Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few questions please.

This evening I noticed there are two other long winded Andrew Poptech comments in moderator limbo at Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at Poptech's game   Apparently he sent them while I was busy responding to his first comment (here and here).

This morning after I posted my response, I had to shut her down and rush off to get caught up on my day to day real-world chores.  I'm back and noticed his comment after reading them I decided to sit on his #2 and #3 a little.  

For one, since his favorite tactic is to overwhelm with his self-certain rhetoric and his self-selected lists upon lists, that add up to what, we don't know.  Nah.  I'm a kid from the streets.  I'm not going play that game with him.  Here at WUWTW we're going to take this a bit slower.  

I'll try to get Andrew to understand that I'm all about trying to understand.  That requires digesting information and thoughts, it's not about who can toss out the most soundbites and heap up the biggest lists one can make up.

Secondly, I thought I'd use them as bargaining chips.

You see, I have some questions that I'm hoping Andrew will answer.

If he doesn't, ..., well that would speak volumes.

Now, lets see if Poptech is capable of explaining anything fundamental.

 A few questions for Poptech: 

Debating sf9, considering difference between MWP and AGW

I have a bit of hyper-attention syndrome, so I let myself get side-tracked, such as with a fresh comment at a YouTube video of - Stephen Schneider talking to 52 Climate Change Skeptics [PART 3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzEHtYk8B8\.  which led me to reviewing the comments and finding this precious example of the contrarian mind in action.  I'll start with my comment made a couple years ago, then my new pal's response.  Then I'll follow with my usual collection of information for the interested student who wants to learn about these matters for themselves.

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

Study Undercuts Idea that 'Medieval Warm Period' was Global

The Medieval Climate Anomaly: A Myth Debunked

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Bob Ward thinks that Bob Carter has probably published the worst paper on climate change ever

Bob Carter Does his Business

Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial

Climate Myths as told by Bob Carter compared to what the science says.

_________________________________________________________

citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago

Regarding the end of this video

Her question about the reasons for "why we can't have a civil debate" and the hostile reactions of some.

Why not also ask:

Why is it considered OK to endlessly repackage and repeat misrepresentations of the science and Earth observations, up to and included lies?

Why should it be OK to ignore huge aspects of the known evidence?

Why should it be OK for an amateur's "science" to be given equal weight to an educated and seasoned expert (read: much examined and peer reviewed science?

__________________________________________

To which a character I'll refer to as sf9 writes: 

"Since mr citizen raises the qualification question, Bob Carter of James Cook University is a Marine Geologist has equal qualification as James Hansen (PhD in Physics) or David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology)  

regardless, Schneider denies volumes of evidence for global medieval warm period, still flogging the dead horse of the hockey stick , unprecedented fairy tale. There are hundreds of proxies from all over the planet that show medieval warming in excess of current temps."

______________________________________

For starters, don't know what my comment has to do with anyone's "qualifications", it was about the dishonestly and reprehensibility of people assuming the right to lie about what scientists are trying to teach us!

I notice sf9 offers no references to support his MWP claim and I suggest sf9 is about 20 years behind on paleoclimate understanding of the past ten millennium.

Scientists do have a good understanding of the various "natural variabilities" that influence weather, an ever so slightly dimming sun, volcanic activity, even the reforestation of the America during the 16th century Indian holocaust in North and South America, that resulting in massive reforestation and pulling massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere, played a role in the subsequent "LIA" - it's a complex dance between many known elements.

What sf9 is missing is that geophysically speaking, CO₂ is an atmospheric insulation medium and a major regulator of our Earth's heat holding capacity.  Period.  The science is settled on that one.  It really is that simple, no debate.

It is also settled reality that humanity, through its hydrocarbon driven modern marvels, has been injecting unimaginably massive quantities (of a geologic scale, even.) amounts of CO₂ and other "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere.  

Part 8 - sock-puppet calls it like he sees it, Dave sticks to the science.

Never say never folks.  They went another round and it's a text book example of the two different debate styles in action.  I think "debate incompatibility" could also describe what went down.  This time I kept my comments and additions to a minimum since there's not much to add.  Though there is a lot to think about.

Please consider that AL is absolutely certain of what he knows.  He is sincere to the bone, so much so that all attempts to confront what he knows to be the 'truth' is seen as a hostile act.   If entire communities of independent experts spread over the globe and generations develop an understanding that's contrary to his core Truth, he can't help but blame it on some hostile conspiracy.  It makes no sense to him that his understanding could be wrong.

On the other side, we have people for whom the pursuit of better understanding and new discoveries is the goal.  Self-skepticism and a willingness to subject one's own convictions to the toughest tests and then allowing the evidence to direct what one trusts or rejects is the order of the day.  

If one's pet theory, or one's understanding, turns out to be wrong, one learns from those mistakes and moves forward, hurt feelings be damned.  

Unfortunately your climate science uni-directional skeptics aren't built like that. 

They don't have the imagination nor desire to look beyond their own limited socio-economic/political perceptions, they don't care about the world out there, only the one in their heads.  Crack that nut and you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.

What makes this round so fascinating is that Dave managed to never sink to AL's level.
Instead he took the time to review and comment on the 30 peer-reviewed papers AL cut and pasted and tossed at Dave as though they were self-evident proof that the MWP was no different than today's warming.  And the ending is classic.  

I don't know who Dave is, but I like his style and depth of understanding, it would be very cool if others (of like capability and disposition) might be inspired by his example of standing up the peddlers of scientific nonsense.

______________________________________________________________

AL to Dave Smith Jesus, you're a big joke.

You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?

It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists. 

But thank you for pointing out exactly what I said in my previous post: You totally indoctrinated and don't have a clue about the science outside of what the IPCC feed you. 

part 5 - Now AL's complaining about me appropriating WattsUpWithThat's name.

AL responded over at YT and since it was a rather interesting response I'll add it to our virtual debate with my responses. {touch up edits 12/11/15 am}

____________________________________________________

AL Yesterday 9:18 PM

+citizenschallengeYT Sure I can debate, and I have done so here too. I have given you links to scientific papers and facts in respond to what you have posted here. But I never get any responses if you red them or not. You have at least a months worth of reading just about MWP. {Thank you for that remark, you have just given me the seed for my next serious essay "MWP and Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine considered" - unfortunately this little wage-slave has a hell of a lot of work lined up currently so it'll be a while.  But I love the challenge.}

What I (and others) don't like about what you're doing here with your blog, is the cheap way to try and drive traffic to it and not to mention the blatant choice of domain name for it - a way to ride on another site's success that is frowned upon by most people that deals with the web professionally. {Oh, the irony.}

The other thing about your "debate" style is exactly what you are doing in the post I'm responding to - as soon as you get a little hurt either by facts or opinions, you immediately throw shit on people, like you now did with Anthony. Just like most warmists.  {Why not list specifics?}  

At least NOAA asked Anthony for his work so they could use it themselves, so his work is appreciated. {Why not cite the specifics?  

I don't care what you believe Anthony did, 
we expect you to show us specifically where those valiant efforts are written up.  
Then we can proceed with a debate.  
Smoke'n Mirrors isn't enough.}

But I guess if you react to what he has done, then you must absolutely hate Mann and his team. Because that is documented tampering with data that even led to a hearing.  {Where's this documented, in a private email where a frustrated human allowed himself to vent to a trusted colleague?  
WHAT DATA WAS TAMPERED WITH? WHERE? WHEN?}

Oh, no I forgot - anything goes from that side of the debate.

{Always charges and claims, how about some specifics?}

Edit: And you will never figure out what's going on with those science denying, since you're the one denying it. The science is clear, and so are the empirical data we have now since at least 20 years. This goes both for the temperature, the levels of CO2 and how CO2 acts in the atmosphere with no positive feedback.  {Why can't you acknowledge that I've spent years looking into those claims and arguments, in depth - which my record at WUWTW makes abundantly clear?}

Give it a few more years and you will accept the data too.

{again no hint of what or where this data is coming from.  
Always the mystery.  It's almost mystical.}

-------------------

AL, 

review my blog, you will notice that over the decades I have looked into these MWP claims in way more depth than you have.  Anthony like McIntyre have built their contrarian careers on misrepresenting the science and attacking Dr. Mann's integrity, rather then delving into understanding the science.