Well, for one thing, you didn't even show a graph that at least hints at a correlation between smartphone batteries and global warming. I wouldn't attack your track record, I would attack your complete lack of an attempt at demonstrating evidence for your claim.

I'm sure a graph could be made, something like this:

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Have you even looked at that graph? The x axis randomly changes to suit the data.

I get that it's a joke - but it's not even a very good one if you have to fake it to make it work.

It could be made, but it wasn't in this case, which was my point.

You're missing my point:

Graphs are completely meaningless. Correlation does not imply causation. Asking for a graph is the last thing you should do. Ask for a hypothesis about why there might be a causal relationship. Test that hypothesis.

Correlation very much implies causation, it just doesn't guarantee it. After you test that hypothesis, you'd find correlation if the hypothesis was correct. Saying "correlation is not causation" is useful for dismissing data offhand, but where you find causation you'll find correlation.

Also, graphs are demonstrably NOT completely meaningless. They can absolutely be misleading, but they can also accurately depict the underlying data. I think the point of this thread is that the authors of this study have proposed a hypothesis and collected data that supposedly reinforces it. The data (and methodology) can be analysed and verified. There's no need to start from scratch, in this case, to determine if the findings can be substantiated.

Yes, everything you said made sense. Except the part where this particular thread was about cell phone batteries causing global warming.

There have been plenty of times that ideas outside of mainstream consensus are right and the consensus was wrong.

Is this guy a genius who'll prove everyone wrong? Personally I seriously doubt it. But that doesn't mean the scientific community should pooh-pooh his paper.

Treating this paper as if an adult wrote it can only do good things for the climate debate. Even if it doesn't really deserve that kind of treatment.

There are many times that people test positive for pregnancy tests but are not pregnant. Basic Bayes theorem. The odds are very poor that this persons thesis is correct in the first place, and the odds are not improved based on: unsubstantiated warming mechanism in his model, lack of experimental data, almost complete lack of consensus support, previous bad results, extremely well supported competing model... I mean, what set of heuristics would you go by to give this guy the time of day? I can point you to a couple of poorly written books by hobbyist mathematicians with purported proofs of Riemann's hypothesis and Goldbach's conjecture. If you want to wade through the insanity you're than welcome to spend weeks of your life coming to the conclusion that they are wrong.

Are you agreeing with me, or not? Sending me that link without any other kind of comment, as if I were one of the few dozen people on the internet that are unfamiliar with the ad hominem fallacy, is a bit patronizing.

My point is that attacking someone's argument by noting their poor academic track record is not ad hominem, it's a perfectly valid approach. Otherwise non-science people seeking to alter scientific consensus would have a trivial loophole to DoS the process.

Someone in my public speaking class several years ago, during a persuasion speech, actually tried to dismiss CO2, CFCs, et al as a cause of global warming in favor of methane from cow farts (bovinepogenic global warming?)

Interestingly, methane from livestock is a large factor.

>According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

(Though it's worth noting that that report is a few years old at this point.)