11 Lies being taught to American children

Orion

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/11_heinous_lies_conservatives_are_teaching_americas_school_children_partner/

I don't know why I'm surprised at any of this but I still find it amazing that an enlightened society can be so backwards especially when it comes to education their youth. Revisionism and social blindness is alive and well.

There's a very interesting link at the start of the article as well about how Texas exerts a fair degree of control over school textbooks across the States.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false

Spanish Harlem

First of all, I have to say that is a very poor OP. You could have at least given a summary of the "11 lies being taught to American children" so we have something to discuss. Instead you give us a link to a notoriously biased liberal website based in San Francisco. You don't give an opinion either so I'm not sure what your point is

I'm pretty sure most of the anti-gay and anti-science accusations contained within the article could be equally applied to Saudi Arabia, or even little Catholic Ireland. I'm not sure where America comes into it, to be honest. Article smacks of America bashing with a strong stench of "won't somebody think of the children!" hand wringing.

Manach

From conservative blogs I've heard the same charge in reverse, with instead the liberal types in blue states in the role of evil corrupters of school goers with their spin on history/science. So this would seem to show that finding an objective truth that either side signs up to in modern society is unlikely.

clairefontaine

Orion wrote: »

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/11_heinous_lies_conservatives_are_teaching_americas_school_children_partner/

I don't know why I'm surprised at any of this but I still find it amazing that an enlightened society can be so backwards especially when it comes to education their youth. Revisionism and social blindness is alive and well.

There's a very interesting link at the start of the article as well about how Texas exerts a fair degree of control over school textbooks across the States.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false

Oh this is too funny. It reminds of another certain country that has compulsary prayer, nationalistic compulsary language, and a biased history curriculum.

The states in that OP are all the southeast. You go to the Pacific Northwest and you get a whole lot of other kind of brainwashing.

What's wrong with ayn rand? And how is that a lie? "Read this book and pass a test on it" "YOU LIAR!!"
Pretty rubbish article tbh

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Orion

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I fully agree with what you're saying here and I've been semi-active in that area. Even on the other parts of the syllabus catholic teaching permeates. When my kids were in 1st class part of their history book was about the birth of christ to a virgin etc - presented as history! The difference here is that we don't have rich fundamentalists attempting to control the syllabus - we just have the church and that is changing ... slowly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear,

I contacted the Minister for Education about the relationship between Church and state regarding the curriculum and the crucifixes over the doorways.

I was told that it is a constitutional obligation to teach religion, that is why you have Catholic schools and multi denominationals [where they teach a number of religions, more like a world theology syllabus] but you can never have schools that have no religion like in American or French public schools.

Speaking of fundamentalism, Ireland is a country that still has blasphemy laws. Don't know how you get anymore fundamentalist than that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Yes I found it strange too. In my correspondence I had asked to explain the difference between a right and an obligation. He said the children have a right to learn religion so they teach it, but they can be exempt and sit out the classes.

Orion

clairefontaine wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well that's absolute rubbish from someone who obviously doesn't know the difference between statute and constitution. There's a legal obligation (2.5 hours per week in primary) not a constitutional one. Laws can be changed easily.

In ET they give religious education as you say in all world religions. In the vast majority of schools however they do religion instruction in one. However have a look at a lot of the curriculum books apart from religion ones - christian preaching is all over the place.

Permabear wrote:

and we have powerful teachers' unions that are highly resistant to reform

This is the biggest problem imo. Particularly the INTO. My dealings with that organisation have not been pleasant to say the least. They are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and protecting their members from any form of quality control in teaching than providing the best education possible.

Morag

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I found it strange too. In my correspondence I had asked to explain the difference between a right and an obligation. He said the children have a right to learn religion so they teach it, but they can be exempt and sit out the classes.

The exemption rarely works in practice.

clairefontaine

Morag wrote: »

The exemption rarely works in practice.

Oh yeah, it's a complete joke. Especially in rural schools.

clairefontaine

Orion wrote: »

This is the biggest problem imo. Particularly the INTO. My dealings with that organisation have not been pleasant to say the least. They are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and protecting their members from any form of quality control in teaching than providing the best education possible.

Interesting you say this. I was talking to a parent who has a very orthodox Catholic family, and homeschools his kids because he didn't like the trade union brainwashing slant of the Irish education. The religion part wasnt a problem for him.

Zombrex

While I think it would be terrible if school children are taught an of those things, this seems to be a lot of scaremongering and little facts. The key word in the article is "may", this is what school children may be taught in schools. I take it from that that they aren't currently, so I think the hysteria should probably wait until someone tries to teach this stuff.

RDM_83 again

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just a question but is the Kinsey Institute the best source of this sort of data, since we're speaking about controversial opinions/agenda's in education.

In relation to the Irish education system, I will agree that people in ROI probably have an overrated opinion of its ranking but does it matter to a great degree what happens in Primary school, while I've little teaching experience I've shared classes of many americans and europeans and I've never noticed that they performed any better in comparison (with the exception of languages in relation to Europeans), and please note none of my education up to 3rd level was in the ROI and my friends that are teachers are now mostly working abroad so I'm not a mindless defender (there is plenty of things I've heard about 2nd level i would criticise)

clairefontaine wrote: »

Speaking of fundamentalism, Ireland is a country that still has blasphemy laws. Don't know how you get anymore fundamentalist than that.

Has anyone ever been arrested or even tried under Irish blasphemy law either new or old?, and is it even possible for a conviction to be gained under the new legislation. The existence of law is irrelvant unless you also look at its application.

Greenmachine

Plenty of lies in the primary school curriculum here in Ireland. No original though on the parts of the teachers. Something was a fact because it said so in the book.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

I'm not arguing about your broader point in relation to attitudes towards sex in the USA, I was wondering why the Kinsey institute was used rather than a more state/official source considering this discussion is around biases perceived and real in education, and the Kinsey institute even by simply being named after him automatically attracts a controversy, I'm sure by writing that though it will be assumed I think sex is dirty etc, I don't, I do think that Kinsey was a poor scientist (simple population selection and sampling sampling biases weren't mysterious at the time for other researchers) and particular aspects of his work (which remember were carried out before ethics committees existed), anyway thats a totally different argument so I'l drop it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.e issues , if Irish and RE were removed these extra hours wouldn't even be used to teach English, they would be used to teach a foreign language at a younger age or classes like civics, in relation to Maths a similar argument applies, also consider that the majority of the Irish population take leaving cert maths at some level all these years of teaching must pass them by.
Its not time of education thats important, its the quality of it, looking at steiner educated kids or children from the Scandinavian countries, they start formal schooling way later but have no problems with literacy or numeracy.

There's plenty of reasons to criticize the Irish education system but placing RE and Irish as reasons why English and Maths skills are mediocre for the developed world is reaching

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duiske

Lie No 3 in that link is actually itself, a lie. No-one is advocating teaching "climate change denial". What is being suggested is that children should be told the truth, that the Science is not in fact settled, and there are discrepancies between what scientists believe should be happening in the climate due to increased anthropogenic CO2 and what is actually happening.
This is borne out well this week by an excellent article in the Economist. Well worth a read by everyone, and hopefully it will lead to a reduction in the "Denier" tag being applied to anyone who quite correctly states that Global Warming has stalled, and actually slightly reversed, over the past decade. UK Met Office.
The claim in the link that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical arguments against AGW is also untrue. Here's a link which lists over 1,000 such papers.

