PopularTechnology.net is a denier website

Andrew has complained about the title, but he’s only supported it from his recent contributions. That’s right, PopularTechnology.net is a website written by a person who denies AGW, and when asked if he’ll ever change his mind, he’s never admitted so.

As for “how can it be accurate”, let’s try switching the term.

“This website is a one who teaches website” from “this website is a teacher website”
I could add a “‘s” to show “a teacher’s website” or “website by one who teaches”.
“This is a writer website” to “this is a one who writes website”.
But, just as a car and a driver are inseparable for practical purposes, so is a website and a webmaster.
So, “Populartechnology.net is a website that denies” or “a website of one who denies” is what I meant to communicate. (Andrew’s problem isn’t the grammar and order or spelling, he’s just not happy with the word DENIER used on him)
I could change the title to “PopularTechnology.net is a website by and for deniers of AGW”, but I’d have to check it with Andrew first 🙂

On with the original post :

When asked to provide any scientific research or opinion which questions global warming (or specifically, anthropogenic global warming). Many people can predictably point to the obvious canned responses :

a) 30K scientists in Petition Project
b) PopularTechnology.net for 800 peer reviewed papers
c) ClimateGate
d) it’s the sun!
e) Hal Lewis resignation

We will discuss all responses when time allows. But for this post, we will show the fact that PopularTechnology.net is written by a DENIER, rather than a skeptic or scientist.

In fact, Andrew K being so familiar with Penn & Teller’s videos should know, the key difference between a denier and a skeptic, is that a skeptic DEMANDS TO BE CONVINCED, whereas a denier admits he will never be convinced.

Where’s just one exchange he’s had on a political message board none other than RonPaulForums.com

(Andrew K webmaster of PopularTechnology.net ‘s words are in BOLD)

There is no objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist.

Again you lie as I do not deny anything that has been empirically proven, as AGW has never been empirically proven.

When asked whether Al Gore, or himself can be considered climate scientists, or climatologists, he says :

Some people consider Al Gore a climatologist, like I said subjective.

When asked what counts as “empirically proven”, he could not give an answer.

When asked at what point does the “debate” on AGW end, he says
It never ends if the science is unproven as AGW is.

He was asked again, what would it take to convince him AGW is true. He responds :

Empirical evidence not modeled results.
(apply his standard, why should anybody consider reconstructions of MWP as empirical evidence?)

Just to test whether he’s a denier or a person who actually is willing to consider evidence, he was asked “So you’d have to see a person pumping CO2 into a chamber and the temperature immediately rising?”

Pumping CO2 into a chamber does not prove that man-made emissions of CO2 are causing climate change.

So what DOES?? Please provide a testable experiment and an expected result.

It is not my job to prove the theory you support. When you have empirical evidence let me know.
(We already know it’s not Andrew’s job to prove, or even support a theory he doesn’t hold. They’re asking him what would ever convince him AGW is true, or what would settle the question scientifically. Clearly, he’s dodging the question, or just doesn’t know. This makes a denier, rather than a skeptic. He can’t even HYPOTHETICALLY think of what constitutes empirical evidence, so as soon as you got something, don’t show him, he can conveniently deny that it’s empirical evidence. PATHETIC!)

When asked, whether one requires to actually witness his birth from his mom’s womb, he shies away from the “empirical evidence” demand.
Not a strawman just stupid. Your weak minded knee jerk use of the word denial continues to make me laugh.

When asked “what is not purely subjective”
His best answer was :

Even though he wants you to believe that
A defining characteristic of a zealot is to use the word denier. I accept empirical evidence and reproducible results. (yet he won’t tell you what that is)

A common characteristic of a denier, is a person who tells you you are wrong, but never telling you his own position. This is shown when asked, whether his 800 articles have a coherent, scientifically defensible theory. He responds :
Again it is to, “provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.” & “No, all the papers on the list support the purpose of the list they “support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW”. I don’t discriminate against competing skeptical positions. “(In other words, no theory he’s willing to test in skepticism or alternative to AGW, because he probably knows, under the standards he holds to AGW proponents, denier arguments are much worse)

Let’s try again, get down to what Andrew actually BELIEVES.
My position is simple, there has been a mild warming since the end of the little ice age but there is no acceptable evidence that this warming is worse than the MWP and no conclusive evidence of how much if any is caused by man.

[A paper he cites from Energy & Environment] provides evidence that the recent warming is not outside natural variations.

Just to be safe, he was asked again, how he defines “natural variation” and what would ever constitute “man-made” climate or temperature change. Is it simply “because MWP was warmer, then it happened before, so it’s not impossible naturally”?

I never defined natural variation as such.
Evidence of a warmer MWP is evidence that the current warming is not unusual. It does not support your argument for the current warming being caused by humans.

Ready? Here it comes!
A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.

And there you have your denier. He admits that nothing in terms of temperature change would ever justify AGW, making his previous mentions of MWP, or other peer reviewed papers, empirical evidence, ALL IRRELEVANT.

20 thoughts on “PopularTechnology.net is a denier website

  1. Please quote where I state “I can never be convinced”, if you are unable to find this exact quote then I would appreciate it if you would retract your lie.

    It is disappointing to see someone be intellectually dishonest such as yourself and attempt to smear my website with your lies.

  2. Andrew, we already posted the quote of you saying

    “A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism.”

    So unless you state what WILL convince you, SPECIFICS, there’s no reason to believe you WILL ever be convinced.

    Calling me a liar will not change the facts. You’ve been shown to continuously dodge the question as what counts as “empirical evidence” or “empirically proven”, when asked whether one needs to empirically observe you pop out of your mom’s womb to be “proof” that you did, you had nothing to say but call me stupid.

    So, be my guest and prove me wrong (and yes, I get to say what “proves” me wrong, just kidding).

    So in case it’s not obvious to you (I’m sure you’re not that stupid). You DON’T NEED TO EXPLICITLY STATE “I can never be convinced”, I never said you said such a thing. Make up your mind what will ever convince you, or the statement stands as true, that you’ve never admitted what will convince you.

  3. Your quote does not state what I requested,

    Please quote where I state “I can never be convinced”, if you are unable to find this exact quote then I would appreciate it if you would retract your lie.

    Just because I have not stated what it is does not mean it does not exist. I have heard all the arguments and extensively read the “evidence”, none of which I have found acceptable but I am always open to be convinced. I stated this on the page your quoted me from.

    My statement regarding temperatures is correct and I stand by it.

    I am disappointed to see you choose to be intellectually dishonest and state lies about my position.

    Shall I state lies about you?

  4. Your quote does not state what I requested,

    I know that, I never tried to get you what you requested. (You don’t get to tell me what I need to make my point).

    I have what I want, which is you admitting that temperature change at any amount would never be good enough to justify AGW. All rest is quite irrelevant to me (I don’t care if it’s not irrelevant to you).

    I did NOT lie about you. I stand by what I said, which is you are a denier, and you’ve NOT stated what would ever convince you. Any normal reasonable person can at least provide a hypothetical (or even impossible) standard as to what would convince them of something, you don’t even bother.

    But I am open to being wrong, STATE YOUR STANDARD IF YOU HAVE IT.

    YOU have the burden of proof to show THERE EXISTS something in the world that’ll convince you. Otherwise there’s nothing wrong with people saying IT DOESN’T EXIST. (if you need me to explain to you with an example, just ask, but you can’t be that stupid and still try to play tough)

    I didn’t state lies about your position, I actually QUOTED YOUR POSITION ON HERE.
    Feel free to rewrite it if it’s changed, or if I missed context.

    , none of which I have found acceptable but I am always open to be convinced.
    Just like I’m always open to be convinced that you were born from your mom despite ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? I’ll ask you again, print this out and sleep with it, until you have an answer, your denial stands.


    I have no reason to believe you know the answer to this, or you’d have told me by now.

    Feel free to call me a liar, I consider that “stating lies about me”. Is that all you got?

  5. Your quote of mine makes you look like an idiot because it says nothing about me never being convinced. Now,

    Please quote where I state “I can never be convinced”, if you are unable to find this exact quote then I would appreciate it if you would retract your lie.

    I know what will convince me. It is for me to know and you to find out.

  6. Makes me look like an idiot? Haha.

    I don’t need to beg or force it out of you, you’re the one that’s unhappy with being called a denier, so vindicate yourself.

    “Just because I didn’t tell you doesn’t mean I don’t know”
    “I don’t know yet, but I know I haven’t seen it”
    “I know, but I’m not telling you”
    type lines aren’t helping you. You’re a denier and you’re not even man enough to admit it. You’d shut me up by now if you just stated what would meet your standard of proof, but you know you have no answer you’re not ashamed to share, that’s why you’ve remained silent, called me a liar, and continue to play spitting contest.

    For the record, I don’t NEED you to tell me anything more, but you’re a denier until you show otherwise.

    According to you, as long as you don’t admit you’re a denier, a person is lying if he calls you a denier. (feel free to call this a lie, everybody knows you now).

  7. Wow dude, you don’t even trust yourself to give a definition for “denier”? Perhaps you can stop being a denier of your own denialism.

    My dictionary here
    denier : one who denies
    denial : refusal to grant the truth of a statement ; a refusal to believe something ;
    deniable : possible to contradict or declare untrue
    deny : as above with denial, plus – disavow, to turn down, turn away, ; to restrain oneself from pleasures ;

    These are dictionary definitions like you asked. Very simple and broad, for this purpose, it fits you anyway.

    But to be specific as to what I meant by calling you a denier, is the usage in debate, especially scientific and academic fields.

    A denier is usually characterized by his refusal to accept what is widely accepted or demonstrated to be true. Of course, there are varying degrees of showing something to be true and accurate, so to be specific, a denier is not merely a person who doesn’t believe something, but refuses to consider any possibility he can be wrong, or give an unequivocal refusal to accept something regardless of the evidence.

    I further demonstrated that your denial is comparable to that of people who claim to simply be “skeptics” of evolution, the Holocaust, 9/11, HIV/AIDS. The giveaway is when you ask them “What would it ever take to convince you you are wrong” and their response is either silent, or they give you something so outrageous that they’d never hold the same standard to every other aspect of belief (even this is better than being silent, by the way)

    I know you’ll probably tell me “My position is supported by peer review science”, but that is not the quite the case, given how you read what I write, I am not impressed that by looking hard enough, you can read what you want to read and take something to support you position which the author himself wouldn’t approve of.

    You were asked numerous times (and it was with hope people are wrong about you, so they can actually learn), you’ve turn them down every time. You’ve refused to state what would convince you, leaves you free to deny whatever you like, without any principle or reason. Without knowing what you need and want to be proven wrong, you DO NOT NEED 31,500 scientists, or 800 papers. You’re a denier, show us we’re wrong.

  8. You failed to provide a link to your definition.

    Your statement is illogical then,

    “PopularTechnology.net is a one who denies website”

    The other definitions are not for the word denier.

    “but refuses to consider any possibility he can be wrong, or give an unequivocal refusal to accept something regardless of the evidence.”

    So you admit you are a liar, good for you.

  9. Andrew, I NEVER EVER SAID, you said “nothing will convince you”, your lack of admitting what WILL leaves you “unwilling” until you say otherwise.

    I don’t need you to admit you’re a denier to call you a denier (or else I’d just go by everything you say in verbatim)

    Calling you a denier is not a lie, it’s the logical conclusion of describing a person who cannot tell you what will convince him he’s wrong. You should know this talking to 9/11 truthers. (and I think you do, you just don’t like being swept in alongside with them).

  10. Andrew, you can settle this RIGHT NOW, if you can tell me what separates you from a denier, in use of the term Holocaust denier, evolution denier, HIV-AIDS denier, cancer denier, 9/11 official investigation denier.

    Can you tell me what would ever convince you you are wrong?

    If not, this statement “but refuses to consider any possibility he can be wrong, or give an unequivocal refusal to accept something regardless of the evidence.” Stands solidly, PROVE ME WRONG.

    Don’t complain when somebody calls you something you are, unless you can show (or I can ask, PROVE) you are not.

    And no, I didn’t “fail to provide a link”, I didn’t know you asked for it (the dictionary I used was American Heritage). But here’s a few links, not expecting you to accept them, so feel free to provide your own.
    (these are dictionary links I don’t normally use, but you asked, so I only link them to answer your question, PLEASE give me better ones if you have them, or stop that complaining I call you what you are)

    I’ve not read all the pages on here, but I am willing to trust that greenfyre has a definition of denier that agrees with me, and conforms with your behavior. If you can point out where greenfyre disagrees with me, or where either of us are wrong about you, feel free.


    I didn’t make up this definition of denier, but you have yet to prove I’ve lied, or, as you say, in responses to people saying “That’s just according to you”

    “You have yet to prove otherwise.”

  11. The title of you post is still illogical,

    “PopularTechnology.net is a one who denies website”

    Please quote where I state “Nothing can convince me”. Your failure to provide this is admission you lied.

  12. No Andrew, the title of my post is accurate.

    Unless either you’ve stopped being a denier, or your website has changed ownership, or you’ve gotten another name for your site.

    I cannot find a quote of your admitting “Nothing can convince me”, nor did I ever say you admitted it that way. But I’ve asked you several times if such a thing exists, and you’ve not answered.

    I did not lie about you, my accusation of you being a denier is founded and supported by everything here, your continued contributions only help the argument so far. (its never too late to change that, dare?)

    Do I need you to admit you’re a denier to call you a denier? Nope.
    Nor do you need me to admit I’m a liar to call me a liar, doesn’t hurt me.

  13. How can it be accurate when it does not make any sense,

    “PopularTechnology.net is a one who denies website”

    Please quote where I state “Nothing can convince me”. Your failure to provide this is admission you lied.

    You continue to fail to support your lies.

  14. I didn’t say you ever said such a thing, so why am I asked to provide the quote?

    I didn’t lie, so I don’t need to support any lie.

    I said you’re a denier, and you are, this is what you’ve proven (and you’ve not even tried to do otherwise)

    You sound like you need English lessons on replaces words and fixing grammar, but see above (post has been updated)

  15. Pingback: Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change - Page 17 (politics)

  16. IPKA (WaltM) is a known Internet Stalker Blog that was started after he was banned from the Ron Paul forums for being, “a useless, annoying troll”.

    “Andrew can shut up if he wishes not to be …followed or stalked.” – IPKA (WaltM)

    “I’m a real life stalker too, you just think I’m an internet stalker because you only see my online.” – IPKA (WaltM)

    “…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – IPKA (WaltM)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s