Ignorant, stupid, insane or just plain evil? (#6 in comment series)

For the record, any comment posted over here is fair game for finding itself featured as a stand-alone post.  I don't change any words, beyond occasional courtesy spell correction, paragraph-breaks, highlights.  My commentary is clearly marked. Or as in this case, I don't have a word to interject.  

I believe it belongs upfront, because Kevin's comment did an excellent job of boiling it down to basics.  If your struggling with figuring out the climate science contrarian mind-scape, here's a short but good read.

At January 30, 2016 at 8:08 AM , Kevin O'Neill said...

It's really pretty simple logic: By assembling a list that contains completely contradictory claims all PopTech is promoting is ignorance, uncertainty, and doubt. Color me surprised (/snark).

Knowledge is gained by comparing competing claims and discarding those that are not consistent with all the evidence.

As with most of the denialsphere, PopTech shies away from actual definitions.

The theory of AGW is pretty simple: Human activities have the net effect of making the planet we live on warmer. The theory is true. If not, there's a Nobel Prize awaiting the paper that shows our current understanding of radiative transfer is completely incorrect.

The only doubt then is magnitude and effect.

Poptech's 14 Articles of Self-Deception (#5 in comment series)

(Touch up edited and footnote added, Saturday, Jan 30 morning.)

January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM Poptech writes: "Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"?"

This from the man who submitted yet another missive with 14 articles no less. 
700 words worth of long winded complaints and rationalization regarding what I've written about his fraud. 

So okay Poptech, I told you I'd post them, here are your two important comments along with my observations.  Have a good day Andrew.

_____________

Andrew to What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. at January 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Poptech’s list of Confusion - ItsNotNova": 

Here is a summary refuting the gibberish you copied and pasted:

1. The list has nothing to do with an author's personal opinion on AGW but whether a paper supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.

__________

Right there's a red flag that you are in this to peddle politics and not for the learning about our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

_________________________________________

2. The IPCC is irrelevant to the purpose of the list. While some papers directly criticize the IPCC, it has nothing to do with whether a paper appears on the list or not. Papers are listed if they support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Alarmist claims can come from anywhere in the media, including but not limited to the Internet. In the cases of the "someone" on the Internet they are not random people but well-known activists, environmentalists or journalists.

__________

"Alarmist claims can come from anywhere"

In other words you don't really care if these arguments are serious claims or merely the rantings of the under-informed, or the bitter.

_________________________________________

3. None of the papers "confirm" fundamental properties of AGW, as a paper that supports a skeptic argument against Alarmism will likely acknowledge AGW (in some form) but this does not mean they "support" AGW theory as defined by the IPCC.

__________

What the heck does that mean?  

If this were any sort of serious effort - you'd start by sharing your understanding of what the "IPCC defines as the "AGW theory."  But, this isn't a serious effort to understand anything.  Seems all you have is this sort of vague arm waving.

_________________________________________

Whoa Poptech. Your turn to answer some questions.

This afternoon Poptech piled on more comments defending Poptech's List of Confusion. Two were a list of 14points no less, adding up to over 700 words.  The irony is great, considering he's the fellow who wrote: January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM Poptech: *"Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"?"*

It's another self-certain gish-gallop and a masterpiece of rationalization with more than a little bit of the hubristic self aggrandizing about it.  As Poptech should know by now, when I get such material, I save it for a closer examination and I will be posting that when I get to it, along with a thoughtful critique and supplemental information. 

But first, I think Poptech owes it to intellectual integrity to answer some simple questions himself.  

Why should anyone bother with his list?  It's worthless.

If Poptech doesn't agree, please explain what purpose it serves, in connection to understanding what's happening to our climate system?

Even more fundamental, Please tell us why you believe we should not trust the collective information all these professional outfits have amassed?

____________________________________________________________________

CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2827&from=rss_home%23.VqUQiulyHwx

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.VqUlAulyHww

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Understanding the IPCC Reports

http://www.wri.org/ipcc-infographics

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained

http://www.livescience.com/39763-ipcc-report-faq.html

Global Analysis - Annual 2009 - 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/200913

and 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Key Findings

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_IPCC_Jakarta2.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

IPCC's Chapter 5 - Information from Paleoclimate Archives

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

IPCC - Chapter 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years

6.6.1 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variability 

6.6.1.1 What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.phphttp://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed 

Poptech’s list of Confusion - ItsNotNova

I had thoughts of reviewing a few other papers from Poptech's list considering what a hoot Reifsnyder's "Tale of ten fallacies" was. (you can read about it at "Considering Poptech's standards of excellence")

But, I'm over it.  Too many other things to catch up on.  If Andrew decides to continue the dialogue I'll be happy to field his complaints and claims and repeat my questions for him, if not, fine. 

For my final post in this series I'm going to do a pure cut'n paste of an excellent, thoughtful examination of Poptech's list of papers over at https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com.

It's the sort of well narrated detail work I dream of doing, but time constraints, a chaotic hyper-attention syndrome, and frankly my limited understanding keep me from it. (I don't fail to recognize that I am a lay-person, my education has been of the casual self administered sort.  It's great for what it is, but it certainly has limitations.  That's why I love turning to the educated adults who have spent their lives and careers in a formal pursuit of learning about all the details and getting a grasp of the whole picture and its various components.)

I get the feeling ItsNotNova understands the science from the inside, as opposed to, from the outside looking in, such as I and most fellow blogger do.  That's why I want to finish this Poptech series with his/her excellent review of Poptech's list of Confusion.

__________________________________________

Poptech’s list of Confusion

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/

800 papers disputing the theory of climate change!! 

Can it be true, or is this an over-reaction?

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/800-peer-reviewed-papers-to-deny/

Joanna Nova, known for her hatred of anyone on her website calling deniers a denier, invokes the use of this term for anyone willing to question a list of papers.

This is also another strawman argument, no one needs to deny the existence of these papers, because quite obviously they do exist, but they don’t destroy AGW as some people might be fooled into thinking.

Nova’s words

Who are the deniers now? 800 Peer Reviewed Papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.

Seeing this list people might be fooled into thinking these papers somehow rebut the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Nova seems fooled into thinking we need to “deny” them all. In fact as we’ll see, the author of these papers likes to categorise this list in his unique way, thus making it appear there are a lot of papers that dispute the science of AGW.

“Merchant of doubt” Nova blindly promotes the list in several of her posts, but misses out on one of the nuances of Poptech’s criteria, ALARM! Poptech will list papers if HE decides they rebut an alarming claim made by “someone” on the internet. A paper doesn’t have to dispute the mainstream climate science found in the IPCC report in order to be included.

We can’t really blame Nova for not noticing the subtle difference; originally Poptech listed this list as “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” as seen in numerous blogger websites (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Poptech’s ALARM was added later when he realised his mistake in listing certain papers.

Poptech has a “rebuttal” (of kind) where he claims I lie because …