Well he shot off another couple comments early this morning, I've only got the time to run through one of them right now, I'll be back this evening. Poptech's comments are in courier font, I'm in verdana font.
(I added the red highlights)
_____________________________________________________
Andrew (at 2:01AM Jan 26, 2016) has left a new comment on your post "Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at ...":
Why are you misrepresenting my rebuttals now? I have not attempted to "overwhelm" anything but have directly responded to each misrepresentation you made about my work in extensive detail. Pick any one you want and I will debate it with you.
_____________________________________________________
Here's the beginning of the first one:
Poptech says Alarmist Challenge:The claims of this article have not been shown to be true. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry". {I like how you minimize the situation - We are talking about money spend on deliberately misrepresenting the science. fyi:http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.phphttp://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed }
- Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating energy company funding for any scientist.- Then provide actual documents showing what fraction of their overall funding this is.- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding ACC/AGW due to this funding and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the funding.If these requirements are not met then evidence of corruption cannot be demonstrated.{That's erecting a pretty high bar of expectations - Why the double standard when it comes to accusing respected scientists of supposed wrong doing, based on innuendo rather than any actual evidence? Dr. Mann and Dr. Santer smear jobs come to mind.}
Alarmist Challenge:The claims of this article have not been shown to be true. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".
- Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating energy company funding for any scientist.
- Then provide actual documents showing what fraction of their overall funding this is.
- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding ACC/AGW due to this funding and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the funding.
If these requirements are not met then evidence of corruption cannot be demonstrated.
{Thee good ol impossible expectations, then closing down the discussion, period.
That's not how real learning operates}
1. Christian completely ignores Alarmist funding sources,
Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come (PDF) (Joanne Nova, B.S. Microbiology)Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities (PDF) (Jeff Kueter, M.A. Science & Technology Studies)
{This one is precious - I'm impressed with the ease with which you equate money spent on scientific research with money spent on a PR campaign intent on misrepresenting that science, rather than learning from it.
What about the people's right to honest learn about what scientists have learned about these critically important changes in our planet?
Which brings up another issue, why do you folks have such contempt for spending money on understanding how our planet operates. Why does concern for protecting our "Environment" (that would be our biosphere, read life support system) - evoke such hostility?}
_____________________________________________________
You on the other hand have dodged each one and have now deflected your comments to ones about the MWP and the IPCC - neither have anything to do with the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you posted here about my work.
{I'm concerned with the messaging you're broadcasting, so this is important.}
Q: "Why you think the MWP is relevant to today's situation?"
______________________________
In other words you are saying that increasing our atmosphere CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is nothing outside of natural variability?
Do you actually believe that Poptech?
_____________________________________________________
Q: "Why do you ignore the fact that the scientific community has spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying the MWP, and the LIA, and all other climate fluctuations in our past?"
______________________________
You want to be taken seriously, then you come up with rabid garbage such as "the misleadingly stated 'scientific community'" in scare quotes. That makes you a paranoid wack job if you've actually convinced yourself that the entire scientific community of tens of thousands of skeptical, educated, professional individuals are conspiring to threat your "freedoms" or whatever you've conjured up in your mind.
Why not entertain the notion that scientist are serious, striving for accuracy and actually out to learn as much as they can about their areas of study.
_____________________________________________________
Q: "Why do you ignore that those lesson are thoroughly incorporated into today's understanding."
______________________________
Give us a bullet point review of the specific issues -
(Not lists of self-evaluated studies, please categorize the issues you think the scientific establishment is ignoring!)
_____________________________________________________
Q: "Why ignore all that the IPCC has written on the topic? (Which I bet incorporates many of the studies you're trying to use as bludgeons against that serious scientific effort to understand our global heat and moisture distribution engine."
Unlike you, I have actually read all the links you copy and pasted attacking my work and have responded in detail to each one, refuting every single argument in them.
Since you cannot even pick a single argument from the links you spammed to try and defend, it is clear you have never read them.
________________________________________________________
Poptech, the problem is you have made yourself the single arbiter of truth and you hold the serious scientific community in complete contempt so you've erected this completely self-certain faux-science bubble around your certitude. You spend all your time defending that certitude with fancy dancing and creating your own rules of engagement that totally eliminate the need for reality checks - with what's going on in the real physical world.
I believe that is because you are trapped within the political battle and refuse to look beyond your limitations. Me, I'm all about people pulling their heads out of their egos, a starting to learn about and appreciation what we have on this incredible planet that created us and that we depend on for everything.
Unfortunately, I've needed to rush through this and now I've gotta get, jobs a waiting, and I'm late. I wish I did have the luxury you seem to spending all day focused on defending your project.
