P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
Special half century edition.
Clippo, who states he is not spending anymore time on me does so while obsessing about me. He will be back for his regular beating.
…your attempt to become a living Klein bottle.
Popfart really is a nasty piece of scum. He is the troll who posted my personal information on a blog. He posted phone numbers, my home address, photos of my house and a map showing its location. He has definitely crossed the line and he should be barred from all sites where reasonable people discuss science related matters.
He is a very scary person indeed, I don’t know what is causing his psychosis but people should be warned of his proclivity to be nasty and viscous.
Poptech wrote : LMAO, the date stamp is Month+ Day not Month + Year.
Fine, I got the time period wrong but not the facts, i.e. that you sneaked back in to the thread and left a message, trying to pretend that you were carrying on a conversation and to have the last word. Still sad.
Maybe the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’ should be renamed the ‘Poptech effect’ ?
Yes the denialism train certainly does attract those of the psychopathic mindset.
Hey, what do you know. Being an astronaught is the equivalent of having a degree in climatology. Thank God for that.
JMurphy, you cannot sneak into Pielke’s blog, he gets emailed when you comment. He knows I made that statement and he also knows I am well aware of his personal opinion on AGW, only rank amateurs would not know his position. All meaningless as I have now provided a scientific definition and a disclaimer so alarmists cannot distort it.
Your heroes don’t have degrees in climatology,
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
Ian, the issue here is that you consider yourself the good guy, so therefore, as the good guy, you won’t break the law or even the mores of social decency to have your way.
However nutjobs like poptart consider you THE ENEMY. And therefore, since you’re the enemy, ANYTHING that he can do to shut you up and get rid of you is fine.
Poptech, Ian Forester makes some serious charges against you. Please address them.
viscous? I like that. Thick, sticky, so hard to get rid of. Takes ages to wash away all traces.
Yes, he did that at Greenfyre’s (I don’t know if he’s done it elsewhere). He was placed under moderation.
There’s something of the cyberstalker in these extreme fanatics. He’s not the only one behaving in this way, of course.
It was [here](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-8183).
Someone asked for his contact information, I looked it up in Google. Pretty serious stuff looking someone’s contact information up in Google for someone who always posts as their real name and has his contact information all over the place. I posted it as “contact information”. Funny how hysterical everyone is getting over using Google.
FYI I don’t consider Ian the enemy, just not very bright.
I think if you restrict everyone from ever using Google you should be able to keep this one under wraps.
That someone was another [nasty, arrogant, delusional cyberstalker](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-8155).
Can you not see the difference between doing what you did and just suggesting that someone use Google themselves? Actually, don’t bother with an answer: we know you can’t. Your psychological state precludes any insight or any concept of reasonable behaviour.
re 189 Poptech
You obviously can’t read !!! I said I wasn’t going to spend any time on you in that democracy forum thread. I’m tempted not to here but I’m enjoying seeing you thrashed so much.
You also claimed I ‘ran away’ from you at ‘Greenfyre’. I don’t think so – I remember your pointless trolling was exposed AGAIN there – I couldn’t add any more than than your other beaters did.
Does ANYBODY in science agree with you ? LOL
ANYWAY – to probably the whole world of science, your puny & fraudulent efforts to undermine the overwhwelming consensus in AGW are less irritation than a flea on an elephant’s backside. Retire quietly Poptech – for your own mental health.
If someone asks a question I can answer I try to be helpful.
You run away from every argument as soon as you start losing and desperately look around for someone to bail you out.
Yes, many, many, many scientists agree with me, they all emailed me thanking me for the list or offered papers to add. Not a single one objected (imagine that). But don’t worry no one is paying attention to it, the hit counter is just skyrocketing by itself. Carry on, your “consensus” has nothing to worry about.
Popfart lies again:
Yes, many, many, many scientists agree with me, they all emailed me thanking me for the list or offered papers to add. Not a single one objected (imagine that).
Popfart is the biggest liar on this blog. Every second word he spews out is part of another lie.
Do you know what the word “honesty” means? I didn’t think so.
You are pathetic, you and your buddy Pete Ridley.
I think you hit on the truth there. I don’t think he’s capable of understanding honesty (or reasonable behaviour, or rational thought, or scepticism).
More of Popfart’s lies:
Someone asked for his contact information, I looked it up in Google.
That is another of your lies. No one asked for my personal information and even if they did, anyone with any sense of morals and ethics would not have broadcast the information on a blog posting. You are morally and ethically challenged.
You are a vicious, viscous slime ball.
As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is, and what he considers its use to be. In reply to a point I raised that some of his papers contradict others, he said:
>Some are mutually exclusive not mutually contradictory as none of the papers refute any of the others or even mention them in this way. Since the list is not about any single argument this is perfectly acceptable. The list is a reference for all of them as noted.
>So if a paper is published which – if correct – means that another paper must be wrong, but it doesn’t mention that other paper, then it’s NOT actually a refutation? And then one can claim it to be “mutually exclusive” instead of “mutually contradictory” and … somehow think that the first paper really doesn’t contradict the second?
So, Poptart considers the list to be a reference for all kinds of sceptical arguments. This is apparently a service he’s happy to provide, despite the fact that he knows at least some of them must be wrong (describing them as ‘mutually exclusive’ – but Lotharrson blows that soft term out of the water). Always willing to spread misinformation eh? How obliging of you, Mr. Tart.
Hang on, poptart said [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2632701)
>Someone asked for his contact information
But [here](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-8194) he said
> I simply provided Dr. Forrester’s contact information in case anyone was interested.
I stand corrected, Poptart. If you could point me to any of Buzz Aldrin’s peer reviewed research in the field of climatology I’d be happy to retract my mockery of you.
Tell you, what, I’ll even widen the net to include Energy And Evironment, South African engineering journals, and even Better Homes And Gardens to give you a fighting chance.
PopTart also said:
>You should not insult computer scientists.
That sounds like a *threat* to me.
Do you often traverse the internet threatening people, PopTart? That must add to your credibility considerably.
Poptech, no further comments will be accepted from you until you apologize to Ian Forrester.
Everyone else, there is no point in putting questions to him until then.
Anyone know if the good folks at http://www.poptech.org have taken exception to Popfart and http://www.populartechnology.net? The latter scarcely has anything to do with popular technology anyway – just a series of rants from someone who doesn’t understand what global warming is.
Been away for a while, but Poptech is gamely struggling on.
I guess Poptech’s non-answer to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/open_thread_50.php#comment-2628869) implies that he really doesn’t mind being known as a peddler of horse dung.
I see his list scope definition used to be:
> “The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of man-made” global warming”
> …”man-made” global warming is a layman’s term…for recent climate change being **solely** caused by humans
By that criteria, you’d be hard-pressed to find a **single** climate science paper that would NOT be on his list, since no reasonable climate scientist argues that all observed warming is anthropogenic.
That alone should tell you that his “list” is mired in bullshit, since he failed to understand and act upon what the criteria implied.
Or you could observe the prevarication embedded in the definition, which conflates skepticism of both “all warming is anthropogenic” and “any and all (hypothesised) environmental and economic consequences of said warming” (and not even constrained to consequences that are said to be “negative”!)
If you want to be pedantic, then you’ve be even *more* hard-pressed to find a paper that was NOT skeptical of one of those things.
And yet poptech’s list apparently comprises a mere 700+ papers (never mind that many of them disagree with each other). Pretty poor effort all round. Either that, or his stated criteria is NOT what he’s using to construct the list (tut tut!)
Then he changed the criteria:
> The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW
It’s almost as bad as the previous version for most of the same reasons – **and** it presumes that Poptech and the reader agree on the meaning of “AGW” which I suspect may not be as frequent as the readers imagine.
