Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Wants Jail Time for Climate Change Denial Fraudsters

[Poptech]

11 times isn't that much considering most of the climate change papers have been cited probably thousands of times in comparison. You literally made a forum name to defend popular technology. You have to be Vyxn's alt account.

What does this mean: "most of the climate change papers"? Regardless, our site has been referenced over 660 times. Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory but I am my own account.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the link where he said the Senate has cited him? I checked, by way of example. It's literally a link to recent news stories, and his site was mentioned in one of those news stories. That's not a "citation" in the way it's used anywhere else in academic literature.

Strawman argument, no claim was made that the references all apply academic citation standards. So far you have confirmed that Popular Technology.net was referenced by the U.S. Senate.

The guys behind the site are liars and cranks. They make ridiculous claims, and are quick to resort to childish insults and partisan slanders against anyone who dares criticize anything they stand for. They're not even honest enough to reveal their own identities, while doing their post to dig into everyone else's background to dig up slander they can use.

Cite and quote one thing we lied about.

Which claims are ridiculous?

As already stated we value our privacy. Why don't you be "honest enough" to reveal your own identity since you are the one posting libel about us?

Which fully cited and sourced statement do you wish to challenge that we made?

[Slant]

What theory? We have a bunch of bad statistics; that's what we have. That's not a theory. And even if it was good statistical analysis with high confidence, statistics CANNOT prove a theory other than about statistics itself - it can only show correlation, NEVER causation.

I repeat: The current approach to climate science cannot prove why the climate is changing because it's statistics, and it can't even prove it is changing at all because there's a lot of bad statistics in there, too, much of it critical.

Of course I don't approve of us harming the Earth. We should seek to more effectively generate energy with less waste or side effect, but that doesn't mean putting our entire societies at risk. The goal must be to minimize human suffering both in the short and long term.

That's the point, though. We're not putting society at any risk when we act a bit smarter. Germany is about to shut down nuclear energy production. They've boosted renewable energy sources for over a decade by now. It's possible if you just do it. But if you waste your energy blasting against a vast majority of scientists arguing for climate change only to sell your "So, climate change is bullshit, and that's why I'm going to ignore the environment and endorse the oil industry, because those guys really have a lot of oil to burn!" you're an idiot.

Not you you. But them you. You know what I mean.

[Endus]

Cite and quote one thing we lied about.

Which claims are ridiculous?

Pick any of them. Your arguments fly in the face of what pretty much every scientist working in the field accepts to be true, and you make dishonest and unreasonable claims.

If you want a specific example, this specific article claims that "all 97% consensus studies refuted by peer review"; http://www.populartechnology.net/201...efuted-by.html

That is simply not true. A response to an article, which is what you were citing, is not a definitive refutation of the original paper. That isn't how peer review works. It's one individual's opinion. And in most cases, the arguments you're citing aren't refutations to begin with, but discussions about how the methodologies could be tighter. The simple truth is that all four papers you attempted to discredit are still recognized and accepted by their peers, and they were not in any way "refuted" by the responses you cited.

You have a tendency to Gish Gallop, in the misbegotten presumption that posting a ton of links somehow makes your arguments more credible, or at least more difficult for people to counter, because you can handwave away any argument that doesn't deal with each in specific.

But that's neither here nor there. Anyone else can just look at the basics of the science behing AGCC and see the truth, as complex as it may be; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
This is an answered question. A debate that's over. The discussion isn't about if climate change is real and anthropogenic, but about what we're going to do about it, and in refining existing models to narrow their predictive range.

As already stated we value our privacy. Why don't you be "honest enough" to reveal your own identity since you are the one posting libel about us?

There's a difference; you're trying to be taken seriously as advocates on your own website. Anonymity doesn't "work" in that instance, because it appears you have something to hide. I value my privacy, here, but my main reason for doing so has nothing to do with my work in climate change policy, where I freely attach my identity to my published material, it has to do with me drawing a distinction between my professional life and my hobby, which in this case is as part of an online gaming community. My identity is anything but hidden, when it comes to connections between my actual work and my actual identity.

[Poptech]

Pick any of them. Your arguments fly in the face of what pretty much every scientist working in the field accepts to be true, and you make dishonest and unreasonable claims.

You have yet to provide one and keep making these same libelous claims.

If you want a specific example, this specific article claims that "all 97% consensus studies refuted by peer review";

That is simply not true. A response to an article, which is what you were citing, is not a definitive refutation of the original paper. That isn't how peer review works. It's one individual's opinion. And in most cases, the arguments you're citing aren't refutations to begin with, but discussions about how the methodologies could be tighter. The simple truth is that all four papers you attempted to discredit are still recognized and accepted by their peers, and they were not in any way "refuted" by the responses you cited.

Of course it is true, all the fully cited and sourced evidence is provided. Which refutation cited is not real? What do you think peer-review is but one person's opinion? Trying to down play these refutations with false generalizations is intellectually dishonest. Why wouldn't alarmist scientists continue to recognize the propaganda they support? Not only have all the so-called "consensus studies" been thoroughly refuted, ones like Cook et al. (2013) have been shown to be an embarrassment to science.

You have a tendency to Gish Gallop, in the misbegotten presumption that posting a ton of links somehow makes your arguments more credible, or at least more difficult for people to counter, because you can handwave away any argument that doesn't deal with each in specific.

You need to learn not to fall back on anti-creationist terminology when trying to smear your opponents, as it exposes your true ideology and motivations. Why wouldn't fully citing and sourcing my arguments make them more credible? If I did not want anyone to reference them I would not provide something for them to reference. I have yet to handwave anything away but I am prevented from posting any supporting links on these forums due to policy restrictions.

There's a difference; you're trying to be taken seriously as advocates on your own website. Anonymity doesn't "work" in that instance, because it appears you have something to hide. I value my privacy, here, but my main reason for doing so has nothing to do with my work in climate change policy, where I freely attach my identity to my published material, it has to do with me drawing a distinction between my professional life and my hobby, which in this case is as part of an online gaming community. My identity is anything but hidden, when it comes to connections between my actual work and my actual identity.

It appears you have something to hide as you have spent an enormous amount of time trying to libel my website. Maybe you have a direct affiliation with one of the AGW advocacy groups mentioned in this discussion? I find it disingenuous you hide your identity from those you attempt to persuade here. How can anyone trust you are not working for a website like Skeptical Science?

[PalliesThrowStuff]

Only a rank moron denies man is negatively impacting earth. Culling them is an acceptable loss to correct mistakes before they've gone too far

Only a rank moron uses a term like 'negatively impacting earth'.

And that, while ignoring overwhelming evidence that we're far from the first species on earth to globally change our own climate, and if it comes to pass, we won't even be the first to do so to the extreme of driving ourselves to extinction as a result. Other species in Earth history have already done that. Life recovered on the planet, different kinds of organisms evolved as a result, and global climate change from those events led directly or indirectly to our own evolution.

You can't therefore say that climate change is 'negatively' impacting the earth, the earth will be what it will be. Grass has changed the earth more than people have, even if you include the atmospheric effects of the livestock industry as a component of man's doing.

If the planet no longer harbors human life, and humans drove it to that extreme, isn't that perfectly normal? That is not negatively impacting the earth, that's a self-defeating system of improvement, wherein evolution does what it does and removes organisms whose life model isn't self sustaining.

Human beings and nature aren't in conflict, human beings ARE nature, and all that we do, from computers, to sex, to pumping our atmosphere full of pollutants and burning through fossil fuels at an alarming rate... those are ALL functions of nature. All that we do, is nature at work.

The edge point where this argument goes, then, is that I personally, as just one tiny organism among a whole planet full of microbes, hairless apes and fungus alike, enjoy my life. I'd hate to get sick and die. I'm a proponent for green fuel, I think we should reign in the damage we're doing to our ecosystem, but I'm not conceited enough to hide behind 'damage to the earth' as a concept, because we are PART of the earth, if our actions are damaging to it, then we'll go extinct and we're better off going extinct. I'd rather we didn't drive ourselves extinct though, for purely selfish reasons.

There's nothing altruistic about wanting cleaner air or longer life expectancy, we don't need that kind of pretense to be environmentally conscious, it's not about the planet, it's about the human-friendly component of the planet.

People and organizations have their own opinions, and just like me, their opinions stem from personal desires and viewpoints. We can't condemn anyone, for profit, or not for profit, for trying to effect change to their own benefit. That's human nature, that's evolution.

[Hammerfest]

The only thing it demonstrates is yours and the OP's illiteracy and poor comprehension.

On the contrary, it obviously illustrates yours.

[Endus]

Of course it is true, all the fully cited and sourced evidence is provided. Which refutation cited is not real?

Your sources exist. They just don't refute anything.

What do you think peer-review is but one person's opinion? Trying to down play these refutations with false generalizations is intellectually dishonest.

You're making the same hypocritical appeal to "peer review" as Vyxn was. Peer review does not ensure validity of an argument. And most of your sources made no such claims of "refuting" anything, to begin with. If "peer review" were the validity-ensuring thing you're trying to claim, then you'd have to extend that same respect to the sources you're trying to discredit, which also passed peer review.

And many of those critiques have themselves faced peer comment, which you ignore or handwave.

Yes, a peer-reviewed paper can be wrong. That applies just as much to the comments you're citing as to the papers you're trying to discredit.

You need to learn not to fall back on anti-creationist terminology when trying to smear your opponents, as it exposes your true ideology and motivations.

It may have emerged from exposing the irrationality of creationist views, but it isn't a "smear". It's a form of fallacious argument. One you engage in pretty regularly.

Having a lot of sources doesn't prove anything. You need to have good sources, ones which are credible and valid. Packing on more sources that don't hold up to scrutiny does nothing to strengthen an argument. A solid argument holds its own on its own merit. By trying to pack on more sources to fake a sense of validity, you're engaging in a form of argument from authority, which is another fallacy.

I could probably dig up hundreds, if not thousands, of sources to back my claim that humanity has been watched and meddled with by alien visitors for centuries. That wouldn't make my claim of such more credible.

It appears you have something to hide as you have spent an enormous amount of time trying to libel my website.

You pretty seriously overestimate the amount of time I've invested into this.

Maybe you have a direct affiliation with one of the AGW advocacy groups mentioned in this discussion? I find it disingenuous you hide your identity from those you attempt to persuade here. How can anyone trust you are not working for a website like Skeptical Science?

Yes, because there's no way someone could disagree with your views and the methods you use, other than being involved in a conspiracy against you.

This is exactly what I mean when I accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. Which I'll do again, based on this claim of yours that I'm part of some conspiracy.

[Garnier Fructis]

He gave you a link (which I am unable to do thanks to forum restrictions) that provides over 660 direct references on that page alone. No one is asking anyone to take someone's word for it which is why all the links are provided and archived.

Popular Technology.net is very reputable, as we have been cited 11 times in 7 scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

How many times has your work been cited in the scholarly literature?

* Due to forum restrictions I am unable to post links to support all of my arguments.

So I took a look at those citations. The only ones that matter are the peer-reviewed journal citations. The rest are irrelevant.

The first one cites you by simply putting a link to a page where you compiled a list of 1300 something skeptic papers. This doesn't say anything about your scientific credibility, just that you're apparently pretty good at making lists.

The second one isn't even a paper, it's a comment. And they cite you by including a link to your page on scientists who were classified incorrectly by Cook. And you did this not by re-evaluating the papers yourself, but simply asking the authors if it was done correctly.

The third one reads like a giant stream of consciousness collection of random news articles and factoids. I admit I couldn't even find your citation in this one. Regardless, it's not even a scientific paper. It just... is... something.

The fourth one simply gives the same link as number one.

