist bed wetters are truly PATHETIC......!!!!

LOL - Monckton. That's priceless. You quoted Monckton.

I never knew he said that, it just came to mind on seeing how you receive new people on this forum.......!!!!!??????

BTW the statement is TRUE.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:59am

moved to here

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1380236918/0#0

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:00am

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

so #....you want to provide a link to your website? if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

A steady source of income funded by Big Oil, do you reckon?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:02am

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:52am:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

You alarmist bed wetters are truly PATHETIC......!!!!

LOL - Monckton. That's priceless. You quoted Monckton.

I never knew he said that, it just came to mind on seeing how you receive new people on this forum.......!!!!!??????

BTW the statement is TRUE.

All I can say is that "Great minds think alike" doesn't apply.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:03am

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:52am:

I never knew he said that, it just came to mind on seeing how you receive new people on this forum.......!!!!!??????

I offered to make his links work. All you've done is talk about O/T conspiracy theories such as 911. That's hardly very welcoming.

Is this you, by any chance?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Rider on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:06am

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

so #....you want to provide a link to your website? if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

A steady source of income funded by Big Oil, do you reckon?

Big Oil ...... ;D ;D

If you want the big money and no accountability you got to be on the side of Big Green.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:14am

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:06am:

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

so #....you want to provide a link to your website? if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

A steady source of income funded by Big Oil, do you reckon?

Big Oil ...... ;D ;D

If you want the big money and no accountability you got to be on the side of Big Green.

Like this for example?

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7040&contentId=7051376

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:14am

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:22am

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Do the research and find out for yourself......????????

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:22pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

...
2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" ...

In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:29pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:46am:

... I expect you to retract your libelous accusations.

You expect in vain.

I answered your question honestly. You responded with a clumsy attempt at intimidation. Your response implies legal action. I doubt you have the courage. Go ahead, risk disclosure.

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:46am:

I protect my privacy because I am free to do so.

You cower in secrecy, probably because you have much to hide.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:31pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Do the research and find out for yourself......????????

Now, now, Ajax. If you're going to make unfounded assertions, you must learn how to handle being challenged.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:47pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:

Now, now, Ajax. If you're going to make unfounded assertions, you must learn how to handle being challenged.

You should keep up with the times dude.....!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-20/fed-reviews-rule-on-big-banks-commodity-trades-after-complaints.html

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:52pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Do the research and find out for yourself......????????

OK, they are not.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:10pm

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Big oil is at the forefront of creating a carbon credit derivatives market........!!!!!!!!!

Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Do the research and find out for yourself......????????

OK, they are not.

Like I said to hash, you should read a bit more...!!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/us-jpmorgan-commodities-sale-analysis-idUSBRE96S04E20130729

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:14pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

...
2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" ...

In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Huh? The burden of proof is on you.

Please provide the comprehensive poll of every scientist on the planet to support your statement.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:15pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:46am:

... I expect you to retract your libelous accusations.

You failed to provide what I asked,

Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. After which please provide an example of me performing such an act.

So you cannot backup your libelous claim? Typical.

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:46am:

I protect my privacy because I
# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

am free to do so.

You cower in secrecy, probably because you have much to hide.

Does this sort of nonsense usually work on those you debate?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:23pm

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

I am not here to discuss 911, I am here to discuss climate change alarm and on this Ajax and myself agree. Your anecdotes are simply a distraction.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:36pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

I am not here to discuss 911, I am here to discuss climate change alarm and on this Ajax and myself agree. Your anecdotes are simply a distraction.

Hi PT

Well said mate, I support you 100%.

BTW I think your site

http://www.populartechnology.net/

is fantastic and I would put it up there with Jonova & WUWT.

Keep the good work up.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:53pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

...
2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" ...

In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Huh? The burden of proof is on you.

Please provide the comprehensive poll of every scientist on the planet to support your statement.

Can you refer to ONE scientific institute or society on a domestic or international level that refutes the high school level science that underpins AGW?

Even the fossil fuel corporations united in 2003 to release a joint statement that human induced global warming and its resultant changes in climate and other effects such as rising sea levels etc, is a serious urgent global issue which requires major international mitigation and action.

Can you explain why the major fossil fuel and mining corporations would make such as joint public statement?

AGW denialist crack pots must feel very lonely and desperate don't you think batman?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:03pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

I am not here to discuss 911, I am here to discuss climate change alarm and on this Ajax and myself agree. Your anecdotes are simply a distraction.

Hi PT

Well said mate, I support you 100%.

BTW I think your site

populartechnology.net

is fantastic and I would put it up there with Jonova & WUWT.

Keep the good work up.

Same to you, I support all AGW skeptics against alarmist insanity. And thanks, I am glad you like the site.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:09pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

...
2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" ...

In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Huh? The burden of proof is on you.

Please provide the comprehensive poll of every scientist on the planet to support your statement.

Can you refer to ONE scientific institute or society on a domestic or international level that refutes the high school level science that underpins AGW?

Appeal to authority logical fallacy and a strawman. I am arguing against ACC/AGW Alarm.

You have still failed to provide, the comprehensive poll of every scientist on the planet to support your position.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Even the fossil fuel corporations united in 2003 to release a joint statement that human induced global warming and its resultant changes in climate and other effects such as rising sea levels etc, is a serious urgent global issue which requires major international mitigation and action.

Can you explain why the major fossil fuel and mining corporations would make such as joint public statement?

What statement?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

AGW denialist crack pots must feel very lonely and desperate don't you think batman?

Who denies that their is a scientific hypothesis called AGW?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:22pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

...
2. There is no such "vast majority of the best qualified" ...

In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Huh? The burden of proof is on you.
...

My question related to the study which establishes that there's no consensus.

In answer to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change. You denied it before, now substantiate your denial.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:25pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

...
So you cannot backup your libelous claim? ...

So send in the lawyers.

Whine though you no doubt will, the answer remains:
# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

...cyberstalking

Quote:

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:37pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

...
I have no idea what a "denialist" is ...

A denialist is one who denies all that is not consistent with their world view. For example:
Quote:

All counted papers must ... support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 5:24pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Same to you, I support all AGW skeptics against alarmist insanity. And thanks, I am glad you like the site.

I like the part where you debunk 911 Conspiracy theories.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:48am

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

I am not here to discuss 911, I am here to discuss climate change alarm and on this Ajax and myself agree. Your anecdotes are simply a distraction.

Hi PT

Well said mate, I support you 100%.

BTW I think your site

http://www.populartechnology.net/

is fantastic and I would put it up there with Jonova & WUWT.

Keep the good work up.

The kiss of death, lol :D :D

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 10:55am

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

I am not here to discuss 911, I am here to discuss climate change alarm and on this Ajax and myself agree. Your anecdotes are simply a distraction.

Ok, I was merely pointing out that your new found buddy:
- Is a 911 denier
- Is a Moon landing denier
- Denies that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK
- Believes that Elvis is alive.
- Believes that the banking sector owns Exxon.
- Required three pages of explanation before he finally understood the distinction between accuracy and precision.
- Gets calculations wrong by a factor of a million and then calls other posters stupid when they point out that an area of 1 square kilometers that is 1 metre high is not 1 cubic kilometre.

I could go on, but I don't want to embarass him. ;D

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:42pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

My question related to the study which establishes that there's no consensus.

I agree there is no consensus.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

...
So you cannot backup your libelous claim? ...

So send in the lawyers.

Do you conceed that you cannot back up your libelous claim?

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:

Whine though you no doubt will, the answer remains:
# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

...cyberstalking

Quote:

That is not a dictionary, please provide a definition from a dictionary (Not Wikipedia). Are you unable to read my posts clearly?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:49pm

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:37pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

...
I have no idea what a "denialist" is ...

A denialist is one who denies all that is not consistent with their world view...

There is no such definition. Please provide a dictionary (not Wikipedia) definition on this word.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:52pm

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Same to you, I support all AGW skeptics against alarmist insanity. And thanks, I am glad you like the site.

I like the part where you debunk 911 Conspiracy theories.

How is the trolling going?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:53pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

That is not a dictionary, please provide a definition from a dictionary (Not Wikipedia). Are you unable to read my posts clearly?

Definition of denialist in English

denialist
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst/
noun

a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists [as modifier]:the denialist view.

The Oxford Dictionary
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/denialist

Maybe you prefer the Collins English Dictionary:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/denialist

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:57pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

# wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 4:22pm:

My question related to the study which establishes that there's no consensus.

I agree there is no consensus.

Yet you cannot point to a peer-reviewed study which establishes that. On the other hand, there are such studies establishing the consensus.

As I said
Quote:

A denialist is one who denies all that is not consistent with their world view.

The consensus is inconsistent with your world view, so you deny the consensus. Studies establish the consensus, so you deny the studies. The studies are compiled into a wiki, so you deny the wiki. And so it goes.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:00pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

...
That is not a dictionary, ...

Whine though you no doubt will, the answer remains:
# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

...
cyberstalking

Quote:

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:00pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Same to you, I support all AGW skeptics against alarmist insanity. And thanks, I am glad you like the site.

I like the part where you debunk 911 Conspiracy theories.

How is the trolling going?

No need to be modest. It's a well written page. Now the Topic of this thread is populartechnology.net. Would you care to explain to me how that's trolling or even off-topic? Hmmm?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:03pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

That is not a dictionary, please provide a definition from a dictionary (Not Wikipedia). Are you unable to read my posts clearly?

Thank you now,

1. What is this "truth" that is refused to be admitted?
2. Please provide the comprehensive resource demonstrating that this "truth" is supported by the "majority of scientific or historical evidence".
3. Is scientific validity determined by mob rules?
4. Where Darwin, Einstein and Galileo "denialists"?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:06pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

...
There is no such ...

The denialist denies. ::)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:07pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

...
1. What is this "truth" ...

The denialist denies again. ::)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:29pm

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

so #....you want to provide a link to your website?

If I had one, would it be wise to make it a target for a cyber-terrorist*? His behaviour here is unpleasant enough.

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

Now there's an idea. Not a web site; I'm not really that interested. Perhaps a page on SourceWatch. That might be fun.

* OK, maybe not terribly accurate, but it sounds better than "cowardly thug who abuses IT to bully and intimidate".

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

... AR5 is pretty comprehensive. ...

Nothing that can't be denied. ::)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

...
1. What is this "truth" ...

The denialist denies again. ::)

Incorrect, your definition does not exist.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:34pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

...
1. What is this "truth" ...

The denialist denies again. ::)

Incorrect, ...

The denialist denies again, again. ::)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:35pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

so #....you want to provide a link to your website?

If I had one, would it be wise to make it a target for a cyber-terrorist*? His behaviour here is unpleasant enough.

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:

if you don't already have one perhaps it would be a pleasant little retirement hobby for you?

Post reported.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:37pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

...
Post reported.

And now, you're only 15 posts from being able to include links. 8-)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

...Nothing that can't be denied. ::)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

[quote author=davidb link=1379993344/143#143 date=1380342680]...Nothing that can't be denied. ::)

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:15pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

....These aren't the climate scientists you're looking for, Stormtrooper.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

[quote author=davidb link=1379993344/143#143 date=1380342680]...Nothing that can't be denied. ::)

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

... It is an absolute lie that I have ever "cyberstalked" anyone making your accusation libelous. It is not illegal to compile and post contact information that is available in the public domain online. What I have done on multiple occasions is demonstrate the computer illiteracy of online bullies by providing them with this information.

From the rules of this forum
Quote:

OzPolitic values the privacy of all members. Do not post personal information about other members without their explicit permission. This includes the contents of personal messages and emails, photos, names, IP addresses, phone numbers, locations etc. This includes information that can be found online and instructions on how to find information about specific members. Such behaviour is considered stalking.

Sounds a lot like what you boast of doing "on multiple occasions", doesn't it?

What would motivate such behaviour, but a desire to bully and intimidate?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Poptech on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:55pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Well it's not my argument, but AR5 is pretty comprehensive. It even includes contributions by John Christy, so I fail to see how it isn't.

AR5 is not a comprehensive summary.

[quote author=davidb link=1379993344/143#143 date=1380342680]...Nothing that can't be denied. ::)

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

...
Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Vuk11 on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

...
Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies.

They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:28pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

...
They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, ...

They may well have been accused by those who hold to a certain world view, but does that make papers that were not considered more credible than those that were?

