Ogre
November 17, 2009, 7:02pm
41
I agree. I used to read the early threads between JShore and intention with great interest; following all the links posted and even searching for more evidence to support what one or the other was saying. Those threads were among the more interesting and educational threads present on the Dope, and I was always checked to see if there was a debate occurring between the two. Then I started to notice some things about the debates which, over a year or two, made me decide that he was full of shit:Brazil84 , and it was all down hill from there. These days, a typical argument goes something like this:intention : AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years).response : A is true, but A (localized, short term, cooling) does not invalidate AGW. Also A has been shown to be caused by x (say increased clouds due to rising ocean temperatures or something) by scientists in these studies (x, y, z).intention : Thank you for responding. AGW is false because A and B (where B is something like increasing temperatures on Uranus).response : Look, we already covered A, why can’t you concede the point? Did I stutter? Is there a flaw with the studies I linked to? Regarding B, you are wrong. Reports of rising temperature on Uranus was actually a misrepresentation of what was happening on this popular niche porn site (cite). Anyway, there are these 5 studies (u, v, x, y, z) that show that Uranus, or for that matter any other planet besides Earth, has not been warming.intention : Thanks for your response, but AGW is false because of A and B, and anyway there was scientific consensus in the 1940s that the earth was in imminent danger of entering another ice age.response : Hello, is this thing on? Why are you still talking about A and B? And this argument about an imminent ice age was only made by one scientist while he was trying to come up with a possible scenario that would explain the book Dune in a during an interview in Popular Science (cite). Nobody really believed that, in fact here are a bunch of articles showing exactly the opposite: s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z.intention : Thank you for your response, I find these debates very pleasurable. The models used by the IPCC scientists don’t properly take into account the albedo of walrus spit, and thus it is clear that the earth has been cooling due to increased insolation.response : Wait, that is not even logical. The models have been tested, but even if you are right that doesn’t mean that AGW is wrong as a theory or that the earth is cooling. And anyway, there have been a bunch of studies showing that insolation has not increased. Look at the studies linked above (s, t, v and w).intention : Thank you for your continued involvement in this debate. Gore takes first class flights! Also B.response : Wah?intention : Thank you for your measured response. Nutare (a publication put out by Russian Academy of Truck Drivers) put out this list of 550 veterinarians that don’t believe in AGW, yet other, equally prestiges publications like Science and the International Journal of Climatology won’t publish this work by these highly educated professionals because Al Gore is fellating them. AGW is not only wrong, but a conspiracy by the 234,000 scientists to make money so they can fly first class with Al Gore. This combined with the fact that A=A should be convincing enough even to the village idiot that AGW is completely without merit.response : Please stop! I’m begging you!intention : Thank you, it is always a pleasure debating with you. AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years).
Note for those mods or mod-wannabes lacing up your jack boots: the above interaction is a parody and does not contain real quotes by intention or any other poster. If you think I a falsely attributing these quotes to him, get a fucking grip and switch to decaf.
This is why you folks who continue to fight with folks like this have both my respect, and a hearty :rolleyes: at the same time. I respect you because you are willing to continue pounding your head against the wall of ignorance (or in intention ’s case, prevarication and dishonesty). That’s admirable. At the same time, you get a :rolleyes: for a few reasons. 1) What do you hope to accomplish? 2) Is there nothing better to do with your lives (say, like kill hookers in GTA or needlepoint)? 3) Do you honestly think you’re going to accomplish anything with regards to either changing intention ’s mind, or influencing any undecided lurkers who breathlessly await your next post?
You never know. Gandhi said something to the effect that its entirely possible that your efforts to advance justice will come to nothing, but that has no effect on your responsibility to try.
Ogre
November 17, 2009, 7:13pm
43
I’m pretty sure Gandhi didn’t have slacking off on a message board in mind when he said that.
intention: AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years).
This is precious. I’m being pitted for imaginary dialogue. You make up a bunch of madness and bust me for your fantasies? Man, this is great. You have too much time on your hands.
Ogre:
Is there nothing better to do with your lives (say, like kill hookers in GTA or needlepoint)?
I was unaware that one could kill hookers in needlepoint.
And what is this “GTA” of which he speaks? This is not the way of my people.
elucidator:
His pretensions of being a published authority on the issue are pure horseshit. Following up on his claim to being published by a peer-reviewed journal, you can readily see that he is a hopped up wannabe. Googling the name revealed (by him!) shows no such publications, but merely a string of posts to various web sites, some related to actual science journals, some not so much.
His arguments stand or fall on their own. Well, actually, they burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp. But his claims to acknowledged expertise are total horseshit.
Another flat out lie, like lobohan’s claim that I am a conspiracy theorist. I have never claimed to be a “published authority”, that’s just your jealousy speaking. As I have said, I published a peer reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine. It is available here .
I have also published two articles, one peer reviewed and one not peer reviewed but critically discussed in the journal, in Energy and Environment. They are available here and here .
You think I’m full of bullshit, fine. I notice that all you do to establish that is tell lies. You never discuss the science. There’s what I have published in the scientific arena. If you or anyone else think it is wrong, point out where … I won’t hold my breath. You are all too happy to make accusations, but when it comes down to discussing the science, you run like cockroaches from a light.
I invite you to show me where my science is wrong. You have what I have written, tear it apart. That’s what science is about, not your pissant backstabbing.
So as usual, you are flat out lying to blacken someone’s name. Why am I not surprised.
Lobohan:
Originally Posted by intention
In other words, you don’t have a citation. You are a lying sack of shit who makes accusations but can’t back them up with a citation to what I am supposed to have said. Now you want to move the goalposts, you’ve given up on claiming that I am a “conspiracy theorist”. Now you claim I think “AGW is a fraud”. New claim, same bullshit. Where did I ever say it was a “fraud”? You think I don’t notice when you just make shit up? Cite?
I agree. I used to read the early threads between JShore and intention with great interest; following all the links posted and even searching for more evidence to support what one or the other was saying. Those threads were among the more interesting and educational threads present on the Dope, and I was always checked to see if there was a debate occurring between the two. Then I started to notice some things about the debates which, over a year or two, made me decide that he was full of shit:Brazil84 , and it was all down hill from there. These days, a typical argument goes something like this:intention : AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years).response : A is true, but A (localized, short term, cooling) does not invalidate AGW. Also A has been shown to be caused by x (say increased clouds due to rising ocean temperatures or something) by scientists in these studies (x, y, z).intention : Thank you for responding. AGW is false because A and B (where B is something like increasing temperatures on Uranus).response : Look, we already covered A, why can’t you concede the point? Did I stutter? Is there a flaw with the studies I linked to? Regarding B, you are wrong. Reports of rising temperature on Uranus was actually a misrepresentation of what was happening on this popular niche porn site (cite). Anyway, there are these 5 studies (u, v, x, y, z) that show that Uranus, or for that matter any other planet besides Earth, has not been warming.intention : Thanks for your response, but AGW is false because of A and B, and anyway there was scientific consensus in the 1940s that the earth was in imminent danger of entering another ice age.response : Hello, is this thing on? Why are you still talking about A and B? And this argument about an imminent ice age was only made by one scientist while he was trying to come up with a possible scenario that would explain the book Dune in a during an interview in Popular Science (cite). Nobody really believed that, in fact here are a bunch of articles showing exactly the opposite: s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z.intention : Thank you for your response, I find these debates very pleasurable. The models used by the IPCC scientists don’t properly take into account the albedo of walrus spit, and thus it is clear that the earth has been cooling due to increased insolation.response : Wait, that is not even logical. The models have been tested, but even if you are right that doesn’t mean that AGW is wrong as a theory or that the earth is cooling. And anyway, there have been a bunch of studies showing that insolation has not increased. Look at the studies linked above (s, t, v and w).intention : Thank you for your continued involvement in this debate. Gore takes first class flights! Also B.response : Wah?intention : Thank you for your measured response. Nutare (a publication put out by Russian Academy of Truck Drivers) put out this list of 550 veterinarians that don’t believe in AGW, yet other, equally prestiges publications like Science and the International Journal of Climatology won’t publish this work by these highly educated professionals because Al Gore is fellating them. AGW is not only wrong, but a conspiracy by the 234,000 scientists to make money so they can fly first class with Al Gore. This combined with the fact that A=A should be convincing enough even to the village idiot that AGW is completely without merit.response : Please stop! I’m begging you!intention : Thank you, it is always a pleasure debating with you. AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years).
Note for those mods or mod-wannabes lacing up your jack boots: the above interaction is a parody and does not contain real quotes by intention or any other poster. If you think I a falsely attributing these quotes to him, get a fucking grip and switch to decaf.
The same stated more briefly.
Lobohan
November 17, 2009, 7:40pm
50
You’re being pitted because you’re a stupid lying whore. The quoted dialogue is simply supporting evidence.[
Furthermore, Reader’s Digest is considering publishing two of his jokes.
Lobohan
November 17, 2009, 7:43pm
52
intention:
In other words, you don’t have a citation. You are a lying sack of shit who makes accusations but can’t back them up with a citation to what I am supposed to have said. Now you want to move the goalposts, you’ve given up on claiming that I am a “conspiracy theorist”. Now you claim I think “AGW is a fraud”. New claim, same bullshit. Where did I ever say it was a “fraud”? You think I don’t notice when you just make shit up? Cite?
You are a conspiracy theorist. You think the IPCC is misrepresenting how many climate scientists are signed on to the report.
You are a vile little lying insect and you are simply too stupid and dishonest to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
heatmiserfl:
Yup, I noticed that too. He starts out polite. Then he kindly guides you through grade school science concepts because he assumes you’re a rube. Finally, when he knows for sure you’re on to him, he vacillates between attacking you and accusing you of attacking him.
In fact, when I googled his name, I found out he was a construction manager for a swanky resort in Tuvalu. Moreover, one of his articles is about how AGW is not responsible for rise in sea levels in Tuvalu. Something like that. Anyway, you can see where I’m going here. Real estate is not gonna be too hot on a sinking island and a construction manager for a resort community definitely has a conflict of interest. Just sayin’.
Haven’t worked there in years. Sea level rise has slowed in the last few years. The resort (because of the applicable regulations regarding cyclones) legally had to be at a certain elevation above the ocean. I built it even higher than was legally required, because we wanted to be extra cautious. If you think that any of that has to do with my article, you’re barking mad.
Finally, the point of my article was not that global warming was not responsible for sea level rise in Tuvalu as you naively claim. It was that sea level rise was not the cause of the environmental damage in Tuvalu. If you think that is wrong, I’m happy to discuss it. There’s a link to my article above, tear it apart.
But if you just want to fantasize about my motives, you’re dealing in wholesale irrelevancies. Just sayin’ …
What is it with you guys and people’s motives? You’re always on about why you think somebody is saying something, that it’s because of their job, or because they earn money in this way or that way … I suppose it’s easier to do that than to actually discuss the scientific issues, but man, it gets old.
PS - I don’t assume that the person I’m addressing is “a rube”, although in your case I might make an exception. I try to write so that everyone including the lurkers can understand what I am saying. Many people don’t have your extensive scientific education, laserlike insights, and keen grasp of mathematics, so I write so that the concepts are accessible to all. Don’t like it? Sue me …
Lobohan:
You are a conspiracy theorist. You think the IPCC is misrepresenting how many climate scientists are signed on to the report.
You are a vile little lying insect and you are simply too stupid and dishonest to contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Boy, you sure get upset when someone asks for a citation. You don’t provide the citation, of course, but you definitely lose it.
The IPCC is not misrepresenting how many climate scientists signed on. They listed the people who signed on. How is that a misrepresentation? Other people have made fatuous claims about what that means, but not the IPCC.
But what on earth does this have to do with a conspiracy? Are you claiming I think the IPCC is conspiring to list the names of the authors? What?
A citation to some of your babbling would at least help me to understand what you are raving about.
Ogre:
This is why you folks who continue to fight with folks like this have both my respect, and a hearty :rolleyes: at the same time. I respect you because you are willing to continue pounding your head against the wall of ignorance (or in intention ’s case, prevarication and dishonesty). That’s admirable. At the same time, you get a :rolleyes: for a few reasons. 1) What do you hope to accomplish? 2) Is there nothing better to do with your lives (say, like kill hookers in GTA or needlepoint)? 3) Do you honestly think you’re going to accomplish anything with regards to either changing intention ’s mind, or influencing any undecided lurkers who breathlessly await your next post?