Mark Hamill

Duiske wrote: »

Lie No 3 in that link is actually itself, a lie. No-one is advocating teaching "climate change denial". What is being suggested is that children should be told the truth, that the Science is not in fact settled, and there are discrepancies between what scientists believe should be happening in the climate due to increased anthropogenic CO2 and what is actually happening.

Except that is not really the truth. It is true that exactly how the earth will heat and what effect that will have is not settled, it is scientific consensus that anthropomorphic climate change is happening.

Duiske wrote: »

This is borne out well this week by an excellent article in the Economist. Well worth a read by everyone, and hopefully it will lead to a reduction in the "Denier" tag being applied to anyone who quite correctly states that Global Warming has stalled, and actually slightly reversed, over the past decade. UK Met Office.

Your are not doing your argument any favours by interpreting a 160 year trend graph by just looking at the last dozen or so years. There was one exceptional hot year around 1996 or so, according to that graph, with the next two years showing cooler temperatures. However, the remaining 12 or so years, are all hotter than any other year on the graph.

Duiske wrote: »

The claim in the link that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptical arguments against AGW is also untrue. Here's a link which lists over 1,000 such papers.

I'm not going through all of the 1000 papers, but looking at the 11 in the highlights section (and their abstracts), only one of them denies global warming itself (well it denies that a particular IPCC report supports it, article here), they either deny global warmings cause (cosmic rays, end of little ice age) or its extent (standard research methods over-exaggerats data).

EDIT: After reading this article entitled "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution" on the same website reporting the 1000 papers against AGW, I'm beginning to think they are either morons or some oil company astroturfing with a fake blog.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not going through all of the 1000 papers, but looking at the 11 in the highlights section (and their abstracts), only one of them denies global warming itself (well it denies that a particular IPCC report supports it, article here), they either deny global warmings cause (cosmic rays, end of little ice age) or its extent (standard research methods over-exaggerats data).

This is a strawman argument as none of the papers on the list are claimed to "deny" anything let alone "global warming" as all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

What the papers are claimed to support is quite clear in the preface,

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

EDIT: After reading this article entitled "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution" on the same website reporting the 1000 papers against AGW, I'm beginning to think they are either morons or some oil company astroturfing with a fake blog.

This is a dishonest ad hominem, there is nothing moronic about explaining the scientific fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a not a "pollutant" as in something that causes dirty air like smog and no company runs my site.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

This is a strawman argument as none of the papers on the list are claimed to "deny" anything let alone "global warming" as all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

What the papers are claimed to support is quite clear in the preface,

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Its a bit dishonest, though, to bunch them altogether. Going by the highlights section, the articles that propose a different cause, don't deny there is a global warming problem, the articles that propose faults in certain research methods don't deny that ACC is happening and the articles that do deny ACC are in the minority.

Poptech wrote: »

This is a dishonest ad hominem, there is nothing moronic about explaining the scientific fact that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a not a "pollutant" as in something that causes dirty air like smog and no company runs my site.

Anything is a pollutant if it is emitted into an environment causing a negative effect, so no, it is not a "scientific fact" that CO2 is not a pollutant and, yes, the article was either written by a moron or a shill for some oil company.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a bit dishonest, though, to bunch them altogether. Going by the highlights section, the articles that propose a different cause, don't deny there is a global warming problem, the articles that propose faults in certain research methods don't deny that ACC is happening and the articles that do deny ACC are in the minority.

What? The only thing dishonest is your strawman arguments as the list has nothing to do with any of them. None of the papers in the highlights section support alarmist positions on anything as most were explicitly written by skeptics.

There is not a single paper that "denies" there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic climate change (ACC). So there is no minority of anything you are talking about.

Stating perpetual strawman arguments has nothing to do with the fact that all the papers in the list support skeptic arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anything is a pollutant if it is emitted into an environment causing a negative effect, so no, it is not a "scientific fact" that CO2 is not a pollutant and, yes, the article was either written by a moron or a shill for some oil company.

So you continue your dishonest ad hominems as I am not a shill for anyone. Using your logic water can be "pollution", so yes it is a scientific fact that CO2 is not "pollution" in the sense joe public defines it and there is nothing moronic about explaining this.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

What? The only thing dishonest is your strawman arguments as the list has nothing to do with any of them. None of the papers in the highlights section support alarmist positions on anything as most were explicitly written by skeptics.

There is not a single paper that "denies" there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic climate change (ACC). So there is no minority of anything you are talking about.

Stating perpetual strawman arguments has nothing to do with the fact that all the papers in the list support skeptic arguments.

I'll try this again, because you haven't addressed what I said:
"Its a bit dishonest, though, to bunch them altogether. Going by the highlights section, the articles that propose a different cause, don't deny there is a global warming problem, the articles that propose faults in certain research methods don't deny that ACC is happening and the articles that do deny ACC are in the minority."
The papers do not support skeptic arguments in the way being implied. Being skeptical of the cause or extent of AGW is not the same as being skeptical of AGW in general.

Poptech wrote: »

So you continue your dishonest ad hominems as I am not a shill for anyone. Using your logic water can be "pollution", so yes it is a scientific fact that CO2 is not "pollution" in the sense joe public defines it and there is nothing moronic about explaining this.

I hadn't realised that you were the articles author. How did you find this forum so fast? Did you write both articles?

Anyway, water can be a pollutant, because a pollutant is simply something which causes a negative effect on an environment that is not prepared for it, that is the only accurate definition of pollutant. "Pollutant", is like "pest", it's context sensitive. In general people might not think of rabbits as pests, and yet they are serious pests in Australia.
Saying CO2 is safe because its plant food is an argument as stupid as a creationist saying we couldn't have evolved from monkeys because monkeys still exist. Nitrates are important chemicals for plant growth, yet dump a load in a river and you get eutriphication.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'll try this again, because you haven't addressed what I said:
"Its a bit dishonest, though, to bunch them altogether. Going by the highlights section, the articles that propose a different cause, don't deny there is a global warming problem, the articles that propose faults in certain research methods don't deny that ACC is happening and the articles that do deny ACC are in the minority."
The papers do not support skeptic arguments in the way being implied. Being skeptical of the cause or extent of AGW is not the same as being skeptical of AGW in general.

I did address your dishonest strawman argument. Do you not know what a strawman argument is? Repeating it does not make it any more valid. The papers directly support skeptic arguments as being implied. Are you incapable of reading?

Do you not comprehend what supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm means? This is explicitly stated and defined on the list.

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm is effectively arguing against the extent of ACC/AGW.

And papers being skeptical of the cause of ACC/AGW is the same thing as papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW.

I have never seen someone double down on something so irrefutable before.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I hadn't realised that you were the articles author. How did you find this forum so fast? Did you write both articles?

As soon as anyone states misinformation or strawman arguments against the list as you have I become aware.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anyway, water can be a pollutant, because a pollutant is simply something which causes a negative effect on an environment that is not prepared for it, that is the only accurate definition of pollutant. "Pollutant", is like "pest", it's context sensitive. In general people might not think of rabbits as pests, and yet they are serious pests in Australia.

Saying CO2 is safe because its plant food is an argument as stupid as a creationist saying we couldn't have evolved from monkeys because monkeys still exist. Nitrates are important chemicals for plant growth, yet dump a load in a river and you get eutriphication.

