Talk-Polywell.org

This is due to climate deniers, physics cranks, and creationists polluting the comments to such an extent it was no longer possible to hold a conversation. All the people who knew anything got chased off by the cranks invading the volunteer staff, and when you logged on to Popular Science to get an answer to a scientific question you were more likely to get a wrong answer than a right one.

Last I checked (many many months ago) you were still allowing climate deniers here. (That's why I haven't checked in a long time.)

Can we discuss polywell fusion now? Are the physics cranks and climate cranks gone, or are you going to start harshly and heavily moderating them? Or should I come back in a couple years to see if you're sane yet? Because I have no intention of patronizing any climate crank sites.

I note you're lumping real scientists (referred to by an inflammatory term) with 2 groups of pseudo scientists. "Popular Science" hasn't been a decent science magazine for years.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think foxnews had turned off their comments some time back. But now I see comments, at least on some articles. Some of those posts from before the shutdown could be rather...extreme. But an interesting window into the 1% or so of folks who were motivated to post.

I think you should still read stuff here, but I get it that there is little polywell news. I think that project may be, essentially, over. Bummer. Anyway, the stuff here may give you a window into how and why some folks hold beliefs you disagree with. Many people only visit sites where the stuff mentioned is stuff they agree with - I would bet you don't want to be one of those people. If they were discussing flat earth stuff here, I could see not bothering, but the AGW stuff has a large number of people who have a real 'ffect on the politics involved. It might help you to see into their arguments so you could better counter argue. At least with young folks. They are the people most easily swayed, as a group anyway. Well, my opinion on that. I must admit that things can get a bit nasty here (oh man) - but most here are faceless words on a computer monitor, so I try not to take stuff too personally.

Schneibster wrote:This is due to climate deniers, physics cranks, and creationists polluting the comments to such an extent it was no longer possible to hold a conversation. All the people who knew anything got chased off by the cranks invading the volunteer staff, and when you logged on to Popular Science to get an answer to a scientific question you were more likely to get a wrong answer than a right one.

Last I checked (many many months ago) you were still allowing climate deniers here. (That's why I haven't checked in a long time.)

Can we discuss polywell fusion now? Are the physics cranks and climate cranks gone, or are you going to start harshly and heavily moderating them? Or should I come back in a couple years to see if you're sane yet? Because I have no intention of patronizing any climate crank sites.

It is that group of people who propose Anthropological Global warming who are the Climate LIARS!

We aren't buying your crackpot religion backed up by your fake pseudo scientific babble. This whole pile of crap is merely one more attempt for the Socialist-Fascist bastards to try and gain power over everyone else.

Not having it, and if you don't like it i'll see you on the battlefield. How about you simply don't come back at all? I can't see anything useful being contributed by such as you anyway.

Schneibster wrote:This is due to climate deniers, physics cranks, and creationists polluting the comments to such an extent it was no longer possible to hold a conversation. All the people who knew anything got chased off by the cranks invading the volunteer staff, and when you logged on to Popular Science to get an answer to a scientific question you were more likely to get a wrong answer than a right one.

Last I checked (many many months ago) you were still allowing climate deniers here. (That's why I haven't checked in a long time.)

Can we discuss polywell fusion now? Are the physics cranks and climate cranks gone, or are you going to start harshly and heavily moderating them? Or should I come back in a couple years to see if you're sane yet? Because I have no intention of patronizing any climate crank sites.

While we're at it, lets just take a look at the PopSci online editor's linkedin profile, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/suzanne-labarre/a/748/26a

Digital editor
Popular Science
September 2012 – Present (1 year 1 month)
Senior editor at Co.Design
FastCompany.com

April 2010 – September 2012 (2 years 6 months)
Contributing editor
Metropolis magazine
Privately Held; 11-50 employees; Architecture & Planning industry

September 2007 – 2011 (4 years)

Education
Columbia University - Graduate School of Journalism
MS, magazines
2007 – 2007

University of California, Los Angeles
BA, women's studies, psychology
1999 – 2004



Just what you would expect. A clueless liberal know nothing activist. Sounds about right for a supporter of Global Warming Bullsh*t.