Poptech – what’s your precise definition of “AGW”, and while you’re at it what’s your definition of “the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW”? This would help people understand what propositions you claim the list supports skepticism of (and whether you even understand the scientific claims in the first place).
>*As fun as it is to watch Poptart try and validate his list, I think the main point should remain just how inconsistent his list is*
Its also funny to watch some try a protect their credibility by disassociating themselves from poptart’s list. I wonder if Lindzen (like RP Jr) would be unhappy to be compiled with floor scapings such as G&T 2009 or McLean et al., or the ['worst ever"](http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html) Archibald 2006?
Though I doubt it was Poptart’s aim to tarnish by association.
“So, Poptart considers the list to be a reference for all kinds of sceptical arguments”
So let’s help poptart out.
All he has to do is “hide the answers”.
Ahhh, its clear to see Poptart’s devious little strategy. His list includes piles of articles in Energy and Environment, a journal that does not appear on the ISI Web of Science. Hence his feeble attempt to belittle the Wos. E & E is a social sciences journal, and IMHO to have credibility in the Earth sciences it would have to be recognized by the Wos and appear in their index. It doesn’t.
His list is also a scraping the barrel affair, citing articles by just about every shill, nincompoop and outlier in the debate on climate change. Some of the papers he listed are described as ‘submitted’ several years ago, meaning that they were either bounced or else were never published. Many of those that appear in the better journals (Nature, etc.) are old and are not about contemporary climate change at all.
Since poptart’s web site appears to be run by a bunch of computer geeks, it is a wonder that anyone pays them any attention at all. Again, as far as I am concerned this is another example of a bunch of right wing libertarians downplaying the volumes of evidence for AGW to promote a political agenda. In other words, poptart and his buddies are denialists.
More [amusement at WUWT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/06/dilbert-on-the-utility-of-forecasting/#comments)
So, “Scott Adams evidently understands AGW adherents completely.”? Guess what? Adams did look at [the GW issue](http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/global_warming_.html). Although he certainly has some caveats, his [main conclusion](http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/global_warming__3.html) is that
1. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is an important part of it. I base this conclusion on the lack of credible peer reviewed work to the contrary and the mountain of work that confirms human-induced warming. While individual studies might be wrong, it’s extremely unlikely the entire field has been so thoroughly duped.
Not that the creator of a comic strip (that I think is clever, funny, and perceptive) is any sort of authority on science but you’d think that even a Wattard would check…
just checked out slopfarts website, yep, he’s a loon
^ Wow, and that’s from someone who was encouraging Curtin to ‘keep up the good work’.
That’s exactly what I was thinking!
I love how poptech calls astronaut Phil Chapman a “NASA Astronaut legend” in his website list of four (yes, four!) astronauts sceptical of AGW.
I’m really into NASA stuff and I confess I’d never heard the name before. A brief investigation soon showed why: as one of the scientist-astronauts he never flew in space.
I’m sure he’s a nice fellow and highly knowledgeable in his CV areas of electro-optics, inertial systems, and gravitational theory (as was Buzz Aldrin on the topics of orbital mechanics and early computers), but they don’t really sound much like climate science. Although this sort of blurring of the lines of expertise is really nothing new from poptech, is it?
TrueSkeptic, all very interesting except the first comment blows Adams’ argument out of the water:
>issues on global warming is sometimes confusing. I have read an article saying that global warming is a lie.a myth.
Cop that, Adams. Unassailable logic there.
Peter Sinclair, Greenman3610, with his fantastic Climate Crock videos has released another. It concentrates on what the military has to say. This is a great idea as the nutters generally looooove military or profess to do so in their brand of lunatic patriotism.
As an ex-weapons engineer of the RAN I’ve always found that brand of nutterism as very odd as we tended wherever we could (within budget) to be an early adopter of science, as does every other military.
apologies – I forgot the link
So, did anyone notice The Australian doing its thing today? Followed by the comment thread of madness.