If you cannot comprehend why people do not think water is "pollution" I cannot help you. People in Australia do not think rabbits are "pollution". And please spare me the old and tire anti-religious analogies. It is so predictable, it is as if every proponent of AGW Alarm regurgitates the same tired talking points and cannot come up with an original thought.

Does CO2 make the air people breath "dirtier"?

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

I did address your dishonest strawman argument. Do you not know what a strawman argument is? Repeating it does not make it any more valid. The papers directly support skeptic arguments as being implied. Are you incapable of reading?

Do you not comprehend what supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm means? This is explicitly stated and defined on the list.

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm is effectively arguing against the extent of ACC/AGW.

And papers being skeptical of the cause of ACC/AGW is the same thing as papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW.

I have never seen someone double down on something so irrefutable before.


As soon as anyone states misinformation or strawman arguments against the list as you have I become aware.


If you cannot comprehend why people do not think water is "pollution" I cannot help you. People in Australia do not think rabbits are "pollution". And please spare me the old and tire anti-religious analogies. It is so predictable, it is as if every proponent of AGW Alarm regurgitates the same tired talking points and cannot come up with an original thought.

Does CO2 make the air people breath "dirtier"?

This entire post refutes neither my point that the skepticisms shown in those 1000 papers are not equivalent to each other, or the overall skepticism implied, nor my point that pollution is contextual and refers to anything that has a negative effect on an environment.
When you are ready to present valid arguments, I'll be here. Given that you come out with notions like "rabbits are pollution" and pollution means dirt (is noise pollution dirty?), I wont be holding my breath.

Poptech wrote: »

As soon as anyone states misinformation or strawman arguments against the list as you have I become aware.

How do you "become aware"?

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This entire post refutes neither my point that the skepticisms shown in those 1000 papers are not equivalent to each other, or the overall skepticism implied,

Where does the list claim all the papers are equivalent to each other?

Your "point" is a strawman argument as no claim is made that the "skepticism" in all the papers is equivalent. All that is claimed is all the papers support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm .

Mark Hamill wrote: »

nor my point that pollution is contextual and refers to anything that has a negative effect on an environment.

Strawman argument as that is your definition of "pollution" not the definition I am using.

Does CO2 make the air people breath "dirtier"?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When you are ready to present valid arguments, I'll be here. Given that you come out with notions like "rabbits are pollution" and pollution means dirt (is noise pollution dirty?), I wont be holding my breath.

Strawman arguments are not valid arguments. Are you claiming to know more about the list than the author?

You chose to use rabbits as an analogy not me and I am well aware of the various definitions of the word "pollution". In the future do not believe your subjective choice of a definition for a word with multiple definitions is the same as everyone else.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you "become aware"?

Magic

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

Where does the list claim all the papers are equivalent to each other?

It is implied. Someone who is skeptical of the extent or the actual cause of AGW is not the same as someone who skeptical of it outright.

Poptech wrote: »

Strawman argument as that is your definition of "pollution" not the definition I am using.

Does CO2 make the air people breath "dirtier"?

Your definition is obnoxiously wrong. Does noise pollution make the air dirtier?

Poptech wrote: »

Strawman arguments are not valid arguments. Are you claiming to know more about the list than the author?

You chose to use rabbits as an analogy not me and I am well aware of the various definitions of the word "pollution". In the future do not believe your subjective choice of a definition for a word with multiple definitions is the same as everyone else.

Aren't you the author? I only used your highlights section as a quick review to avoid looking at all 1000 papers. It doesn't bode well for your argument if the highlights section you selected isn't actually representative of the 1000 papers.

Pollution is contextual, not subjective. What a pollutant is, is objective (an emission which causes a negative impact on an environment), but when a specific thing becomes a pollutant depends on context (how much of it is being emitted into what environment).

Poptech wrote: »

Magic

Seriously, how did you know that someone on an Irish forum referenced your 4 1/2 year old document?

FreudianSlippers

The comparisons with Ireland are a bit ridiculous. I can state with almost certainty that there are no Irish schools teaching creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, nor are there any teaching the bible as valid history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It has gotten worse. They now explain the loaves and the fishes to the kids with pictures of witches and comparing it to magic. I know an orthodox Catholic family who has homeschooled because of how warped the religion teaching is.

And yes they still get taught that God created the universe and St Patrick got rid of all the snakes in Ireland, etc etc....

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is implied. Someone who is skeptical of the extent or the actual cause of AGW is not the same as someone who skeptical of it outright.

Strawman again as no such thing is implied anywhere. The list is explicitly titled:

"1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"

The list covers all skeptic arguments relating to ACC/AGW and ACC/AGW Alarm. It does not claim or imply anything else.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your definition is obnoxiously wrong. Does noise pollution make the air dirtier?

My definition is found in dictionaries,

"poisonous substances introduced into an environment"

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Aren't you the author? I only used your highlights section as a quick review to avoid looking at all 1000 papers. It doesn't bode well for your argument if the highlights section you selected isn't actually representative of the 1000 papers.

All the papers in the highlights section support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm, just like every other paper on the list.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Pollution is contextual, not subjective. What a pollutant is, is objective (an emission which causes a negative impact on an environment), but when a specific thing becomes a pollutant depends on context (how much of it is being emitted into what environment).

When a word has more then one definition and you choose one definition over another the choice to use such a definition is subjective. Whether something has a "negative impact on an environment" is purely subjective.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seriously, how did you know that someone on an Irish forum referenced your 4 1/2 year old document?

I do not disclose how I efficiently use the Internet but it is all automated. The current version of my list is less than 9 months old.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

Strawman again as no such thing is implied anywhere. The list is explicitly titled:

"1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"

The list covers all skeptic arguments relating to ACC/AGW and ACC/AGW Alarm. It does not claim or imply anything else.

By not explaining the massive difference between arguments skeptical of the extent of AGW, the ultimate result of AGW, the "actual" cause of AGW and arguments against it existing at all, it is implying they are all roughly equivalent.

Poptech wrote: »

My definition is found in dictionaries,

"poisonous substances introduced into an environment"

Did you think I wouldn't click on your link and see your obnoxious level of selective quoting? The actual definition of pollution according to YOUR link:
"harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment"
Is noise pollution poisonous?

Poptech wrote: »

All the papers in the highlights section support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm, just like every other paper on the list.

Why did you question me knowing more about the list than "the author", when you are the author of the list?

Poptech wrote: »

When a word has more then one definition and you choose one definition over another the choice to use such a definition is subjective. Whether something has a "negative impact on an environment" is purely subjective.

By that argument, nothing is pollution. Pollution is not subjective, its contextual. If something harms (or poisons) an environment it is emitted into then it is pollution.

Poptech wrote: »

I do not disclose how I efficiently use the Internet but it is all automated. The current version of my list is less than 9 months old.

The list is automated or your trawling of the internet for people commenting on it is automated? What exactly do you gain by trawling the internet looking for random people on random forums talking about your articles?

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For me, late 80s, that was taught as religion but evolution was taught as science. Religious theory of creationism was not taught as a viable scientific alternative to evolution as it is in the US

Mark Hamill

clairefontaine wrote: »

It has gotten worse. They now explain the loaves and the fishes to the kids with pictures of witches and comparing it to magic. I know an orthodox Catholic family who has homeschooled because of how warped the religion teaching is.

And yes they still get taught that God created the universe and St Patrick got rid of all the snakes in Ireland, etc etc....

My nephew is doing the Junior Cert this year, a few months ago I had a look at his religion text book (curious because its an examinable subject now, it wasn't in my time). In a section near the end, which was about science, it mentions that evolution is a theory to explain speciation in animals, but then says that the eye is too complex to have evolved. This nonsense in a school book in 2013 :mad:.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By not explaining the massive difference between arguments skeptical of the extent of AGW, the ultimate result of AGW, the "actual" cause of AGW and arguments against it existing at all, it is implying they are all roughly equivalent.

1. Is the title qualified by the word "Alarm"?

2. Is "ACC/AGW Alarm" defined as arguing against the cause of AGW or the extent?

Do you know more about what the list is "implying" than the author?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you think I wouldn't click on your link and see your obnoxious level of selective quoting? The actual definition of pollution according to YOUR link:
"harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment"
Is noise pollution poisonous?

That is not selective quoting that is the definition that is being used. What is considered "harmful" is still subjective.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why did you question me knowing more about the list than "the author", when you are the author of the list?

Because you keep making strawman arguments about what the list is "implying" when I am telling you that you are wrong.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By that argument, nothing is pollution. Pollution is not subjective, its contextual. If something harms (or poisons) an environment it is emitted into then it is pollution.

"If something harms an environment" is subjective.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The list is automated or your trawling of the internet for people commenting on it is automated? What exactly do you gain by trawling the internet looking for random people on random forums talking about your articles?

My posting has nothing to do with your dishonest ad hominems. I like to correct people such as yourself who state misinformation or strawman arguments about the list. Since the intent is usually an attempt to persuade other skeptics from using the peer-reviewed literature to support their arguments I find it necessary to correct these.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

1. Is the title qualified by the word "Alarm"?

2. Is "ACC/AGW Alarm" defined as arguing against the cause of AGW or the extent?

1. No. Articles skeptical of AGWs "actual" cause are not necessarily skeptical of the alarm it should cause and articles skeptical of the extent, or the ultimate result, are only skeptical of the extent of the alarm AGW should cause. None are in any way similar to articles which reject all alarm outright.
2. Its not defined, which is the problem. Your list equates arguments against the extent, cause and existence of AGW as if they are the same which is dishonest and disingenuous.

Poptech wrote: »

Do you know more about what the list is "implying" than the author?

You are the author, aren't you? Shouldn't your question not be "Do you know more about what the list is "implying" than me?"?

Poptech wrote: »

That is not selective quoting that is the definition that is being used. What is considered "harmful" is still subjective.

Of course its dishonest, you quite literally are selectively quoting a definition, minus two words, to twist it into an unusable irrational form to retard an debate.

Poptech wrote: »

Because you keep making strawman arguments about what the list is "implying" when I am telling you that you are wrong.

No, I mean why do you keep saying in that way, talking about "the author" in third person, when you are the author.
What difference does it make if I did think I knew more about the list than you?

Poptech wrote: »

"If something harms an environment" is subjective.

No its not. Nearly every country has legal definitions and regulations on what you can and can't emit based on how much that thing harms the environment.

Poptech wrote: »

My posting has nothing to do with your dishonest ad hominems. I like to correct people such as yourself who state misinformation or strawman arguments about the list. Since the intent is usually an attempt to persuade other skeptics from using the peer-reviewed literature to support their arguments I find it necessary to correct these.

The list is automated or your trawling of the internet for people commenting on it is automated? You have seriously registered on random sites across the web over the last four and a half years, defending your article anytime it is mentioned? You were on this forum less than 8 hours after I questioned the article.

You can drop the "dishonest ad hominem claims" btw. I said the author of the article might be a moron in my first post, but since you have shown up I have only attacked the claims you have made. Labelling any point I make as an ad hominem is dishonest.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. No. Articles skeptical of AGWs "actual" cause are not necessarily skeptical of the alarm it should cause and articles skeptical of the extent, or the ultimate result, are only skeptical of the extent of the alarm AGW should cause. None are in any way similar to articles which reject all alarm outright.

Perpetual strawman argument, the list is not making any such claim that they are the same or that the list only includes one or the other. It is not claiming any papers is "skeptical" of anything but that they "support skeptic arguments".

Is the following explicitly stated on the list in the preface?

"Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)]."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

2. Its not defined, which is the problem.

Why are you lying? The definition is explicitly stated in the preface,

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your list equates arguments against the extent, cause and existence of AGW as if they are the same which is dishonest and disingenuous.

Why are you lying? Where does the list make this claim? It explicitly states in the [url=Preface,

"Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)]."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are the author, aren't you? Shouldn't your question not be "Do you know more about what the list is "implying" than me?

It is the same question. Do you?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course its dishonest, you quite literally are selectively quoting a definition, minus two words, to twist it into an unusable irrational form to retard an debate.

Not at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I mean why do you keep saying in that way, talking about "the author" in third person, when you are the author. What difference does it make if I did think I knew more about the list than you?

Even after it has been explained to you repeatedly you pretend to know more about what the list is "implying" than the author.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No its not. Nearly every country has legal definitions and regulations on what you can and can't emit based on how much that thing harms the environment.

Laws can be subjective. Please provide the objective criteria for determining if something "harms the environment".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The list is automated or your trawling of the internet for people commenting on it is automated? You have seriously registered on random sites across the web over the last four and a half years, defending your article anytime it is mentioned? You were on this forum less than 8 hours after I questioned the article.

I register anywhere someone makes a false claim about the list to set the record straight. How I found this post you will never know.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can drop the "dishonest ad hominem claims" btw. I said the author of the article might be a moron in my first post, but since you have shown up I have only attacked the claims you have made. Labelling any point I make as an ad hominem is dishonest.

Define "trawling".

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

Perpetual strawman argument, the list is not making any such claim that they are the same or ...

The list is implying it by not explaining the massive differences between the different types of arguments.

Poptech wrote: »

Why are you lying? The definition is explicitly stated in the preface,

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

If the definition is only those papers skeptical of the negative effects of AGW, why does the list contain a load of papers which are skeptical of it either being man-made or existing at all. You have just exposed the dishonesty in the list, well done.

Poptech wrote: »

Why are you lying? Where does the list make this claim?

As you emphasised above, the definition used in your list is those papers skeptical of the negative effects of AGW, yet a large proportion of the papers are skeptical of it being man-made or existing at all.

Poptech wrote: »

It is the same question. Do you?

No, I do not know more about the list than the author, however I am being honest with what I know.

Poptech wrote: »

Not at all.

Actually, yes it is. Not only is it dishonest, but its childishly and transparently dishonestly. Its actually more than a little stupidly dishonest too, considering you linked to the definition yourself.

Poptech wrote: »

Laws can be subjective. Please provide the objective criteria for determining if something "harms the environment".

Go to the environmental protection agency website of any country and you will see objective criteria for determining if something is harmful.

Poptech wrote: »

I register anywhere someone makes a false claim about the list to set the record straight. How I found this post you will never know.

I'm less interested in how, to be honest, and more interested in how much. As in, how much you get paid to do it.

Poptech wrote: »

Define "trawling".

Trawling as in fishing (sweeping a wide net to catch as much fish as possible).

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The list is implying it by not explaining the massive differences between the different types of arguments.

It is impossible for the list to imply your strawman argument.