When denialists discovered that their science was so poor that established peer reviewed journals would not publish their studies, they began setting up parallel peer review processes. These days, to establish the quality of a given paper, the integrity of the peer review must also be considered.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

... how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Perhaps they separated the wheat from the chaff and it's the authors of the chaff complaining.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:04pm

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

It doesn't have to. It's definitely wide ranging.

Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

Sigh. I can see that you like dictionaries.

Quote:

Definition of comprehensive in English

comprehensive
Pronunciation: /kɒmprɪˈhɛnsɪv/
Translate comprehensive | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
adjective

1including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something:a comprehensive list of sources
of large content or scope; wide-ranging:a comprehensive collection of photographs

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comprehensive

Sorry, but your definition is not comprehensive. No cigar for you.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Vuk11 on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

...
They have been continuously accused of leaving out peer reviewed papers that go against their agenda, ...

... how does it make it the most credible sources if they choose only what they want? Then ignore authors that make complaint?

Perhaps they separated the wheat from the chaff and it's the authors of the chaff complaining.

I agree the peer review process is abysmal at the moment.
Though cherry picking is cherry picking, I don't think you can easily say which paper is credible which isn't.

As the public our job isn't to do our own research, this issue effects us all though so our opinions matter. The only thing we can do is hold up both sides of an argument, scrutinize both, then weigh it up and make an informed decision, that must be flexible enough to change when the information changes. It certainly isn't black and white.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:48pm

Apparently the WGII report, due for publication in March, will include some workers who are regarded as borderline sceptics. I guess we'll have to wait until that comes out to confirm that.

It would probably help in the transparency if they included reasons for accepting or rejecting papers that were considered.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:42am

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

... the peer review process is abysmal at the moment.

Do you attribute that more to establishment bias or denialist corruption?

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

...
Though cherry picking is cherry picking, I don't think you can easily say which paper is credible which isn't.

I can't. That's why we have the IPCC and other credible bodies.

Is it cherry picking? Is it sorting the wheat from the chaff? Without making the choices, can decisions be made?

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

As the public our job isn't to do our own research, this issue effects us all though so our opinions matter. The only thing we can do is hold up both sides of an argument, scrutinize both, then weigh it up and make an informed decision, that must be flexible enough to change when the information changes. It certainly isn't black and white.

I reckon our most difficult task is to recognise when our world view is impeding rational decision making.

I don't like what the IPCC says, but I respect their integrity. If you like, I'm prepared to accept the inconvenient truth. Many, it seems, find that impossible.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by progressiveslol on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 7:58am

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

...
Then it is not comprehensive but selective.

The report uses the most credible resources, which doesn't include those which support the denialist's world view, so the denialist denies.

lol then it is ideological toilet paper.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:36am

Didn't you read the post? The IPCC doesn't include ideological toilet paper such as the Idsos' self publshed "papers".
(dang da dang dang dang)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by progressiveslol on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:58am

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Didn't you read the post? The IPCC doesn't include ideological toilet paper such as the Idsos' self publshed "papers".
(dang da dang dang dang)

You are obviously talking about the toilet paper you see. I am referring to the ideological tiolet paper called the IPCC AR5.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 11:36am

Poptech wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Does AR5 include every peer-reviewed paper published on climate change since AR4?

Just on this point. If it did include every peer reviewed paper since AR4, the predictions would be much more extreme. The panel has erred on the conservative side.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm

In general people should interest themselves about the pseudo science that the IPCC continually cough up to tax all peoples on the air we breath.

If for no other reason being that it will affect their hip pocket like no other science has before.

Investigative Journalism at its best
http://youtu.be/U5weFQYBL5w

5:55 AGW consensus

8:15 IPCC consensus procedure

10:45 IPCC role in climate science

12:45 Investigative Journalism

14:10 IPCC nonsense

15:00 Who am I (Donna)

16:20 Top scientists at IPCC which also includes graduates and under graduates.

17:05 Graduate students help write IPCC report

17:35 IPCC makes graduate students lead authors.

18:50 Malaria section written by undergraduate who was also a contributing author.

20:50 Unqualified scientists are included in perr review group.

21:30 Green Activists chosen as lead authors.

23:00 Greenpeace & World Wild Life fund activists selected as lead Authors at IPCC.

26:00 two thirds of chapters in IPCC report have between one and eight people with the World Wild Life fund.

27:50 IPCC gives political opinion not science fact.

29.33 All IPCC peer review literature is a lie, IPCC uses non peer reviewed literature to stress their point.

31:15 Only 50% - 35% of chapters are peer reviewed.

33:20 End of investigation leads to conclusions that 30% of journals sited by IPCC are not peer reviewed, they happen to be green literature.

35:00 No scientists working for IPCC have come out through a letter or an email stating unequivocally what the IPCC claim.

36:00 IPCC scientific literature doesn't follow IPCC written rules.

38:40 Conflict of interest.

39.35 UN is a political body spreading science.

40:30 Real reasons the IPCC exists, to mix politics with science.

41:30 IPCC political process not scientific process, science gets re-written in political terms.

44:15 Carbon taxes & ETS systems created for a problem we're not sure even exists.

46:00 Educate yourself about climate change.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 4:33pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

In general people should interest themselves about the pseudo science that the IPCC

You wouldn't recognise pseudoscience unless it was explained to you piecemeal over 10 pages. Even so, you still beleve Willy Soon rather tha the designer of the satellites and the real experts in the field.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 5:06pm

# wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

From the rules of this forum
Quote:

Sounds a lot like what you boast of doing "on multiple occasions", doesn't it?

What would motivate such behaviour, but a desire to bully and intimidate?

poptech AINT AFRAID TO USE THE OLD SILENT TREATMENT IS HE/SHE/IT????????? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

(HAVE WE GOT ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ON THE OLD GENDER OF THIS HERE TRYHARD INTERNET FASCIST????)

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 5:36pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Sorry can't help you there.

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:52pm

There is nothing to debunk on Popular Technology because there is nothing on climate, except character assassination, opinion and appeal to authority.

An example is this:

Quote:

"Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished." - Richard S. Lindzen

Richard Lindzen is notably unspectacular for his ability to predict future temperatures. He was the proponent of the now discredited "Iris Effect".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

As far as I can see, the data is correct.

Also here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/09/480733/a-cloudy-day-for-climate-skeptics-mainstream-research-discredits-lindzen-theory

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by muso on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 9:28pm

Hey Poptech, since you're a computer tech, what do you think of the Dell CompTIA A+ course? Worth doing?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 10:51pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

In general people should interest themselves about the pseudo science that the IPCC continually cough up to tax all peoples on the air we breath.

So let me see if I can summarise your sociopathic neurotic paranoia.

The global scientific community has fabricated results, theories, predictions, peer reviewed publications etc., just so some countries can sneak in a tax on carbon, which somehow will ruin everything and everyone in the known universe.

A "global scam" which has even suckered in the big fossil fuel corporations themselves, who have accepted the high school level science that underpins AGW and who have recommended urgent action to be taken internationally in order the mitigate the effects of climate change.

Do you realise how ridiculous your stance appears in public?

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Ajax on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:22am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

In general people should interest themselves about the pseudo science that the IPCC continually cough up to tax all peoples on the air we breath.

If you cannot tell science from fantasy then what can I say to you.

So chimp where is the hidden heat in the deep ocean layers or is it on the top ocean layers.......????????

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by # on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 11:56am

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

...
Sigh. I can see that you like dictionaries.
...

I've been wondering about that.

A rational question would be something along the lines: "[some dictionary] defines denialist thus: ... What have I done which meets that definition?" Poptech's demand that the one answering provide the definition seems more than a little queer to me.

I guess that it's intended to intimidate. Perhaps, by looking honestly at the issue, I inadvertently circumvented his intent .

Title: Re: populartechnology.net
Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 12:10pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

In general people should interest themselves about the pseudo science that the IPCC continually cough up to tax all peoples on the air we breath.

If you cannot tell science from fantasy then what can I say to you.

So chimp where is the hidden heat in the deep ocean layers or is it on the top ocean layers.......????????

what heat?

has the thermal retention of the earth been rising over the past 60 years?

I thought you said its all natural variation and a global conspiracy by the tax merchants