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.

_________________________________________

KJ, why shouldn't Earth have an Advocate?

Last summer I reposted an excellent collection of AGW education videos that was compiled by one "Greenfyre." Last week I received the following comment regarding Greenfyre - I figure it deserves it's own post

On 5/15/14 KJ aka TxSmiler  wrote: "Please be honest enough to post this background information on Greenfyre. Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage." 

Really now?  How long and just how "violent"? 


Is Mike actually implicated in anything serious, besides perhaps arrested at protests?  Seems to me your "Eco-terrorist" has the ring of hysteria about it.

Updated with quote from Mike Kaulbars' - (see comments):

"iii) (KJ) makes no mention of anything I actually did, probably because everything I have ever done has been strict Gandhian nonviolence with no violence to people or property in any form." 

Oh and speaking of honesty, when will you be honest enough to acknowledge and examine the "causes" and "issues" Earth Firsters were/are fighting for - in an increasingly apathetic world?

Can you explain why someone shouldn't be an advocate for this Earth, the thing all of us dearly depend on... or don't you appreciate we rely on the good health of our Earth's biosphere and the stability of its Climate engine?

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition on climate change

I've been carrying on a conversation over at a weird little YouTube video named "Denier land: How deniers view global warming."  The thing is a textbook example of what's called an "Argument from Incredulity."  Meaning that the person is flailing at information that he obviously doesn't understand, like a petulant school boy angry at a teacher who's just flunked him.

Rather than trying to learn something from that information he hides behind ridicule while ignoring all he doesn't understand.  I know many people behave like that, but it's definitely no way to learn anything.

In any event, I've been commenting over there and some folks keep challenging me with different, not new, twists on the climate science skeptics handbook of excuses for ignoring what a world wide community of tens of thousands of professionals and experts agree on.

For example, take the following claim:

""More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries typically participate in the IPCC process" 

That is not only dishonest but unimpressive too. Over 30,000 scientists in the USA alone signed a petition disagreeing. Prominent scientists around the world with far more credibility than the anonymous 2000 so-called scientists agree with those 30,000. 

You could dispute these figures, as many are not in relevant fields and many do not have higher degree or research backgrounds. However if you did so you admit to your dishonesty, as most of the 2000+ you claim are not researchers, most are not experts in their fields and many do not have PhDs, unlike over 9000 of those in those 30,000."

That, along with other pitches for the "OISM Petition," has inspired me to compose this compilation of information regarding the Oregon Petition, finishing with a REPOST of a DeSmogBlog story examining Arthur Robinson and his one-man operation, the so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine"