Diary 9/12/17 - (9/13 revised) how dare I use modern marvels and demand honestly looking at science

So how many of you climate change scientist (or communicators) are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many? 

Last night while looking at Michael Tobis’ blog  he mentioned a malicious editorial character assassination attempt on Michael Mann by “Investers Daily" editorial written August 31, conveniently linking to it, but I won't.  No author listed but then I can understand no one wanting to take credit for it.  Michael Tobis did make a point of affirming Michael Mann's integrity:

“I've disagreed with Mike in the past on science communication, and probably will again, but I have no doubt about his rigor, honesty, and competence as a scientist. 

His productivity under the bizarre adverse conditions that have surrounded his career is a remarkable and impressive achievement, and my hat is off to him as far as that goes.”      M. Tobis

The Investers Daily editorial seems to me an example of malicious criminal libel, one that at the very least demands a line by line take down.  A simple listing of their lies, trash talk, libel, and other tactics employed by the GOP climate science bashing machine with such tragic success.

Unfortunately, I'm on another assignment, spent 9 hours hanging sheetrock with more tomorrow.  So I spent the day frustratedly biding my time, sneaking peaks line by line and making mental notes.  

Then I come home and rather than having some time to start in on the Investers Daily editorial, I got caught up in responding to E. Varnado.  Since he wasted this chunk of my precious time I’m going to share my comments.  It’ll add some personal background to the bigger debate I’m striving to push.

E Varnado commented at Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined  ... 

So how many of you climate change scientist are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many? 

Are you not driving or flying and etc. to save the planet. 

September 12, 2017 at 5:54 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

E Varnado,

Can you explain what that has to do with honesty looking at and learning about what's happening to our planet from serious climate science ? ? ?

What does it have to do with deliberately lying about what scientists have actually said and done?  Instead all your type can offer is full on dirty fighting attacks, that go for the throat that disregard honesty and looking at the actual facts - and never, ever any interest in learning anything.

What's the matter with you?  Why do you have to fantasize we're your enemy or some stupid stuff like that?

Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined

Note to Professor Emeritus Hayden, 

A fan of yours recommended your EPA letter with the following comment:

Anonymous said: "I suggest you read this submission to the EPA by Howard C. Hayden Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn. (Now I wonder what will be wrong with Professor Hayden? Will HE be too old or too young or ONLY a physics professor? See how silly your screams of deniers end up being!! Who are the ONLY deniers? hehehe http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hayden-to-jackson.pdf Sort of says it all - hope you post it - know you won't - BUT what I DO know is that you'll READ IT. That is all I aim to do - my last post here - goodbye & Cheers," {comment on A look at the world of climate change denial}

And indeed, I did read your letter and thus began another excursion into the wormhole of science by rhetoric.  'Anonymous' challenges me with: "… what will be wrong with Professor Hayden?"  I have no idea what's wrong with you.

But, I can recognize a great many things wrong with that dishonest letter you wrote to the EPA.

For starters, who actually believes they can in "a simple one-letter proof" disprove the accumulated works of over a century, involving tens of thousands of researchers and technicians.   Including studies into radiative properties of greenhouse gases that have resulted in successful satellite communication systems; various forms of Earth bound astronomical observations; and heat seeking air-to-air missiles, to name a few.  

Second, what you present doesn't even reach the level of 'science in a vacuum.'  There's no science at all!  It's all 'science by rhetoric.'  

I can't help but wonder at the ideological bias that allows yourself to write such an unmitigated piece of trash.  Your letter reveals either an astounding unfamiliarity with Earth systems and their evolution - or a complete disregard for those systems.  

Did you ever stop to examine your own ideological blinders before writing such a purely political letter?  What ever happen to a little healthy self skepticism?  In any event, I've taken the time to point out the many falsehoods in your letter.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I have emailed Professor Hayden and welcome his critique of my critique. {Hayden's words are unaltered and appear in Courier font.}  I have included many resources to support my claims. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics 

October 27, 2009 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency