Typical censorship when you are unable to debate the facts. I have never seen someone be on the receiving end of abuse like I have here and then get banned for defending myself. [lprent: That was why I provided a link to all of your comments at the point I...
...://thestandard.org.nz/?s=%40author+poptech&isopen=block&search_comments=true...
Childish name caller, you are welcome for the education.
For people are not computer illiterate like yourself, they have all her quotes at their fingertips - it is called the Internet. Would you like an education on how to use it properly too?
Childish name caller, I am glad I can help with your political science education, http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement? AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “...
Oh Ray is a scientist at NASA? It looks like I will need to make an example out of his libelous lies. Thank you for that information as I had no reason to look into who he was before.
Alarmist childish name caller, You really need to read the, "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section on the list, Quote mining Roger Pielke Jr. and using it here out of context is intellectually dishonest, Full quote: "Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type ...
Only 2011? ...and from RealClimate, the site I am censored from replying? As I could so easily lay waste to all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments they posted in those comments. Instead you simply spam more dishonest personal attacks. I don't ...
Alarmist childish name caller, You can't attack the list because no one has managed to come up with a valid criticism. You simply spam long debunked links that have no relation to the current version of the list. Feel free to post any criticism you think ...
What exactly is "Pielke et al."? Yet all the emails I receive are constantly thanking me for making these resources available to them. When people are intellectually dishonest like yourself, people can see it and your propaganda does not work. Incoming ...
The only bullshit can be found in those who desperately attack the list with lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. I deal with amateurs like yourself all the time.
How does it feel to know you have been spiking inbound traffic from this website?
Alarmist childish name caller, I am here simply to correct your misinformation for anyone else reading this. Amateurs like yourself just drive traffic to my site, thanks puppet.
Alarmist childish name caller, 1. Which counted paper is not peer-reviewed? (surely you can name one) 2. Which paper does not support a skeptic argument? I see you continue to post long debunked nonsense that is found in the, "Rebuttals to Criticisms" ...
You seem incredibly confused as I am only commenting here to correct your nonsense about my work, other than that I have no interest in anything you say.
Like I said.
It seems childish comments and no real arguments is all that can be stated here.
Alarmist childish name caller, What is the title of the list?
Alarmist childish name caller, Quote a single thing I lied about.
Your alarmism can be well established by you comments. Quote a single thing I lied about. Please continue with your childish name calling, as you continue to have no real argument and it is getting more embarrassing each time you post.
I am well aware you are incapable of actual debate but instead rely on childish name calling. Everyone reading this can clearly see it. There is nothing unusual about my appearance here as I always correct any misinformation about my work when found. ...
I will, thanks.
This is a great collection of childish name calling and dishonest ad hominems. Thanks, I use these are examples for others.
Did you try and explain to your son how to call people childish names and use logical fallacies when arguing? No wonder he was cynical.
You failed to make a valid argument to notice and instead continue with childish name calling and dishonest ad hominems. The only conspiracy theories are yours, including your smears relating to "creationism", "big tobacco", and "links to petrochemical ...
One Anonymous Knucklehead, more meaningless rhetoric and childish name calling, yet not a single valid argument. Surely you can formulate an actual argument and not continue to embarrass yourself here like this.
Pasupial, you falsely claim I am saying something that is not true. Surely you can support your baseless argument or do you need an education on how the Web of Science works like James Powell? Maybe you have not read this article enough, http://www....
Pasupial, what part of all the results that Powell posted are not peer-reviewed do you not understand? Do you not understand that the Web of Science does NOT have a peer-reviewed filter? If you do not understands these elementary arguments then I suggest ...
Let me know when you can address my actual arguments without simply more childish name calling.
One Anonymous Knucklehead, Any likely criticism you have against the list (outside of childish name calling) has been rebutted in the extensive, "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-...
Pasupial, thank for showing that you do not understand how to use Web of Science any better than James Powell. Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html 1. The ...
Recent Comments