I think you are mistaking me for somebody else. I will NOT engage intention , mostly because I just don’t have the free time to do the debate justice. Thus I am reduced to simple sniping in the BBQPit.
I’m not pitting you, I’m mocking you.
Lobohan
November 17, 2009, 8:01pm
56
intention:
Boy, you sure get upset when someone asks for a citation. You don’t provide the citation, of course, but you definitely lose it.
The IPCC is not misrepresenting how many climate scientists signed on. They listed the people who signed on. How is that a misrepresentation? Other people have made fatuous claims about what that means, but not the IPCC.
But what on earth does this have to do with a conspiracy? Are you claiming I think the IPCC is conspiring to list the names of the authors? What?
A citation to some of your babbling would at least help me to understand what you are raving about.
Oh I’m not upset. I’m more bemused.
I understand your game. I understand your playing stupid and ignoring of evidence. I understand how you don’t concede points made obviously and with force. I understand that you pretend a letter to the editor is a peer reviewed article to bolster your lack of credentials.
But what I don’t understand is what motivates someone like you. Is it a desire to seem intelligent? Is it just trolling? You’re an enigma.
Not that I care much, just one of life’s little mysteries.
This is amusing. Name X’d for the sake of preserving whatever threadbare privacy may still exist.
Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, X offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.”
This of course begs a number of questions:
What qualifications did the Editor (Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen) have to claim that the paper was “a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands”? In a later exchange, the Editor remarked to me that the paper “was reviewed by a few people he selected himself, …… and also by me”.
Is the general reader expected to read the Editorial of the journal just to check which papers have been peer-reviewed?
Why on earth could the Editor not find a reviewer for this paper? (or could she just not find one sympathetic to her own views?)
Isn’t the Editorial clearly soliciting comments ONLY from those who have one specific political view of sea level rise at Tuvalu?
Boehmer-Christiansen further perverted the process by later stating in a paper at an international conference (see http://www.hwwa.de/Projects/Res_Programmes/RP/Klimapolitik/Papers%20Workshop/Boehmer-Christiansen.pdf ):
“I just happen to be publishing an article by a scientist who lives on Tuvalu and who shows that the real problems already being experienced by people there (salination, sinking because of sand excavation) while ascribed by politicians seeking aid to global warming, are in fact due to over population, natural local causes and above (sic) development on what is little more than a floating patch of sand in the Pacific.”
which cites X’s paper in E&E. So a paper, which has no more authority than a letter published in a local newspaper was now being cited at an international conference as “an article by a scientist”– with the natural implication that it had been peer-reviewed.
There are two pieces of good news to this story: (a) the Editor subsequently published a comment by myself on the original paper (E&E, 2004, Vol.15, No. 5; this was also not peer-reviewed, even though I requested it to be) and (b) thankfully, if you do a Google on (X Tuvalu “sea level rise”) you only get three hits, so X’s paper was virtually ignored.
Lobohan
November 17, 2009, 8:05pm
58
Ha. Jesus, he’s so pathetic. Well that’s a two outright lies about peer-review shot down.
For fuck sake Intention, don’t you have shame? Doesn’t being shown to be a fool time and again wear at the armor of arrogance?
Imaginary dialogue as “supporting evidence”??? This gets better and better. Franz Kafka has nothing on you … plus he’s nowhere near as funny.
I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. What “a [sic] two outright lies” are you babbling about? You really should check with your doctor about adjusting your meds, the hallucinations seem to be getting worse.
Yes, John Hunter was very dismissive of my piece, but that is the nature of science. You put ideas out, others try to shoot them down. He makes a variety of claims that this has something to do with “peer review”, but it was a “Viewpoint” piece. I have said a number of times on this forum that I have had two pieces published in Energy & Environment, one peer reviewed and one not peer reviewed. That was the piece that was not peer reviewed. Where are my “two outright lies” in any of that?
You failed to notice that his long and detailed response was published in E&E just as my paper was, and I didn’t hear him complaining that his response was not peer reviewed … probably just a coincidence.
I invite interested people to read both and make up your own minds about whether Tuvalu is sinking beneath the waves because of evil CO2 or not.