The fifth doesn't even cite you, it just mentions that they did something you asked them to do. And it's not a paper, it's just another comment. This doesn't say anything about your credibility.

The sixth is another stream of consciousness grab bag of news headlines.

The seventh cites the same page the second.

Not even going to bother with the last 4. So what have we learned from this. We've learned that these establish not your credibility, but that you've some skill at grunt work.

But we also know from past experience with the 1970's cooling article collection that you also really suck at grunt work, because you managed to include articles which had nothing to do with the science: you included an article about a crazy lady so scared of an ice age that she built a bunker. And then died in it. On top of that hilarious hiccup, you also clearly did not read any of the things you were compiling, because all of them are simply citing the same 2-3 sources, one of which was a lawyer. So you compiled a very highly redundant list without even bothering to check, or if you did check, you did it anyway for the appearance of high volume.

The last paragraph I wrote is sufficient to call your reputability into question. Why don't you make mention of the fact that they almost all cite the same number of sources you can count on one hand? Why do you make no mention of the fact that one of those sources is a lawyer, and hence cannot be used as proof that scientists were projecting cooling? These glaring omissions point to the conclusion that you're willing to twist to push an agenda. Not very reputable at all.

[Poptech]

Your sources exist. They just don't refute anything.

This works both ways. Your sources arguing for a consensus exist. They just don't prove anything.

You're making the same hypocritical appeal to "peer review" as Vyxn was. Peer review does not ensure validity of an argument. And most of your sources made no such claims of "refuting" anything, to begin with. If "peer review" were the validity-ensuring thing you're trying to claim, then you'd have to extend that same respect to the sources you're trying to discredit, which also passed peer review.

Strawman argument, I made no such appeal or claim.

And many of those critiques have themselves faced peer comment, which you ignore or handwave.

Strawman argument, I have not ignored or hand-waved away any peer comment. Those peer comments have all been rebutted by the authors they were commenting on. Why would I include a rebuttal from Dr. Tol to a peer comment if I was trying to ignore them? You are the one attempting to hand-wave these critiques or marginalize them with false generalizations.

Yes, a peer-reviewed paper can be wrong. That applies just as much to the comments you're citing as to the papers you're trying to discredit.

Good, you admit your "consensus" papers could be wrong.

It may have emerged from exposing the irrationality of creationist views, but it isn't a "smear". It's a form of fallacious argument. One you engage in pretty regularly.

Again more libel, I engage in no such thing. Sorry but I have been doing this for far too long and only militant atheists use the term.

Having a lot of sources doesn't prove anything. You need to have good sources, ones which are credible and valid. Packing on more sources that don't hold up to scrutiny does nothing to strengthen an argument. A solid argument holds its own on its own merit. By trying to pack on more sources to fake a sense of validity, you're engaging in a form of argument from authority, which is another fallacy.

You have just discredited your consensus argument.

Despite your delusions, you are not the arbiter of what is "good", "credible" or "valid". Anyone can look at the hundreds of sources referencing Popular Technology.net themselves to see they are all both real and valid. Your denial of these sources is of no concern to me.

I could probably dig up hundreds, if not thousands, of sources to back my claim that humanity has been watched and meddled with by alien visitors for centuries. That wouldn't make my claim of such more credible.

Yet you cannot dig up one to support any of the libelous claims you made against my website. I thought it was a conspiracy website right like Ancient Aliens? How can that be when we have a resource disputing Ancient Alien conspiracy theories? Why are you so intellectually dishonest like this?

You pretty seriously overestimate the amount of time I've invested into this.

Yes, because there's no way someone could disagree with your views and the methods you use, other than being involved in a conspiracy against you.

This is exactly what I mean when I accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. Which I'll do again, based on this claim of yours that I'm part of some conspiracy.

We still don't know who you are as your name is hidden. What do you have to hide?

How can you accuse me of the same thing but only claim I am "conspiracy theorist"? Do you think the people reading this are that stupid or are you just a hypocrite?

[Endus]

Strawman argument, I made no such appeal or claim.

When you claimed the consensus papers had been "refuted", you did.

Again more libel, I engage in no such thing. Sorry but I have been doing this for far too long and only militant atheists use the term.

You say that as if atheism is a "bad thing". Combined with your tacit defense of creationism, earlier, you really aren't helping your case.

You have just discredited your consensus argument.

Despite your delusions, you are not the arbiter of what is "good", "credible" or "valid". Anyone can look at the hundreds of sources referencing Popular Technology.net themselves to see they are all both real and valid. Your denial of these sources is of no concern to me.

If you think anything I said "discredited" the existence of consensus, then you don't understand what scientific consensus is.

And again; many of your sources are not academic sources, and many of them circle back to the same few original sources. Citing a bunch of cross-referential sources that all cite each other isn't actually adding more information or evidence to back your claims.

Yet you cannot dig up one to support any of the libelous claims you made against my website. I thought it was a conspiracy website right like Ancient Aliens? How can that be when we have a resource disputing Ancient Alien conspiracy theories? Why are you so intellectually dishonest like this?

Climate change denial itself is a conspiracy theory. You're arguing that almost all of the world's climate scientists are all engaged in a giant conspiracy to falsify data and misrepresent the truth, all for no discernible gains whatsoever.

Hell, you want a specific example? You have this article about the supposed "global cooling" claim of the 1970s; http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

Almost all of those are media articles, because there was no scientific basis for such a claim at that time, and the consensus was still that the planet would be warming.

And worse, you cited this Newsweek article from 1975, and clearly thought especially highly of it; it's the one of the handful in your list that's in bold font; http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

That was written by a guy named Peter Gwynne. So, rather than explain to you myself why it's wrongheaded to cite this as you are, I'll bring in a guest star.

Peter Gwynne.
https://www.insidescience.org/conten...sts-wrong/1640

[Garnier Fructis]

Yet you cannot dig up one to support any of the libelous claims you made against my website. I thought it was a conspiracy website right like Ancient Aliens? How can that be when we have a resource disputing Ancient Alien conspiracy theories? Why are you so intellectually dishonest like this?

Intellectual honesty is a god damned joke coming from you, given what I've already explained about your list of 1970's cooling articles.

[Orbitus]

Round of applause for Garnier and Endus for thoroughly destroying Vyxn's buddy

[Poptech]

So I took a look at those citations. The only ones that matter are the peer-reviewed journal citations. The rest are irrelevant.

Nice hand-waving tactic but it doesn't work that way.

The first one cites you by simply putting a link to a page where you compiled a list of 1300 something skeptic papers. This doesn't say anything about your scientific credibility, just that you're apparently pretty good at making lists.

So you confirmed that Popular Technology.net is cited in the scholarly journal Earth-Science Reviews.

"This is to be compared to more than 1350 peer-reviewed papers which express reservations about dangerous anthropogenic CO2 warming and/or insist on the natural variability of climate (Andrew, 2014)"

Those reading this can decide on their own what credibility being cited in a scientific paper gives to Popular Technology.net

The second one isn't even a paper, it's a comment. And they cite you by including a link to your page on scientists who were classified incorrectly by Cook. And you did this not by re-evaluating the papers yourself, but simply asking the authors if it was done correctly.

So you confirmed that Popular Technology.net is cited in the scholarly journal Earth System Dynamics.

"Cook et al. (2013), however, used the misleading and meaningless borderline of 50+% that could practically include almost all published papers that address the issue of climate attributions including those of notorious “skeptics” (Idso, Soon, Morner, Shaviv, Carlin, Scafetta) as demonstrated in this web-site: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html"

Why would I misrepresent these papers like Cook had done instead of simply asking the authors what their position was?

The third one reads like a giant stream of consciousness collection of random news articles and factoids. I admit I couldn't even find your citation in this one. Regardless, it's not even a scientific paper. It just... is... something.

This is released with every issue as a compilation of articles the scientists reading the journal may be interested in.

As explained by the journal: "Fuel for Thought aims to keep readers informed about developments in key issue areas impinging on energy policy: energy policy, new energy technologies, the climate change science debate and intergovernmental battles over access to resources and emission reductions."

The fourth one simply gives the same link as number one.

So you confirmed that Popular Technology.net is cited in the scholarly journal Energy & Environment.

"...and we also discover the so-called proof of a “928-to-0” consensus of science papers quoted in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth movie is flatly contradicted [4]

[4] http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html"

The fifth doesn't even cite you, it just mentions that they did something you asked them to do. And it's not a paper, it's just another comment. This doesn't say anything about your credibility.

So you confirmed that Popular Technology.net has enough credibility to get a scholarly journal editor to publish something and mention us.

The sixth is another stream of consciousness grab bag of news headlines.

Again, this is released with every issue as a compilation of articles the scientists reading the journal may be interested in.

As explained by the journal: "Fuel for Thought aims to keep readers informed about developments in key issue areas impinging on energy policy: energy policy, new energy technologies, the climate change science debate and intergovernmental battles over access to resources and emission reductions."

The seventh cites the same page the second.

So you confirmed again that Popular Technology.net is cited in the scholarly journal Energy & Environment.

"...despite the fact that a number of the skeptic authors of the papers they reviewed disagree with their AGW classifications [6]"

[6] K., Andrew, 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, According to the Scientiststhat Published Them, May 21, 2013, available athttp://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.htm"

Not even going to bother with the last 4.

Of course, why keep proving that Popular Technology.net has been referenced 11 times in 7 scholarly peer-reviewed journals?

So what have we learned from this. We've learned that these establish not your credibility, but that you've some skill at grunt work.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Vanyali]

Round of applause for Garnier and Endus for thoroughly destroying Vyxn's buddy

It's like the ToA thread cloned itself, then name-changed a bit...

[madethisfor1post]

The popcorn is real.

[Poptech]

But we also know from past experience with the 1970's cooling article collection that you also really suck at grunt work, because you managed to include articles which had nothing to do with the science: you included an article about a crazy lady so scared of an ice age that she built a bunker. And then died in it. On top of that hilarious hiccup, you also clearly did not read any of the things you were compiling, because all of them are simply citing the same 2-3 sources, one of which was a lawyer. So you compiled a very highly redundant list without even bothering to check, or if you did check, you did it anyway for the appearance of high volume.

So you admit you are illiterate? From: http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age."

Why would articles relating to media stories about this not be included? The ice age lady story shows the sheer panic some where in relating to a perceived future ice age.

"* Note: A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper."

You continue to fail to provide evidence of anything, instead you just make baseless allegations. They are not all simply citing the same 2-3 sources, as only a small handful are redundant.

The last paragraph I wrote is sufficient to call your reputability into question.

Misrepresenting the compilation and cherry picking stories to support strawman arguments does not call anything into question except your desperation.

[Garnier Fructis]

So you admit you are illiterate? From: http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

"During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age."

Why would articles relating to media stories about this not be included? The ice age lady story shows the sheer panic some where in relating to a perceived future ice age.

"* Note: A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper."

You continue to fail to provide evidence of anything, instead just make baseless allegations. They are not all simply citing the same 2-3 sources, as only a small handful are redundant.


Misrepresenting the compilation and cherry picking stories to support strawman arguments does not call anything into question except your desperation.

Huh. Yeah, you actually did. In which case I have to ask another question: why is that even relevant to global warming, if you agree that global cooling was pure media spin?

Though you're still wrong on one point. See, I actually read the articles, and wasted inordinate amounts of time looking up who the articles cited. And it was the same handful of people.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Wait...are we actually assuming this "Poptech" account is legit and not actually just Vyxn on a burner?

[Garnier Fructis]

Wait...are we actually assuming this "Poptech" account is legit and not actually just Vyxn on a burner?

His typing ability is way better than Vyxn.

[Vanyali]

His typing ability is way better than Vyxn.

^^^^^^^ One of them would be a character, and i'm scared to think anyone would INTENTIONALLY type like that.