[UN's climate report 'one-sided'](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-climate-report-one-sided/story-e6frg6so-1225888714749)
The stupid, it burns. Thank goodness for Richard of Sydney, who points out what the report actually says, not the Australian’s spin on what the report says.
Most amusing, but what does it have to do with WUWT’s use of a Dilbert strip?
Russell inquiry reports.
Some ringing phrases:
“We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis”
“It’s very clear that anyone who’d be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.
“It’s also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.”
My, my… they almost seem to be saying that people who rely on FoI requests or who claim that nothing is certain without detailed scrutiny of the computer models must be incompetent. Surely not!
@227, yes Amanda I did. Sent a letter to them too.
The truth of the Dutch report was tucked away in the 3rd last paragraph where I imagine someone at The Australian hoped that no-one would notice it: “….the IPCCs main findings were justified and climate change did indeed pose substantial risks”.
The problem is, as we all know too well, that climate sceptics rarely ever read much past the headline, and are certainly almost never inclined to actually look up any scientific research. The report was just lazily reprinted from The Times (UK) as usual, but a sub-editor somewhere within News Ltd seems to insist on writing grossly misleading headlines for global warming stories.
And then the stupid comments start flowing – always from the same people mind you.
Interesting piece in the ABC website today, about how [insurance agencies have moved on to climate change as fact](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/08/2947679.htm?site=thedrum).
Just how much dribble can the mainstream media continue to publish? In response to a cold snap in Sydney, Bonnie Malcin writing for the Telegraph UK states:
‘Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.’
Perhaps if anyone out there knows Bonnie they could refer her to the NOAA report ‘State of the Climate Global Analysis May 2010’.
And while I am ranting about deficient journalism, OVEHG succinctly sums it up in ‘Poor journalism plagues The Australian front page again’
Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.
Where do they get such obvious bullsh!t from?
very funny story on WuWt.
Steven Goddard is not mentioning Barrow any longer. his forecasting skills did not work that well on sea ice break-up.
Steven has written a post, claiming that there was no change to land fast ice at barrow on the 26th of June. it turned out, that the land fast ice was gone from Barrow the day BEFORE the post was written.
he also made strong claims about the break-up on NARL near Barrow. Steven talked about the latests break-up on record and was still saying I expect that the ice will last longer than July 8. in comments on the 5th of July, even though the ice broke on the 4th.
forecasts don t get more wrong than that.
>>Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally.
>Where do they get such obvious bullsh!t from?
This being the Telegraph, I imagine her un-esteemed colleague James Delingpole told her. It’s probably his He may even believe it too.
^ fits into the above post in the appropriate place. Repeat after me: Reread before posting. Reread before posting.
Another UK media retraction:
[UK Telegraph retracts and apologies for bogus Tata story, but doesn’t apologize to Pachauri for smear](http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/06/telegraph-christopher-booker-richard-north-retraction-apology-bogus-tata-pachauri-smear-ipcc/)
And guess who is once again implicated in the bogus news story – none other than Richard North.
Just have to share quite the most offensive comment I’ve ever read on WUWT:
> “Where are today’s Feynmans, Handlers and Crichtons?”
> You are reading one of their blogs right now.
Comparing Watts to Feynmann? Sweet Jebus…
Dave H, while it is very tempting to attribute such comments to the depths of cretinisation attracted to and indeed exemplified by ol’ Anthony’s blog and suchlike, never forget that there are Institutes, Foundations, and associated think tanks and moneyed interests like you wouldn’t believe stoking things along.
And they don’t employ the kind of grade school drop-outs that swarm like flies, which sometimes the aforementioned interests forget, when they’re trying to blend in and drop a new meme or two.
Anyone able to explain this?
