Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

[ArcticGranite]

There are serious problems with universal measurements of oceanic temperatures. Inversions, gradients, data collection and a very short history of measurements make ocean temperature conclusions next to meaningless.

This is LOTI, not ocean. GISS, NASA collected the data. Hansen's methods, (published and peer reviewed) were used to interpret the data, (published and peer reviewed). IPCC used the data for their assesments.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

 

[poptech]

i'd suggest you take some time to look over some of these "arguements against ACC/AGW" if i were you

just pullling 2 of them out at random brought me these

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01314829

the world is getting hotter due to CO2 but they think hurricanes wont be so bad

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209011828

the world is getting warmer due to CO2 but they think extinctions wont be so bad

i'd also if i was you take a look at the standards of where some of these are published "cato journal" really??

This is a strawman argument in relation to the list as the title was cropped when initially posted here (something you should have noticed when you allegedly went looking for "random" samples).

The list is explicitly titled;

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

This is explicitly defined in the Preface;

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

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

Papers can be listed that support skeptic arguments that Hurricanes or Tornadoes are not getting worse without arguing against AGW, thus supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW "Alarm". Now with that being said there are various papers on the list arguing against AGW in the General, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections.

The "standards" are listed in the Criteria for Inclusion section of the list;

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- ProQuest lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "All papers are refereed" - James A. Dorn, Editor, The Cato Journal

There are exactly two papers on the list from The Cato Journal with over 1100 from 302 other journals. Both papers are specifically listed under the Socio-Economic section.

In the future please read more carefully and cherry pick less.

 

[ArcticGranite]

^ well said, very well said!

 

[ginjawarrior]

This is a strawman argument in relation to the list as the title was cropped when initially posted here (something you should have noticed when you allegedly went looking for "random" samples).

The list is explicitly titled;

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

This is explicitly defined in the Preface;

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

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

Papers can be listed that support skeptic arguments that Hurricanes or Tornadoes are not getting worse without arguing against AGW, thus supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW "Alarm". Now with that being said there are various papers on the list arguing against AGW in the General, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections.

The "standards" are listed in the Criteria for Inclusion section of the list;

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- ProQuest lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "All papers are refereed" - James A. Dorn, Editor, The Cato Journal

There are exactly two papers on the list from The Cato Journal with over 1100 from 302 other journals. Both papers are specifically listed under the Socio-Economic section.

In the future please read more carefully and cherry pick less.

oh great just when i thought we had enough paid lackies here someone invites you

i cherry picked? those were the first 2 articles that let wasnt a 35$ paywalled 25 yearold peice i was expecting them to show AGW wasnt happneing

so what you have collected isnt a group of papers that argue against AGW you have a group of papers that argue against AGW alarmism

i like the subtly there it means you can put anything up there (even if it contradics you other pieces)

so seeing as you here are you supporter of agw? you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causeing warming?

 

[Doer]

I know we are wasting your time....that's the game, oh great one. Your honor, you won't be able to think of enough insults as we pile on like rabid dogs to pull down you Done Deal.

The paper is real, your reaction is so predictable, unlike long term atmospheric temperature. Peer review, is a process. It begins with the strict referencing to previous work. All the annotations have to point to real conclusions of others in the field. These are the basis of your paper, as you go. It all has to be referenced.

Then of course, high holy one, the PhDs and other accredited scientists, that signed the petition are the peers who reviewed it. Simple enough?

The UN survey that started this end game (they thought) jumped the gun. Very usual is psycho war. Over-confidence. They even have pitiful masses howling at strangers in forum. But, it isn't enough to believe it, because the politicians are spinning it. And that spin is always full of lies.

So, we have no confidence in the spin. It reveals the BIG LIE.

The UN survey had no peer reviewed papers, it was not a petition, had no backing, but money and politics from the UN. And you fell for it. Why? You fell for the politics, the emotion, the do good, not the science.

And people are not invited, Holy Father, it is not your club thread. And we are not paid, we have volunteered gracefully to waste your time so your life falls apart....just kidding.

Your arguments are so predictable. Shit on the message, shit on the messenger. Scorched earth. Psycho war 101.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I know we are wasting your time....that's the game, oh great one. Your honor, you won't be able to think of enough insults as we pile on like rabid dogs to pull down you Done Deal.

The paper is real, your reaction is so predictable, unlike long term atmospheric temperature. Peer review, is a process. It begins with the strict referencing to previous work. All the annotations have to point to real conclusion of others in the field. These are the basis of the paper as you go. It all has to be referenced.

Then of course, high holy one, the PhDs and other accredited scientists, that signed the petition are the peers who reviewed it. Simple enough?

The UN survey that started this end game (they thought) jumped the gun. Very usual is psycho war. Over-confidence. They even have pitiful masses howling at strangers in forum. but, it isn't enough to believe it, because the politicians are spinning it. And that spin is always full of lies.

So, we have no confidence in the spin. It reveals the BIG LIE.

The UN survey had no peer reviewed papers, it was not a petition, had no backing, but money and politics from the UN. And you fell for it. Why? You feel for the politics, the emotion, the do good, not the science.

And people are not invited, Holy Father, it is not your club thread.

Your arguments are so predictable. Shit on the message, shit on the messenger. Scorched earth. Psycho war 101.

well i was going to give you the opportunity to reveal who reviewed the paper you posted but it seems your a bit hesitant to do so

the oregan institute in 1998 released that paper along with the petition with the lie that the "National Academy of Sciences" reviewed it hence my quote from them that disavowed it

in 2007 the same paper was rerealeased yet this time they really did manage to get it published here

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

now before you puff up your chest in having proudly found a "peer reviewed study" could you please tell me what sort of "peers" you might expect the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"


now lets just ignore when this was first pushed in 1998 and the lies attached to it then

why would a reputable study about climate science be published in the journal of american physicians and surgeons?

as to the poor content within this "peer reviewed study" i'll refer you towards this link

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

i'm just going to sit back while you peruse my links and contemplate your statements

And then some folks will wild goose me about peer review. (you know who you are) But, they don't provide any. And they claim I don't. Which is bs.

They are lazy.http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Ah, you can see how the guy argues. Pearls before swine. Pick and choose. Say nothing of the peer review. But, make a smarry picture.

It is to show that small airport data is not the same as big airport data. And, he knew that. But, he prefers to act doltish. And he could not find a peer reviewed article if I handed it to him as ass wipe paper.

oh and by the way thanks for comedy im laughing at you here

 

[Harrekin]

We're all gonna be dead...

Who really cares now?

 

[poptech]

oh great just when i thought we had enough paid lackies here someone invites you

i cherry picked? those were the first 2 articles that let wasnt a 35$ paywalled 25 yearold peice i was expecting them to show AGW wasnt happneing

so what you have collected isnt a group of papers that argue against AGW you have a group of papers that argue against AGW alarmism

i like the subtly there it means you can put anything up there (even if it contradics you other pieces)

so seeing as you here are you supporter of agw? you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causeing warming?

No one invited me and I don't get paid.

Yes you cherry picked. See the (PDF) symbol next to the title name? That means it includes a link to a full copy of the paper. The first two papers listed where a link to the full paper is available are under the Hightlights section;

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998 )
- Sherwood B. Idso

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Your cherry picking the list is quite obvious.

The list is a resource not a unified theory and it is made quite clear in the Disclaimer that papers on the list can be mutually exclusive;

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

My position is very clear, there is empirical evidence for a very mild temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man.

 

[poptech]

That is odd my last post in response to #84 requires moderator approval. I will resubmit an edited version. Note that this may unintentionally result in the post being duplicated if moderators do approve the original.

The re-submission was unsuccessful. I have no idea what part of that response made it get flagged.

It looks like it was finally posted above at #88.

 

[poptech]

well i was going to give you the opportunity to reveal who reviewed the paper you posted but it seems your a bit hesitant to do so

the oregan institute in 1998 released that paper along with the petition with the lie that the "National Academy of Sciences" reviewed it hence my quote from them that disavowed it

This is incorrect as they make no such claim. The only reference to the National Academy of Sciences is from a letter signed by Dr. Seitz as being a past president of the NAS - which he was,

Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978 ), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008 )

This letter accompanied the paper when the petition was sent to potential signers. No claim is made anywhere that the paper was "reviewed" by the NAS.

This NAS claim was refuted by Dr. Robinson,

"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."

"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more."

further refutation by Dr. Robinson,

"The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy."

in 2007 the same paper was rerealeased yet this time they really did manage to get it published here

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

now before you puff up your chest in having proudly found a "peer reviewed study" could you please tell me what sort of "peers" you might expect the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons"

This is incorrect as those are two different papers with the same title,

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

Both papers were peer-reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1543-4826)
- EBSCO lists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- "Articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process" (PDF) - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

All scholarly journals follow the standard peer-reviewed process of appointing reviewers relevant to the content of the paper being reviewed and not the journal it is published in.

why would a reputable study about climate science be published in the journal of american physicians and surgeons?

This is explained in the FAQ section on the petition project's website,

9. Why was the review article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?

The authors chose to submit this article for peer-review and publication by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons because that journal was willing to waive its copyright and permit extensive reproduction and distribution of the article by the Petition Project.

as to the poor content within this "peer reviewed study" i'll refer you towards this link

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM

That is a not a peer-reviewed comment on the original paper and thus scientifically meaningless.

 

[UncleBuck]

sock puppet alert!

 

[ginjawarrior]

This is incorrect as they make no such claim. The only reference to the National Academy of Sciences is from a letter signed by Dr. Seitz as being a past president of the NAS - which he was,

Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978 ), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008 )

This letter accompanied the paper when the petition was sent to potential signers. No claim is made anywhere that the paper was "reviewed" by the NAS.

This NAS claim was refuted by Dr. Robinson,

"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."

"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more."

further refutation by Dr. Robinson,

"The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy."


This is incorrect as those are two different papers with the same title,

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

you couldnt even get the dates right on those 2 papers notice the 1999 date on there? isnt it supposed to be 1998 (you know before they changed the format away from NAS style and when they edited out the NAS from heading)
heres a 1998 edition still without the NAS attribution but you can clearly see its different to you one

http://webs.uvigo.es/esuarez/RNL/Petition Project.pdf

[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"]

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION


April 20, 1998


​

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=6

[/TD]
[/TR]

Both papers were peer-reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 1543-4826)
- EBSCO lists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- "Articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process" (PDF) - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

All scholarly journals follow the standard peer-reviewed process of appointing reviewers relevant to the content of the paper being reviewed and not the journal it is published in.

and to what standard can surgoens and phsyicians review climate material?

This is explained in the FAQ section on the petition project's website,

i know hilarious isnt it?

That is a not a peer-reviewed comment on the original paper and thus scientifically meaningless.

yeah climate study in medical journal = science lol

 

[ginjawarrior]

sock puppet alert!

oh no something much worse than that

expect months and months of walls of text/ link dump and him not paying attention to anything for longer than the time it takes to find his copy and paste folder

poptech banned is a good google search

 

[poptech]

you couldnt even get the dates right on those 2 papers notice the 1999 date on there? isnt it supposed to be 1998 (you know before they changed the format away from NAS style and when they edited out the NAS from heading)

heres a 1998 edition still without the NAS attribution but you can clearly see its different to you one

http://webs.uvigo.es/esuarez/RNL/Petition Project.pdf

I got the dates 100% correct as those dates are right to the peer-reviewed versions of those papers. Did you even click on the links?

The original non peer-reviewed paper explicitly says, "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute". There never was a NAS heading. Why are you lying about this? So what you are telling me is that those complaining to the NAS were so incompetent that they did not read what was explicitly stated in the title of the paper and instead recognized the "formatting" of the paper?

The reason for the original formatting was made explicitly clear by Dr. Robinson,

"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."

This petition was widely circulated and those attacking it have copies of the original and have never made any claim that the paper had a NAS heading.

and what standard can surgoens and phsyicians review climate material?

They don't because that is not how the peer-review process works. Journals do not have reviewers on staff nor do they only use reviewers based on the title of the journal. Editors send papers out to reviewers who are experts in the field a paper's contents are on. In this case it would have been sent out to climate scientists for review. It is quite clear that you do not understand how the peer-review process works.

 

[UncleBuck]

oh no something much worse than that

expect months and months of walls of text/ link dump and him not paying attention to anything for longer than the time it takes to find his copy and paste folder

poptech banned is a good google search

that was a good read. can't wait to see his inevitable meltdown here now.

 

[UncleBuck]

I got the dates 100% correct as those dates are right to the peer-reviewed versions of those papers. Did you even click on the links?

The original non peer-reviewed paper explicitly says, "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute". There never was a NAS heading. Why are you lying about this? So what you are telling me is that those complaining to the NAS were so incompetent that they did not read what was explicitly stated in the title of the paper and instead recognized the "formatting" of the paper?

The reason for the original formatting was made explicitly clear by Dr. Robinson,



This petition was widely circulated and those attacking it have copies of the original and have never made any claim that the paper had a NAS heading.


They don't because that is not how the peer-review process works. Journals do not have reviewers on staff nor do they only use reviewers based on the title of the journal. Editors send papers out to reviewers who are experts in the field a paper's contents are on. In this case it would have been sent out to climate scientists for review. It is quite clear that you do not understand how the peer-review process works.

you're just a CT crackpot, aren't you?

 

[poptech]

that was a good read. can't wait to see his inevitable meltdown here now.

I actually wanted to test to see what it would take to get banned there after they moved the discussion to an unmoderated forum where you could no longer hold an intelligent conversation on the topic I was discussing. So I tried different techniques to get banned, until one worked. It was actually rather fun but I have never melted down anywhere.

 

[UncleBuck]

I actually wanted to test to see what it would take to get banned there after they moved the discussion to an unmoderated forum where you could no longer hold an intelligent conversation on the topic I was discussing. So I tried different techniques to get banned, until one worked. It was actually rather fun but I have never melted down anywhere.

lol, that's not what it looked like to me, CT crackpot.

say, why don't you publish your disproof, collect your millions of dollars and worldwide accolades, and be seen as a hero to the most ignorant, science hating half of this country?

 

[poptech]

you're just a CT crackpot, aren't you?

Really? What conspiracy theories do I subscribe to, sure you can find them.

 

[UncleBuck]

Really? What conspiracy theories do I subscribe to, sure you can find them.

the theory that thousands of scientists in dozens of countries are conspiring together to pull off a decades in the making hoax only to be recently foiled by crackpot sock puppets and the least intelligent, anti-science morons among us.