Sure, there are local complications, but most places have two tides a day. Either way, Galileo was wrong about this, which is what Bickmore's point was.
I'm not an expert on everything he said, but I know for a fact that he knows nothing about tides. the comment at 27:50 is wrong. There are diurnal tides, semidiurnal tides, and mixed tides all over the world.
Why is Barry making things up? Most of the articles in the 900+ peer-reviewed list are not from those two journals or even journals similar to them. Those two journals represent exactly 3 papers on the list, if you remove them you still have over 900 papers from 255 other scholarly peer-reviewed journals. The complete journal list is included in the notes following the list. Nature and Science are not "climate science" journals either they simply also publish papers on the subject of climate.
@populartechnology apparently doesn't like that Barry trashed his list. Bickmore's point, however, was that PT didn't exhibit much concern about the quality of his list. He used any number of journals that have nothing whatever to do with climate, and was even willing to cite articles published in a journal that also published a dog astrology paper, among other weird things. If those things are true, then his point is valid.
@bzoo1970 Barry didn't trash my list as he cherry picked two journals that represent only three papers on the list. The JSE publishes papers debunking astrology. The JSE can be described as a journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific papers relating to X-Files like subjects. In many cases the papers debunk these subjects. The JSE is the only such journal on the list. Please provide the objective criteria for determining if a journal is on-topic.
@populartechnology He didn't need to trash it any further. He pointed out how utterly lame your standards are for inclusion into your list. It clearly demonstrates that you're not trying to create a useful list. You're just trying to craft a big number.
It's too bad too. Your list could actually be a valuable resource to everyone if you had even the slightest capacity to be rational about your standards. But you've created an easy target that demonstrates the desperation of climate deniers.
@robhoneycutt, I missed that the Google Scholar illiterate (Rob) from Skeptical Science posted here who I embarrassed already. The criteria for inclusion is explicit and stated on the list, "All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm." Your only interest is to desperately attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments so people will not use it, you have failed.
@populartechnology Nice try, Andrew. Last time I checked Alexa for your site it looked to me like you weren't getting so much traffic. So either I'm succeeding or your list is lame to start with.
Dude, I think your list would be a useful tool if you weren't so over-the-top biased about how you manage it. Even Pielke Sr has issues with your list. Everyone has issues with your list, except for you.
@robhoneycutt, Alexa doesn't accurately measure the traffic my site gets you computer illiterate. I see the actual numbers and they it has hundreds of thousands of views. Do you not know how Alexa works either? Maybe I can give you an education in that like I did Google Scholar? Let me know when Skeptical Science uses Pielke Sr's papers to support their arguments. Oh wait you guys censored his comments the last time he tried to post there, what a joke.
@populartechnology lets pretend for a moment that the 900 papers are real papers in real peer reviewed journals which, no matter how you try to dress it up, they aren't, but lets pretend they are. Lets also pretend that you know what peer review is and how it works. Go to sciencedirect and look papers that demonstrate AGW as the reason for range extensions in various species. I'll see your dodgy 900 and raise you 40906 real papers and that's just ecology.
@uknowispeaksense, there is nothing to pretend as all of the 900 papers are very real, very peer-reviewed and appear in real peer-reviewed journals. No one has been able to prove otherwise despite repeated and failed attempts to do so. I did a search for "AGW" and "range extensions" at sciencedirect and came up with ZERO results. A search for "AGW" only in articles and journals came up with 1278 results. Epic fail.
@populartechnology spoken like someone with absolutley no understanding of how peer review works. Search for anthropogenic global warming and range extensions idiot. I am yet to see AGW appear in the title or abstract of any papers as scientific convention usually dcitates that abbreviations only be used in the body of a paper but of course you wouldn't know that. I'll look forward to a screenshot of your search. Meantime check out my lates video watch?v=_RIwsG_zcYI cont..
@uknowispeaksense You computer illiterate, did you not use an advanced search with those phrases in quotes? Otherwise you include results that have ANY of those words in them. I got 2 results. LMFAO!
@populartechnology cont... further, why don't you pick out your best paper from the 900 and send me a link to the full text and I'll quiz you on a few points. Bare in mind, I have actually read most of them so probably have a headstart on you.
@uknowispeaksense, you don't even know how to use sciencedirect you computer illiterate. Please forgive me while I ROFLMFAO about you "quizing" me on anything.
@populartechnology Typical denier deflection. Oh well, I guess you aren't up to the challenge. I'm also assuming you didn't watch my video? Didn't think so. Wilful ignorance is juvenile enough but using terms like "ROFLMFAO" really puts your juvenility on display. Come back and chat when you're more mature.
@uknowispeaksense, Where is your bullshit "40,906" papers you lying computer illiterate? Did you figure out how to use sciencedirect yet? I watched your video and you start off with myths about Malaria. Trying reading my list and you will see peer-reviewed papers refuting your nonsense about Malaria and warm climates, "From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age". Also Pine Beetle infestations are nothing new and have been happening for over a hundred years.
@populartechnology myths about malaria? right. You pick your best "paper" from your 900 list and I'll pick it apart for you. I'll ask you a few questions to see if you really know what you are talking about and we can go from there. What have you got to lose? You're already convinced that I don't know anything so here's your chance bigshot.
@uknowispeaksense, You cannot even search sciencedirect properly why do you believe you can pick a paper apart when you cannot even locate them? Produce your "40,906" papers bullshit boy.
@uknowispeaksense, I have already outsmarted you when you demonstrated your computer illiteracy by not knowing how to search sciencedirect. Your are a proven liar and bullshitter.
@populartechnology just as I suspected. I'm just curious though, Have you actually read any of those 900 papers? I have. In fact a couple of years ago I read quite a few. What is apparent is that some of the legitimate ones, you know the geophys res papers, must have been chosen for the list based solely on the title and abstract because they outwardly appear to cast doubt, but when you actually read them... but you aren't interested because I might just educate you. oh well.
@uknowispeaksense, Of course I read many of those papers. All the papers are legitimate despite your lies otherwise and they all support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm otherwise they would not be on the list. I am well aware of the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments people like you make about the papers on the list. You have already been shown to be a bullshitter and have had your education for the day on how to properly search ScienceDirect.
@populartechnology All the papers? Including Nature, Volume 464, Number 7287, pp. 744-747, April 2010) Minik T. Rosing et al.? This is the one (letter, not peer reviewed) that deals with the faint sun paradox. What is interesting about this are the three communications arising and published on June 2, 2011 from infinitely more qualified scientists that independently find the assumptions made fail on multiple levels.
@uknowispeaksense, how many times do I have to embarrass you? Nature "Letters" are short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields and are peer-reviewed. These should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor". Nature Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles are all Peer-Reviewed
@uknowispeaksense, you have repeatedly been shown to have no remote idea what you are talking about. Those communications have been responded to by the author, "Rosing, Bird, Sleep & Bjerrum reply" Nature, Volume 474, Number 7349, pp. E1, June 2011. Not qualified? Please. Dr. Rosing (Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Copenhagen) is one of Denmark's top Geologists. You are an embarrassment to the Internet with all the bullshit you post.
@populartechnology geologist.....archaen atmosphere. I fail to see the connection. Well I suppose next time you need some plumbing done you can always get an electrician. Afetr all they are both tradesmen. Just remember though that if you ever develop cancer a podiatrist isn't going to be much help. Also, could you please ouline for me how one extrapolates the atmosphere of billions of years ago to todays? But that aside, do you still maintain that all the papers are peer reviewed?
@uknowispeaksense, you fail at everything, this is confirmed. Bickmore is a Geologist and so is Michael Mann. Oh did you not know that? Next time you need an education in the diverse educational backgrounds in those who study climate issues let me know. Every counted paper on the list is peer-reviewed. Do you still keep lying that they are not? How many times do I have to educate you? Why do you keep embarrassing yourself and continue to post on the Internet?
@populartechnology I guess your standards for peer review must mean "Hey Bob, put down that thar screwdriver and check out this stuff I'm done writing about climate change for the Electricity Journal while I go and fetch me a gator fer supper." whatever. Still waiting for that explanation about comparing processes in Archaen atmosphere with todays? Since I fail at everything I can't wait to bask in the knowledge your scientific insights will provide.
@uknowispeaksense, The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication and is cited as such by EBSCO and ProQuest. Go contact the editor if you do not believe me.
@populartechnology I know full well how the review process works having been invited to review numerous papers. But here's the thing.... when I first started publishing in my field (ecology), I instantly received invites from dodgy journals (that you can find in EBSCO etc) to review papers NOT in my field like agriculture. Thats what dodgy journals with vested interests do. They seek out fresh impressionable scientists to review dodgy papers. Do you understand how peer review works?
@uknowispeaksense Clearly you don't since you just made that ignorant statement. This is supported by the fact that you did not know how to search sciencedirect and did not know that "Letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the Journal Nature. You are a joke.
@uknowispeaksense do you even understand how the peer-review process works? Reviewers are not journal specific they are professionals relating to the topic of the paper. Are you really this ignorant?
@populartechnology Just curious genius. Why have you got listed the gerlick paper and his response to comments made by Halpern et al but not the actual comments by Halpern? Could it be because the comments highlight basic fundamental flaws in Gerlich's understanding of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Gerlich essentially invented a whole new law (through error) and all his subsequent equations were so far out that they resulted in absurd physical impossibilities...how embarrassing
@populartechnology then where are the comments by Halpern et al? I can email it to you if you like to include on the list. Still waiting for your answer to the archaen climate/modern climate question?
@uknowispeaksense, Halpern's comments are on the Internet and will NEVER appear on the list nor will anything but documents defending the original papers, get over it bullshit boy.
@populartechnology do you not know how to explain why its okay to state that archaen atmospheric processes are analagous to atmospheric processes today? Hmmm i thought you knew about this stuff. Clearly I was wrong...or maybe.........
@populartechnology then you will continue to facilitate wilful ignorance. Is there some sort of need to make sure your fans remain less intelligent than yourself?
@uknowispeaksense, get over it bullshit boy, the list is a resource for skeptics not alarmists. Skeptics are more than capable of locating the comment a rebuttal references since it would be explicitly cited in the rebuttal.
@populartechnology true but I guess when you have the desire to remain wilfully ignorant....... hows that explanation for the archaen/modern atmosphere analogy coming along?
@uknowispeaksense, the list only includes the original paper and any rebuttals or supporting documents of that paper. Those attacking these papers almost never include this material so the list does.
@populartechnology cont... Since you compiled this ridiculous list, you must have come across the Halpern et al comments and deliberatley excluded it. That, my friend is intellectual dishonesty but thats not surprising coming from your ilk. I think I might have to dive a bit more deeply into this list and see what else I can find that is absurd...shouldn't be too difficult.
@populartechnology but it does only when it suits you. Cherrypicking to suit your argument is like cherrypicking data which seems to be the standard practice dor denialists who can't seem to publish in related journals so resort to The Electricity Journal. By the way, namecalling is juvenile. I might go and write a bullshit paper about electrical circuitry and get it published in the Peruvian Journal of Llama Husbandry. It has a long list of Llama farmers on the reviewer list.
@uknowispeaksense, What part of the list only includes the original paper and rebuttals or supporting documents of that paper do you not understand? The list is a resource for skeptics that only includes papers that support skeptic arguments thus it cannot be "cherry picked". This list does not discriminate against what peer-reviewed journals a paper is published in. Cherry picking is what Bickmore and you do. There are exactly 6 papers from the peer-reviewed Electricity Journal.
@populartechnology I was using that as an example. There are plenty of papers in your list publishing atmospheric science in completely unrelated journals. Lindzen was rejected so many times and was made a lughing stock when he asked to handpick his own reviewers. He ended up publishing in an obscure journal as well.
@uknowispeaksense, all of Lindzen's papers were peer-reviewed. As you are clearly unaware in various well known journals the author submits an initial list of reviewers for their papers at the request of the journal. The editor in charge of the review then decides whom to select.
@uknowispeaksense, The PNAS is dodgy? Their author submission policy includes the author providing 5 reviewers. You can't really be this ignorant on so many issues?
cherrypicking again? You forgot to mention they must also recommend 3 appropriate Editorial Board members and 3 NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific field. They are also encouraged to state why their reviewers are suitable. Then there's the whole conflict of interest thing...... how do you sleep at night?
cherrypicking again? You forgot to mention they must also recommend 3 appropriate Editorial Board members and 3 NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific field. They are also encouraged to state why their reviewers are suitable. Then there's the whole conflict of interest thing...... how do you sleep at night?
@uknowispeaksense, I've already replied you computer illiterate. Do you even know how to read comments on YouTube? Where are your 40,000 papers bullshit boy?
@populartechnology No you didn't. All you said was the "paper adds doubt." I want to know why you think a study of archean atmospheric conditions in analagous with present day climate? You might have to use a few sciency terms like w/m^2 or "infrared radiation" You see the thing is, you've put forward this list, most of which was compiled by someone else previously and you don't actually know if the papers are 1) legit or 2) actually able to be used for your argument.
@robhoneycutt, you are an absolute computer illiterate. Alexa traffic information is based on idiot Alexa toolbar users and it is not accurate. I see the site logs and the site has gotten hundreds of thousands of views. They even admit it is not accurate, "Due to statistical limitations for the remaining millions of sites, we are unable to provide accurate traffic data for sites not within the top 100,000." Do I need to educate you on how everything works?
@populartechnology You again? Where'd we leave off? Oh yeah, you were going to give me an estimate on how many published papers there are on global warming. You're a clever guy. Did you manage to work that out yet?
@populartechnology Come on, Andrew. Don't be a wuss. Show us how smart you really are. Come up with an estimate of how many published papers there are on global warming. I know you can! I have full faith in your abilities.
@robhoneycutt It immediately looks like a typical denier blog but I reckon people scroll down and see a global warming 'paper' in some ridiculous journal like the Hungarian Cheesemakers Chronicle of 1952 and know pretty much straight away that they aren't going to get good info. The others are deniers themselves who get there, look at all those papers and know they are too lazy and its easier to cut and paste anyway.
@uknowispeaksense, The "Hungarian Cheesemakers Chronicle" is not on the list. Only real scholarly peer-reviewed journals appear on the list. People can use the table of contents to see the Journal Citation List and the 257 scholarly peer-reviewed journals that appear on the list. There is nothing you can do about the list Rob, except state lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about it.
@populartechnology true it isn't on the list. You've got all those journals that everyone automatically recognises as being the pillars of accurate info about climate change. Journals like Drainage and Irrigation,The Electricity Journal, Iron & Steel Technology, Nordic Hydrology, and my favourite, Missouri Medicine. Next time I see a ditch digger, electrician, boilermaker, Scandanavian hydrologist or GP, I'll be sure to ask them for their expert opinions about climate change. What a classic!
@uknowispeaksense, Like I said you and Bickmore are the Cherry Pickers, all those are scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Since the debate involves so many diverse fields it is natural for papers to appear in various journals. Each of those journals has exactly one paper except for six from the Electricity Journal which deals with the energy industry,that is directly affected by climate change regulations. There is one person we know no one will be asking question from and that is you.
@populartechnology uh huh. Don't forget to visit the vet next time you get sick. They're both doctors after all. You clearly don't understand how dodgy your list is or why its dodgy in the first place so thats your problem. Most people are smart enough to know what they don't know but not you. NPD + wilful ignorance is an interesting mix and you have it in spades. good luck to you. I'll let u get the last word in because I don't have an ego to feed. I'll bet u drive a big car.
@uknowispeaksense, I have repeatedly refuted all of your nonsense for the world to see. My rebuttals were devastating to your BS claims; "40,000" results turned out to be "2", "Letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the journal Nature ect... You making more unfounded, nonsensical claims are as worthless as the rest you made. I don't need to drive big cars as I am already a very big boy which is why no one intimidates me.
@populartechnology archaen/modern atmosphere???? maybe you can't explain it because a) you actually don't know anything or b) you know enough to know that one is NOT analgous of the other so are ignoring the question. I just think that since you are pushing the paper you should at least know something about it.
@uknowispeaksense, I don't know anything? So far you did not know how to search sciencedirect, that "letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the journal Nature or that certain journals have the authors submit an initial list of reviewers for their papers. Your ignorance here is legendary just like all your lies, misinformation and strawman arguments made about the list.
@populartechnology I'll take that as a "no". Oh and letters are fast tracked and peer review is left to the discretion of the editor but you probably didn't know that.
@uknowispeaksense, If I could link here I would bury you. Peer-review policy - Nature - General information "The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles." Only " All forms of published correction" are peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editor you ignoramous. Cite were they are fast tracked, liar.
@populartechnology How about this, Andrew. You tell us how many papers there are on the subject of climate change or global warming. YOU give us a denominator.
@populartechnology I don't deny I said that but it's quite beside the point. The whole point of my article was that in order to put your list in perspective you need to look at a denominator.
@robhoneycutt, I am not afraid of your strawman arguments as demonstrated by my post utterly destroying yours "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science" and my hundreds of comments obliterating every single pathetic argument made at your site. Your guys were so afraid people might read them SkS banned me and deleted ALL of my comments. No poor boy SkS is afraid me.
@robhoneycutt, no you and SkS are scared of me. If I was so insane you should have let people read my "insanity". Instead they can read the obliteration of your post by Googling, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". They will soon be able to read about Rob the liar as well.
@robhoneycutt, people can Google your embarrassment here, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". Anyone computer literate (this excludes you and bullshit boy) can irrefutably see who won.
@populartechnology It must hurt so terribly for you to be so utterly crushed with one simple question. How many peer reviewed papers on GW are there? What is the denominator to your 900 papers?
@robhoneycutt, why do you keep repeating this strawman argument? Your failure can be found by Googling "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
@robhoneycutt, Lets make this clear, I WILL NEVER ANSWER YOUR STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS. My list has nothing to do with your nonsense. You have already been exposed as the liar that you are. All anyone needs to know is that ALL of my comments were censored (deleted) from Skeptical Science because they are afraid of me.
@populartechnology Andrew, it's a simple question. Anyone reading this will see that. You have 900 papers. Fine. Out of how many? Give us a figure for how many papers there are on GW.
@robhoneycutt, yes but this is utterly destroyed by, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". Notice I link to yours but out of fear you failed to link to mine.
@robhoneycutt, if you were not afraid of me you would never of censored me. Notice you did not even link to my rebuttal because you are afraid people will read it.
@populartechnology If it's a strawman then you have nothing to lose. Come on! What is the denominator to your 900 papers? Is it 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Give us an idea of what YOU think it is.
@populartechnology If the number of papers is irrelevant then why do you have a list claiming "900+ papers..."? Hm? That means your whole list is a strawman it and of itself.
@populartechnology Come on, Pop. Your list is 900 papers out of how many papers on global warming? Off the cuff guess. Give us an idea. Inquiring minds want to know.
@populartechnology Aw! Come on now. You're not being very inquisitive. Surely you want to know what fraction of GW research your list represents. You're avoiding the question.
@robhoneycutt, a paper that includes a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. Unlike you I understand these things.
@populartechnology Andrew, you have no idea because you don't WANT to know. You know the number is large, so large as to dwarf even your most biased efforts to create a list.
@robhoneycutt, I do not partake in meaningless exercises. How many papers include certain phrases is irrelevant to my list because a paper that includes a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. Despite your propaganda.
@populartechnology Come on Andrew! You pride yourself as being the kind of guy who can figure out stuff that others can't. You clearly have the skills to do this. But you don't want to because you know what will happen. It will show everyone how small a percentage of papers your list represents. Your big bad "900 papers" is actually a teenie-tiny fraction of the published research on global warming and you know it.
@robhoneycutt, Percentage of what? A paper that contains a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. None of which is relevant to my list. Your failure can be found by Googling, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
@populartechnology Come on, man. This is important. If there are 1500 peer reviewed papers on global warming then 900 papers challenging AGW alarm is significant. If there are 150M papers then not.
@robhoneycutt, how many papers that have the phrase "global warming" it irrelevant to my list. I consider 900 papers significant but what is "significant" is subjective.
@populartechnology Yes, Andrew, and that's why we use numbers to give an objective perspective on things. 900 is a numerator. You need a denominator for rational objective evaluation.
@robhoneycutt, 900 is is rough numerical total of my list. Calling it a numerator is a strawman argument because I made no such claim. "Perspective" is subjective and cannot be objective you idiot.
@populartechnology You're avoiding the issue! If your list represents less than 1% of the published literature on global warming then you know what that implies. You just can't admit it.
@robhoneycutt, it represents you are an idiot. 1% of papers containing a certain phrase does not mean the other 99% is "GW research". 1% of papers that includes a certain phrase does not mean the other 99% supports ACC/AGW.
@populartechnology Andrew, I'd almost be willing to bet you that I could find as many papers on the "expanding earth" theory. Maybe not quite, but close.
"Truth-challenged people" - I love that phrase.
Great job, Barry.
ClimateSightful 1 week ago
Wow! What a refreshingly straightforward vid. Subbed.
smhussain62 2 months ago
suprduprlemontrooper,
Sure, there are local complications, but most places have two tides a day. Either way, Galileo was wrong about this, which is what Bickmore's point was.
bzoo1970 3 months ago
I'm not an expert on everything he said, but I know for a fact that he knows nothing about tides. the comment at 27:50 is wrong. There are diurnal tides, semidiurnal tides, and mixed tides all over the world.
suprduprlemontrooper 3 months ago
Why is Barry making things up? Most of the articles in the 900+ peer-reviewed list are not from those two journals or even journals similar to them. Those two journals represent exactly 3 papers on the list, if you remove them you still have over 900 papers from 255 other scholarly peer-reviewed journals. The complete journal list is included in the notes following the list. Nature and Science are not "climate science" journals either they simply also publish papers on the subject of climate.
populartechnology 3 months ago
@populartechnology apparently doesn't like that Barry trashed his list. Bickmore's point, however, was that PT didn't exhibit much concern about the quality of his list. He used any number of journals that have nothing whatever to do with climate, and was even willing to cite articles published in a journal that also published a dog astrology paper, among other weird things. If those things are true, then his point is valid.
bzoo1970 3 months ago 2
@bzoo1970 Barry didn't trash my list as he cherry picked two journals that represent only three papers on the list. The JSE publishes papers debunking astrology. The JSE can be described as a journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific papers relating to X-Files like subjects. In many cases the papers debunk these subjects. The JSE is the only such journal on the list. Please provide the objective criteria for determining if a journal is on-topic.
populartechnology 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@populartechnology He didn't need to trash it any further. He pointed out how utterly lame your standards are for inclusion into your list. It clearly demonstrates that you're not trying to create a useful list. You're just trying to craft a big number.
It's too bad too. Your list could actually be a valuable resource to everyone if you had even the slightest capacity to be rational about your standards. But you've created an easy target that demonstrates the desperation of climate deniers.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt, I missed that the Google Scholar illiterate (Rob) from Skeptical Science posted here who I embarrassed already. The criteria for inclusion is explicit and stated on the list, "All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm." Your only interest is to desperately attack it with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments so people will not use it, you have failed.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Nice try, Andrew. Last time I checked Alexa for your site it looked to me like you weren't getting so much traffic. So either I'm succeeding or your list is lame to start with.
Dude, I think your list would be a useful tool if you weren't so over-the-top biased about how you manage it. Even Pielke Sr has issues with your list. Everyone has issues with your list, except for you.
Oh, and that would be "whom" no "who."
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, Alexa doesn't accurately measure the traffic my site gets you computer illiterate. I see the actual numbers and they it has hundreds of thousands of views. Do you not know how Alexa works either? Maybe I can give you an education in that like I did Google Scholar? Let me know when Skeptical Science uses Pielke Sr's papers to support their arguments. Oh wait you guys censored his comments the last time he tried to post there, what a joke.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology The issue with your list remains, if you apply any rational denominator to it your list become a very tiny number.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, despite your Google Scholar illiterate article, you have failed to do this.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology lets pretend for a moment that the 900 papers are real papers in real peer reviewed journals which, no matter how you try to dress it up, they aren't, but lets pretend they are. Lets also pretend that you know what peer review is and how it works. Go to sciencedirect and look papers that demonstrate AGW as the reason for range extensions in various species. I'll see your dodgy 900 and raise you 40906 real papers and that's just ecology.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, there is nothing to pretend as all of the 900 papers are very real, very peer-reviewed and appear in real peer-reviewed journals. No one has been able to prove otherwise despite repeated and failed attempts to do so. I did a search for "AGW" and "range extensions" at sciencedirect and came up with ZERO results. A search for "AGW" only in articles and journals came up with 1278 results. Epic fail.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology spoken like someone with absolutley no understanding of how peer review works. Search for anthropogenic global warming and range extensions idiot. I am yet to see AGW appear in the title or abstract of any papers as scientific convention usually dcitates that abbreviations only be used in the body of a paper but of course you wouldn't know that. I'll look forward to a screenshot of your search. Meantime check out my lates video watch?v=_RIwsG_zcYI cont..
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
Comment removed
populartechnology 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense You computer illiterate, did you not use an advanced search with those phrases in quotes? Otherwise you include results that have ANY of those words in them. I got 2 results. LMFAO!
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology cont... further, why don't you pick out your best paper from the 900 and send me a link to the full text and I'll quiz you on a few points. Bare in mind, I have actually read most of them so probably have a headstart on you.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, you don't even know how to use sciencedirect you computer illiterate. Please forgive me while I ROFLMFAO about you "quizing" me on anything.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Typical denier deflection. Oh well, I guess you aren't up to the challenge. I'm also assuming you didn't watch my video? Didn't think so. Wilful ignorance is juvenile enough but using terms like "ROFLMFAO" really puts your juvenility on display. Come back and chat when you're more mature.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Where is your bullshit "40,906" papers you lying computer illiterate? Did you figure out how to use sciencedirect yet? I watched your video and you start off with myths about Malaria. Trying reading my list and you will see peer-reviewed papers refuting your nonsense about Malaria and warm climates, "From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age". Also Pine Beetle infestations are nothing new and have been happening for over a hundred years.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology myths about malaria? right. You pick your best "paper" from your 900 list and I'll pick it apart for you. I'll ask you a few questions to see if you really know what you are talking about and we can go from there. What have you got to lose? You're already convinced that I don't know anything so here's your chance bigshot.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, You cannot even search sciencedirect properly why do you believe you can pick a paper apart when you cannot even locate them? Produce your "40,906" papers bullshit boy.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Your phrase on your site should be, "I cannot change the world because I am a computer illiterate". ROFLMFAO!
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology well you should have no problem outsmarting me with one of your 900 then should you?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, I have already outsmarted you when you demonstrated your computer illiteracy by not knowing how to search sciencedirect. Your are a proven liar and bullshitter.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology then come and outsmart me again blowhard.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, that would be too cruel.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology just as I suspected. I'm just curious though, Have you actually read any of those 900 papers? I have. In fact a couple of years ago I read quite a few. What is apparent is that some of the legitimate ones, you know the geophys res papers, must have been chosen for the list based solely on the title and abstract because they outwardly appear to cast doubt, but when you actually read them... but you aren't interested because I might just educate you. oh well.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Of course I read many of those papers. All the papers are legitimate despite your lies otherwise and they all support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm otherwise they would not be on the list. I am well aware of the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments people like you make about the papers on the list. You have already been shown to be a bullshitter and have had your education for the day on how to properly search ScienceDirect.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology All the papers? Including Nature, Volume 464, Number 7287, pp. 744-747, April 2010) Minik T. Rosing et al.? This is the one (letter, not peer reviewed) that deals with the faint sun paradox. What is interesting about this are the three communications arising and published on June 2, 2011 from infinitely more qualified scientists that independently find the assumptions made fail on multiple levels.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, how many times do I have to embarrass you? Nature "Letters" are short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields and are peer-reviewed. These should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor". Nature Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles are all Peer-Reviewed
populartechnology 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, you have repeatedly been shown to have no remote idea what you are talking about. Those communications have been responded to by the author, "Rosing, Bird, Sleep & Bjerrum reply" Nature, Volume 474, Number 7349, pp. E1, June 2011. Not qualified? Please. Dr. Rosing (Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Copenhagen) is one of Denmark's top Geologists. You are an embarrassment to the Internet with all the bullshit you post.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology geologist.....archaen atmosphere. I fail to see the connection. Well I suppose next time you need some plumbing done you can always get an electrician. Afetr all they are both tradesmen. Just remember though that if you ever develop cancer a podiatrist isn't going to be much help. Also, could you please ouline for me how one extrapolates the atmosphere of billions of years ago to todays? But that aside, do you still maintain that all the papers are peer reviewed?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, you fail at everything, this is confirmed. Bickmore is a Geologist and so is Michael Mann. Oh did you not know that? Next time you need an education in the diverse educational backgrounds in those who study climate issues let me know. Every counted paper on the list is peer-reviewed. Do you still keep lying that they are not? How many times do I have to educate you? Why do you keep embarrassing yourself and continue to post on the Internet?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Mann is a Physicist and a Climatologist, not a geologist.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt Michael Mann has a Ph.D. in Geology from Yale University.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I guess your standards for peer review must mean "Hey Bob, put down that thar screwdriver and check out this stuff I'm done writing about climate change for the Electricity Journal while I go and fetch me a gator fer supper." whatever. Still waiting for that explanation about comparing processes in Archaen atmosphere with todays? Since I fail at everything I can't wait to bask in the knowledge your scientific insights will provide.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication and is cited as such by EBSCO and ProQuest. Go contact the editor if you do not believe me.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology But how many of the reviewers for the journal are climate experts? I'm betting none.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
Comment removed
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I know full well how the review process works having been invited to review numerous papers. But here's the thing.... when I first started publishing in my field (ecology), I instantly received invites from dodgy journals (that you can find in EBSCO etc) to review papers NOT in my field like agriculture. Thats what dodgy journals with vested interests do. They seek out fresh impressionable scientists to review dodgy papers. Do you understand how peer review works?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense Clearly you don't since you just made that ignorant statement. This is supported by the fact that you did not know how to search sciencedirect and did not know that "Letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the Journal Nature. You are a joke.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology what was that movie about snooker with Paul Newman?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense do you even understand how the peer-review process works? Reviewers are not journal specific they are professionals relating to the topic of the paper. Are you really this ignorant?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Just curious genius. Why have you got listed the gerlick paper and his response to comments made by Halpern et al but not the actual comments by Halpern? Could it be because the comments highlight basic fundamental flaws in Gerlich's understanding of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Gerlich essentially invented a whole new law (through error) and all his subsequent equations were so far out that they resulted in absurd physical impossibilities...how embarrassing
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
Comment removed
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology you can't have it both ways
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, I don't have it both ways. I include the documents alarmists don't.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology then where are the comments by Halpern et al? I can email it to you if you like to include on the list. Still waiting for your answer to the archaen climate/modern climate question?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Halpern's comments are on the Internet and will NEVER appear on the list nor will anything but documents defending the original papers, get over it bullshit boy.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology do you not know how to explain why its okay to state that archaen atmospheric processes are analagous to atmospheric processes today? Hmmm i thought you knew about this stuff. Clearly I was wrong...or maybe.........
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, the paper in question adds doubt to CO2 and greenhouse theory explaining climate phenomena.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology then you will continue to facilitate wilful ignorance. Is there some sort of need to make sure your fans remain less intelligent than yourself?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, get over it bullshit boy, the list is a resource for skeptics not alarmists. Skeptics are more than capable of locating the comment a rebuttal references since it would be explicitly cited in the rebuttal.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology true but I guess when you have the desire to remain wilfully ignorant....... hows that explanation for the archaen/modern atmosphere analogy coming along?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense, the list only includes the original paper and any rebuttals or supporting documents of that paper. Those attacking these papers almost never include this material so the list does.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology cont... Since you compiled this ridiculous list, you must have come across the Halpern et al comments and deliberatley excluded it. That, my friend is intellectual dishonesty but thats not surprising coming from your ilk. I think I might have to dive a bit more deeply into this list and see what else I can find that is absurd...shouldn't be too difficult.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, deal with it bullshit boy. This is a resource for skeptics so it will never include rebutted commentary.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology but it does only when it suits you. Cherrypicking to suit your argument is like cherrypicking data which seems to be the standard practice dor denialists who can't seem to publish in related journals so resort to The Electricity Journal. By the way, namecalling is juvenile. I might go and write a bullshit paper about electrical circuitry and get it published in the Peruvian Journal of Llama Husbandry. It has a long list of Llama farmers on the reviewer list.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, What part of the list only includes the original paper and rebuttals or supporting documents of that paper do you not understand? The list is a resource for skeptics that only includes papers that support skeptic arguments thus it cannot be "cherry picked". This list does not discriminate against what peer-reviewed journals a paper is published in. Cherry picking is what Bickmore and you do. There are exactly 6 papers from the peer-reviewed Electricity Journal.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I was using that as an example. There are plenty of papers in your list publishing atmospheric science in completely unrelated journals. Lindzen was rejected so many times and was made a lughing stock when he asked to handpick his own reviewers. He ended up publishing in an obscure journal as well.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, all of Lindzen's papers were peer-reviewed. As you are clearly unaware in various well known journals the author submits an initial list of reviewers for their papers at the request of the journal. The editor in charge of the review then decides whom to select.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology "in various well known journals"
You left out the word dodgy.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, The PNAS is dodgy? Their author submission policy includes the author providing 5 reviewers. You can't really be this ignorant on so many issues?
populartechnology 1 week ago
cherrypicking again? You forgot to mention they must also recommend 3 appropriate Editorial Board members and 3 NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific field. They are also encouraged to state why their reviewers are suitable. Then there's the whole conflict of interest thing...... how do you sleep at night?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cherrypicking again? You forgot to mention they must also recommend 3 appropriate Editorial Board members and 3 NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific field. They are also encouraged to state why their reviewers are suitable. Then there's the whole conflict of interest thing...... how do you sleep at night?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@populartechnology still waiting...... you don't know do you?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, I've already replied you computer illiterate. Do you even know how to read comments on YouTube? Where are your 40,000 papers bullshit boy?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology No you didn't. All you said was the "paper adds doubt." I want to know why you think a study of archean atmospheric conditions in analagous with present day climate? You might have to use a few sciency terms like w/m^2 or "infrared radiation" You see the thing is, you've put forward this list, most of which was compiled by someone else previously and you don't actually know if the papers are 1) legit or 2) actually able to be used for your argument.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Now you are lying that I did not compile the list myself? How dishonest are you?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology so you are.....proud of your list? wow.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense He's also quite proud of his navel too. His site doesn't even register on Alexa.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, you are an absolute computer illiterate. Alexa traffic information is based on idiot Alexa toolbar users and it is not accurate. I see the site logs and the site has gotten hundreds of thousands of views. They even admit it is not accurate, "Due to statistical limitations for the remaining millions of sites, we are unable to provide accurate traffic data for sites not within the top 100,000." Do I need to educate you on how everything works?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology You again? Where'd we leave off? Oh yeah, you were going to give me an estimate on how many published papers there are on global warming. You're a clever guy. Did you manage to work that out yet?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, Quote where I stated I was going to give you such an estimate of how many papers contain a certain phrase.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on, Andrew. Don't be a wuss. Show us how smart you really are. Come up with an estimate of how many published papers there are on global warming. I know you can! I have full faith in your abilities.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, are you mentally disabled? Try reading my multiple responses to this.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Andrew. Come on. Are you really going to wuss out on us?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, apparently you are illiterate in addition to being computer illiterate.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense HA! Just looking up more info on poptech's site. He has an 82% bounce rate going. So sad.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt It immediately looks like a typical denier blog but I reckon people scroll down and see a global warming 'paper' in some ridiculous journal like the Hungarian Cheesemakers Chronicle of 1952 and know pretty much straight away that they aren't going to get good info. The others are deniers themselves who get there, look at all those papers and know they are too lazy and its easier to cut and paste anyway.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, The "Hungarian Cheesemakers Chronicle" is not on the list. Only real scholarly peer-reviewed journals appear on the list. People can use the table of contents to see the Journal Citation List and the 257 scholarly peer-reviewed journals that appear on the list. There is nothing you can do about the list Rob, except state lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about it.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology true it isn't on the list. You've got all those journals that everyone automatically recognises as being the pillars of accurate info about climate change. Journals like Drainage and Irrigation,The Electricity Journal, Iron & Steel Technology, Nordic Hydrology, and my favourite, Missouri Medicine. Next time I see a ditch digger, electrician, boilermaker, Scandanavian hydrologist or GP, I'll be sure to ask them for their expert opinions about climate change. What a classic!
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, Like I said you and Bickmore are the Cherry Pickers, all those are scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Since the debate involves so many diverse fields it is natural for papers to appear in various journals. Each of those journals has exactly one paper except for six from the Electricity Journal which deals with the energy industry,that is directly affected by climate change regulations. There is one person we know no one will be asking question from and that is you.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology uh huh. Don't forget to visit the vet next time you get sick. They're both doctors after all. You clearly don't understand how dodgy your list is or why its dodgy in the first place so thats your problem. Most people are smart enough to know what they don't know but not you. NPD + wilful ignorance is an interesting mix and you have it in spades. good luck to you. I'll let u get the last word in because I don't have an ego to feed. I'll bet u drive a big car.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, I have repeatedly refuted all of your nonsense for the world to see. My rebuttals were devastating to your BS claims; "40,000" results turned out to be "2", "Letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the journal Nature ect... You making more unfounded, nonsensical claims are as worthless as the rest you made. I don't need to drive big cars as I am already a very big boy which is why no one intimidates me.
populartechnology 6 days ago
@uknowispeaksense, why would I not be proud of a useful resource I created? I am still waiting on your imaginary "40,000" papers.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology archaen/modern atmosphere???? maybe you can't explain it because a) you actually don't know anything or b) you know enough to know that one is NOT analgous of the other so are ignoring the question. I just think that since you are pushing the paper you should at least know something about it.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, I don't know anything? So far you did not know how to search sciencedirect, that "letters" are a peer-reviewed scientific publication in the journal Nature or that certain journals have the authors submit an initial list of reviewers for their papers. Your ignorance here is legendary just like all your lies, misinformation and strawman arguments made about the list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I'll take that as a "no". Oh and letters are fast tracked and peer review is left to the discretion of the editor but you probably didn't know that.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense, If I could link here I would bury you. Peer-review policy - Nature - General information "The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles." Only " All forms of published correction" are peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editor you ignoramous. Cite were they are fast tracked, liar.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I think I get it now, Andrew. You're kind of the Rodney Dangerfield of climate deniers.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, how does it feel to be exposed as the liar your are on my site? The truth hurts.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Ah, being called something I'm not on a site that no one goes to? ...Not worried about it.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
Comment removed
populartechnology 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt are you denying you made that comment liar? My site has had hundreds of thousands of views and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology How about this, Andrew. You tell us how many papers there are on the subject of climate change or global warming. YOU give us a denominator.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, How about I make a post exposing Rob the liar with a nice screenshot I saved of your original post?
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I don't deny I said that but it's quite beside the point. The whole point of my article was that in order to put your list in perspective you need to look at a denominator.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, so you admit you lied? Your admission of lying means nothing you say can be trusted.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Are you admitting that you are afraid of the denominator?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@populartechnology And we ABSOLUTELY know nothing about your list can be trusted. That's for damn sure.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, coming from a self-admitted liar. Everything on my list is fully cited to the original paper. I have nothing to hide.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Ah, nothing to hide except any kind of rational perspective.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@populartechnology I'm waiting on a denominator from you.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@populartechnology FACT is, YOU are afraid of the denominator and you know it.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I am not afraid of your strawman arguments as demonstrated by my post utterly destroying yours "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science" and my hundreds of comments obliterating every single pathetic argument made at your site. Your guys were so afraid people might read them SkS banned me and deleted ALL of my comments. No poor boy SkS is afraid me.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology You were deleted because you are freaking insane!!
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, no you and SkS are scared of me. If I was so insane you should have let people read my "insanity". Instead they can read the obliteration of your post by Googling, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". They will soon be able to read about Rob the liar as well.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on wuss. Give us a denominator. How many peer reviewed papers are out there on climate change or global warming?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I don't partake in meaningless exercises based on strawman arguments.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology HAHAHA!! You are a freaking joke!! You can't even ponder this simple fact. How many climate papers are out there?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, people can Google your embarrassment here, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". Anyone computer literate (this excludes you and bullshit boy) can irrefutably see who won.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology It must hurt so terribly for you to be so utterly crushed with one simple question. How many peer reviewed papers on GW are there? What is the denominator to your 900 papers?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, why do you keep repeating this strawman argument? Your failure can be found by Googling "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on, Popdude. You say you've got 900 papers. Out of how many? How many papers on global warming are there?
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, Lets make this clear, I WILL NEVER ANSWER YOUR STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS. My list has nothing to do with your nonsense. You have already been exposed as the liar that you are. All anyone needs to know is that ALL of my comments were censored (deleted) from Skeptical Science because they are afraid of me.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Andrew, it's a simple question. Anyone reading this will see that. You have 900 papers. Fine. Out of how many? Give us a figure for how many papers there are on GW.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@populartechnology You will never answer this question because you KNOW it destroys your list.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, it is impossible for a strawman argument to destroy my list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Anyone reading this would not see this as a strawman argument. You know that.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, they can decide for themselves by Googling "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology They can also google "Meet the Denominator." (BTW, it was quite the clever metaphor, if I do say so myself.)
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, yes but this is utterly destroyed by, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science". Notice I link to yours but out of fear you failed to link to mine.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology "because they are afraid of me"
No, Andrew. It's because you're a freak.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, if you were not afraid of me you would never of censored me. Notice you did not even link to my rebuttal because you are afraid people will read it.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology If you were NOT afraid of my question you'd answer it.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt, they can decide if I am afraid by Googling "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
populartechnology 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt And you have STILL never managed to admit that any rational estimation of the denominator utterly crushes your list. It's just a fact.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I do not admit to wins via strawman arguments.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology If it's a strawman then you have nothing to lose. Come on! What is the denominator to your 900 papers? Is it 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Give us an idea of what YOU think it is.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I do not partake in meaningless exercises. How many papers that include a search phrase is irrelevant to how many support a theory.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology If the number of papers is irrelevant then why do you have a list claiming "900+ papers..."? Hm? That means your whole list is a strawman it and of itself.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, To give people a rough idea of how many papers are on the list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology But the number is a strawman according to you.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I never said the numerical total of papers on my list was a strawman argument.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Ah, I see. So a numerator is perfectly rational but PLEASE don't attach a denominator because that would be a "strawman."
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, it is a strawman argument that the numerical total of my list is a numerator. I made no such claim.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on, Pop. Your list is 900 papers out of how many papers on global warming? Off the cuff guess. Give us an idea. Inquiring minds want to know.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I have no idea how many papers include certain phrases since it is a strawman argument in relation to my list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Aw! Come on now. You're not being very inquisitive. Surely you want to know what fraction of GW research your list represents. You're avoiding the question.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, a paper that includes a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. Unlike you I understand these things.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I'm not asking you for papers that support or refute GW, AGW or CAGW. Just want to know, how many papers are there on GW. Period.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I have no idea as it is a strawman argument and meaningless to my list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Andrew, you have no idea because you don't WANT to know. You know the number is large, so large as to dwarf even your most biased efforts to create a list.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt, I do not partake in meaningless exercises. How many papers include certain phrases is irrelevant to my list because a paper that includes a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. Despite your propaganda.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology And the only thing that makes it a strawman is your desire to avoid the question.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, I haven't avoided it you idiot, I repeatedly stated I do not know how many papers have certain phrases as it is irrelevant to my list.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on Andrew! You pride yourself as being the kind of guy who can figure out stuff that others can't. You clearly have the skills to do this. But you don't want to because you know what will happen. It will show everyone how small a percentage of papers your list represents. Your big bad "900 papers" is actually a teenie-tiny fraction of the published research on global warming and you know it.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt, Percentage of what? A paper that contains a certain phrase does not make it "GW research". A paper that includes a certain phrase does not mean it supports ACC/AGW. None of which is relevant to my list. Your failure can be found by Googling, "Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science".
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology You say you have 900 papers. Put it in perspective for us.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, it already is in perspective.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology The only perspective your list has is your insanely biased perspective.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@populartechnology Come on, man. This is important. If there are 1500 peer reviewed papers on global warming then 900 papers challenging AGW alarm is significant. If there are 150M papers then not.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, how many papers that have the phrase "global warming" it irrelevant to my list. I consider 900 papers significant but what is "significant" is subjective.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Yes, Andrew, and that's why we use numbers to give an objective perspective on things. 900 is a numerator. You need a denominator for rational objective evaluation.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, 900 is is rough numerical total of my list. Calling it a numerator is a strawman argument because I made no such claim. "Perspective" is subjective and cannot be objective you idiot.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology You're avoiding the issue! If your list represents less than 1% of the published literature on global warming then you know what that implies. You just can't admit it.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt, it represents you are an idiot. 1% of papers containing a certain phrase does not mean the other 99% is "GW research". 1% of papers that includes a certain phrase does not mean the other 99% supports ACC/AGW.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology Andrew, I'd almost be willing to bet you that I could find as many papers on the "expanding earth" theory. Maybe not quite, but close.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago
@robhoneycutt, there is nothing you can do about my list. People reference it all the time. Just remember that.
populartechnology 1 week ago
@populartechnology I have to say, I'm so enjoying this. I love watching you squirm, Andrew.
robhoneycutt 1 week ago