Wut evah

In an attempt to have the comment threads be reasonably worth reading (ie relevant to the post, coherent, relatively spam free) I first created two pages, one that was to be “Mostly Open” and the other for “Challenging the Core Science.”

As Deniers do not read it became necessary to create the “Dunce’s Corner” as a dumping ground for the relentless repetition of the same Denier memes long since known to be bunk. These aren’t challenges to the core science, they are just chanting of the Denier Canon.

The latest spat in the comments section has me creating “Wutevah” as it is an exchange that does not really fit in any of the above, nor is it appropriate where it has been posted.  I opted for “Wutevah” as it is hopefully the ultimate in miscellany & I can chuck anything here.

As comments cannot be moved easily I am forced to copy/paste the exchange, a waste of my time that I frankly resent, never mind having to read it to check for abuse etc. Clearly I will have to ponder how I respond if this keeps up.

—-

ipka

Actually, deniers DO read the things you give them, they just always deny it.

This is why you can cut through a discussion by asking them “Ok, tell me what’s missing, tell me what it takes to convince you, and tell me what I need to do to get you out of this broken record”

They NEVER have an answer, because the minute they do, they have to admit they’re wrong and unreasonable.

Feel free to read my blog, in the section Global Warming, or Deniers, Andrew has commented on my blog posts more than a dozen times.

I don’t know why he has a problem being called a denier, he has no problem calling people liar, zealot, troll, alarmist. He’ll NEVER define what a denier is, nor what would convince him he’s wrong (he’s confirmed this multiple times via his comments).

Somehow “ad hominems” are OK when he does it. If we fail to respond to a denier, or refuse to debate, they cheer “Aha, cowards!”. But when they dodge us, their excuse is “Harassment by trolls who don’t qualify to debate”.

Here’s a good place to start
http://ipka.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/populartechnology-denier/

If anybody has a problem with Andrew of PopularTechnology.net , comment on my blog, I’ll be happy to help you get to him. I don’t think he’s actually against using Firefox, he just writes about it to attract Microsoft fanboys and make money with advertising. This is why he always writes his pages with a BUT (This is bad and wrong, BUT, I am not saying I would never do it…..Marijuana is dangerous BUT, I’m not saying it’s worse than tobacco or alcohol…..AGW isn’t worth alarming BUT, I’m not saying there’s no GW or CO2, ….BUT I also won’t tell you what would ever convince me I’m wrong…BUT I am not a denier…)

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there either, he says <b>”you have yet to prove otherwise”</b> when he’s not proven his case, nor will he admit what would prove your case. But he’s immediately shut up if you said the same to him, when he says “that’s your opinion” or “says you only”. So if Andrew tries to says you’re wrong about something or you’ve not proven your case, remember the line that kills him “YOU have yet to prove otherwise, Mr. Denier”

—-

ipka

I am willing to bet when an idiot says “there’s absolutely no scientific evidence” he doesn’t know what is “scientific evidence”.

Just like Andrew would always say “Empirical evidence”, and when you ask him what that is, he never knows, he sometimes even says “you have to show it” (which either means we define and we win, or we define, they deny).

When you ask him what evidence proves he popped out of his mom’s womb, he says that DNA testing is empirical evidence (it isn’t to my standard, because that at best proves his alleged mother has half the DNA he does, which means somebody such as her twin sister could be his mother, or he could be artificially inseminated and placed in a test tube, or another woman’s womb).

Oh, and even if we DID accept, for the sake of argument, that his mother is who she says, that’s no proof his father is his father. because we know how easy it is for a woman to sleep with another man. DNA would at best prove somebody who had his father’s DNA impregnated his alleged mother.

Even though we’ve NEVER seen 2 people with highly similar rates of DNA (short of twins and clones), it’s not impossible, so there’s no empirical evidence that his parents are who they say they are. All evidence we have, are still ultimately fallible, and you need your assumptions to reach your conclusions.

