Edufer is the web master of a site hosted in a country that supports many hate/racist sites. He has an agenda basically to selectively present claims by other researchers to drown out decades of past and current scientific research that suggests more regulation of industry.

Edufer misrepresents information, commonly misinterprets to slant things in favor of his crusade to destroy environmental science, lies and flames to support his ardent hate filled and twisted presentation of highly biased information from researchers who make unsubstantiated wide sweeping claims while ignoring any counter research. Edufer brings down the quality of sciforums tremendously spreading an ill will with flaming, and all of the other lies that he promulgates.

What to do may not be simple. Does sciforums want an owner of a hate site to have free reign here? He claims to have the answers to many controversies and, lo and behold, his conclusions all have a similarity. Edufer wants concern for the environment and people's lives to take a back seat to what is most conducive to oligarchy supporting industries, big money, large corporations. He has stated that he is looking for funding for his site. Does sciforums want to be a platform for his seeking of support for his hate mongering?

The DDT issue seems only a foundation for a much wider claim of safety for chemicals who have the same degree of decent understanding about them brought into perspective via science as DDT. He seeks blanket acquiesence for the benefit of big money to the extent of exonerating it of an error of the past (DDT).

Is sciforums for science or would it rather be filled with meaningless hate filled posts? This man can not hear any data countering his beliefs. He is not here to inform or learn but to cajole, to force his opinions on others.

Whatever. I do feel that I should have less to do here. An open forum is subject to control by those who post the most, who lay supplication at the alter of "might makes right." Such is the nature of anarchy, allowing tyrrany to develop. Does sciforums want to cater to those who can post the most replete with deragotory false ad hominems and highly opinionated nonscience?

I have not attempted to cite my claims here. You can see a lot of his posts in the Earth Science area in "Weeds, Weeds, Weeds" and "GMOs" as well as "Belgians can't meet Kyoto mandate because they're scared of the atom"

Mr. Chips provided this false information about our website at the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology: “He (Edufer) has stated that he is looking for funding for his site.”

Take a look at our site (English version: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html) and you will find in the home page (in Spanish: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/) this statement (translated): “FAEC does not receive money from governments or commercial companies, and cover its costs by means of the personal contribution of its members”.

I have never, but never, said I was looking for funding for our foundation as we don’t need any, so Mr. Chips has lied to you in order to promote his hatred for me.

We are not in the debunking issue for money, but just for the sake of the truth in ecology, that we would like it to be scientific and not a perverted business as many green organizations are engaging. A view at our "About Us" pages will show you who we are, and you will find there highly respectable people, scientists, and emeritus University professors.

Mr. Chips is a person that cannot accept dissenting views, and will always resort to ad hominem attacks on those dissenting with him. Many of you know him, and you also know me since I started participating in sciforum back in October 2001. In all of many different forums I have been posting I have never encountered a man such as Mr. Chips, pontificating from a pedestal of uptightness and self righteousness, sticking to a tunnel vision and considering other people’s opinions as lies in the interest of the “industry”.

He also stated something that I consider offensive to my country (Argentrina) and its people: “Edufer is the web master of a site hosted in a country that supports many hate/racist sites.

May I remind Mr. Chips that the United States, Mr. Chip’s country, has the biggest number of Nazis and racist websites in the world? Should I accuse Mr. Chips of sharing the view of his fellow Nazi and racist citizens? No, i don't. But that is what this man is accusing me of: being a hate/racist just because I am in favor of DDT and showed him the unfeasibility of wind power for supplying one and half times the US energy needs with just 6% of the USA territory!

Good Lord!

Well, this just got more interesting. I don't know about you two, but it seems to me that you're both full of crap. I mean really, who cares if he's a racist or blah blah? It's not like I have to read what anyone here posts (Well, I do have to read posts in WE&P and Scifi).

Why should I care?

Somewhere on sciforums I thought I had seen a statement by Edufer something like "hopefully we will receive a grant to continue our work" but I do not find such at the moment. It is possible that I manufactured that claim that Edufer is seeking funding here. Maybe that may be something he does later after building some traffic to his site. I apologize for not being able to substatiate my claim and its possibly being a lie. Maybe I have sunk to your level Edufer.

I saw something quite recently on the web about the inordinate amount of hate sites from Argentina

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0823/p07s02-woam.htm

http://www.selfregulation.info/iapcoda/rxio-rapporteur-020923.htm

If any one could document that statement Edufer made about the United States supporting most of the hate/racist sites, I would appreciate it.

I steer away from the ad hominem, especially false allegations. I believe one can see that Edufer gets upset when one brings information to share that does not support his extreme opinions. I see at least two other participants here at sciforums suggesting that Edufer exhibits an ideological stance, rather than scientific (that is, besides David). Edufer suggests that most scientific research is corrupt since it doesn't support his opinions. He calls the DOE liars for being proponents for wind energy and stating that only 6% of US land area in the contiguous states could provide as much as one and a half times the energy needed by the entire U.S. Because the claim did not meet his opinion, he went and got some numbers from another site and from who knows where else, to claim that more than the entire area of the US would be necessary. He did not look at the DOE's research or reasonings.

Altogethor, I believe Edufer should be awarded the prize of being about as slimey as a person can get, slipping through and around great amounts of spin and inconsequentials while ignoring anything that suggests his opinions are that and no more.

CounselorCoffee, sounds pretty wise to me. What is that saying, "how can you soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys?" Best I sharply curtail my participation here. Let Edufer and his like rule the roost. I find the slippery little mean mouthed ideologue to not be company I wish to keep.

Edited to add first URL

Mr Chips said: “If any one could document that statement Edufer made about the United States supporting most of the hate/racist sites, I would appreciate it.”

Perhaps he should start here:

www.americannaziparty.com/
Libertarian National Socialist (Nazi) Green Party
http://www.kkk.com/

In the link he provides to Argentinian hate/racist websites, the article ends saying:

“Furthermore, a 1997 decree issued by then-President Carlos Menem explicitly stated the government's refusal to interfere with production, creation, and dissemination of information distributed on the Internet. The decree guaranteed Internet sites freedom from censorship.”

But it is my impression that Mr. Chips is an ardent proponent of censorship, as his effort to ban me from sciforums implies.

"The Argentine authorities appear unconcerned at their activities. "Our intelligence reports do not indicate that the extreme right is very active," says President Eduardo Duhalde's spokesman, Eduardo Amadeo. "They keep talking about racial issues, and anti-Semitism has never been a vote-winner in Argentina."

It seems that, according to the article, Argentina does not look as a Nazi/hate/racist country. On the contrary, we presently have quite a leftist government, voted by and overwhelming majority of the people. I think Mr. Chips just gave himself a shot in his own foot.

Mr. Chips: “Edufer suggests that most scientific research is corrupt since it doesn't support his opinions.”

My opinion is that many scientific research in fields loaded with political implications have a very poor if not corrupt peer-review. This view of mine is shared by to many scientists, among them former and present US Academy of Sciences members, as to be dismissed easily. This has been proved thoroughly by the peer-review process in Science and Nature magazines. See: http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_16b.html by patrick Michaels, from University of Virgina, or (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_17a.html) where the ending comment is as follows:

“Are Nature's editors intentionally allowing articles on certain topics to be published despite a lack of scientific worthiness? Are the editors under qualified to judge the scientific merit of the research or are they unable to assign competent reviewers to do so? Whichever the case may be, the result is the same: When it comes to climate change, Nature's reputation is becoming severely degraded.”

Mr. Chips said: “He calls the DOE liars for being proponents for wind energy and stating that only 6% of US land area in the contiguous states could provide as much as one and a half times the energy needed by the entire U.S.”

I called them missinformers because they claim it can be produced one and a half times the present US electricity consumption with barely 6% of the US territorial area. My analysis (an opinion), shows we would need an area equivalent to little less than two planet Earth to do it.

Mr. Chips: “Because the claim did not meet his opinion, he went and got some numbers from another site and from who knows where else, to claim that more than the entire area of the US would be necessary. He did not look at the DOE's research or reasonings.”

I got my data from DOE and from Vestas Wind Systems, Denmark’s largest manufacturer wind turbines. I provided the links for Mr. Chips to check out. It seems he didn’t. DOE based his reasoning on a single study conducted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, that, by the way show the error (misinformation?) stated by the DOE page: In the link Dr. Chips graciously provided, there is this paragraph:

“Tapping only a fraction of America’s vast wind resources would easily yield much of the new power that the country will need in the years ahead: in order to generate 15 % of America’s electricity (twice what hydropower generates today) only 0.6% of the land of the lower 48 states would have to be developed with wind power plants, according to a study by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.”

Which shows that the study said “15% of present US energy and not one and a half times”. Are people so careless in DOE as to let this error pass unnoticed? I don’t think so. I think they made the claim of “1 ½ “ times more and let the lei get into the minds of unaware people. But if they are that careless, just think of the future of the US energy with careless people managing it!

Then he Mr. Chips has abused me on my saying that, when referring to wind energy, “they always talk of installed capacity, and not about effective output”. This same study states:

"...megawatts shy of the record 1,696 MW installed in 2001. Current installed capacity in the U.S. is 6,374 MW, with utility-scale wind turbin installed in 30 states.”

Then sways Mr. Chips: “Altogethor, I believe Edufer should be awarded the prize of being about as slimey as a person can get, slipping through and around great amounts of spin and inconsequentials while ignoring anything that suggests his opinions are that and no more.”

I have always stated that what I say are my opinions, or somebody with credential enough, and I provide the sources. As usual, Mr. Chips call my sources misinformers or paid liers ast the industry’s service.

And about I saying “hopefully we will receive a grant to continue our work" was during a post in the “weeds, weeds,…” thread, saying I was looking for an “investor” for finishing a project on Eco and Adventure Travel in the Amazon region that I started with my own money, back in 1995.

Unfortunately, the weeds thread has been closed and deleted. That has nothing to do with our Foundation, although I have personally contributed to scientific work made on macaws preservation in Bolivia by professors at the Cordoba National University.

Mr. Chips, make a poll if you want to get someone banned...

Banned, or censored?

either.........

First of all two sites does not constitute an analysis of how prevalent hate/racist sites are by country and I deplore your even posting links to two.

Edufer: "But it is my impression that Mr. Chips is an ardent proponent of censorship, as his effort to ban me from sciforums implies."

I have not launched an effort to ban Edufer.

Edufer: "It seems that, according to the article, Argentina does not look as a Nazi/hate/racist country."

Who said they did? All both articles suggest is that Argentina has a larger amount of hate/racist sites than most other countries. They use the word, "ultranationalist." I tried neoliberal before, maybe neoconservative or this new word for me "ultranationalist" are more descriptive of Edufer's general attitude. What do you think Edufer? A lot of people who are considered neoconservatives don't mind the moniker. How 'bout you? I know you communicated support for the violence of the "dirty war" that some estimate as having resulted in the deaths of 30,000 people, many tortured apparently to death. Edufer you have stated that it's mainly a lie with only something like 1600 deaths of terrorists or communists that were trying to defeat capitalism. Sounds like neoconservative ehics to me.

Both of those global warming analysies do not state that of all sources of scientific data, most are corrupt. In fact, the first states that Nature magazine has presented a biased view because the consensus of most scientists is opposed. That is what I'm talking about, not Nature magazine or even global warming in the original context but seeking to find that which is held in most consensus directly from original research and in the context of what was discussed, concerning DDT. I don't disagree that global warming may have been perpetrated over zealously but unlike you, I don't think that is reason to not be concerned about the release of green house gases. You can find lots of "position papers" and, Edufer seems quite enamored of such, but what I tried to cite was just original research about DDT. You found 86% of studies on DDT which are no more than references to multiple sources (via pub med), the original researchers themselves, to be corrupt because they did not agree with your opinion. I got those reports by entering the criteria "DDT" and "Cancer" simultaneously at Pub Med, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and then limited my analysis to just the last year in order to make it possible to look at each one and determine whether or not they agreed or disagreed with Edufer's citations.

At 05-07-04, 04:14 PM PST in this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35323&page=3 Edufer's closing lines are:

"Perhaps it is not me but the DOE study who is lying? Or at least giving some missinformation?"

Edufer: "Which shows that the study said “15% of present US energy and not one and a half times”. Are people so careless in DOE as to let this error pass unnoticed? I don’t think so. I think they made the claim of “1 ½ “ times more and let the lei get into the minds of unaware people. But if they are that careless, just think of the future of the US energy with careless people managing it!"

Look again at the quote you repeated. Look closely at how much percent they were relating as being able to satisfy 15% of US energy consumption. See the zero and the point before that 6? This study was taling about six tenths of a percent. Multiply that by 10 and you get 150 percent of US energy consumption with 6% land surface of the lower 48 states. Absolutely no disagreement at all within the DOE's site. Edufer, make a mistake and then compound it with further allegations, why don't you?

Look, the web page I immediately pointed to at the DOE (gotta love reposting this important stuff) http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html does not have the words "installed capacity" They do not always state it. If one had to, other exceptions could be found with other organisations, I'm sure. It was just easy to prove you immediately wrong as you used the word "always" and that is very rarely the case for anything. You brought that up as some convolutions to spin that the DOE implied that all of the US would have to be abandoned by its people to make room for the wind farms, another absolutely 100% false claim of yours, Edufer.

Edufer: "I got my data from DOE and from Vestas Wind Systems, Denmark’s largest manufacturer wind turbines."

I'm sorry, the only URL you posted was this one http://www.reference-guides.com/cia_world_factbook/United_States/Economy/Electricity__production/ which appears to be neither of the sources you now cite. I told you before, with a continual reliance on slanting and lies, (evident right here in this thread), I for one, can not take any information from you just on your word alone. You need to put explicit citation to any statistic you adopt for your crusade in order to begin to reestablish some trust.

Edufer: "I have always stated that what I say are my opinions, or somebody with credential enough, and I provide the sources. As usual, Mr. Chips call my sources misinformers or paid liers ast the industry’s service."

First of all, you go and use that word "always" again. I have to find the statement probably false but am going to reneg on researching it for now. There is plenty right here to establish quite beyond doubt that, as I've stated before, Edufer, you are not a man of integrity. I have never used the words "paid liar" or "misinformer" in my discussions with Edufer. He quoted these phrases as something I said and then couldn't cite where I had said them. I called him on this putting words into my mouth, as being more lies by him and he hasn't been able to prove me wrong. This was in the GMOs thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34934&page=3&pp=20 within the last half dozen posts.

Edufer: "Unfortunately, the weeds thread has been closed and deleted." You must mean this one http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34703&page=1&pp=20 . Seems to be alive and kicking with nothing deleted. I couldn't find the word "investor" in it but thanks for pointing out that my contention wasn't at least entirely false, even in your eyes. You're a loose cannon and apparently you consider me your enemy as you have inferred in a couple of your posts. You even shoot yourself down, calling me a liar and then posting that perhaps I wasn't entirely mistaken.

I'm probably just being a fool to do this point by point rebuttal (got the order mixed up on a couple but stayed fairly close to point by point any ways). What value is it to Sciforums? Would there be any point in doing a poll for his banning? I've seen no support for such here except for the explanation of the process, thank you jadedflower. What does "censoring" mean? I am presently unaware of this opiton by the administration or moderators at sciforums.

Thank you whomever for moving this thread here as I am just seeking feedback more than anything else for the moment. Would any one support the idea of banning Edufer? As one can tell by the postings I have made in the past, I am quite generally against banning but then, what other recourse does an online forum have? In general I share the feelings of counselorcoffee on this. Who cares?

Maybe the nature of online forums is to become populated by the crass and inept while any reasonable folks find some other way to socialize. It is definitely not my intention to make any enemies. I should just take the lesson to heart, online forums have a tough time sustaining civil discourse. There are too many people who take criticism of their beliefs as a personal onslaught and virtually no peer review to keep the baffoons from hogging the bandwidth.

Just because one poster disagrees with another on a variety of topics, is no reason to suggest a ban. This is not a kindergarten class. We can agree to disagree and generally behave like adults. Is Edufer flaming, baiting, plagarizing or similar? If so please show me a link or two. I have found his posts to be well informed and scientifically valid which is sadly a rare thing in the Science forums.

Flaming and baiting are quite evident in the threads I have posted. As far as plagiarizing goes, I haven't really invested the time to investigate. Does seem that Edufer's command of the English language changes quite drastically at times which makes me wonder if he doesn't just borrow other people's words. He has lied so often and distorted truth so many times that I would not put plagiarism as nonsuspect. Would you mind posting links to where you feel he has presented a "well informed and scientifically valid" presentation? I might agree for some of his postings regarding green house gases but not his ultimate judgement of the results of such considerations which I find to be far reaching and extreme beyond a fair appraisal of science.

In the game of future crisis, speculation is important.

The more options that are presented, the better the chances of finding a path through the maze.

All parties in this world push a barrow and try to sell their wares.
A scientist looks on, evaluates and observes,,,, and only after carefully collecting as many options/points of view/data as possible, maybe a conlusion can be drawn... but always be prepared to change, if a better opinion comes forth, even from the drunk in the gutter. After all, all minds process along similar lines.

I quite like to hear/read as much as possible.

By all means debate, but really it is only up to YOU to believe.........

For me, I think you are all wrong
:)

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/bozos1.mp3

You guys are at it again. Who's going to be the bigger man and stop trying to convince/insult/discredit the other person. In other words, and I think I speak for others, both of you Shut the hell UP! Move on, the world is big.

Later
T

It may be known that Anthropogenic Global Warming is under heavy debate. How strange it may seem, many scientists like to discuss it unbiased, clean, just wondering what the truth is. It may sound strange but the pure scientific arguments, facts and data are so confusing that both a case for and against global warming can be made. Personally I have studied the matter and I observe that the case against Anthropogenic Global Warming is much stronger than the case in favor of it.

Now who else is “against” Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Bjorn Lomborg, apparantly he is an anti environmentalist.
http://www.urban75.com/Action/news138.html
Lindzen seems to be a real villain.
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=397 http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n3-lindzen.html
Spencer and Christy seem just to be saying what the politics want. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=337
Willie Soon has no idea what he is talking about: http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,03600.cfm

Etc etc.

Isn’t it striking that everybody who is sceptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming is a selfish greedy crook per definition who has no consideration whatsoever for delicate environmental issues

This is how it works: scientist X completes a study that does not support global warming. So he gets attacked by Y. Motto: X does not believe in global warming so X is against the environment. An ad hominem.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

So X replies, irritated by the attack on his person, and perhaps makes the mistake to mirror an ad hominem to Y. Now X is not only a anti environmental crook, he is also abusing the most social and very environmentalistic Y whose reputation is flawless. Nobody should ever listen anymore to X. But whether or not X is right, became never the topic of discussion. Because AGW must be right and beware thee if thee ever dare to question it. Hence X is was wrong in the first place.

So Mr Chips who has very carefully learned the shrewd ad hominem methods of the Godfather of Global warming, Stephen Schneider, knows exactly how to silence opposition of the Global Warming hype. Vicious attacks, because anybody against global warming must be against humanity in itself. And yes indeed the last time that such a shrewd hype was launched against certain ethnic groops, the second world war was the ultimate result.

I see incredible filthy attacks totally unfounded. Edufer, who choose to crusade against the hype has been surprisingly mild.

That’s it for now. Mr Chips the floor is yours you may commence insulting.

Take this as in insult if you will. Find some post where I endorse global warming. If you look carefully, you will see I believe a good case can be made for global cooling. I find it interesting that one who seems so concerned about insults has nothing to bring here but an attempt at an ad hominem. There is a difference between logical criticism and FALSE ad hominems.

If no one can look at the data and see it for what it is, the numerous false claims, flaming, baiting, and outright lies of Edufer then so much for sciforums.

What about that confusing of 0.6% and 6% by Edufer? I mean, you guys can't see things like that? I am floored. Incredible. People come to the defense of a quite inept and loose mouthed extremely opinionated bombastic vile mouthed crusader? Call that an insult if you will. This is a learned perspective from heaps of blatant evidence.

Incredible. I never cease to be amazed. What a challenging world we live in, so many not only don't have a clue but actively support those who only pretend they do.

Princess, maybe not kindergarden, maybe romper room would be more appropriate?

You have not dissapointed me, mr Chips, very nice attemps really.

What about that confusing of 0.6% and 6% by Edufer?

So? If this is true, I can ask you if you have ever made a mistake or a typo.

I mean, you guys can't see things like that? I am floored. Incredible. People come to the defense of a quite inept and loose mouthed extremely opinionated bombastic vile mouthed crusader? Call that an insult if you will.
I'll call a spade a spade. It's an insult. Insulting, offensive people are not as much fun as friendly people.

Incredible. I never cease to be amazed. What a challenging world we live in, so many not only don't have a clue but actively support those who only pretend they do.

...Anything less would be uncivilized.

Yes, I do make typos and mistakes and I attempt to own up to them if they are pertinent to the discussion unlike some folks who frequent this place. Take Andre for example, couldn't own up to his own false ad hominem. Is that what sciforums is all about, insult someone with some wild allegations then say they expect some insults in return? If being civilized and friendly is relying on sheer weight of words rather than authenticity and validity, then by all means, enjoy your new found friends and your concept of civility.

Does any body do some thinking for themselves around here or is all that sciforums can muster are those who rush to the aid of the bully?

Trying to get an understanding of forum operations in general, I see evidence to consider long time conflict between certain individuals in a forum may be indicative of a troll.

Am I a troll?

Is Edufer a troll?

I find the definition of a troll as something that can result in much ill will and paranoia, hardly fitting for a forum that might pride itself on an affiliation with science.

Am I a troll?

Is Edufer a troll?

How invasive might the damage be?

Will it increase or will measures be taken to stop the conflagration?

Yes, I do make typos and mistakes and I attempt to own up to them if they are pertinent to the discussion unlike some folks who frequent this place.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, Mr. Chips.

Take Andre for example, couldn't own up to his own false ad hominem.

I think he was describing ad hominem behavior, and what he has seen of it.

Is that what sciforums is all about, insult someone with some wild allegations then say they expect some insults in return?

Why would you care? You seem to be exhibiting hypocrisy. It is okay for you to insult others, but they mustn't insult you. That doesn't make sense.

If being civilized and friendly is relying on sheer weight of words rather than authenticity and validity,
Let's see, being civilized and friendly is seeing things from the other person's point of view and considering their feelings. Wouldn't you want to be treated this way? Being civilized and friendly is not about weighty words. It can also involve smiling and making jokes.


then by all means, enjoy your new found friends and your concept of civility.

Here you show your own fallibility and lack of perfection (not that I care, but the pot shouldn't call the kettle black, you know) in making a gross assumption.

Does any body do some thinking for themselves around here or is all that sciforums can muster are those who rush to the aid of the bully?
I am not rushing to your aid, Mr. Chips. Don't you have interests beyond character assassination? What are they? That's a serious question.

Mr. Chips said what he thinks about people at sciforums: “Does any body do some thinking for themselves around here or is all that sciforums can muster are those who rush to the aid of the bully?”

He is now sounding more like David Mayes, the guy who claimed to be greatest genius in Earth’s history. At the end, D. Mayes said he was God.

As I said, Mr. Chips does not read my post as he should. Or perhaps he has bad memory. I presented this in my post on Vestas Wind Systems:

“In the website of Vestas Wind Systems, the largest Danish wind turbine manufacturer (http://www.vestas.com/), and perhaps the world’s largest, we find the following data:”

And then, lower in the post:

“Then, in the pages about such turbine we find:
http://www.vestas.com/produkter/v80/v80_UK.html”

The link from I got US energy production for 2000 got its data from DOE. Besides, that is not secret data.

About Mr Chips’ complain that I say “they always talk about installed capacity”, and he says the DOE never stated installed capacity, may a I suggest a reread of the DOE page (alas, a pdf document) link provided by Mr. Chip himself - that says the following:
<dir>“2003 came very close to the best year ever in the U.S., with 1,687 megawatts (MW) of new wind power constructed -- only a few megawatts shy of the record 1,696 MW installed in 2001. Current installed capacity in the U.S. is 6,374 MW, with utility-scale wind turbin installed in 30 states. One megawatt of wind capacity generates enough to power the equivalent of 300 average American households. The large buildup in capacity is a 36% increase over the installed wind power base in the U.S. at the beginning of the year. Over the last five years (1999-2003), U.S. wind generating bcapacity has expanded at an annual average rate of 28%.”</dir>
Where we see DOE talks about “installed capacity” and “capacity” as the if they were the same thing, and we are going to leave that way. What DOE, and other wind power advocates avoid mentioning, and I have pointed out, is that installed capacity is one thing and real output is quite a different thing: that is, average annual output is about 30% of installed capacity. And that is one of the many reasons they need so much area to produce power.

But Mr. Chips is right about the 6% and 0.6% matter. I have misread it and I acknowledge it. However, that does no detract a bit DOE's crazy contention that they could provide one and half the current US power production with just 6% of the territory, that was the subject of my post on showing that, for doing it, they would need just an area a little less of TWO PLANETS EARTH. My claim remains, even if I confused (much later) the 0.6% with 6%, which led me to say people at DOE were careless. They are not careless, just fools.

But in the study DOE presents (link by Mr. Chips) they don’t say how are they are going to produce one an a half more power on 6% of US land. And I challenge Mr. Chips or someone else to prove my calculations were wrong. (Not by merely saying DOE says it is possible). That would be an Ad Verecundian Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

Regarding your claim that I had presented in sciforums a request for funding is, of course, is a gross error from Mr. Chips’ part. Let us not call it a lie. But as I have not mentioned anything in sciforums about hopefully receving any grant, we are entitled to think that Mr. Chips was making it up for suiting his arguments. However, I concede that Mr. Chips’ idea might come from one of our website pages where I offer a joint venture opportunity to investors on Adventure Travel in the Amazon jungle, something quite far from funding for a Scientific Ecology Foundation. And nothing aginst ethics or honesty.

And I have got sick of Mr. Chips. Let us forget him.

Am I a troll?

I don't know. Do you live under a bridge?

Is Edufer a troll?
Does he live under a bridge?

How invasive might the damage be?

Well if you were a goat not paying attention, it could get pretty serious.

Will it increase or will measures be taken to stop the conflagration?

Why do I get an image of the villagers with torches coming to get the trolls? They must safeguard the goats of the village, I guess....

Lets take a look at some quotes from the indivduals in question, it seems pretty clear to me who is at fault here regardless of the topic of discussion being true or false:

Mr Chip's Collections:
1) I find you to be quite rude. Why not just stick to the subject rather than bring in these wide sweeping grandiose philosophical rantings?
2) Call that tunnel vision ("everything I say too" some more obvious extremist misinformation as is your common practice) if you will but I call your crusade sociopathic.
3) Leave your blanket condemnation of "greens" in your garbage view of the world. Each and every person has their opinion and if you have to go and discount some on the basis of their opinions rather than look at their claims that is you being colorful, emotionally discordant.
4) I think I'll retain my faith in human nature and stop reading any of your garbage, Edufer. I have placed you on my ignore list. Bye lunatic.
5) I will not pretend to discuss things with him, I'd be more successful talking to a brick
6) There is no communicating with you, Mr. Ed.
7) Your brute force is the ability to spew nonsense, lots of it, while avoiding any real questions that express serious doubts about the validity of your adamant and extreme opinions.
8) The apparent lack of success for your efforts is reassuring.
9) Hmmm, Edufer, I guess the statistics you post at your site are misinformation, no surprise really as you have shown your affinity for such.
10) Pitiful. Count the words, if you are so inclined to see the absolute insanity of your claim.
11) Ooh, a compound lie, cite the instances. They do not exist.
12) You have shown a great lack of integrity. I do not need the comments or opinions of an apparent pathological crusader.
13) Moderator Tristan, it is very difficult to not want to respond to the flaming. I suggest you lock down this and the other thread where it is occuring or get this bozo banned.
14) Yup, that is just what he wants, the lock down of this thread. Typical troll. I have made direct accusation that you have lied numerous times in this thread that any one can go and justify or not. You are free to speculate about me but you have no proof. Flame on if that is all you can do.
15) Edufer, can you point to the post where I used the word "misinformer" or words "paid liar" that you attribute as quotes to myself? Have you no decency sir?
16) How about starting some of your own threads to embrace your crusades rather than hijack specific ones for your general purposes, Edufer?
17) Edufer, I find you so rude, so inconsiderate, so out of touch, so hegemonic, so outrageous and intolerant, so against science and reason that you bring down the entire quality of sciforums. I do think that in general this is something you would favor as you do not appear to cater to discussion and ignore any real criticisms and continually repeat your arguments even when people bring some fine analysis as to their limitations or outright inapplicability.
18) I really don't think you would mind if all of sciforums were shut down to help keep people from being aware.
19) It is really quite amazing how fast you drop the recourse to citing evidence or discussing logic or understanding and instead resort to insult, to character assasination most often with easily apparent, no evidence or reason.
20) I do not believe I have ever seen some one who appears to be as enamored with insult and sheer bulk of posting in disregard to logic or reason or facts than what I have witnessed from you. Yes, a most amazing personality, do you have a bio on the web somewhere or something? It would be quite educational to learn more of your life and its motivations. If it would be difficult for you to post such in public, I promise not to share it in any open forum if you wanted to PM me. I do find you to be quite amazing and interesting, Edufer. Your views on things in general I find alarmingly deceptive and extremely biased but yourself, that is a subject that is most intriguing.
21) I dare say, from what I see on the web, the fear mongering, hate industries that are more prevalent in Argentina that other places, are not considered all that profitable over other countries that exhibit similar incidence of sponsorship and hosting for hate/racist web sites. Don't quit your day job.
22) If you want a guide as to what is most likely false, you can basically look at Edufer's web site which you can find by looking at his particulars. He has a very biased and quite radical neoliberal perspective on most anything which means he only references data that supports his desired views and ignores virtually anything else.
23) If they are to swallow blatant lies, then why not your grand plans for the world?
24) BTW, Edufer, you misspell Dixy Lee Ray's name.
25) Hey, Edufey, instead of the blanket assertion that I have made many lies, please cite some or even one. I have cited a few made by you directly. Can you not afford me the same decency rather than the blanket condemnation? You have quoted me as calling you "misinformer" and "paid liar" in the GMOs thread. I suggest that those quotes attributed to me were flat out lies, flat out creation of bogus misinformation. That GMO thread is not long. You should be able to prove that you did not lie in those two instances. You will not do so. I repeat, YOU WILL NOT DO SO! You are a liar, Edufer. One can not trust anything you post.
26) I pity you and your alienation from reason.
27) As far as being a soliloquy, I realize attempting to communicate to you or Edufer seems quite meaningless but hopefully there are others who find this interesting and are more concerned with substance rather than presentation. That picture you posted at the start of this thread begs the question, are you more concerned with appearance than substance?
28) . Maybe you should catch a few more winks and see if your brain can get in gear before engaging the motor mouth.
Edufer Collections:
1) Use your brain, Mr. Chips, it's time for you to break it in.
2) And unlike previous statements by you, that you have not a green skin, you are showing yourself greener than Hulk.
3) OK, then, I know you are sore and feel bad. I will get off your back. Sleep well.
4) Mr. Chips and one of his dumb statements: "There is no communicating with you, Mr. Ed." - You just did that. Sleep well.
5) It seems you feel you are the sole owner of the truth. Those words apply to you as well to anyone with dissenting views.
6) So if someone dissenting with your blessed truth provides information, he is automatically labeled “missinformer”, “paid liar”, or other degrading labels. I thought we had left the Inquisition behind, but you are bringing back Torquemada’s spirit into the thread.
7) BTW, we have not seen any signs of your website. Afraid of letting us know who you really are? Are you ashamed to be what or who you are?
8)Mr. Chips, your excuses for not to give your website address is pathetic, and I only show that you have nothing of the sort. We are entitled to think you are a liar. Show us I am wrong.
9) It was you who asked for this thread to be locked, not me. Your lie flies on your face. We are beginning to think you are somewhat insane.
10) Show me where. Prove it. Hard facts, not your usual florid and extravagant syntax for saying nothing.
11) You are an intolerant nazi. You are against everyone that has an opposing view, and instead discussing the message, you prefer to shoot the messenger. Grow up to democracy man!
12) I can only say that is you who's hijacking threads to make your personal attacks on me and my dissenting opinions, while putting yourself in a moral high ground, free of criticism. If you persist in your attacks, you'll end up closing all threads where I participate. You are free to keep doing it.By the amount of PM I got from sciforums readers I see you are giving yourself an exaggerate importance, showing you have a overinflated ego. Self rightneousness usually leads to totalitarian behavior.
13) Mr. Chips, your constant ad hominem attacks to me only play against you. You never refute the information I provide, but simply concentrate in your personal attacks. keep doing it, please. As Napoleon said: "Never stop your enemy when he is making mistakes."
By the way, I am quite anti-neoliberal, as this philosophy and theresulting policial and economic theories have played havoc in my country. Just concentrate on providing your own scientific data, not just links to highly biased websites. And if I were to count the times you told lies... well, most people in this forum know you and have advised me to pay no attention to you.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17461

When I asked "is all that sciforums can muster are those who rush to the aid of the bully? " NileQueen responded with the question "Don't you have interests beyond character assassination? What are they?"

Understanding, clarification, knowledge, things like that. Character assasination is not my desire but I do appreciate honesty and have attempted to be honest myself.

Edufer: "He is now sounding more like David Mayes, the guy who claimed to be greatest genius in Earth’s history. At the end, D. Mayes said he was God."
Have I done either of these things? What exactly happened with David Mayes? Seems to me that someone who was normally quite communicative in sometimes quite creative and interesting ways, after one on one discussion with Edufer, got quite extreme and upset. I got out of that thread discussing the data concerning greenhouse gases early though I shared my opinion there which is nothing as Andre would have us believe,

Andre: "So Mr Chips who has very carefully learned the shrewd ad hominem methods of the Godfather of Global warming, Stephen Schneider, knows exactly how to silence opposition of the Global Warming hype. Vicious attacks, because anybody against global warming must be against humanity in itself. And yes indeed the last time that such a shrewd hype was launched against certain ethnic groops, the second world war was the ultimate result."

Without any reference at all to any citation to anything I posted, Andre has painted me as quite a vile and despicable person with an agenda that is not mine, he can not cite any communications or posts that are mine that support his quite vicious claim as long before I came to this forum, I found the idea of global warming to be specious and have not argued its case.

Okay, Edufer, you did list the URL for Vesta Wind systems. I apologize for missing that upon referring back and stating that you had only cited one URL. I have yet to see where you got data from DOE in those early stages of the discussion before I brought forth the data.

Edufer: "he says the DOE never stated installed capacity."

I did not say that or if I did it was explicitly in reference to the one page that I cited which contained no use of the words "installed capacity." There are now numerous instances where Edufer has claimed that I said something that I did not.

They certainly didn't on the page I originally cited and when they did on another page associated with the site that I posted here, they do not appear to be using the words as Edufer does that "average annual output is about 30% of installed capacity." Are you, Edufer, referring here to the statement by the DOE that "U.S. wind generating capacity has expanded at an annual average rate of 28%" because that says something quite different from what you claim with "average annual output is about 30% of installed capacity?"

Here is a paper reporting research funded by the DOE that goes into more details about their statement of the potentials of wind energy including efficiency and possible mitigating factors. The phrase "installed capacity" is not mentioned in the paper: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/wind_potential.html which does not support the idea that “they always talk about installed capacity” or that DOE statistics imply that it would take more than two Earths to achieve as Edufer originally claimed.

Good that you should finally come clean on the 0.6% verses 6% gaffe you made. That is reasonaqble after I pointed it out explicitly, twice, but no one else brought that forth and it seems you would have been perfectly fine with letting your erroneous claim stand if I hadn't pointed it out. No one seems to be willing to take you up on the other mistakes, slanting of truth, outright lies. I think it can be seen that you level quite vicious slurs and flames that are quite shrewdly brought into the body of your discussion so that moderators would have a tough time hassling with you over the details. People are rightfully scared of discussing things with you as you appear to use every dirty trick you can within quite calculated obfuscation to bait and incite ill will.

NileQueen, your response to my asking as to whether or not I or Edufer were a troll was just a stage play, no cogent data at all, nothing to inform but actually, just fantasy obfuscation.

In the final analysis, I do find that Edufer is a very practiced troll with an agenda other than science or mutually respectful communication. I find that he seeks to incite bad feelings, that those who come to his support are largely doing the same with little regard for accuracy or authenticity.

I don't think sciforums can sort it all out. I believe that forums in general have a strong tendency to be taken over by those who find forcing their opinion to be more important than authenticity. In this venue, it often works. I surmise that this is why I have no support expressed by any one here. The reasonable do not want to participate in debate with the unreasonalbe so forums gravitate towards more false ad hominems, more ill will, more lies and misinformation, in short, dysfunction and the dysfunctional.

Go ahead and be that way, sciforums. There is nothing unique in having a forum become the play thing of those who cater to despotism rather than mutually rewarding discussion. Edufer has expressed support for what many now consider as having been a vile and corrupt dictatorship in his country.

Tristan, I am sorry for what appears to be mean mouthings by myself. I do like the idea of seeking mutual respect. I'm afraid sciforums will be just more grist for my experiences that public forums cater to those with prejudice and mean spirit. It is not my desire to be this way and if this forum brings out the worst in me, I should not participate and leave you all to your passion plays.

I find this page about forum trolls to be interesting, http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

Here are a couple of quotes:

"An "Internet troll" or a "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums."

also

"Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator."

Check out the Weeds, Weeds, Weeds thread that Edufer claimed was shut down and deleted, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34703 Do you see how it was virtually taken over and hijacked to a discussion by Edufer on DDT with me not doing what I should of done, report it right away as off topic? Afraid I succumbed to the baiting and engaged him in the discussion of one of his favorite topics which he has also brought into other threads on other topics to the extent of hijacking.

Right now, I will report a post of his that is entirely off topic and again is baiting as being a claim of the truth about a controversial subject. It is the recent post of his in this thread labeled "Why do people fear nuclear power?" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=576451#post576451 with the time stamp of Today, 01:38 PM PST with two URLs posted to his web site about a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread.

Oh well, who cares, right?

Oh well, who cares, right?
Apparently you do since you still are posting trying to prove he is a "troll"

Drop the F***ing subject.

Who is the moderator of "Science and Society?" Oh I guesss I figured it out, those with no moderator listed are under the supervision of David Watanabe who I understand to be the owner of sciforums. .

Edufer deleted the URLs.

You are a moderator Tristan? Hmmm, perhaps how invasive the damage has been is becoming apparent.

Mr. Chips, I deleted the links because you complained and I agreed with your view that they were out of topic (although they were intended for WellCookedFetus alone). Now you are becoming obsessive. I pray God you don't get a heart attack tonight.

Post Datum: Mr. Chips, would you like me to post again the links you objected? Please make up your mind.

BTW, you link to a page showing Argentina's Nuclear Comission's sloppy public relations does seem to me out of topic.

Seems you didn't have to delete the URLs afterall, WellCooked got a few URLs in on the off topic with no problem. Forget me, right? Do what you want.

You pray to God?

Out of topic in the thread "Why do people fear nuclear power?" You don't think people's experiences of nuclear mismanagement play any role? Why not comment about it in the thread rather than here as to why you think it is off topic? You could report it. Doesn't seem to be any moderation going on there though. I kind of think maybe some moderators are into immoderation anyways as far as I can see.

I pray to God, yes, but that's not of your incumence.

Mr. Chips: “Why not comment about it in the thread rather than here as to why you think it is off topic? You could report it. “

Do you think we are at school here? Accusing the boy at your right: “Teacher, teacher! This boy is off topic! He is as bad boy!” Grow up, Chippy, there is no harm in posting a small comment as long it does not start a long completely off topic discussion that has not happened.

And as for nuclear mismanagement (and information mismanagement) I have something to say about it - in that thread, of course.

I'm about 10 years younger than you but that still places me at over half a century. See the embedded inferred flaming insult? It is literally false that I have yet to "grow up." You do come off as a rude mouthed individual way too often.

Edufer: "there is no harm in posting a small comment as long it does not start a long completely off topic discussion that has not happened."

But you did and it has at least three times now, two locked threads that you hijacked; "GMOs" starting with your post time stamped 04-27-04, 03:16 PM PST http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34934&page=2&pp=20 and "Belgians can't meet Kyoto mandate because they're scared of the atom " starting with your first post to that thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35323 and "Weeds, Weeds, Weeds" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34703 starting with your very first post there that brought protest and a frown as an immediate result. You have claimed that "Weeds, Weeds, Weeds" was shut down and deleted. Could it be that you have been banned from that thread but the moderator just didn't notify you? Can you access that URL? Maybe you had just assumed you had it locked because it had degraded immensely starting with your very first post there.

According to the definitions and expositions I have seen on the web concerning forum trolls, you appear to be a classic representation with many of the telling characteristics, fomenting ill will, hijacking threads, getting support from a cadre of those who are entertained by the discord and do the same themselves though not with the finesse at lying and insult that you have mastered. That site I refered to above and repeat again, http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp appears quite a decent summary by forum policy makers for a well used forum on the nature and results of a forum troll and it seems to fit you to a T.

I do have faith in human nature, not any god or religion, so I usually find that those who pursue a course of derogation rather than communication fairly often make mistakes. I guess you could call it the resutls of a guilty conscious though the chance associations that people succumb to on this world sometimes incorporates great perseverance in spite of the bumbling. Ah, what is this word "incumence?" I am unable to locate it in web based dictionaries.

I CLOSED DOWN THOSE THREADS BECAUSE OF YOU TOO MR. CHIPS! IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.

Are you going to give it up, or continue to somehow come up with these exceddingly long posts about nothing trying to prove nothing.

Stop, STOP right now!