The preface explains what the list contains explicitly clear,

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the definition is only those papers skeptical of the negative effects of AGW, why does the list contain a load of papers which are skeptical of it either being man-made or existing at all. You have just exposed the dishonesty in the list, well done.

You are now being perpetually dishonest. The list contains two types of papers that support skeptic arguments against,

1. ACC/AGW and,
2. ACC/AGW Alarm

It is not complicated. Skeptics understand it very clearly. The list is a massive resource of all the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments and it only has two distinct purposes,

1. To prove they exist.
2. To be used a resource to locate these papers.

So when someone makes silly claims that skeptic arguments are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature, referencing the list is a good way to debunk this urban legend.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As you emphasised above, the definition used in your list is those papers skeptical of the negative effects of AGW, yet a large proportion of the papers are skeptical of it being man-made or existing at all.

The definition is only there to define the phrase "ACC/AGW Alarm" while the preface explains what the list contains.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I do not know more about the list than the author, however I am being honest with what I know.

You have continued to demonstrate a blatant dishonesty by making false statements about the list and what it contains.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually, yes it is. Not only is it dishonest, but its childishly and transparently dishonestly. Its actually more than a little stupidly dishonest too, considering you linked to the definition yourself.

Not at all, if I wanted to hide the definition I would not have linked to it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Go to the environmental protection agency website of any country and you will see objective criteria for determining if something is harmful.

So they will be identical no matter which country I go to? If not how is it objective then?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm less interested in how, to be honest, and more interested in how much. As in, how much you get paid to do it.

More dishonest ad hominems as I get paid nothing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Trawling as in fishing (sweeping a wide net to catch as much fish as possible).

Then your use of the word is incoherent.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

It is impossible for the list to imply your strawman argument.

...

So when someone makes silly claims that skeptic arguments are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature, referencing the list is a good way to debunk this urban legend.

The list of papers includes those skeptical of the cause, the extent, the implications and/or the existence of AGW, but the preface doesn't nothing to explain how significantly different these are. You can't equate these in a meaningful meta-analysis, and so you can't use the list, as a whole, to prove anything.
Why didn't you just make a list of all papers that where skeptical of AGW existing at all? Surely these are the most relevant?

Poptech wrote: »

You have continued to demonstrate a blatant dishonesty by making false statements about the list and what it contains.

Your the one making a list of unequal positions as if they can be meaningfully listed as a whole.

Poptech wrote: »

Not at all, if I wanted to hide the definition I would not have linked to it.

That doesn't make it any better for your position. You knowingly linked to a definition which proves you wrong, and so you purposefully misquoted it.

Poptech wrote: »

So they will be identical no matter which country I go to? If not how is it objective then?

They will likely be somewhat different, depending on the quality of the agencies in each country (and probably some environmental differences). However, that does not make them subjective in the way you are suggesting. Different countries have different punishments on murder, that doesn't mean that what constitutes murder is subjective.

Poptech wrote: »

More dishonest ad hominems as I get paid nothing.

Sure you don't. So why do you bother? I've never actually encountered or heard of this before, you must understand. Someone who wrote an article on their bog/website and who actively will go to forums to defend it, years after they wrote it. It suggests a personal level of investment in the article.

Poptech wrote: »

Then your use of the word is incoherent.

Why? You have some way of searching the web for people disputing your list.

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The list of papers includes those skeptical of the cause, the extent, the implications and/or the existence of AGW, but the preface doesn't nothing to explain how significantly different these are. You can't equate these in a meaningful meta-analysis, and so you can't use the list, as a whole, to prove anything.

How "significant" the differences are is subjective and irrelevant to the purpose of the list. More strawman arguments as the list is not a "meta-analysis" but a resource.

Of course you can use the list as a whole to prove that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why didn't you just make a list of all papers that where skeptical of AGW existing at all? Surely these are the most relevant?

That would not be an all inclusive resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments. Skeptics consider any peer-reviewed paper that supports their arugments as relevant.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your the one making a list of unequal positions as if they can be meaningfully listed as a whole.

I am not making your strawman argument as all papers that support skeptic arguments can be included in the same resource.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't make it any better for your position. You knowingly linked to a definition which proves you wrong, and so you purposefully misquoted it.

It does not prove me wrong as that is the context joe public thinks of pollution. I did not misquote the definition but quoted it contextually to how I am using it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They will likely be somewhat different, depending on the quality of the agencies in each country (and probably some environmental differences). However, that does not make them subjective in the way you are suggesting. Different countries have different punishments on murder, that doesn't mean that what constitutes murder is subjective.

"Quality" is subjective. Your analogy is flawed as I am not discussion the penalties for pollution.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure you don't. So why do you bother? I've never actually encountered or heard of this before, you must understand. Someone who wrote an article on their bog/website and who actively will go to forums to defend it, years after they wrote it. It suggests a personal level of investment in the article.

You not hearing about something before is hardly surprising. Why are you continuing to be dishonest and falsely claiming that the list was written "years ago" when I explicitly stated the latest version was less than 9 months?

I personally do not like misinformation stated about my work so if you did not make such statements I would not be here to correct them.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

How "significant" the differences are is subjective and irrelevant to the purpose of the list. More strawman arguments as the list is not a "meta-analysis" but a resource.

Even just as a resource its flawed for the reasons explained already.

Poptech wrote: »

Of course you can use the list as a whole to prove that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments.

Is that an argument that is made anywhere?

Poptech wrote: »

That would not be an all inclusive resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments. Skeptics consider any peer-reviewed paper that supports their arugments as relevant.

But a paper that is skeptical of the cause of AGW (but not skeptical of the issues it may cause) is not supportive to a skeptic who is skeptical of GW at all. I can't say that I am skeptical of evolution in general and use a paper disputing a specific gene expression as evidence for that skepticism.

Poptech wrote: »

I am not making your strawman argument as all papers that support skeptic arguments can be included in the same resource.

Not in a useful resource, for the reasons explained. They are not equivalent, the list is not useful as a whole.

Poptech wrote: »

It does not prove me wrong as that is the context joe public thinks of pollution. I did not misquote the definition but quoted it contextually to how I am using it.

No, you left out two words to twist the definition to suit your unusable definition. If joe public really did use pollution only in the way you claim, then you would not an article explaining how CO2 isn't pollution.

Poptech wrote: »

"Quality" is subjective. Your analogy is flawed as I am not discussion the penalties for pollution.

Most EPAs would only differ in the level of emission considered unacceptable polluting and the punishments for said polluting, so its relevant. you are going to have to do a whole lot better than "X is subjective" for your argument, you aren't fooling anyone.

Poptech wrote: »

You not hearing about something before is hardly surprising. Why are you continuing to be dishonest and falsely claiming that the list was written "years ago" when I explicitly stated the latest version was less than 9 months?

The original date is in the link: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/... , thats when it was first written. That it has been updated, by automatic or other means, does not doesn't change my point at all. The act of searching the web for people discussing your article suggests a personal level of investment.

Poptech wrote: »

I personally do not like misinformation stated about my work so if you did not make such statements I would not be here to correct them.

So you admit it is part of your work. Good, that was easy.

Poptech

This is amazing, I have never met anyone so intellectually dishonest as Mark Hamill, it is amazing at how zealous he is in defending his ideology that he cannot accept the existence of the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed literature that does not support his position on climate change. Not only is it apparently so upsetting to him but he feels compelled to do everything he can to persuade others from not using the resource not matter how many lies he has to state. This shows how much of a threat the list is to alarmist ideology.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even just as a resource its flawed for the reasons explained already.

