IPKA your trusted source for exposing liars, scammers and just plain assholes, Righthaven, Populartechnology, PowerBalance

Whether you’re curious of both sides, or just want to hear the version that makes you happy. This blog has you covered. Nobody annoys these people more than we do. Fully legally, without consequences. We know for a fact they are all calling their lawyers and inside men hoping to dig up information on us, and shut us down. But it ain’t happening.

They can’t harass our sponsors, because we have none. We have nothing to lose, so they can’t threaten us.

If you’re not a denier, you’re a COLLECTIVIST

The term “collectivist” is popularized by Ayn Rand followers, it refers to anybody who is not an extreme individualist, whether you group people by race, gender, class, nation, or even human, that is considered “collectivist” (an umbrella term for racists, communists, nationalists, tribalists, and any other non-anti-socials).

The use of such word is usually and indication of a person having zero respect for the well being of others and his cynical free thought comes before all. (nothing wrong with that, just telling you what it is).

When somebody says
Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and debate existing on climate change.
It’s obvious that he is using collectivists as an ad hominem, but we are not insulted. Only anti-socials use that word. We do NOT have a problem with the FACT that there are “independent thinkers”, we just don’t take them seriously if they don’t deserve it. We also are well aware of “disagreement”, we just don’t consider them all good arguments.

The familiarity of the arguments are seen in creationist rhetoric. That it doesn’t matter who speaks, or who disagrees, the fact is if ANY idiot on the internets decides to move his lips, then it must mean somebody isn’t 100% right. They themselves will avoid telling you what they call a denier, or anti-social idiot, because that’s what they are themselves.

That’s right Andrew, do you support child molestation? If not, you’re a COLLECTIVIST.
Do you believe in moon landing conspiracy theorists? If not, you’re BRAINWASHED.
Do you exercise your freedom to smoke pot? If not, you HATE FREEDOM.
Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? No? You’re not a FREE THINKER.
Do you have empirical evidence you were born from your mother’s womb? If not, you believe it on FAITH, NOT FACT.
Do you respond to criticism? YES, that means you’re DESPERATE AND SCARED THAT PEOPLE READ FACTS.
Do you ignore some? YES, because you’re afraid of giving FACTS the attention it deserves, which would CHANGE MINDS OF THINKING PEOPLE.

Is there a scientific consensus on climate change? (good news, most don’t care)

Depending on who you talk to, the answer varies.

Some creationists or conspiracy theorists will say “Yes, there is, but science can still be wrong and consensus doesn’t mean anything”.
While other deniers will say “there is no consensus, because I can name a dozen scientists who DISAGREE”.
Clearly, somebody is wrong, and somebody disagrees on what counts as “consensus”.

But either there is, or there is not. It cannot be both. If you hear somebody saying “No, there is not consensus, but even if there is, it’s still not true” you can bet, the next breath is “even if it’s true, it’s still wrong to trample on my freedoms and tax me for breathing”. And thus reveals the desperation of using every possible weapon he can get his hand on.

A good argument needs only ONE point.

To really cut to the chase. Here’s what to do.

Don’t ask them what is scientific consensus.
Don’t even ask them whether global warming is true.
That means, don’t ask them whether humans have ANYTHING to do with climate change.
Ask them the real question : DO YOU care whether science supports global warming? Or are you more concerned about paying carbon taxes?

They have no reason to lie about it. Most will readily admit they do NOT care whether science supports global warming, or evolution, they just want their freedoms. Very few will say “I am willing to pay whatever the liberals, UN, Marxists, hippies demand, just prove to me it’s true!” If they do, the fun has just begun. Make them tell you what it would take to convince them it’s worth it. If they DO tell you, ask them why they do not apply the same rules to every other fee they pay, freedom they lost, or lifestyle choice.

One thing is for certain, you will spot a hypocrite. You will spot a person who either is an extremist or cherry picks what he likes to complain about.

Poptech doesn’t know subjective from objective

If you asked him whether his list is subjective, what would he say?

“Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity. The metric is widely abused and disputed,

Wrong. Impact factor is objective. But whether popularity is scientific validity is another question. And that can be said to be objectively irrelevant.
There is a mathematical formula to measure impact, whether it is a good measure or not is another question. Poptech claims to know math, so it is likely that he is knowingly lying.

He is intentionally confusing the fact that impact factor is not the best measure of popularity or scientific validity, with “therefore it is subjective”.

Just because a person being female is no proof she is a good nurse, it is as least an objectively verifiable fact, which can indicate whether this nurse is “typical” (as it’s a statistical FACT that most nurses are female). Just because you cannot use a person’s sex or gender to determine whether he/she is a good nurse, does not mean his/her sex is “subjective”.

Christian fails to understand that citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Looks like somebody doesn’t know how scientific writing works. Scientists don’t cite papers because the author looks cool or sings a nice tune. Scientists cite papers when and if they are reliable. While the frequency of citation is not guarantee a paper is accurate, it is an indication that is better than none at all. One does not and should not use citation as a SOLE measure of validity, but lack of any, is usually an indication that the study is either not widely read, or widely accepted.

Scientific acceptance is NOT a measure of truth, but it’s a lot better than none at all.

PS, these anti-popularity arguments only appear in creationist, Holocaust denier, and conspiracy websites. Somehow climate is the only place where science happens to be wrong or unsettled. Unless you’re a creationist, and then science is wrong about half the time. While it is true that popularity does not equal scientific fact, nor does scientific consensus equal truth, those who wish to argue against it have a burden of proof to present something better. One cannot simply say “because you don’t know everything perfectly, therefore you might be wrong about everything, perfectly”.

Just because a woman’s breast size isn’t the objective measure of whether she can be a good mother, is in no way saying, that her breast size can’t be objectively measured.

Christian distorts Christiansen (har har)

3. Christian attempts to distort the meaning of a quote by editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,

So it’s perfectly OK for a climate change denier to take a quote out of context (such as when asked whether 95-09 has seen significant warming, or “hide the decline”)


But when somebody does it to one of his idols, it’s a lie, it’s a crime and he wants them lynched (Andrew, if you don’t want them dead, please let me know, I hate to put words in your mouth)

14%+ is not “almost 15%”

That’s right, if you’re not 100% accurate on your math, for better or worse, Poptech will call you a LIAR.

You don’t get to say that 14.1% is “almost 15%” something is only 15% or it is NOT 15%, there is no such thing as a bad round off or poor estimation.

2. Christian lies that Energy and Environment is almost 15% of the total.

Failing to properly count the list is proving fatal for those trying to desperately attack it. When you actually count the full number of papers on the list (900+ not 900) you get 14.1% which is not “almost 15%”. Even still 131 is only 14.5% of 900. That is over 769 papers from 256 other journals besides Energy & Environment on the list.