# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


What's wrong hash this site has your knickers in a knot....???

It actually got a hold of articles within the skeptical science computers when they got hacket.

Don't know if criminals run this site or not, but I would bet that crims would be attracted to the money.

The AGW religions gravy train is well known through out the whole world, even mafia bosses in Italy have been scamming the EU's ETS.

So while I cant confirm or deny that they maybe criminals, I would put my bets on the money trail.

Why don't you focus on some of the literature that tries to disprove anthropogenic global warming rather than trying to attack the person.....??????

The only reason I say John Cook is this or that is because of the garbage he writes........!!!!

Skeptical Science computers hacked - ties to Al Gore

Quote:

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

This is incorrect we believe there is such a thing as climate science. We are also not "anti-renewables" but rather anti-government subsidies of renewables.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

Why would our site be listed on smear sites like sourcewatch (can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection) and Desmog Blog (funded by a convicted money launderer)?

We have zero funding and are not associated with anyone.

Oh please, Domains by Proxy is used by Internet registrars like GoDaddy.

It is absolutely impossible for you to find any information about us because no such information exists online. When you understand Internet security you don't post personal information online.

# wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

Your inability to understand how I found this post, simply demonstrates a lack of technical understanding - it does not demonstrate any evidence of funding.

It is quite an honor to be a part of your conspiracy theories.

OK, http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php looks like it might be what I'm after. Now to figure out how to use it.

Ajax wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

I am. That's why I'm checking.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Your "usual sources" are all biased and completely unreliable. The site has not avoided scrutiny, it has been relentlessly attacked with baseless accusations. Do not confuse privacy with secrecy.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Incorrect, our site has nothing to do with creationists as we all support evolution. We do not engage in half-truths, lies or strawman arguments. To the contrary an extensive amount of time is spent rebutting these made against our work.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

You will find nothing that has not been refuted in extensive detail in the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section on the list.

# wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

Incorrect, journal ranking metrics can only determine the "popularity" of a journal not it's scientific validity.

I highly doubt you will choose to be intellectually honest and I am limited to not being able to post links here until an unheard of 100 posts. No other forum I have ever visited has such an absurd requirement.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:42pm:

This is incorrect as every counted paper on the 1100+ paper list has been peer-reviewed.

Poptech wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Is secretiveness consistent with credibility?

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:53am:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Our personal information is private but our published information is all verifiable, as it is all fully cited and sourced.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am:


Do Cosmic Rays change the frequency of radar transmissions?

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:00am:


Do you know the extent of thermal retention within the earth's systems that is directly attributable to the greenhouse effect?

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:31am:


You bet they do...!!!!!

Its written in the altimeter literature.....!!!!!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

This is widely debated.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Ah, we are back to childish name calling.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:


I know, its really quite pathetic how few the number of AGW denialist puppet clown freaks there are in their religious cults. Although I must admit that the potency of their stench and foul putrid odours is well over 0.76 mS/s.N

Another response: Quote:

That is consistent with his behaviour here.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

You mad bro?

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

Nope, the other contributing editors all exist but only Karl is a frequent contributor besides myself.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:04pm:

If the site is to be believed: no.

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

Exactly: science is simply feedback and therefore only fact can prove useful to its continued story!

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

..and vaguely answered:    

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Dangerous? I don't know about that. A bit creepy, perhaps. Poptech

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:


Good reply. It would be even better without the smileys and the colour.

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. After which please provide an example of me performing such an act.

You need to learn not to believe everything you find using Google.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:
That would make you Quote:
as declared on the site.
Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:
So; some training, but no qualifications. Which your secretiveness prevents you substantiating.

You usually need three or four years for that.  You only mentioned two, or was physics a minor?

Quote:


Even if you just did 2 years, you should be able to answer that question.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

A requirement of my major.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:

How many computer scientists were present at your dissertation?

OK. Well welcome to the forum if you want to stick around and have some logical argument. At least you should know the difference between accuracy and precision.

Did you do much Atmospheric Physics?

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Fascism makes baby jebus cry...     

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:
Did I "claim" it might? Did I ask whether you saw how it might?

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:


Not really - the answer is actually WIDELY available in basic scientific TEXT BOOKS.

You don't even need to conduct extensive searches in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Are your basic abilities as a computer analyst equally impressive?

...there can be no more stronger adhesion to irrational thought and macevelian hypocrisy than when a priest conveniently selects when to abandon his ethics and beliefs and when to hide behind them.

(Chimp_Logic, circa 2013)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Depends on the text book. Please cite your source (I am unable to cite anything due to the ridiculous posting limitations).

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Always debating but I only respond to bullies in kind. On certain forums you are only allowed to be bullied and not defend yourself if you do not accept the declared position the forum admins hold.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:


you must excuse muso - his stances are not consistent

His viewpoints can be purchased and contaminated with self interest

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

Incorrect, I was doing research at a university on nuclear waste disposal not in the industry, where the funding originated I have no idea. I was assisting with all the computer software and hardware used for testing. The project was successful and the research published.

You alarmist bed wetters are truly PATHETIC......!!!!

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:
cyberstalking
Quote:
Much like sexual harassment, the crime may not be in what the perpetrator thinks they're doing, but in how the victim feels about it. Does compiling information and posting it in a particular context qualify? That depends on the victim's perception.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

I dunno- atleast he/she talks!

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

==>you don't have to put the url in the fancy mark up language thing do you!??! 

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:44pm:

I always defend the articles on my website but I am not interested in discussing every one here as I do not have that sort of time.

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

It is very hard to present a compelling argument without sources. I mainly need to when defending my articles and that is next to impossible without posting links. This gives a huge advantage to seasoned posters here.

I see that you've met Ajax. You two should get along fine. He's extremely well qualified as a denialist because he denies the Moon Landings and 911 - and I think the JFK assassination as well? Maybe the Elvis is alive mob too? Correct me if I'm wrong.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

URLs are blocked, I would have to butcher the link and it is not worth the effort.

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:
There are many who claim to be sceptics, but turn out to be far less. Do you believe that you know better than the vast majority of the best qualified?

Poptech wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Do you see that your clumsy attempt at intimidation validates the quoted response? Do you see that your behaviour (in which you admit to indulging "on multiple occasions") is, at best, consistent with the bullying of which you accuse others? Do you see that your exploitation of the openness of others, while yourself indulging in secretiveness, is no more than cowardly?

Ajax wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:


I think I'm going to have a seizure here from laughing too much.

You discuss it with Poptech. Here's a nice reference from his webpage:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

Quote:

# wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

Please provide a dictionary definition (not wikipedia) of "cyberstalking" and then apply it to how you used the word. After which please provide an example of me performing such an act.

If not then I expect you to retract your libelous accusations.

I protect my privacy because I am free to do so.

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:


I never knew he said that, it just came to mind on seeing how you receive new people on this forum.......!!!!!??????

BTW the statement is TRUE.

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:31am:


A steady source of income funded by Big Oil, do you reckon?

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 8:52am:


I offered to make his links work. All you've done is talk about O/T conspiracy theories such as 911. That's hardly very welcoming.

Is this you, by any chance?

Rider wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:06am:


Like this for example?

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7040&contentId=7051376

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:26am:


Are the Oil companies owned by the banks? Tell me again, I've forgotten.

Poptech wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 1:33am:
In which peer-reviewed journal was that study published?

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Now, now, Ajax. If you're going to make unfounded assertions, you must learn how to handle being challenged.