Your strawman arguments are not reasons for anything. The list is simply a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments and completely valid.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is that an argument that is made anywhere?

Of course, this is shown in the Purpose,

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;

"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."

- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidate

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., Comment at RealClimate.org

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But a paper that is skeptical of the cause of AGW (but not skeptical of the issues it may cause) is not supportive to a skeptic who is skeptical of GW at all. I can't say that I am skeptical of evolution in general and use a paper disputing a specific gene expression as evidence for that skepticism.

I have no idea why you are so intent on making perpetual strawman arguments. No skeptic claims to be skeptical of "global warming" as they all believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. The list is a resource for ALL the papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm. It is not one argument or a unified theory, it is all the peer-reviewed papers that support ALL skeptic arguments, even mutually exclusive ones. It is a simply an all inclusive resource and a paper that supports skeptic arguments against the cause of AGW may only be applicable to that skeptic argument not others.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not in a useful resource, for the reasons explained. They are not equivalent, the list is not useful as a whole.

Oh no, sorry too bad they are and there is nothing you can do about except make perpetual strawman arguments and lie about the usefulness of the resource which skeptics all find incredibly useful. These sad pathetic arguments are so tiring and intellectually dishonest. The list as a whole can always be used to demonstrate that these papers exist.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, you left out two words to twist the definition to suit your unusable definition. If joe public really did use pollution only in the way you claim, then you would not an article explaining how CO2 isn't pollution.

I twisted nothing but used it in the exact context I intended. The definition said "Harmful or poisonous" not "and", thus you can used just the later for an intended context. Joe Public thanks to media propaganda is largely ignorant that CO2 is not poisonous and does not make the air dirtier.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Most EPAs would only differ in the level of emission considered unacceptable polluting and the punishments for said polluting, so its relevant. you are going to have to do a whole lot better than "X is subjective" for your argument, you aren't fooling anyone.

I am not fooling anyone but you sure are desperately trying to.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The original date is in the link: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/... , thats when it was first written. That it has been updated, by automatic or other means, does not doesn't change my point at all. The act of searching the web for people discussing your article suggests a personal level of investment.

The original version of the list has very little in common with the current version that is less than 9 months old. You don't have any points, except to falsely imply the list has not been recently revised. This is like perpetual idiocy, no kidding I am personally invested in making sure intellectually dishonest people like yourself do not state misinformation about my work. Anyone reading this can see the aggravation I have to go through with dishonest individuals like yourself.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you admit it is part of your work. Good, that was easy.

WTF are you talking about? Where did I deny it was my work? Are you on some form of medication?

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

This is amazing, I have never met anyone so intellectually dishonest as Mark Hamill, it is amazing at how zealous he is in defending his ideology that he cannot accept the existence of the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed literature that does not support his position on climate change. Not only is it apparently so upsetting to him but he feels compelled to do everything he can to persuade others from not using the resource not matter how many lies he has to state. This shows how much of a threat the list is to alarmist ideology.

I have not disputed the existence of the list, I have not even disputed the quality of the papers. I have only disputed the equivalence implied in the list of the different positions argued by each paper.
Also, overwhelming? Really? Even if we take your list of a 1000 papers at face value, I have seen other lists of over 13,000 papers which do support AGW. Your 1000 papers are in the vast minority, even assuming they are of quality and interpreted right.

Poptech wrote: »

Your strawman arguments are not reasons for anything. The list is simply a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments and completely valid.

Of course, this is shown in the Purpose,

OK, politicians have a tendency of making absolutist arguments where consensus arguments are more scientific. Of course, one single article from a high quality paper would have been enough to debunk that argument. By being so broad in scope it doesn't really tell us anything useful.

Poptech wrote: »

It is not one argument or a unified theory, it is all the peer-reviewed papers that support ALL skeptic arguments, even mutually exclusive ones. It is a simply an all inclusive resource and a paper that supports skeptic arguments against the cause of AGW may only be applicable to that skeptic argument not others.

But its flawed as a resource as it just groups them altogether as one. The headings separate the articles on topics like Antartica, or Glaciers or the Hockey Stick graph, but they are not separated according to which aspect (cause, extent, result or existence) of AGW. You list the journals you use in one part of the article, but do not break down how many articles come from each journal and what the impact factor of each journal is.

Poptech wrote: »

I twisted nothing but used it in the exact context I intended. The definition said "Harmful or poisonous" not "and", thus you can used just the later for an intended context.

You can also use just the former. What you cannot do is say that because something, eg CO2, is not the latter then it cannot be the former and therefore cannot be pollution.

Poptech wrote: »

Joe Public thanks to media propaganda is largely ignorant that CO2 is not poisonous and does not make the air dirtier.

Since when do Joe Public think CO2 is poisonous? I know people can get a bit mixed up between CO2 and CO, but most people, imo, would know that the danger of CO2 is because of its part in global warming, not because it is toxic.

Poptech wrote: »

The original version of the list has very little in common with the current version that is less than 9 months old. You don't have any points, except to falsely imply the list has not been recently revised. This is like perpetual idiocy, no kidding I am personally invested in making sure intellectually dishonest people like yourself do not state misinformation about my work. Anyone reading this can see the aggravation I have to go through with dishonest individuals like yourself.

I never implied that the list wasn't revised, stop getting hysterical. My point actually references it getting revised as part of the reason why I think you have more than a little personal investment in it. If it aggravates you why do you bother looking for people to argue with? I can understand being invested in the topic and the position, and I can understand maintaining such a list and debating people who comment on it on your own site, or forums you normally frequent. But you actively search the web for people commenting on it, years later, so you can do something which apparently aggravates you so much.
Of course, we all now know that you do it because its your job:

Poptech wrote: »

WTF are you talking about? Where did I deny it was my work? Are you on some form of medication?

Well, I extrapolated that from you saying no company runs your site in this post. So some company paid you to set up and maintain the site? Or some political or lobby group? Whom, may I ask? If you feel that is too personal (fair enough if you say it is) then be generic, what industry or type of group paid you to do it?

Poptech

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have not disputed the existence of the list, I have not even disputed the quality of the papers. I have only disputed the equivalence implied in the list of the different positions argued by each paper. Also, overwhelming? Really? Even if we take your list of a 1000 papers at face value, I have seen other lists of over 13,000 papers which do support AGW. Your 1000 papers are in the vast minority, even assuming they are of quality and interpreted right.

The list does not claim your strawman argument of "equivalence", the only thing that is claimed is all the papers support "skeptic arguments". Which paper on the list does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm?

You have just demonstrated how absolutely incompetent you are as Powell's work does not list 13,000 papers that support AGW! He did not even search for the phrase nor determine the context of any of the papers let alone validate that they were peer-reviewed and thus is absolutely meaningless,

13,950 Meaningless Search Results

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK, politicians have a tendency of making absolutist arguments where consensus arguments are more scientific. Of course, one single article from a high quality paper would have been enough to debunk that argument. By being so broad in scope it doesn't really tell us anything useful.

The politicians are simply the high profile ones, the quote from real climate is an example of what I have frequently witnessed and was more prevalent prior to my list. The list is incredibly useful as it is a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But its flawed as a resource as it just groups them altogether as one. The headings separate the articles on topics like Antartica, or Glaciers or the Hockey Stick graph, but they are not separated according to which aspect (cause, extent, result or existence) of AGW.

