Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

[Schneibster]

C'mon, guys, Popular Science closed down their comments site because you GW deniers took over and harassed everyone else off it.

What do you have to say for yourselves?

Why should anyone here believe you haven't done the same thing here, considering how you make up fake complaints to send to the management? This is obvious harassment. Why do you think this will float?

Because this site is biased and it's always worked before?

How corrupt.

Are you actually here to discuss fusion, or just to deny global warming? Because anyone who knows anything about fusion knows global warming is not a hoax. There's too much evidence. There's nowhere left to hide. I'll argue it with you if you like, but only if you state in public you won't kick me off if I win.

[Schneibster]

This crap is infamous and shameless. There will be reckoning.

[hanelyp]

Sounds like if I start quoting from http://wattsupwiththat.com/ it'll make our latest antagonist's head explode.

[Schneibster]

Sounds like if I start quoting from http://wattsupwiththat.com/ it'll make our latest antagonist's head explode.

Unfortunately everything on that site is proven false by http://www.realclimate.org.

RealClimate has the advantage of being written by atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists who work for universities in the public interest, not meteorologists and geologists paid by the fossil fuel industry like Watt. Speaking of exploding heads.

[palladin9479]

Since I added the dude to my blacklist the forums are much easier to read now. And yeah WUWT has pretty much trashed AGW theory into the ground. It was an interesting theory that was contorted and twisted to produce as much money and power as possible by the left. It's proponents use nothing but FUD to spread it and when faced with actual data analysis it falls apart horrible. Their error bars are so large that often you can't even be sure if the number is negative or positive.

The funniest is they recently said "we're 95% confident we're right" upon which I respond with vs being less then 95% confident in the past when you were telling us the "science is settled"? Where did they come up with this 95% number? What metric was used to determine 0, 10, 25, 50, 100 confidence? And didn't the high priests of they're order scream and demand that they were 100%? Were they lying then about being 100% or are they lying now about being 95%?

Yeah so many emotional arguments being used.

[Schneibster]

Only they're not "anti-scientific views". They're objections to a pseudo-scientific view there is to date NO EVIDENCE FOR.

Insult and a lie.
Current certainty of global warming: 95%
Current certainty of human cause of global warming: 95%
Reference: AR5

You want to close down discussion, because you are too feeble minded to actually have an intelligent discussion of these matters.

Personal insult reported.

Just like the progressives who supported eugenics and the slaughter of the jews.

Personal insult reported.

You're a Nazi.

Personal insult reported.

Wake up.

I suppose I could report another insult but it seems redundant.

[Schneibster]

Since I added the dude to my blacklist the forums are much easier to read now. And yeah WUWT has pretty much trashed AGW theory into the ground. It was an interesting theory that was contorted and twisted to produce as much money and power as possible by the left. It's proponents use nothing but FUD to spread it and when faced with actual data analysis it falls apart horrible. Their error bars are so large that often you can't even be sure if the number is negative or positive.

The funniest is they recently said "we're 95% confident we're right" upon which I respond with vs being less then 95% confident in the past when you were telling us the "science is settled"? Where did they come up with this 95% number? What metric was used to determine 0, 10, 25, 50, 100 confidence? And didn't the high priests of they're order scream and demand that they were 100%? Were they lying then about being 100% or are they lying now about being 95%?

Yeah so many emotional arguments being used.

Is this Poe?

If this individual is serious, this is the most unbelievable series of lies I have ever seen in my life.

[Schneibster]

Seriously, if Popular Science shut down its comment section and it was my fault, I'd be embarrassed.

These people have no shame.

[ladajo]

The sad part is that he really thinks that everyone here on Talk-Polywell is against Global Warming.

You're lying again.

So you know all the communications have already been copied; kicking me off will not stop me from documenting your antics on my blog.

I am going denier hunting.

You have been pwnt. Surrender or be named, shamed, blamed, and defamed.

I am quaking in my boots clown. Knock yourself out.

I am sure to be amused at my "antics" on your "blog".

So, why is this guy still here when he is making personal threats?

[Scupperer]

You are gonna be so sorry Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons.

You guys argue all you want; I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with global warming.

Hey, Schneibbie, any relation to Bill Schmalfeldt? You write a lot like him.

[Stubby]

The sad part is that he really thinks that everyone here on Talk-Polywell is against Global Warming.

You're lying again.

So you know all the communications have already been copied; kicking me off will not stop me from documenting your antics on my blog.

I am going denier hunting.

You have been pwnt. Surrender or be named, shamed, blamed, and defamed.

I am quaking in my boots clown. Knock yourself out.

I am sure to be amused at my "antics" on your "blog".

So, why is this guy still here when he is making personal threats?

You must have missed all the other personal threats because i did not see you making comments about them? Some of them in this very thread so wtf selective reading?
Or are you just trying silence dissenting voices?

And just to compare: threatening to be named, shamed, blamed and defamed is trumped by threats of physical violence.

[Schneibster]

You are gonna be so sorry Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons.

You guys argue all you want; I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with global warming.

Who do you think will be doing the starving when the prime growing regions all move north onto the glacier-scraped granite? They won't be able to grow enough wheat and rice to feed themselves. What do you suppose they will do with those nukes when they start starving and having food riots?

Hey, Schneibbie, any relation to Bill Schmalfeldt? You write a lot like him.

Nope.

[paperburn1]

I do have to say , Mr. S came out with guns blazing the moment he perceived a slight. Most of us polyweller have to work up to that intensity. I have seen worse on this board, but not by much. So for that reason I have not blocked him yet. he may come around and be a useful contributor. only time will tell.

[Schneibster]

You must have missed all the other personal threats because i did not see you making comments about them? Some of them in this very thread so wtf selective reading?
Or are you just trying silence dissenting voices?

And just to compare: threatening to be named, shamed, blamed and defamed is trumped by threats of physical violence.

Actually, it wasn't a threat- it was a promise. The site review is already written. I'm not posting it now because it's looking like this was all a scam.

I figured that if everybody was going to start reporting chickencrap, I'd just get my licks in too.

Thanks for your support, BTW.

[Schneibster]

I do have to say , Mr. S came out with guns blazing the moment he perceived a slight. Most of us polyweller have to work up to that intensity. I have seen worse on this board, but not by much. So for that reason I have not blocked him yet. he may come around and be a useful contributor. only time will tell.

I didn't think it was so bad considering the amount of BS about global warming you guys were pumping out.

AR5 is pretty much the end of it. When they announce they're 95% certain in science, it's equivalent to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in court. Here, see for yourself: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/1/1 ... /fulltext/

Thanks to IOP for making this important explanation for the non-technical reader of scientific levels of certainty related to more familiar measures, available to the public free of charge.