Considering Poptech's standards of excellence (#1 in comment series)

Here's is a comment I received from Andrew Poptech, since it's an excellent case study into 'limiting one's sphere of awareness' I'm featuring it along with a look at one of his vaunted papers.

When you read Poptech's posts and words carefully, you'll see that his bellicose bluster is all about proving that "climate science skepticism/contrarianism happens".  So what, lordie do we know climate science contrarianism has old roots*.  

The thing to notice is that Poptech's list has little to do with actually learning about what serious climate science has to tell us about our planet. To quote Poptech his list: "supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism,"  it's intended to be a resource for other contrarians to cut and paste.   

And I'm thinking, why does Poptech leave out the serious science and learning?

Poptech doesn't seem to understand the difference. 

Now we'll look at one of Poptech's vaunted papers.  This one is 16 years old and lays out ten reasons for questing the considered consensus opinion among experts.  If nothing else here we see an example of Poptech's standards in action.

*Please note, in the good old days there were many seemingly valid skeptical arguments, but with time and observations those have one by one been relegated to history - well except for the zombies that the Republican/libertarian PR machine keeps propping up.

_____________________________________________

Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few ques...": 

January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"? 

{I have responded to these cries of libel in the comments.}

PICK ANY ARGUMENT FROM THE SIX LINKS YOU SPAMMED AND DEMONSTRATE THAT MY REBUTTAL TO IT IS "SELF-SERVING RHETORIC".

{Don't have the time, those articles speak for themselves, your busy objections notwithstanding.  Instead I'll look at one of your LIST, a paper you hold up as some sort of evidence that we should distrust the larger community of bona fide climate experts.}

Everyone who attacks my work is so certain the links they copy and paste have to contain at least a single valid argument, surely you can find one?

{Now, now, watch the double-stand, you're a master at cut and paste yourself.  I hope to offer plenty of valid arguments, I look forward to seeing what you make of them.}

You attacked my work by copying and pasting long refuted  nonsense you found using Google that you clearly never read. I refuted each of those intellectually dishonest posts in extensive detail and now you deflect the argument. {Yo, buddy, you "refuting" it with your own self-certain logic, isn't enough.  You really should leave it to outsiders to judge for themselves.  The way it works in the real world.} 

The fact that you have to censor {I'm not censoring anything, holding them in consideration, until I have time to respond, then they'll be center stage, like this comment of yours, not a word redacted.} my replies and refuse to retract any of the intellectually dishonest links you posted means you are incapable of defending a single argument against my list from the six links you spammed - that speaks volumes to your credibility.

"The point Poptech doesn't want anyone thinking about is that it isn't about disputing his list of studies, it's about disputing Poptech's establishment bashing, self-certain conclusions about those studies."

My list has nothing to do with "establishment bashing", it was not created as an argument against the IPCC {the IPCC is a small international association, that together with the short-term volunteer help of hundreds and thousands of scientists, collects, collates, and describes the state of scientific understanding based a full review of the scientific literature, including serious skeptical claims and it does so quite well.  Calling them names and you're insulting the entire scientific community.} - it is a RESOURCE for skeptics. Why is this so hard to understand?  

{I do understand that.  You are a resource of lies and tidbits of malicious fraud; you intentionally belittle and slander serious professionals and their important work.  

Maybe you think you're doing your god's work, but you are deliberately deceiving people who have a right to honestly learn what the experts, who are trained and charged with learning about our climate have to teach us.  After all, our society does have experts for a reason.}

The only "conclusion" about any of the papers on my list is that it can support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. The only reason I am here is you are misrepresenting the list by attacking it with long debunked nonsense.

I am saving all of my comments and if you censor them here I will simply re-post them at my website.

____________________________________________________________

Before I begin I want to ask Poptech if you can explain what his goal is with that list?  To prove that people can argue anything endlessly?

To prove that people have rejected the fundamentals climate understanding for a long time?

What about the task of understanding what the serious science is all about, to the best of our abilities?  What about learning about what's happening upon our planet.  How does that rate on Poptech's priority list?

________________________________________________

Please note that this is an opinion paper that was written 1989 - we are now living in 2016, much has been learned, much has happened.  This is a historic curiosity it has nothing to do with current scientific understanding.  

Worse, it had nothing to do  with serious climate science back then either, take a look.

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Volume 47, Issues 2–4, September 1989, Pages 349-371

Biometeorology

William E. Reifsnyder

A tale of ten fallacies: The skeptical enquirer's view of the carbon dioxide/climate controversy

The controversy concerning the potential climatic effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 is reviewed with a skeptical eye. Ten commonly accepted fallacies or unproved statements are discussed. They are:

(1) models are better than data;

No serious scientist ever claimed they were!
Climate models are tools for better understanding,
and observational data is just that, data.

(2) government imprimatur equals scientific validation;

I can smell that right-wing revulsion at government regulatory agencies, seeking science which invariably, tells Monied-Interests, to take it a bit slower, to make us aware not only of benefits - but also the downsides and dangers to our new found scientific/technological mastery.

It sounds like a bitter old guy opining, this isn't science.

(3) climate change will appear as a discontinuity;

Defies paleoclimate understanding.  It's an old man's notion, it isn't science.

(4) climate variability increases with climatic change;

Defies thermodynamics, paleoclimate understanding, and the past forty years of weather history.  It's an old man's notion, it isn't science.

(See for yourselves here, here, here)

Richard Alley - Abrupt Climate Change
OklahomaHorizonTV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iM_f_j7H08

(5) the warming trend over the past 100 years is clear evidence that CO2 warming is upon us;

That is what one would expect, and that is what we has been happening upon our planet.

(6) record high temperatures indicate CO2 warming; record low temperatures indicate the approach of an ice age;

Fiendishly written to confuse and conflate.  It is not the stuff of a serious scientific inquiry

As for, greenhouse gas physics has been thoroughly studied by US, Australian and USSR air forces.  It's is simple physics, you can't get around that.

An old man's disconnect from reality.

Richard Alley: How do we know the CO2 rise is Man Made?

Greenman3611

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwpPd_bBMpg

(7) indirect climatic effects of CO2 are more important than direct effects;

Yeah, so what.  Everyone knows that.  Those "indirect" effects are directly regulated by the CO2 ppm regulator, which we have cranked from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the geologic blink of an eye.  What serious humans are worried about is the cumulative effect.  This beyond an old man opinion, this is contrarianism, or the stuff of a con-man.

(8) farmers should use predictions of climate warming for planning purposes even though modelers cannot predict next year's climate;

Again fiendishly written to confuse and conflate.  And to draw that stupid canard about weather forecasts and long term weather models is disgusting and beyond opining and takes him into the realm of malicious deceiver.  

Poptech, what about the real world  challenges to farmers today?

(9) forests are especially vulnerable to climatic warming because trees live a long time;

This is absolutely idiot.  Who says "forests" are especially vulnerable and what in heaven's name does any of this have to do with the study of climate?

http://www.climatehotmap.org

(10) deforestation equals desertification.

Another idiotic item, guess he ran out of ideas, but had to get to ten.  It's disgusting, and Poptech considers this a serious resource.

Well for a PR machine it sure is. 

As for learning about what serious science is learning, it's the last place to look.

Causes of desertification are many, as are causes of deforestation.

__________________________________________

In short this paper had nothing to do with outlining rational doubts or concerns about aspects of climate science - it's a conman's smoke screen.

If this is an indication of Poptech's intellectual standards, it explains why his work has been so roundly bashed by learned individuals.