<b>This is your denier logic lesson, Andrew will of course come back and say he doesn’t hold such skepticism to his parents, HYPOCRISY.</b>

—-

Pop_tech

There is a difference between evidence for a live birth by my biological mother and empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. DNA testing is 99.99-99.9999% accurate as empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. An example of empirical evidence for a live birth would be a video verified by eye witness testimony of the attending doctor, nurse(s) and family member(s).

You don’t have any logic in your arguments, you have desperate grasps at nonsense you pretend make an argument. You then use your limited IQ to repeat the same nonsense as you continue your Internet stalking.

When I state you have to provide empirical evidence that means observations and experiments that cannot be explained by natural causes. You have failed to provide this.

Your failure to defeat my position leads you to state lies as you have nothing else and never will.

—-

Pop_tech

There is a difference between evidence for a live birth by my biological mother and empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. DNA testing is 99.99-99.9999% accurate as empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. An example of empirical evidence for a live birth would be a video verified by eye witness testimony of the attending doctor, nurse(s) and family member(s).

You don’t have any logic in your arguments, you have desperate grasps at nonsense you pretend make an argument. You then use your limited IQ to repeat the same nonsense as you continue your Internet stalking.

When I state you have to provide empirical evidence that means observations and experiments that cannot be explained by natural causes. You have failed to provide this.

Your failure to defeat my position leads you to state lies as you have nothing else and never will.

—-

Pop_tech

I have stated this multiple times, what will convince me is,

<b>Empirical evidence (observations and experiments) that cannot be explained by natural causes.</b>

I don’t care what browser anyone uses. I am against Firefox fanboys spread lies (like you) about it around the Internet in hopes of increasing it’s adoption.

I never said any “but” about Marijuana being dangerous as I believe it to be a very dangerous drug and yes I believe it to be more dangerous than Alcohol and Tobacco. That does not mean I believe either to be without the possibility of negative health effects.

I do believe that the alleged AGW isn’t worth worrying about. I also believe there is empirical evidence for a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

Just remember there is nothing you can do about me.

—-

Pop_tech

Of course I believe my extensive research and what I have said certain people are very concerned about. Which is why people such as yourself expend quite a bit of energy on me. Regardless I have refuted everything you have stated.

—-

Pop_tech

There is a difference between evidence for a live birth by my biological mother and empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. DNA testing is 99.99-99.9999% accurate as empirical evidence of her being my biological mother. An example of empirical evidence for a live birth would be a video verified by eye witness testimony of the attending doctor, nurse(s) and family member(s).

You don’t have any logic in your arguments, you have desperate grasps at nonsense you pretend make an argument. You then use your limited IQ to repeat the same nonsense as you continue your Internet stalking.

When I state you have to provide empirical evidence that means observations and experiments that cannot be explained by natural causes. You have failed to provide this.

Your failure to defeat my position leads you to state lies as you have nothing else and never will.

—-

ipka

That’s the point Andrew, that even being 99.9999% accurate (which I don’t grant, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it is), it’s still not 100%.

So you cannot force a person to accept it if he choose not to, and what do you call a person who chooses not to accept something that’s 99.9999% accurate?

Besides, it’s only 99.9999% accurate if you trusts scientists who say so, and why the hell should you?

As for eyewitnesses, are eyewitnesses infallible? You’re talking about less than 6 possible eyewitnesses, I bet you for every conspiracy theory I can give you 6 eyewitnesses (self proclaimed).

“When I state you have to provide empirical evidence that means observations and experiments that cannot be explained by natural causes. ”

Ok, which natural cause are we failing to rule out?
-the sun?
-1500 year cycle claimed by Singer?

My “failure” to defeat your position (according to you) is you own denial that I’ve defeated you. I could say to myself too that you fail to provide a refutation to my arguments and failure to understand my logic (which says a lot of your IQ). You then resort to ad hominem attacks by claiming I have low IQ and speak nonsense.

<b> I never denied that I have nothing to that’ll force you to admit you’re wrong, that’s exactly why you’re a denier</b> Until you admit what will get you to admit defeat, you are a denier and I’m not a liar.

