part 2 - Debating a sock-puppet

AL won't respond over here, so I'm sharing his response to my previous post made regarding Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk where he denounces the scientific understanding of CO2 with truly childish distractions and misrepresentations that any honestly interested person ought to be able to see right through.  

Unfortunately most of his fans are not honest, they are brainwashed into thinking the whole world is against them and that if scientists have information they don't like, they should ignore it - in fact it's worse, in their minds it's OK to misrepresent the facts, fabricate scandals, attack scientific leaders and champion kindergarten arguments if in support of their political ideology.
(touch up edits 11/25/15 am)

AL (9:46 AM -11/23/15) writes: 

+citizenschallengeYT Not sure what you want with that link, but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with

"This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science"

isn't directly proof of anything. The links on that page are just links to other blogs and not scientific papers (You should take a closer look.  Plus you'll find links within links, just gotta poke around.).

I already know the alarmists point of view and as I said it's easily refuted with science and the latest data that we have. (OK, so when are you going to share some of that!?)

___________________________________

AL, I don't believe you do understand anything of substance about the "alarmists point of view." 

I infer this from your shallow response that indicates you won't even allow yourself to actually read any of that information. Let alone digest any of it, nah you're too busy throwing up transparent defenses.  Pretending you have some "science and latest data" that disputes the accepted understanding - but never coming up with more than arm-waving, which I looked at in my previous post.
___________________________________

"… but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with … isn't directly proof of anything."

AL, you serious?  Looking for "direct proof" from an internet dialogue?  

Why are you playing this game?  Serious people appreciate that there is no "proof" in Natural Sciences.

It's always been about a preponderance of evidence, appreciation for understood natural laws and the flow of time, good faith assessment of evidence and learning from mistakes, along with a healthy sense of self-skepticism, such is the currency of "science" and learning to understand our planet.  

AL, I wonder if you appreciate the concept of consensus and to the best of our current understanding.

  

Beyond that I think you're confused about our discussion.  Let's go back to the start of our "debate" - you said:

"Actually, IPCC invites scientists to write chapters in their report, but then there has been several occasions where they in the summary document has "summarized" scientists original conclusions to be the complete opposite of what was written in that chapter. 

You know that one of those scientists had to threaten with legal actions to get his name taken off that report he wrote in, because the summary was completely wrong compared to what he actually wrote, right?"

______________________________

I asked you for specifics, you responded with a few names. 

Phillip Lloyd claiming IPCC summary was opposite to what scientists said, though it wasn't.  Then Paul Reiter who thinks the "concept of a consensus on global warming is a sham" a wing-nut political canard that has nothing to do with the actual process of responsible grown-ups coming to understanding regarding complex issues.  The educational links, provide backup for my claims.

Then you follow with the ten year old story of Dr. Landsea's dramatic resignation and his objection that there was no evidence for warming leading to enhanced hurricanes - contrary to what his colleagues were saying to the public.  

Dr. Landsea (protégé of Dr. Bill Gray) is the exception here considering his level of expertise and earned authority by virtue of the work he does.  I mentioned the reasons he resigned and linked to his 2005 letter of resignation.  But AL the discussion doesn't stop there.  Where's your skepticism?  Shouldn't we learn why other experts disagreed with Landsea?  That's why I also shared Dr. Trenberth and UCAR's response which clearly outlined errors.  

Even more telling AL, I pointed to a recent Dr. Landsea talk where he outlines today's state of the science: 

"Some recent scientific articles have reported a large increase in tropical cyclone energy, numbers, and windspeeds in many basins during the last few decades in association with warmer sea surface temperatures. These increases in tropical cyclone activity have been linked to man-made greenhouse gas changes."    

https://connection.erau.edu/organization/honorsprogramdistinguishedspeakerseries/calendar/details/565223

It appears that in the past decade the weight of evidence has modify his skepticism about the cascading consequences our manmade global warming is having on cyclone activity.  Seems to me another scientific consensus has been achieved - even if you choose to ignore it.
______________________

You finish with Steven McIntyre the mining engineer, prospector, consultant, booster turned "Climate Science Auditor", even though he has no education in climate science.  He's great at math, knows how to play the numbers to achieve his goals and he's great at writing insinuating indictments of scientists that plays fast and loose with the facts.  


McIntyre belongs to that group of folks who believes he's smarter than experts who have been studying these matters their entire careers.  Worst, he is impervious to learning from his mistakes, instead he inhabits an alternate universe that can only be sustained by remaining confined within an echo-chamber and ignoring the evidence coming in from all quarters.

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, part 1: In the beginning

http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/

EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/exposed-realclimateorgs-mckitrick-and.html

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

__________________________

Some more information regarding Giaever and his claims from the climate science library at SkepticalScience.com:

• The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
  1 December 2012 by dana1981
• Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
  22 August 2012 by dana1981
• 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
  16 July 2012 by John Hartz
• Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
  12 July 2012 by dana1981
• 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #27
  9 July 2012 by John Hartz