If you look at the Jacobshaven Glacier (I think that’s what it is, about halfway down the coast a glacier with a long tongue) you can see that behind it (on the south side) seems to be a lot of water that can’t escape. And on the north side there’s an area of a smaller galcier that merges with the Jacobshaven that seems to have broken up and collapsed.
Is this normal? And check out the melt ponds!
Monckton replies to Abraham. with about 500 questions.
have a laugh:
Re. 241 sod (Monckton’s response)
Looks like an ambush for legal action.
1 Are you familiar with the convention in the academic world that if one wishes to rebut the work of
another he should notify that other in good time, so as to avoid errors in the rebuttal and to afford the other a
fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute the rebuttal?
Did you contact Al Gore before issuing a criticism of ‘Inconvenient Truth’ or are you a hypocrite? Did you contact Professor Michael Mann before accusing him of genocide?
4 Do you accept that your talk was calculated to do very great harm to my reputation?
“Abe, baby, if you present yourself as “a scientist” – as you do throughout your talk – then it is as a scientist that you will be judged and found lamentably wanting. You may like to get your apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance.” Heh.
9 Do you appreciate that, in common sense as well as in law, given your claim to expertise “in the area” of
climate change (2-3), any statement by you in that area that you assert or assume to be true but whose truth
you have negligently failed to verify is as much a lie as any statement that you make in the knowledge that it
is not true?
Can I phone a friend?
17 Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a “professor” (3, 62)
more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?
Though you have described yourself as a member of the House of Lords, is it not the case that you are not and never have been? That you stood for election and received zero votes?
BTW Monckton is a good recycler
No 1 is the same as
2 Since you knew how to contact the Science and Public Policy Institute, which I advise on policy matters,
and since you would have had no difficulty in contacting me to notify me that you were intending widely to
disseminate your material, what steps (if any) did you take to attempt to notify me of what you proposed to
do to ensure that I was given a fair and contemporaneous opportunity to refute your attempt at a rebuttal of
my Minnesota talk
is the same as
6 Did you fail to tell me of your proposed rebuttal of my speech in good time in the hope that your very
lengthy talk would be circulated as widely as possible before I could circulate a detailed refutation?
is the same as
21 Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why
you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to
assist you with identifying the sources of my material.
23 Please explain why, before you contacted numerous third parties in connection with my talk, you did not
at any time contact me to verify whether your characterization of my conclusions was fair and accurate
My favourites so far:
27 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said, “The world’s not warming” ….are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I said, “The world is not warming”, or at least to qualify it by acknowledging that, though I said the world had been cooling since 2001, I had displayed the above graph plainly establishing that the long-term trend is a warming trend?
You said I said the world is not warming, but you’re wrong because I said the world is cooling.
30 What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that “Sea
levels are not rising at all” …Is it not true that, in my talk, I reported evidence that the ARGO bathythermographs had shown a slight cooling of the oceans throughout the six years since they were first deployed; and that, at the time of my talk, there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years?
You said I said that sea levels are not rising. But you’re wrong because I said sea levels are not rising.
Tim – perhaps we could crowdsource a suitably amusing response. I might do some more, but not if it involves, you know, actually watching Monckton in action.
the questions are completely absurd. this must be one of the most stupid replies i ever read.
Monckton confirms his position as a clown of the denialist movement.
466: Will you, therefore, now be good enough to take down your talk from whatever public places it has
reached; to pay $10,000 to the United States Association of the Order of Malta for its charitable work in
Haiti; to ensure that your University, which failed upon my request to have your talk taken off its servers at
once, pays $100,000 to the same charity for the same purpose; and publicly to disseminate a written apology
and retraction substantially in the following terms:
From personal experience as a subscriber to a message board group, Monckton likes to liberally throw around the threat of legal action – even when (a little like Tim Curtin) he laughably and egregiously misunderstands the entire basis of his claim to have a case. I doubt this time around that his claims will prove any more substantial.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.
Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.