Comments for Climate Skeptic

Comment on Burning Down the House by Ted Rado

Ted Rado — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:22:26 +0000

You guys are all crazy to try to have a rational discussion with Waldo. Trying to do so is pure masochism.

Comment on Burning Down the House by Poptech

Poptech — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:05:21 +0000

Wacko, I am glad I could give you a proper education on all of this. Too bad you are too much of a child to understand.

Wacko, if the list had no value it would not be so relentlessly attacked, it would simply be ignored. There would be no need for you to desperately try to create so many lies and strawman arguments about it. Instead the exact opposite is happening and it’s page hits keep increasing. Scientists have directly thanked me for assisting them in locating these papers. They have stated that it is an invaluable resource. It is only going to get larger and larger and larger.

Comment on Burning Down the House by Sock Puppet

Sock Puppet — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:49:45 +0000

****”Just so you know, we’re not paying you for anything after our “May 9th, 7:25 pm” posting.”

WHAT?! FUCK YOU! I SPENT ALL WEEK TALKING TO THESE WEENIES! YOU THINK I ENJOY THIS?!?!?!

****”Why did you pick such a stoopid moniker anyway?”

FUCKING MONIKER WAS IDSO’S IDEA! NOT MINE! HE THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY, LIKE IN THE KIDDIES’ BOOK. TALK TO THAT DICKWAD ABOUT THE DAMN NAME!

****”Don’t you have something better to do with your time?”

DAMN RIGHT I DO. I QUIT!

Comment on Burning Down the House by Sock Puppet

Sock Puppet — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:45:16 +0000

I stayed up all night reading this. My mom was really pissed. But I think I understand now—peer-review is where scientists get together and evaluate what is on Google Scholar.

I’m sorry, Poptech, but I think I have to agree with Waldo. You can deny that there’s 40 years worth of climate science out there, but the numbers do not lie.

But I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.

Bye.

Comment on Burning Down the House by World Petroleum Council, National Online Operations Bureau

World Petroleum Council, National Online Operations Bureau — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:38:06 +0000

Noobletts,

It would appear that our previous admonitions have had little effect on your behavior. You are still arguing about issues which are of no particular interest to anyone and have little to no probative value in the World Petroleum Institute’s bid to take over the world. Furthermore, the thread you are flaming on is long dead.

We are sorry, but, since you have been representing NOOB in the manner you have, we feel we must be blunt about your online personas:

Will: Please take time to think before you post, and we recommend you take a month just to read up on aspects of denial-culture which may, we hope, assist you in future flame-wars:
• tenets of basic argumentation and citation,
• best practices in word choice and standard English,
• and the actual facts, personalities, and institutions in the climate debate.

Andrew: We are sorry to inform you that, despite your best intentions in this regard, your list has little actual value as a mechanism of debate. Consider the following:
• scientist who work in climate physics, climate chemistry, etc. do not need someone to compile “lists” for them; they are capable of doing their own research;
• bloggers do not have access to a much that is on “the list,” generally would not understand the complexities of “the list,” and generally do not have time to adequately review “the list”; unfortunately, these issues alone render “the list” of little actual importance.

Waldo: Shut the fuck up! Don’t you have something better to do with your time? Why are you still here? Just so you know, we’re not paying you for anything after our “May 9th, 7:25 pm” posting. Why did you pick such a stoopid moniker anyway?

Thus, Andrew and Will, while we appreciate your work ethic to this point, I am afraid we must revoke your status as Nooblets. We regret this but feel it is in our best interests. You may reapply in the future by writing to The Heartland Institute, C/O Joseph L. Bast. The Heartland is losing its lease this month, so you will need to locate their future postal address via the Internet.

In All That Is Oily,
NOOB Central Command

Comment on Burning Down the House by Will Nitschke

Will Nitschke — Sat, 12 May 2012 15:00:17 +0000

I guess the point I was trying to make, which Whacky doesn’t seem to get, is that science is not a matter of doing something and then thinking it is right because of an “opinion.” “Opinions” don’t matter in science, only results. Your list proves this. It has no scientific value on its own because it is all opinion.

If Whacko could ever stop being a dick long enough he would see this.

Comment on Burning Down the House by Poptech

Poptech — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:57:31 +0000

Wikipedia should never be used as a reference for definitions of terms since it is unreliable.

Comment on Burning Down the House by Poptech

Poptech — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:55:43 +0000

It can be correctly stated that "The List" as a whole is not a unified theory and no claim is made that it is but as a resource the list has tremendous scientific value for skeptics. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

Comment on Burning Down the House by Poptech

Poptech — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:41:12 +0000

“I would also add that the list of sceptical papers has probably no scientific value whatsoever. I have the suspicion (although I cannot prove this) that many or most of those papers have significant errors or are wrong.”

What? Any papers on the list where legitimate errors were found have had corrections published for them, these are included following the original paper. Now I am confused who’s side of this argument are you on?

Comment on Burning Down the House by Waldonation

Waldonation — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:07:53 +0000

****”one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding.”

****”systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.”

So Will, does this mean that you can do the science?