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
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.