Wednesday, December 9, 2015

part 5 - Now AL's complaining about me appropriating WattsUpWithThat's name.

AL responded over at YT and since it was a rather interesting response I'll add it to our virtual debate with my responses. {touch up edits 12/11/15 am}
AL Yesterday 9:18 PM

+citizenschallengeYT Sure I can debate, and I have done so here too. I have given you links to scientific papers and facts in respond to what you have posted here. But I never get any responses if you red them or not. You have at least a months worth of reading just about MWP. {Thank you for that remark, you have just given me the seed for my next serious essay "MWP and Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine considered" - unfortunately this little wage-slave has a hell of a lot of work lined up currently so it'll be a while.  But I love the challenge.}

What I (and others) don't like about what you're doing here with your blog, is the cheap way to try and drive traffic to it and not to mention the blatant choice of domain name for it - a way to ride on another site's success that is frowned upon by most people that deals with the web professionally. {Oh, the irony.}

The other thing about your "debate" style is exactly what you are doing in the post I'm responding to - as soon as you get a little hurt either by facts or opinions, you immediately throw shit on people, like you now did with Anthony. Just like most warmists.  {Why not list specifics?}  

At least NOAA asked Anthony for his work so they could use it themselves, so his work is appreciated. {Why not cite the specifics?  
I don't care what you believe Anthony did, 
we expect you to show us specifically where those valiant efforts are written up.  
Then we can proceed with a debate.  
Smoke'n Mirrors isn't enough.}

But I guess if you react to what he has done, then you must absolutely hate Mann and his team. Because that is documented tampering with data that even led to a hearing.  {Where's this documented, in a private email where a frustrated human allowed himself to vent to a trusted colleague?  

Oh, no I forgot - anything goes from that side of the debate.
{Always charges and claims, how about some specifics?}

Edit: And you will never figure out what's going on with those science denying, since you're the one denying it. The science is clear, and so are the empirical data we have now since at least 20 years. This goes both for the temperature, the levels of CO2 and how CO2 acts in the atmosphere with no positive feedback.  {Why can't you acknowledge that I've spent years looking into those claims and arguments, in depth - which my record at WUWTW makes abundantly clear?}

Give it a few more years and you will accept the data too.
{again no hint of what or where this data is coming from.  
Always the mystery.  It's almost mystical.}

review my blog, you will notice that over the decades I have looked into these MWP claims in way more depth than you have.  Anthony like McIntyre have built their contrarian careers on misrepresenting the science and attacking Dr. Mann's integrity, rather then delving into understanding the science.  

It's been explicated by dozens/hundreds of experts and retold in hundreds/thousands of articles - that you choose to ignore and that Anthony chooses to trash-talk rather than seriously consider.  Thus enabling yourself to believe in their malicious nonsense over and above what serious scientists have to explain.  

As for resenting me for highjacked his title - well exccuuse me buddy, Anthony Watts is the one that refused to engage with me in an open and fair debate at his blog.  Instead taking the path of silencing me by banishing me from his website, as he does to most every serious "opposition" that shows up at WUWT comments - so you see the dude forced... inspired me into this.  I have cause and right to dedicate my blog's title to his echo-chamber.

Incidentally AL, let's do an irony test.  How upset are you at what Seitz did in that cover letter to the Oregon Petition??

A visit to will provide plenty of specific details to the ongoing malicious dirty tricks Anthony Watts has been piling on the public's right to seriously and honestly learn about climate science.  

Waving him at me as some symbol of forthright curiosity is years too late for me to bit.  I know that the man's career is built on intentionally misleading people about the most serious problem humanity face - after all, our weather patterns control the quality and health of the systems our society depends on for everything, including their endless addiction to creating conflict and wars.  

Anthony Watts is more interested in lathering up emotions, distrust, resentment, conflict than learning about the situation at hand!

But then, tragically you folks simply won't grasp the dimensions of actual real world situation out here - so I'm just another cheap bad guy to you.  
How sad, how uninformed, how self-destructive.


Considering the “Oregon Petition” and Dr. Seitz's stealing the NAS's identity.

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

In April 1998, Art Robinson and his organization the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a well-known climate change skeptic (and tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was a “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

The Oregon Petition's Disguise Attempt 

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented. 

The included research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. 

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

No comments: