About Joseph E. Postma (Joe Postma); “the Climate Denier List”: The Sophistry of “the Climate Denier” blog.

As mentioned in the other post, I did a Google search of myself today and found that I made some deranged fanatic’s “denier list”.

The page starts off by claiming that I have no peer-reviewed papers in any legitimate science journals.  Well let’s see:

  1. Line Absorption as a Metallicity Index for Giant Stars.  The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 114, Issue 795, pp. 536-545.  I was 3rd author for the scientific astrophysical data analysis that contributed to the paper.
  2. Observations and Analyses of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.  Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 99, No. 4, p.143.  I was first author for this presentation at the annual RASC meeting.
  3. Observations and Analyses of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.  American Astronomical Society Meeting 208, #65.06; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 38, p.144.  This was for a presentation at the AAS meeting at which I gave a talk.
  4. Photon Event Centroiding with UV Photon-counting Detectors.  The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 119, Issue 860, pp. 1152-1162.  I was 2nd author for this paper which based largely on my data analysis and modelling, and much of my writing.
  5. The observation and analysis of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.  Proquest Dissertations And Theses 2008. Section 0026, Part 0606 177 pages; [M.Sc. dissertation].Canada: University of Calgary (Canada); 2008. Publication Number: AAT MR38109. Source: MAI 46/06, Dec 2008.  This is my masters thesis the results of which I have described here.
  6. Calibration and Performance of the Photon-counting Detectors for the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UVIT) of the Astrosat Observatory.  Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 123, issue 905, pp.833-843.  I was 1st author for this paper based exclusively on my research.
  7. Tests and calibration on ultra violet imaging telescope (UVIT).  Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 8443, id. 84434R-84434R-9 (2012).  I was 4th author for contributing to the scientific data analysis for this paper.

The site then goes on to strangely claim that I might not actually have the job as listed on my LinkedIn profile, and then it just lies and claims that I don’t actually have a masters degree in astrophysics.  Well, at this point we obviously know that the site making these claims is simply a front for climate hatred, and so, that sets the record straight for that.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in About the Author and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to About Joseph E. Postma (Joe Postma); “the Climate Denier List”: The Sophistry of “the Climate Denier” blog.

  1. Truthseeker says:

    Joe, sue them for defamation. This type of treatment will continue for yourself and others if it is not punished under law. They may retract and remove the lies under threat of legal action without having to go down the long legal path of a court case.

    [Reply: Thanks, good point!]

  2. David pristash says:

    Joe great work — I do agree 100% with your calculations

    FYI, I have developed an alternative model of world temperature changes that fits NASA observations much better than those based on CO2 concentrations as the IPCC and their silly models keep trying to show. If you are interested in getting a copy let me know ….

    [Reply: Hi David. Yes, please do send me a copy: joepostma@live.ca

    Cheers!]

  3. Rosco says:

    Forget legal action unlike the loonies Mann etc – without provable damages even winning will mean you lose.

  4. BojanD says:

    The relevant question is whether your article The Model Atmospheric
    Greenhouse Effect is published in any respectable journal. It’s been more than three years since you wrote it so what went wrong?

  5. I never submitted it to any other journals. The core of the paper is simple empirical data that anyone can reproduce. Maybe I’ll submit it one day.

  6. BojanD says:

    I don’t understand this ambivalency about submission. If you’re right, this could be the Nobel Prize stuff.

  7. johnmarshall says:

    Yes Joe agree and many thanks.

  8. How come you haven’t ever published in any of the big journals, like ApJ?

  9. Use NASA ADS. I’m mostly in PASP. Have a paper in PASP right now, submitted last week, on stuff I do for work for the Canadian Space Agency and Indian Space Research organization.

  10. I thought there would be a way for me to reply to you, and for our discussion to continue. It appears that is not the case. Would you please delete my comments here? Thank you.

  11. The heck are you talking about? You DID comment, I DID reply, and you DID just reply.

    No, won’t be deleting your comment.

  12. Well, I wanted to just be done with it, but if you insist on not deleting my comments, then fine, we can continue.

    I did the google search myself and found this site: https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/joseph-e-postma/

    Since you didn’t actually link to the site you are criticizing, we have no way of actually verifying the claims you are making here, so I had to find the site myself. Since this is the only “denier list” that I could find that mentions you, I think this is probably the one you’re talking about.

    You say, “The page starts off by claiming that I have no peer-reviewed papers in any legitimate science journals.”

    The page does not claim that. The page says, “Joseph E Postma has published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science.”

    You have removed the word “climate” from the page’s claim in order to make it look incorrect. The fact is that you haven’t actually published in any journals on climate science. That claim is correct. Trying to distort the original claim to make it look invalid is dishonest.

    You then say, “The site then goes on to strangely claim that I might not actually have the job as listed on my LinkedIn profile, and then it just lies and claims that I don’t actually have a masters degree in astrophysics.”

    The site never says that you don’t have a master’s degree in astrophysics. In fact, the site clearly states that you do have a master’s degree, and then explains that a master’s degree is obtained from the institution where you got it with just one year of studies after a bachelor’s degree. Again, you’re being dishonest.

    Also, the site doesn’t claim that you might not have the job listed on your LinkedIn profile. It links to the Calgary University website, which lists you as having a different job title than what is listed on your LinkedIn profile.

    You have completely misrepresented this “denier list” site. Obviously, you are trying to discredit it, but you are doing so by being dishonest and engaging in logical fallacies.

  13. Ummm…that’s an old post, and they may have edited the page to make corrections to all of the things they either misrepresented or simply got wrong.

    The argument that I have “NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science” is itself the original red-herring. You don’t need a publication in a climate journal in order to be able to talk about the basic physics that climate science gets wrong.

    There might be a Masters degree at the UofC which takes one year. Mine wasn’t that one. Good to see that they corrected their original article to acknowledge that I do have a Masters degree, although they dishonestly and snidely make the implication that it only took one year and therefore that says something about it. Idiots.

    The UofC website lists very little information whatsoever.

    The denier list is itself an attempt to discredit real scientists. Its very title is a logical fallacy itself!

  14. Well, if they’ve edited their page, then maybe you should edit yours as well? Also, I don’t think there are many real scientists who would consider your ideas real science. You make incorrect claims about the basics of the greenhouse effect: https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm

  15. Get yourself educated by watching the 3 instructional videos at this link:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDK7p7ivYprBgjDNvYwmk5Q

  16. Instructional videos? You just made presentations which make false claims. You claim the “radiative greenhouse effect” isn’t real, even though we measure it, and it can be demonstrated using ordinary household materials. Even MythBusters did this pretty easily: https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I

  17. You’re right, the Mythbusters isn’t a legitimate source of science knowledge. I have begun watching your videos and can see that the foundations of climate science and alarmism and its greenhouse effect are literally FLAT EARTH PHYSICS! It’s such a joke, such a farce, and I can’t believe that I have believed it up until now! Thanks for the work you are doing trying to educate the public and other scientists about this political fraud, and this pseudoscience.

  18. Sorry for your confusion, but I quite precisely present the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm and explain and debunk its illogical and unphysical foundations, and my videos also debunk and explain what the MythBusters thought they were doing.

    If you’ve watched the Mythbusters, who are not actual scientists BTW, then you should take the time to watch my videos since I am an actual practicing scientist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s