Just wanted to let you know, this is your hero. Want to know something about "Women's Studies" ? Or MS Magazine? Ask her. Want to know something about Science? Ask someone else. Probably anyone else.

hanelyp wrote:I note you're lumping real scientists (referred to by an inflammatory term) with 2 groups of pseudo scientists. "Popular Science" hasn't been a decent science magazine for years.

That would be a "no."

Bye now. I no longer engage with climate trolls who don't know the difference between a scientist and a doctor.

Just this once.

I'm sure all the climate cranks have an explanation for this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-cl ... -pie-chart

14,000 to 25, in round numbers.

Shoot, we'll have global warming fixed while the flatlander deniers still don't believe in it.

Ploink.

And this may be that fastest I've added anyone to a killfile by an order of magnitude.

hanelyp wrote:Ploink.

And this may be that fastest I've added anyone to a killfile by an order of magnitude.

Oh you have a mechanism for ignoring people?

Excellent, perhaps I won't have to go after all.

Any more climate deniers, creationists, or physics cranks wish to be registered on my Foes list? Sign up right here.

They still don't have farms in Greenland like the vikings, glaciers haven't retreated enough.

choff wrote:They still don't have farms in Greenland like the vikings, glaciers haven't retreated enough.

We can discuss the difference between climate and weather (you seem unclear on it based on your comment) if you aren't going to troll me when you find out you're wrong.

Otherwise, I'll sign you up. Your call.

I'll even let you look up my sleeve: do you know what the Vostok Core is?

hanelyp wrote:I note you're lumping real scientists (referred to by an inflammatory term) with 2 groups of pseudo scientists. "Popular Science" hasn't been a decent science magazine for years.

Just so there is ambiguity: could you be more clear as to which group is which in your estimation?

Not to give the climate deniers front page,

We have just observed the reflection of light from a massive explosion in the core of the Milky Way that occurred a couple million years ago.

This is not something a billion light years away; it's (obviously) a reflection from a million light years away, right next door in the Local Group. Closer than the Andromeda Galaxy.

This energy passed us by 970 thousand years ago, about the time that Homo Erectus was inventing fire and the wheel and the knife and the spear. Bow and arrow wouldn't come until later.

It's spent all the time since traveling to the galaxies it's now reflecting off of, then getting back here so we could see it.

So much for the creationists. The sheer size of the universe proves them wrong.

http://news.discovery.com/space/astrono ... 130923.htm

You promised to leave. Why aren't you gone? Anyone who starts a dialog by saying essentially "I'm better than this group and that group and that group" really does need to be shown the door.

And though I'm not a creationist, and would never defend them, I would note to you that the dialog with creationists over the years has certainly led to better science. It was in fact when Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan got their asses kicked in debates over the creation issue, that caused Gould to invent the "Punctuated Equilibrium" (hopeful monsters) doctrine in evolution and that led to the adoption of "catastrophism" in geology. Until that time in the early 70's, evolutionists had yet to admit the fantastical lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and uniformitarian geologists, likewise geologists protecting the status quo science paradigm, had all refused to admit what all the evidence says: that the Earth is rife with evidence of catastrophe.

Point in fact, real science is done through Hegel's dialectic method: thesis, combined with antithesis ends in synthesis. Science needs antithesis and so anyone who doubts the value of "deniers" and "creationists" really doesn't understand how science works.

And I would note to you that so far as I know, there haven't been any real young Earth "Creationists" since the 80's. That's why they changed their name to "Intelligent Design"--to distinguish their movement from the young Earth folks primarily from the 60's.

And besides, people who need to slap labels on others they would not willingly adopt (deniers) really are practicing kindergarden rhetoric anyway, so why would we want you here?