Poptech's hermetically sealed echo-chamber, case in point.

      
What I'm doing here is dissecting and documenting the contrarian debate.  
I share these experiences because I believe rational students and others who want to communicate serious science and engage in a constructive learning debate, (as opposed to the political circus debate), should become aware of what they are dealing with when trying to rationally dialogue/debate with Republican/libertarian characters as they endlessly parrot their bankrupt jingles and ignore everything you try so hard to explain.

It will help younger students and scientists to be aware that every marginally effective communicator of serious science will find themselves under the sort of malicious venomous attack by dogma driven zealots that I've walked into.  The particulars will be different, but just as disconnected from actual reality.  Oh and yeah, they will toss every descriptive back in your face - though they never show the integrity to actually support their labeling with thoughtful arguments or real world facts. 

The thing to realize is that constructively engaging with others seems anathema to the new Republican/libertarian types.  Ridicule, marginalize, demonize seems their only response to challenging facts.  As for learning about what our society and we ourselves are doing to our Earth's biosphere and climate system, which enables that life-support system our society is dependent on - there, confusion and stupefaction is their goal.

Now to the funny, but sick, irony I want to share.

Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act SB1161. What it really says.

The latest round of right-wing internet hysteria is over the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (full text enclosed).  Right now they are celebrating a victory since State Senator James Monning withdrew the bill, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees.  What I've found more interesting than the merits or failing of SB1161, is the Right Wing Media's melodramatic misrepresentation of the bill.  Here's a sampling.

May 31, 2016 by California Political Review's Stephen Frank: "SB 1161: Makes Questioning “Climate Change” a Sue-able Offense. Criminal?" ~ June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner's Kyle Feldscher: "Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" ~ June 2, 2016 Washington Times' Valerie Richardson: "California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics" to name but the three that I've read.

Marc Morano's June 3rd Climate Depot post sums up their mentality quite well via Kyle's puff piece, it reads:

June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner: "Marc Morano, a climate change doubter who runs Climate Depot, said the California bill is the logical end point of the debate between believers and doubters. 

(Morano) said those who believe in climate change have been trying for years to silence doubters and now, given the calls to investigate Exxon Mobil for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and the California bill, there are attempts to actually charge people for their beliefs.

"You can't even question the predictions of 50-100 years from now or that's considered hate speech," (Morano) said. 

"That goes against everything this country was founded on." Morano said climate change believers want to delegitimize their critics instead of engaging in any sort of debate over the science. 

He said the bill proposed by Allen is another step in silencing dissent. "This is the language of religion, not science," (Morano) said.

Sounds quite frightening and extreme, but then I know a bit about this Morano character, a true master of malicious misinformation campaigns.  So I decided to look at California SB1161 myself.  Surprise, it's turns out to be nothing like how Morano represented it.  

Here we have yet another example of how the right-wing PR machine misrepresents issues from the gitgo, reframing everything to suit their own simplistic and painfully myopic storylines.  I mean they refuse to even listen to what's being said.  Instead they are busy constantly spinning their paranoid machinations about the bad greenies.

How can rational constructive adult dialogue exist if one side refuses to hear what the other is saying?  It's no wonder that our critically important Anthropogenic Global Warming education dialogue of the past decades has been such a tragic endless dog-chasing-tail squandering of precious time.  

Back to SB1161, let's look at what this bill actually says.  

Debating Malicious Ignorance, 1000frolly, Lord Monckton, et al.

    

Often in my spare time I check out YouTube because they have some great lectures and other Earth science videos that are fun to watch and learn from.  Of course, YouTube is also saturated with a lot of trash and worse, and I do my best to steer away from it.  Unfortunately, google/YouTube are always shoving videos into your face according to google's algorithms and I'm constantly being confronted with incredibly stupid climate science denial videos.  

In particular one channel going by 1000frolly, which I have reason to think may be none other than that master of oratory and lies Lord Monckton, has been pumping out science denial videos like there's no tomorrow.  I've tangled with him a couple times and have my comments disappear - so much for them wanting serious debate, but it's useless and consumes too much precious time that I do my best to avoid his nonsense. 

Then, while gathering links for my upcoming evolution of our atmosphere post, I got hit with another one, this time he's going after Potholer54 the creator of one of the best YouTube series dedicated to explaining climate science to regular people and it irritated me enough that I put my other project on hold (yet again) to give this video and its claims a closer look.  

I'm embedding the original Potholer54 video after my critique of Lord frolly's claims, as usual I supply plenty of supporting evidence, including links to GISS FAQs.  I finish up with a cut and paste from the index (linked to their webpages) 2001 IPCC working group one, on the "physical basis".  I do this because it puts the lie to climate contrarian's moldy mantra, 'there is no science' - you just need the curiosity and interest to make the effort to learn about it.  

_____________________________________________

The Evidence for Climate Change WITHOUT Potholer54 - Revised 

1000frolly … aka Lord Monckton?

Published on Apr 22, 2015

"The Evidence for Climate Change Without Models or the IPCC" is critiqued.

Identified problems;

1) Incorrect use of the term 'climate change'; term is used refer only to a hypothetical and totally unproven anthropogenic climate change.