Another incarnation of jdey123/mace?

Regardless, it's time to put a stop to his/her nonsense.

Yogi is an incarnation of an individual I am tracking who uses multiple user names and an IP blocker.  The IP's all default to the Isle of Man (between England and Ireland). 

Multiple user names and multiple IPs are involved, but all trace back to the same point of origin.

Yooper,

He/she is most likely part of the GWPF-Monckton "Axis of Evil".

Perhaps time for standard warning(s)?

It is bizarre that they should choose the second law thread, which AFAICS apart from "we are not responsible for the rise in CO2" it is the least plausible skeptic canard (although you wouldn't guess that from the number of responses!).

I'd like to thank whoever disbarred Yogi. Good call.

Good call indeed, many thanks!

The quote "I really did mean your blanket analogy was not safe, and if you want to continue pushing it, I have no problem with de-bunking it at every step." was about the worst demonstration of Dunning-Kruger I think I have ever seen here!  ;o)

I have given him the following challenge:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=164&p=28#75622

[DB] Way back here, you were asked to succinctly put forth the one objection that you wanted to hang your hat on.  You have made 6 comments on this thread since then and in exactly...none of them have you done so. Failure to do that amounts to a de facto admission that you are here to simply waste the time of others.

Cease making unsupported assertions (i.e., lacking support in the peer-reviewed literature published in reputable journals) until you can demonstrate that you are able to carry on a science-based discussion in this forum.

Yogi has decided to hang his hat on Joseph Postma:

[DB]

I`ll hang my hat on this:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

 

 

Response:

[DB] You are thus off-topic on this thread.  The proper thread for your discursion is Postma disproved the greenhouse effect.  Everyone please respond there.

Yogi:  Please read the above thread and the following threads in their entirety

• Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
• Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2

Camburn seems to be playing team-tag with Yogi. Worth watching closely. 

Actually, Camburn's responses to Yogi that I have read have been critical, so for once he isn't playing the troll.

What I will say is that reading Yogi's posts gives me the distinct feeling I've entered the twilight zone.

"reading Yogi's posts gives me the distinct feeling I've entered the twilight zone"

Shades of Humpty-Dumpty meets Groundhog Day.

YOGI == white noise generator.

Isn't it time to pull the plug on Yogi?

YOGI chose to hang his/her hat on Postma's paper, and seems to be avoiding discussion of that particular paper, so I have reposted a description of a fundamental error in Postmas paper on the postma thread from the second law thread.  I suggest that his/her response to this post will be a good indicator of whether they should be banned or not.  If he/she cannot accept that there is an error or prove that there is no error then he/she is clearly just trolling.  Having hung his/her hat on this paper he/she cannot simply ignore the holes poked in it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=509#75803

I snipped this comment

YOGI at 00:03 AM on 29 February 2012

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
CBDunkerson

I`m sure I could find a wealth of peer reviewed on the positive feedback on the greenhouse effect:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=positive+feedback+on+greenhouse+effect&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

but observations indicate a negative feedback. So peer review does not guarantee that something is true or a law.

 

and added this response:

Response:

[DB] You chose to "hang your hat" on the Postma paper you linked to.  You were then challenged to defend a particularly egregious distortion of physics Postma makes, here.  You cannot through dereliction run away from your defense of this paper, as it is your chosen field of play. 

A failure to follow through on your assumed duty will have consequences.

Off-topic snipped.

Snipped the following:

YOGI at 01:23 AM on 29 February 2012

Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
[DB] "From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step."

"This is insufficient in a science-based forum and amounts to you being argumentative for form's sake. If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to do the maths (show your work) or to provide supportive links with an appropriate measure of explanatory context as to what you understand the link to show and why it is pertinent to the discussion."

All the links that give the data that contradict everything scaddenp is claiming, have been provided by me up-thread. The purpose of comparing Lunar with terrestrial conditions is for a control to evaluate real measured temp`s for a body without an atmosphere at an average of 1AU.

Yooper,

It's a shame that you have to devote so much time and attention in moderating a climate denier like Yogi.

At some point, we have to stop gumming to death the question of how best to revise the Comments Policy and make some decisions and implement those decisions. (I am repeating this on other appropriate Moderation threads.)

YOGI is again avoiding discussion of the Postma paper and trolling.

I would suggest that YOGI's most recent comment (now deleted) warrants a ban.

Agreed.  Not here to participate in good faith at all.