It is not flawed at all as they do not have to be separated in such a way since that is not the purpose of the list. Not to mention certain papers cover more than one aspect and cannot be separated as such.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You list the journals you use in one part of the article, but do not break down how many articles come from each journal and what the impact factor of each journal is.

The is irrelevant to the purpose of the list.

Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,

The Number That's Devouring Science (PDF) (The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 2005)

Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its editor in chief, Philip Campbell. [...]

Dr. DeAngelis, of JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." [...]

Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. ...She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation attention.

European Association of Science Editors statement on inappropriate use of impact factors (PDF) (European Association of Science Editors, November 2007)

The impact factor, however, is not always a reliable instrument for measuring the quality of journals. Its use for purposes for which it was not intended, causes even greater unfairness.

"Quality not Quantity" – DFG Adopts Rules to Counter the Flood of Publications in Research (German Research Foundation, February 2010)

"Whether in performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the H-index and the impact factor. The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where. This puts extreme pressure upon researchers to publish as much as possible and sometimes leads to cases of scientific misconduct in which incorrect statements are provided concerning the status of a publication. This is not in the interest of science,"

Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (PDF)
(British Medical Journal, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997)
- Per O. Seglen

Summary points:

- Use of journal impact factors conceals the difference in article citation rates (articles in the most cited half of articles in a journal are cited 10 times as often as the least cited half)
- Journals' impact factors are determined by technicalities unrelated to the scientific quality of their articles
- Journal impact factors depend on the research field: high impact factors are likely in journals covering large areas of basic research with a rapidly expanding but short lived literature that use many references per article
- Article citation rates determine the journal impact factor, not vice versa

The Impact Factor Game
(PLoS Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2006)
- The PLoS Medicine Editors

...it is well known that editors at many journals plan and implement strategies to massage their impact factors. Such strategies include attempting to increase the numerator in the above equation by encouraging authors to cite articles published in the journal or by publishing reviews that will garner large numbers of citations. Alternatively, editors may decrease the denominator by attempting to have whole article types removed from it (by making such articles superficially less substantial, such as by forcing authors to cut down on the number of references or removing abstracts) or by decreasing the number of research articles published. These are just a few of the many ways of "playing the impact factor game."

One problem with this game, leaving aside the ethics of it, is that the rules are unclear—editors can, for example, try to persuade Thomson Scientific to reduce the denominator, but the company refuses to make public its process for choosing "citable" article types. Thomson Scientific, the sole arbiter of the impact factor game, is part of The Thomson Corporation, a for-profit organization that is responsible primarily to its shareholders. It has no obligation to be accountable to any of the stakeholders who care most about the impact factor—the authors and readers of scientific research.

Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

It became clear that Thomson Scientific could not or (for some as yet unexplained reason) would not sell us the data used to calculate their published impact factor. If an author is unable to produce original data to verify a figure in one of our papers, we revoke the acceptance of the paper. We hope this account will convince some scientists and funding organizations to revoke their acceptance of impact factors as an accurate representation of the quality—or impact—of a paper published in a given journal. Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data.

Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

Impact factors are determined from a dataset produced by searching the Thomson Scientific database using specific parameters. As previously stated, our aim was to purchase that dataset for a few journals. Even if those results were for some reason not stored by Thomson Scientific, it is inconceivable to us that they cannot run the same search over the same database to produce the same dataset. The citation data for a given year should be static. In essence, Thomson Scientific is saying that they cannot repeat the experiment, which would be grounds for rejection of a manuscript submitted to any scientific journal.

Nefarious Numbers (PDF)
(arXiv:1010.0278, October 2010)
- Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler

The impact factor for a journal in a given year is calculated by ISI (Thomson Reuters) as the average number of citations in that year to the articles the journal published in the preceding two years. It has been widely criticized on a variety of grounds:

- A journal's distribution of citations does not determine its quality.
- The impact factor is a crude statistic, reporting only one particular item of information from the citation distribution.
- It is a flawed statistic. For one thing, the distribution of citations among papers is highly skewed, so the mean for the journal tends to be misleading. For another, the impact factor only refers to citations within the first two years after publication (a particularly serious dedeficiency for mathematics, in which around 90% of citations occur after two years).
- The underlying database is flawed, containing errors and including a biased selection of journals.
- Many confounding factors are ignored, for example, article type (editorials, reviews, and letters versus original research articles), multiple authorship, self-citation, language of publication, etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can also use just the former. What you cannot do is say that because something, eg CO2, is not the latter then it cannot be the former and therefore cannot be pollution.

Of course I can and just did. Here is another definition,

Pollute (defined) - "to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when do Joe Public think CO2 is poisonous? I know people can get a bit mixed up between CO2 and CO, but most people, imo, would know that the danger of CO2 is because of its part in global warming, not because it is toxic.

Since I have been involved in this debate for many years. Those who believe it to be "pollution" consistently get it mixed up with CO because they believe it to not only make the air dirtier but also poisonous. Only alarmists and those closely involved in the climate debate make any such "global warming" arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never implied that the list wasn't revised, stop getting hysterical. My point actually references it getting revised as part of the reason why I think you have more than a little personal investment in it. If it aggravates you why do you bother looking for people to argue with? I can understand being invested in the topic and the position, and I can understand maintaining such a list and debating people who comment on it on your own site, or forums you normally frequent. But you actively search the web for people commenting on it, years later, so you can do something which apparently aggravates you so much. Of course, we all now know that you do it because its your job:

I am not getting hysterical but it is like talking to the wall. Then accurately reference the last revision date of July 23, 2012 and not that it is "four years old". You can think all sorts of dishonest ad hominems that you wish but lying about why I do this does not change reality. I don't look for anyone to argue with, I am here to correct all your misinformation stated about the list of my own free will. I am employed as a computer analyst and this work has nothing to do with my job yet you continue to try and smear me how pathetic.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, I extrapolated that from you saying no company runs your site in this post. So some company paid you to set up and maintain the site? Or some political or lobby group? Whom, may I ask? If you feel that is too personal (fair enough if you say it is) then be generic, what industry or type of group paid you to do it?

WTF? How dishonest are you? No one every paid me anything to do anything. It is amazing how dishonest alarmists like yourself are that when you cannot win a debate you have to resort to such dishonest ad hominems in a pathetic attempt to smear me.

Mark Hamill

Poptech wrote: »

The list does not claim your strawman argument of "equivalence", the only thing that is claimed is all the papers support "skeptic arguments".

Which is a useless statement as they don't all support equivalent arguments.

Poptech wrote: »

You have just demonstrated how absolutely incompetent you are

These personal insults are getting tiring. Especially from someone whose list is over 10% from a journal with a known political bias and disputed peer-review process.
Also, Powell searched for the phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" on the Web of Science and then, in his own words:
"I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming.". I may be incompetent, but at least I'm not a liar.

Poptech wrote: »

Th e politicians are simply the high profile ones, the quote from real climate is an example of what I have frequently witnessed and was more prevalent prior to my list. The list is incredibly useful as it is a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments.

The list is useless as it does not break down the papers into the ways they dispute AGW. Which ones specifically are skpetical of just its extent, or just its results, or its (human origin) existence? Without breaking down all it becomes is a wall of references, argumentum ad populum, a common argumentative fallacy used by the irrational.

Poptech wrote: »

It is not flawed at all as they do not have to be separated in such a way since that is not the purpose of the list. Not to mention certain papers cover more than one aspect and cannot be separated as such.

Come off it, you know full well that the list is not just used as a resource to debunk one absolutist notion, mainly held by politicians. You would only need one good quality paper to debunk that notion. Even if thats what you aimed for, you needlessly neuter its usefulness by not breaking it down into the types of arguments each paper puts forward (which you would already know, consider you claim to have ensured that each paper actually disagrees with AGW, even if the author doesn't). Papers with multiple arguments would just come under multiple headings.

Poptech wrote: »

The is irrelevant to the purpose of the list.

Impact factor, while subjective, is a measure not of popularity but of citations. This can be biased for popularity, but quality is also a large aspect of it. There are other methods which measure quality in other ways, any of which you could have used to qualify the journals you include, but you include none. So, yes it is relevant to the purpose of the list as it calls into question (in a general way) the validity of the articles referenced.

Poptech wrote: »

Of course I can and just did. Here is another definition,

Pollute (defined) - "to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke."

So your own first link let you down and so you look for others? Even under that definition CO2 is a pollutant, as it "fouls" the heat capacity of the air. This is pathetic. Let it go, your nonsense is transparent. Your facetious argument is polluting this thread.

Poptech wrote: »

Since I have been involved in this debate for many years. Those who believe it to be "pollution" consistently get it mixed up with CO because they believe it to not only make the air dirtier but also poisonous. Only alarmists and those closely involved in the climate debate make any such "global warming" arguments.

Which just means that those people think CO2 is harmful and toxic, when it is just harmful. It is still a pollutant according to the first definition you (mis)quoted. Even besides that, CO2 can be toxic, in high enough concentrations, its just that the levels we are worried about are far less than the toxic levels.

Poptech wrote: »

I am not getting hysterical but it is like talking to the wall. Then accurately reference the last revision date of July 23, 2012 and not that it is "four years old". You can think all sorts of dishonest ad hominems that you wish but lying about why I do this does not change reality. I don't look for anyone to argue with, I am here to correct all your misinformation stated about the list of my own free will. I am employed as a computer analyst and this work has nothing to do with my job yet you continue to try and smear me how pathetic.

You are getting hysterical, you are continuously throwing around accusations of ad hominems and strawmen at every opportunity, twisting my arguments to try and fill those accusations. Your current list is from July 13 (never said it wasn't) but the list starting in 08, and you've defended it on forums and comments section back when the list was 900 or even 450 papers long.

Poptech wrote: »

WTF? How dishonest are you? No one every paid me anything to do anything. It is amazing how dishonest alarmists like yourself are that when you cannot win a debate you have to resort to such dishonest ad hominems in a pathetic attempt to smear me.

So know its not your work? Thats odd considering how this discusson has gone:
PT: I personally do not like misinformation stated about my work
MH: So you admit it is part of your work
PT: WTF are you talking about? Where did I deny it was my work?

Poptech

Mark, if you are going to continue to argue based on strawman arguments this debate will never end.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is a useless statement as they don't all support equivalent arguments.

Perpetual strawman, where does the list claim they do?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These personal insults are getting tiring. Especially from someone whose list is over 10% from a journal with a known political bias and disputed peer-review process.

The strawman arguments are getting tiring but that is still incorrect and addressed in the rebuttal section of the list,

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1000 papers from over 300 other journals on the list.

You should not get your information from wikipedia which is unreliable. Since the editor is a social democrat what exact "political bias" does the journal hold? LMAO!

There is no dispute over E&E's peer-review status,

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, Powell searched for the phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" on the Web of Science and then, in his own words: "I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming.". I may be incompetent, but at least I'm not a liar.

I am well aware of Powell's strawman argument but you still seem confused. I suggest reading this again,

13,950 Meaningless Search Results

1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in the results was never determined.

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".

3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

4. It is a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

Powell is actually the liar as he is claiming the 13,950 meaningless search results are all "peer-reviewed".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The list is useless as it does not break down the papers into the ways they dispute AGW. Which ones specifically are skpetical of just its extent, or just its results, or its (human origin) existence? Without breaking down all it becomes is a wall of references, argumentum ad populum, a common argumentative fallacy used by the irrational.

Perpetual strawman as the list does not claim to do anything but be a resource. It is impossible for it to be an argumentum ad populum as it is not claiming something is correct because of the number of papers, the only argument it is making is that the papers exist.

The list is incredibly useful as demonstrated by the increasing web traffic the list is getting.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Come off it, you know full well that the list is not just used as a resource to debunk one absolutist notion, mainly held by politicians. You would only need one good quality paper to debunk that notion. Even if thats what you aimed for, you needlessly neuter its usefulness by not breaking it down into the types of arguments each paper puts forward (which you would already know, consider you claim to have ensured that each paper actually disagrees with AGW, even if the author doesn't). Papers with multiple arguments would just come under multiple headings.

The list is used all the time to debunk absolute notions such as, "no such papers exist" or "skeptic arguments are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature" ect...

Continued strawman argument, where do I claim all the papers disagree with AGW?

The list has nothing to do with strawman arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Impact factor, while subjective, is a measure not of popularity but of citations. This can be biased for popularity, but quality is also a large aspect of it. There are other methods which measure quality in other ways, any of which you could have used to qualify the journals you include, but you include none. So, yes it is relevant to the purpose of the list as it calls into question (in a general way) the validity of the articles referenced.

"Quality" is also subjective. All such measures applying quality metrics are subjective. Why would I be interested in entertaining your strawman arguments as they have nothing to do with the list?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So your own first link let you down and so you look for others? Even under that definition CO2 is a pollutant, as it "fouls" the heat capacity of the air. This is pathetic. Let it go, your nonsense is transparent. Your facetious argument is polluting this thread.

Incorrect, the definition supports my usage.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which just means that those people think CO2 is harmful and toxic, when it is just harmful. It is still a pollutant according to the first definition you (mis)quoted. Even besides that, CO2 can be toxic, in high enough concentrations, its just that the levels we are worried about are far less than the toxic levels.

You just admitted people confuse CO2 with CO which is a clear implication they falsely believe CO2 to make the air dirtier. The fact that you are citing Wikipedia just demonstrates you are a computer illiterate who does not know how unreliable it is. I did not misquote anything but directly quoted it in the context as to how I used it.

Just so we are clear my, "Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution" page is not going anywhere and there is nothing you can do about it so you might as well stop wasting your time.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are getting hysterical, you are continuously throwing around accusations of ad hominems and strawmen at every opportunity, twisting my arguments to try and fill those accusations. Your current list is from July 13 (never said it wasn't) but the list starting in 08, and you've defended it on forums and comments section back when the list was 900 or even 450 papers long.

I have never gotten hysterical, you just continue to be dishonest about the list. The list did not start in 08 but the end of 2009. If you bothered to read instead of guessing you would see the updates on the list. All of which are irrelevant to the current version so making any statement that it is more than 9 months old is inaccurate. Nothing is being twisted as you continue to try and dishonestly smear me as being funded or employed by someone to make the list and defend it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So know its not your work? Thats odd considering how this discusson has gone:

WTF? Are you on medication?

The list is my work and I am not employed or affiliated with anyone to make, update or defend the list. I do so of my own free will and have never received any compensation from anyone, ever in relation to the list. So you can drop all the dishonest ad hominems.