You continue to make my point and have failed to show how you are anything BUT a denier as I’ve accurately stated. Your lame attempts to deny it and call me a liar is proof you have nothing to offer 🙂

—-

Pop_tech

DNA testing is empirical evidence and reproducible, thus the results can be independently verified. The percentage of accuracy increases with more DNA locations analyzed.

While DNA testing provides a very high level of scientific certainty other aspects of birth have to require some level of trust of the observers without more empirical evidence like a video.

There are natural cause explanations for all aspects of climate change. I am well aware of the attempts to rule them out, that is very different from being successful at doing so.

Your repeated use of the word “denial” is rather silly as it implies your position to be true by default. But your position is only true because you declare it so. You have not demonstrated your position to be true thus it is impossible for me to deny it.

Thus your use of the word “denier” towards me is a lie and used by you for propaganda reasons.

Your[abuse deleted] make it impossible for you to ever defeat me in an argument. You do not even posses half my intelligence, that is how pathetic you are. It is also why you stalk me because I must have embarrassed you on some forum somewhere.

Everytime I read your posts I just laugh at their absurdity. I’ve debated intellectually honest people with much higher IQs. They don’t have to resort to your pathetic lies. They simply accept that someone does not agree with them. But these are honorable people not juvenile Internet Stalkers.

Have a good day [abuse deleted].

—-

ipka

Ok, so now we’re getting somewhere.

Which climate study and prediction has failed the repeatability test that you require?

And which skeptical study HAS? Don’t tell me the Loehle paper, which all they did was add error range into the graph (and even if we took that as true, no mention of how many degrees above MWP must we get to mean it’s not natural).

<b>I am well aware of the attempts to rule them out, that is very different from being successful at doing so.</b>

Yeah, so which ones have been ruled out successfully? Which ones haven’t been ruled out successfully, I don’t care about ATTEMPTS, list me EVERY SINGLE one that hasn’t been successfully rule out. Otherwise you might as well make another one up every time we say one is ruled out.

<b>as it implies your position to be true by default. </b>
Aha, good point. Not quite , my position is not true by default alone, but because an overwhelming amount of scientific studies, peer reviewed data, and proxy indicators converge on a conclusion supported by multiple sources. THAT makes the position more likely and true, than not. And to argue against it, cannot reduce the establishment position back to “equally likely and equally unlikely” on a 50/50 flip a coin chance.

So while we are at it, can you tell us how likely it is that AGW is proven true? 10%? 50%? 90%?  Without that, you’re a denier.

And no Andrew, I don’t lie about you, if I did, you’d correct me by now. So far all you’ve done is deny you’re a denier, without explaining the these questions:

a) why you’re not convinced
b) what would convince you
c) what’s a denier
d) why you’re not one.

So it’s entirely appropriate for me to call you what I do, until you’ve attempted to correct me (at least). I’ve not only welcomed but practically BEGGED you to correct me, and you refused each time (most likely because you don’t know).

You resort to calling me a liar with low IQ and then tell yourself you laugh at me, when in fact, you know you’re bothered, or you’d not waste time defending yourself with spitting, and instead, GIVE YOUR ANSWERS WITH SUPPORT.

I don’t intend to “debate” you, since you’re a denier until proven otherwise. Your denial makes it impossible for you to defeat and refute my arguments and accusations against you 🙂

So then , you must respect that people disagree you were born from your parents, and not call them low IQ deniers or liars. Since you’ve NEVER taken any DNA tests, let alone repeat them. Nor have you EVER called out eyewitnesses.

—-

ipka

That explains it quite well, another word they use is “zealot”, but if we used it on them, they cry “ad hominem”!

—-

Pop_tech

All studies implying AGW causation ether fail on reproducibility or cannot rule out natural causes.

I am not going to sit here and list everyone, I just said all of them. [1]

There is no overwhelming amount of empirical scientific studies that meet my criteria to support AGW theory.

I have stated this multiple times, you are like a mentally retarded monkey.

A. There is no empirical evidence to support AGW theory.

B. I’ve stated repeatedly that what will convince me is empirical evidence (observations and experiments) that cannot be explained by natural causes.

C. One who denies.

D. Denier implies that your position is true by default but it is not, thus your use of the word is silly and it is impossible for me to be one.

It is entirely appropriate for you to demonstrate your limited intelligence, yes.

I have corrected you, you are just [abuse deleted]  to understand this.

I do laugh at you all the time, including right now.

You are correct in that I do have a problem with punks like you who lie and smear people to pretend they are big men online. You want to disagree with me fine but you want to smear me online for your childish games that is a different story punk. These games don’t fly in NJ, try me.

You couldn’t debate a two year old as you would resort to belligerence and lies.

If I had any concern about my parents not being mine, I would take the test but I have no reason to believe this. Your idiotic analogy is so bad it is laughable.

Have a good day [abuse deleted] .

[1] Yes, so you say. Even if you had a shred of credibility is would still be an appeal to authority logic error, hence a meaningless claim.

greenfyre

—-

Pop_tech

Yes I am much smarter than [abuse deleted] .

The only obfuscation is from your strawman arguments.

Marco you are like a broken record with your religious obsession. I am religiously agnostic and don’t care about the non-science of creationism.

—-

ipka

Andrew, you ARE (not like) a broken record with your denial and failure to present actual arguments.

—-

ipka

Where in NJ? Parsippany? Trenton? Maybe I SHOULD pay you a visit one of these days. I don’t pretend to be a big man, if you think you are, tell me your name and location. Your failure to answer this is your admission you’re not a big guy and are afraid of me. You resort to these tough guy bullying tactics because you can’t handle a civil discussion online. (So don’t be a hypocrite and say others do it, OK?)

<b>I am not going to sit here and list everyone, I just said all of them.</b>

Because you don’t know them, like I predicted, if you knew, you’d tell me, thanks for proving me right.

<b>B. I’ve stated repeatedly that what will convince me is empirical evidence (observations and experiments) that cannot be explained by natural causes. </b>
Useless without specifics, you can’t even hypothetically think up an experiment, that’s how clueless you are.

<b>There is no overwhelming amount of empirical scientific studies that meet my criteria to support AGW theory.</b>
That’s exactly what makes you a denier, a person who uses his own standards, not what scientists use.

<b>D. Denier implies that your position is true by default but it is not</b>
Is your position true by default? Or are we 50/50? But it’s not far from the truth, that my position is established, not without basis.

<b>I have no reason to believe this. </b>
What do you call a person who questions and denies your parents are your parents without the tests you’ve suggested? A skeptic? A scientist? A denier? A punk? A liar?

Wait, which one is it? Are you laughing at me or do you want to kick my ass? Can’t be both.

Thanks for finally answering some of my questions, not specifically enough, but every bit counts.

—-

Pop_tech

Atlantic City, NJ and I don’t post my name online. WTF is you name? You think I am joking, try me. No one lies about me to my face and gets away with it – ever, least of all a little punk like you.

You are correct as I do not have everyone memorized nor do I have a list of them ready. My statement still stands.

It is not my job to prove the theory you support.

Reputable scientists use my standards.

Your position has never been established as the truth and thus there is nothing to deny.

No one has ever questioned who my parents are so I don’t care. You idiotic analogy is not even remotely relevant, it is just dumb.

Your confused I laugh at people who lie about me while I kick their ass.

—-

ipka

Andrew, if I don’t know your name how do I try you?

Thanks for admitting again you’re a denier.

You have no statement, since you don’t even know what natural causes you’re talking about.

No, reputable scientists DON’T use your standard, or else you’d not say it was YOUR standard.

Has ANYTHING been established as truth? If not, what good is saying that mine hasn’t? When did I ever say my position is truth?

There’s a lot to deny, or else you’d not be defending yourself each time like it matters. Or else you’d not be so hard at saying you’re not denying anything.

I question your parents, since there’s ZERO scientific evidence, the fact you don’t care doesn’t change the fact it’s not established as true, gonna answer or not?

The fact you don’t see the relevance is your problem, and probably explains your intelligence.

You’re not laughing at me, or else you’d not play tough guy of asking me to try you. You’re obviously angry that what I say fools people and hurts you, or else laughing would suffice (and it is for me). SO stop asking me nicely to “stop lying” when you’ve presented me no incentive to say what I want (none of which are lies, but it doesn’t matter).

—-

Pop_tech

I have presented irrefutable arguments that you deny and lie about.

[abuse deleted]

—-

Pop_tech

Why would I give my name to an Internet Stalker?

Thanks for repeating your lies.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

I said “my standards” to accurately refer to the ones I stated not in the context of only mine.

Is your position the truth? Yes or No?

The only reason I am defending myself is because you keep lying about me.

The only one who cares what you question is yourself.

I am not hear to answer your idiotic questions.

[abuse deleted].

I don’t “play” tough guy, you obviously have no idea who you are talking to. Tell me your name so we can find out if you will lie to someone’s face. Come on big boy.

—-

ipka

Dear greenfyre,

I apologize that Andrew & I have allowed the discussion to degrade to spitting with suggestions of real life confrontation. But I hope you can see, I’ve said nothing wrong and have accurately pointed out his denialist nature, furthermore, he’s shown he never holds the same standard to himself when asked of other questions. This comment is meant as a direct message to you, so feel free to delete it.

—-

ipka

You want to give your name and address to a little punk you’re not afraid of, and want to knock the[abuse deleted] “try you”.

What did I lie about and what “irrefutable arguments” did you present? That you haven’t ruled out natural causes? The ones you can’t even list?

No, you DON’T know what you’re talking about, that’s why you keep saying “empirical evidence” without getting to specifics, this is much different than your ability to tell me that DNA testing, eyewitnesses would suffice as scientific support for your alleged mother giving live birth to you (even though I never granted it as acceptable support).

I don’t know what “the truth” is, so I won’t answer your question. I DO know, that my position is supported by scientists and their studies, not only more than ones you can cite, but all of them can defend their positions and answer the question “What would it take to convince you you are wrong”.

My turn Andrew, is EVERY SINGLE THING you believe “the truth”? If not then what’s the point of asking? If so, then I can say mine is too.

I don’t lie about you, everything I said is true based on facts and experience of talking to a denier. Besides, even if I DID lie about you, a person with no name, not paid to write his pathetic blog, what’s it to you?

And no, I can find people who care about my questions, maybe you won’t care, but you’re lying if you say there’s nobody other than myself.

<b>You’re not here to answer my questions, so shut up and lay down for me to call you what you are, A DENIER WITHOUT ANSWERS AND CLUES.</b>

I do have the ability to explain your intelligence and I have many times. Calling me as dumb as a brain dead monkey doesn’t help your position one bit, this is proof you resort to ad hominems when your ego or position is attacked, and proof you’re a zealot, name you love to call others.

I indeed have no idea who I am talking to, but I don’t pretend to be a tough guy. If you’re going to be the bully, you tell me who YOU are, I never wanted to confront you in real life.

What are you Andrew? MMA trained?

Why do you resort to suggesting violence for people voicing their opinion? Do you have no respect for free speech? Can you prove what I say is illegal, immoral and something to “get away” with?

—-

ipka

Yes, most deniers are just ignorant, few are knowingly lying.

It takes about 5 minutes to know whether somebody knows what he’s talking about.

It gets funny when they start calling you “tools” or “useful idiots” as if they’re perfectly not.

—-

To ipka

Engaging trolls is useful only in so far as you highlight the lack of valid points and demonstrate that there is valid science that refutes them. Once that has been demonstrated, let it go.

While I appreciate your frustration, the escalating abusiveness and suggestions of physical confrontation are not helpful and have no place here or in any discussion of science.

To pop-tech

As ever you are incapable of framing a simple logical argument, you cite no facts, and you wallow in errors in simple logic.  Please confine your irrational delusions of adequacy to your own site.

What I have allowed here is only because I feel you and those like you are the best argument for the utter vacuity of the Denier claims.

To both

You both have your own sites. Kindly use those spaces for your personal exchange and keep comments here rational & relevant to the posts that they appear on.

greenfyre

Advertisement