Friday, May 15, 2015

Invitation to debate Piers Corbyn's claims (… another example of hoaxer's fear of honest debate)

My recent blogpost regarding Piers Corbyn offended the gent who's 700 word comment I mirrored, he accuses me of ignoring his facts and it's true my post focused on my discovering why Piers Corbyn is anything but a serious scientist, in fact, arguably from an objective legal standpoint he's a malicious fraud.

For those seriously curious about Mikeyp's talking points, or "facts" as he calls them, check out this wonderful resource geared to the layperson.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths  
Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

Given this morning's exchange with Mikeyp, I sense there's a genuine learning opportunity in all of this.  

That is why I'm formalizing my invitation to Mikeyp for a debate regarding my characterization of Piers Corbyn*, by mirroring our YouTube comments exchange where I invite him to send me a Guest Post which I'll publish unaltered in a standalone WUWTW post.  
(*Or the state of climate understanding for that matter.)   

I'm certainly no expert, but I dare say I know the basics pretty well.  Plus I have a leg up on climate science skeptical types, in that it's not my ego I'm defending.  I'm defending my understanding of the science as it is.  I fully appreciate that my understanding doesn't always agree with the reality.  I embrace being proven wrong as learning opportunities, even if it bruises my ego.

Meaning, my learning continues and is not confined to defending what an echo-chamber feeds me.  Mr. Landscapesandcycles runs and hides from a straight up debate, let's see if Mikeyp has more intellectual fortitude.

This exchange was inspired by my blogpost 
"A digression, the Piers Corbyn Story"

Then this morning at YouTube, and I quote:

(5/14/2015 - 4:30pm) citizenschallenge wrote:
I looked into your "realist" Piers Corbyn, you won't believe what I found.
(5/15/2015 - 8:23 am) Mikeyp wrote: 
As expected you switch off if you see something that you cannot comprehend. Your inability to consider the very real counter arguments to your chosen set of truths does weaken your case. I find your comments to be extremely dismissive without due cause. The Piers Corbyn presentation was obviously dumbed down so it could be understood by a wide audience (yes you), Have you ever considered that the jetstream is affected by a number of different things including magnetic forces,  sunspot activity etc?  {I took the liberty of linking those to some information regarding said claims.}
The fact that you still believe the hockey stick shows how narrow-minded you are. check the evidence it does not back up your beliefs, You stick to the brainwash claptrap (lies) that have been proven to be wrong. Why not try to open your mind and look properly at other interesting areas of science which have alternative results to those that you lap up with delight.  
My experience shows me that when there are disagreements between groups of people, that the answer lies somewhere in between, and not at either of the polar extremes (pun not intended). I can accept that the science is unproven in the area of climate science. It seems apparent that you cannot do this, which is bizarre given that organisations such as the Met Office with all the IPCC data cannot predict the weather with any degree of accuracy more than 2 or 3 days ahead. 
Your blog does not allow anybody to respond or challenge your postulations, a decision which rather fits with your closed-minded outlook on climate science.,
(5/15/2015 - 8:25 am) Mikeyp wrote: 
I actually pointed to my use of the real data - I guess your selective brain elected to ignore this. Your rudeness in response to my reply indicates that you must be a rather obnoxious character.

(5/15/2015 - 8:46 am) citizenschallenge responded:
Mike, Of course you can comment at WUWTW.  Have you tried?  Explain this "real data" you claim to have shared.   Make a comment, offer evidence, define your facts.  I promise to post it, as I did Frank's illuminating comment.

{update May 17 - and since originally posting this Mike has offered a couple comments that you can find at my Piers Corbyn Story - maybe he's formulating his out and defense of Corbyn's "scientific" understanding and claims}
{Update: June 9th, 2015  Piers Corbyn still finds no champions to defend his nonexistent scientific integrity.}

(5/15/2015 - 8:59 am) citizenschallenge responded:
Hmmm Mike, been chewing on your latest comment.  OK I challenge you to take your 700word gish gallop which I mirrored, then add your authoritative links and support it with your reasoning and I promise to post it unedited and complete as a stand alone blogpost. Of course, I'll follow it with my own post and a dispassionate examination of your claims.

That way you can put my integrity to the test and I can put "the facts as you see them" to the test.  I suggest that's how a real debate would look.  I'm serious, let's see what you got, beyond listing a bunch of misleading talking point.
Email your submission to me: citizenschallenge at gmail...

(5/15/2015 - 9:02 am) citizenschallenge responded:
Oh Mike, you would have to agree to add a comment to your guest blogpost confirming that I did indeed faithfully mirror your text.

Is it a deal?  Let's go do this.

Looks like the first round already happened at 
"A digression, Piers Corbyn Story"

May 15, 2015 at 9:14 am - mikeyp wrote... 
"What exactly are the insulation properties of co2 that you talk about?
You talk about Piers Corbyn and Grade School Science despite his real credentials being vastly in advance of your own yet talk rubbish.
what insulation properties to individual co2 particles have when they are at in the upper atmosphere at a much colder temperature than the warmer air they are supposedly insulating."

May 15, 2015 at 10:08 am citizenschallenge said...

Now you are being silly and pulling that contrarian device of demanding expert knowledge when you aren't even in a position to understand the answer or what to do with it, even if I could give it to you - which of course I can't. I haven't spent a life time of dedicated learning about higher math and the scientific details. My life long learning has been about understanding the whole spectrum of our lives, including humanity's pageant and this fantastic planet Earth I inhabit for my few short years, well the universe around it is quite interesting too.

That's why we have experts and each other. Everyone brings something into the dialogue, holistic learning is the object, but we need each other to keep ourselves honest! You on the other hand (like Piers C.) come across as seeing everyone who disagrees with you as an enemy - just look at the words you use and the mental image you've created of me.

Mike another question, why do you think you are smarter than experts?

On lookers please notice the malicious thing being done here - wasting precious (irreplaceable) time with such childish distractions, in order to ignore all the stuff that IS happening on this planet, and all the stuff that we do understand! 

Most hateful is that demand for 100% accurate measurements of every component of our global heat engine while ignoring indisputable and alarming basics - It reveals such a profound disconnect from the reality of this planet we depend on for everything, that it seems hopeless. So tragic. So egomaniacal. 

Our children will pay dearly for our collective foolishness.

No comments: