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.
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.
_____________________________________________
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.}
