This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth
Thanks to Hotwhopper and it's tracking of Anthony's latest antics, I found out a little while ago that WattsUpWithThat has featured me in a rather scathing post. I haven't looked at it, no time for that distraction right now. I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.
See, I want to stick with some thoughts I woke up with and wrote down before having to run off to get on with other chores. Now I only have a few moments available and want to keep my eyes on the prize, as some say. ________________
I woke up thinking about the Climate Science Contrarian's plaintive refrain:
"Keep the Debate Alive!"
yet when someone like me comes along who wants to debate with them for real, it's always the same song and dance.
First the self-certain wildly mistaken claims. Then, ignoring all the evidence I provide, dismissing my argument with a wave. Then, the denial and resentment at being questioned.
Then rather than counter-arguments, and getting specific about where my errors in logic or facts are,they resort to insults (occasionally threats - kudos to Poptech for not climbing into that gutter.) and arm waving,basically whining that - It's not nice to challenge someone's faith.
Then they back out of the discussion with their chorus of "Debate is healthy - you are stupid..." while their ears, eyes and minds remain firmly plugged.
{Then he/they slink off to their club houses and let me have it. So it goes. Poptech and Steele's claims are ever more convincing when kept within the sanctity of their self-imposed echo-chambers.}
_________________________________________
One of the important basic questions Poptech refused to discuss is: What kind of DEBATE is worth having?
The debate I keep chasing is a constructive affair.
It's about a willingness to expose one's own ideas/understanding to skeptical reviews.
It's about considering and better understanding competing information and ideas.
It's about being willing to hear about flaws in one's own understanding. After all, that is how we learn!
Poptech's debate is the political/lawyerly affair, where "winning" the argument is all that matters. That sort of debate feeds on conflict and confusion rather than on learning anything constructive.Nothing more than a sort of ad hoc exercise in self-justification.
It's a wretchedly dishonest affair, the stuff of power politics. Not the stuff of learning or understanding.
For the record, any comment posted over here is fair game for finding itself featured as a stand-alone post. I don't change any words, beyond occasional courtesy spell correction, paragraph-breaks, highlights. My commentary is clearly marked. Or as in this case, I don't have a word to interject. I believe it belongs upfront, because Kevin's comment did an excellent job of boiling it down to basics. If your struggling with figuring out the climate science contrarian mind-scape, here's a short but good read.
It's really pretty simple logic: By assembling a list that contains completely contradictory claims all PopTech is promoting is ignorance, uncertainty, and doubt. Color me surprised (/snark).
Knowledge is gained by comparing competing claims and discarding those that are not consistent with all the evidence.
As with most of the denialsphere, PopTech shies away from actual definitions.
The theory of AGW is pretty simple: Human activities have the net effect of making the planet we live on warmer. The theory is true. If not, there's a Nobel Prize awaiting the paper that shows our current understanding of radiative transfer is completely incorrect.
(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.
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.
This afternoon Poptech piled on more comments defending Poptech's List of Confusion. Two were a list of 14points no less, adding up to over 700 words. The irony is great, considering he's the fellow who wrote: January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM Poptech: *"Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"?"*
It's another self-certain gish-gallop and a masterpiece of rationalization with more than a little bit of the hubristic self aggrandizing about it. As Poptech should know by now, when I get such material, I save it for a closer examination and I will be posting that when I get to it, along with a thoughtful critique and supplemental information.
But first, I think Poptech owes it to intellectual integrity to answer some simple questions himself.
Why should anyone bother with his list? It's worthless.
If Poptech doesn't agree, please explain what purpose it serves, in connection to understanding what's happening to our climate system?
Even more fundamental, Please tell us why you believe we should not trust the collective information all these professional outfits have amassed?
I had thoughts of reviewing a few other papers from Poptech's list considering what a hoot Reifsnyder's "Tale of ten fallacies" was. (you can read about it at "Considering Poptech's standards of excellence")
But, I'm over it. Too many other things to catch up on. If Andrew decides to continue the dialogue I'll be happy to field his complaints and claims and repeat my questions for him, if not, fine.
For my final post in this series I'm going to do a pure cut'n paste of an excellent, thoughtful examination of Poptech's list of papers over at https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com.
It's the sort of well narrated detail work I dream of doing, but time constraints, a chaotic hyper-attention syndrome, and frankly my limited understanding keep me from it. (I don't fail to recognize that I am a lay-person, my education has been of the casual self administered sort. It's great for what it is, but it certainly has limitations. That's why I love turning to the educated adults who have spent their lives and careers in a formal pursuit of learning about all the details and getting a grasp of the whole picture and its various components.)
I get the feeling ItsNotNova understands the science from the inside, as opposed to, from the outside looking in, such as I and most fellow blogger do. That's why I want to finish this Poptech series with his/her excellent review of Poptech's list of Confusion.
Joanna Nova, known for her hatred of anyone on her website calling deniers a denier, invokes the use of this term for anyone willing to question a list of papers.
This is also another strawman argument, no one needs to deny the existence of these papers, because quite obviously they do exist, but they don’t destroy AGW as some people might be fooled into thinking.
Nova’s words
Who are the deniers now? 800 Peer Reviewed Papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
Seeing this list people might be fooled into thinking these papers somehow rebut the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Nova seems fooled into thinking we need to “deny” them all. In fact as we’ll see, the author of these papers likes to categorise this list in his unique way, thus making it appear there are a lot of papers that dispute the science of AGW.
“Merchant of doubt” Nova blindly promotes the list in several of her posts, but misses out on one of the nuances of Poptech’s criteria, ALARM! Poptech will list papers if HE decides they rebut an alarming claim made by “someone” on the internet. A paper doesn’t have to dispute the mainstream climate science found in the IPCC report in order to be included.
We can’t really blame Nova for not noticing the subtle difference; originally Poptech listed this list as “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” as seen in numerous blogger websites (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here). Poptech’s ALARM was added later when he realised his mistake in listing certain papers.
Poptech has a “rebuttal” (of kind) where he claims I lie because …
These couple of comments are pretty anticlimactic, just a bunch of whining that I wasn't posting Andrew's comments fast enough for him. Oh and indignation that I should dare to make his comments the center of stand alone posts. Now if he'd have actually addressed the content of those posts in any serious manner that would have been one thing, but if you look, think you'll agree they are pretty generic pitch-lines.
Seems Poptech doesn't appreciate anyone taking a close look at his words and logic in action. Now I predict he's going to do his best to ignore me over here. Possibly post some nasty stuff about me at his blog, and I suspect he'll pull a Jim Steele by doing it stealthy, so I don't go over there to take a look at it. But, if Andrew's upfront about it, so much the better.
His first comment was posted and responded to, those responses I'm sharing here, nothing else to add. I do want to point out that as is usual with the contrarian crowd, Andrew is too busy rationalizing and broadcasting his own self-certain storyline, to listen to, think about, or respond to what anyone else asks him.
A very lopsided perspective on what a learning dialogue is all about. I'll start with the final one first. Andrew's previous comments can be linked to here one, two, three - they are more interesting than this tripe.
If you refuse to allow my comments through on the post they were made, I will cease replying here. Let me know if I need to use your website as an example of Alarmist censorship.
FYI, I did not ask your permission to re-post anything on my website.
citizenschallenge said... I'm going to be presenting your comments as stand alone posts, after all this blog is about dissecting contrarian debate tactics.
Be patient, I managed one out of four this morning, tomorrow I may have more time available.
Oh, you are welcome to post them over at your blog, I have no objections.
This is the third Poptech comment, actually two sent minutes apart, it hardly needs introduction except that I hope it will help enlighten some to the tactics and base attitudes of your Republican/libertarian contrarian type. Andrew Poptech's comments are in comic sans font, where he quotes me I changed the type to back verdana and my commentary is mostly blue verdana. Link to see the first comment, second comment.
Yes and what kind of refutation is that post supposed to be?
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
"direct" nice touch
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
And you were expecting them to respond how?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
And you were expecting them to respond how?
CC: Besides, we all know (the evidence is pretty clear cut and copious) this is sort of a class war thing. With the crisp clean-cut right-wing military-industrial-complex types, pissed at the environmental types and long haired scientists with their increasingly strident messaging that humanity was exceeding its limits for a comfortable sustainable life style - and that we needed to think about what we were doing and perhaps trying to change some of our unsustainable habits. With the Reagan White House at their backs, they created a PR machine that made "sustainability" - "environmentalism" - "stewardship towards our biosphere" - "slowing down our ravenous consumption" into bad words and demonized notions.
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.
*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.
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.}
Well he shot off another couple comments early this morning, I've only got the time to run through one of them right now, I'll be back this evening. Poptech's comments are in courier font, I'm in verdana font.
Why are you misrepresenting my rebuttals now? I have not attempted to "overwhelm" anything but have directly responded to each misrepresentation you made about my work in extensive detail. Pick any one you want and I will debate it with you.
Poptech says Alarmist Challenge:The claims of this article have not been shown to be true. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".{I like how you minimize the situation - We are talking about money spend on deliberately misrepresenting the science. fyi:http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.phphttp://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed } - Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating energy company funding for any scientist.- Then provide actual documents showing what fraction of their overall funding this is.- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding ACC/AGW due to this funding and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the funding.If these requirements are not met then evidence of corruption cannot be demonstrated.{That's erecting a pretty high bar of expectations - Why the double standard when it comes to accusing respected scientists of supposed wrong doing, based on innuendo rather than any actual evidence?Dr. Mann and Dr. Santer smear jobs come to mind.} Alarmist Challenge:The claims of this article have not been shown to be true. It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry". - Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating energy company funding for any scientist. - Then provide actual documents showing what fraction of their overall funding this is. - Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding ACC/AGW due to this funding and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the funding. If these requirements are not met then evidence of corruption cannot be demonstrated. {Thee good ol impossible expectations, then closing down the discussion, period.
That's not how real learning operates}
1. Christian completely ignores Alarmist funding sources, Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come (PDF) (Joanne Nova, B.S. Microbiology)Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities (PDF) (Jeff Kueter, M.A. Science & Technology Studies)
{This one is precious - I'm impressed with the ease with which you equate money spent on scientific research with money spent on a PR campaign intent on misrepresenting that science, rather than learning from it.
What about the people's right to honest learn about what scientists have learned about these critically important changes in our planet?
Which brings up another issue, why do you folks have such contempt for spending money on understanding how our planet operates. Why does concern for protecting our "Environment" (that would be our biosphere, read life support system) - evoke such hostility?}
You on the other hand have dodged each one and have now deflected your comments to ones about the MWP and the IPCC - neither have anything to do with the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you posted here about my work.
{I'm concerned with the messaging you're broadcasting, so this is important.}
Q: "Why you think the MWP is relevant to today's situation?"
A: Your question is irrelevant to the intellectually dishonest misinformation you posted about my work and anything I was debating here. The MWP is relevant to skeptics because it demonstrates that the current climate is not outside of natural variability. ______________________________ In other words you are saying that increasing our atmosphere CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is nothing outside of natural variability? Do you actually believe that Poptech? _____________________________________________________
Q: "Why do you ignore the fact that the scientific community has spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying the MWP, and the LIA, and all other climate fluctuations in our past?"
A: Your question is irrelevant to the intellectually dishonest misinformation you posted about my work and anything I was debating here. It is purely subjective how much time the misleadingly stated "scientific community" has studied anything. ______________________________ You want to be taken seriously, then you come up with rabid garbage such as "the misleadingly stated 'scientific community'" in scare quotes. That makes you a paranoid wack job if you've actually convinced yourself that the entire scientific community of tens of thousands of skeptical, educated, professional individuals are conspiring to threat your "freedoms" or whatever you've conjured up in your mind. Why not entertain the notion that scientist are serious, striving for accuracy and actually out to learn as much as they can about their areas of study. _____________________________________________________
Q: "Why do you ignore that those lesson are thoroughly incorporated into today's understanding."
A: Your question is irrelevant to the intellectually dishonest misinformation you posted about my work and anything I was debating here. Your statement is purely subjective and there is extensive evidence provided by skeptical scientists that they are neither thoroughly incorporated nor fully understood in your subjectively defined "today's understanding". ______________________________ Give us a bullet point review of the specific issues - (Not lists of self-evaluated studies, please categorize the issues you think the scientific establishment is ignoring!) _____________________________________________________
Q: "Why ignore all that the IPCC has written on the topic? (Which I bet incorporates many of the studies you're trying to use as bludgeons against that serious scientific effort to understand our global heat and moisture distribution engine."
A: Your question is irrelevant to the intellectually dishonest misinformation you posted about my work and anything I was debating here. My list is a resource for skeptics not a rebuttal to the IPCC, which is why it includes a section on the IPCC. Most of the studies on my list are either not incorporated by the IPCC or for the handful that are, they are mostly misrepresented.
Unlike you, I have actually read all the links you copy and pasted attacking my work and have responded in detail to each one, refuting every single argument in them.
Since you cannot even pick a single argument from the links you spammed to try and defend, it is clear you have never read them.
Poptech, the problem is you have made yourself the single arbiter of truth and you hold the serious scientific community in complete contempt so you've erected this completely self-certain faux-science bubble around your certitude. You spend all your time defending that certitude with fancy dancing and creating your own rules of engagement that totally eliminate the need for reality checks - with what's going on in the real physical world. I believe that is because you are trapped within the political battle and refuse to look beyond your limitations. Me, I'm all about people pulling their heads out of their egos, a starting to learn about and appreciation what we have on this incredible planet that created us and that we depend on for everything. Unfortunately, I've needed to rush through this and now I've gotta get, jobs a waiting, and I'm late. I wish I did have the luxury you seem to spending all day focused on defending your project.
This morning after I posted my response, I had to shut her down and rush off to get caught up on my day to day real-world chores. I'm back and noticed his comment after reading them I decided to sit on his #2 and #3 a little.
For one, since his favorite tactic is to overwhelm with his self-certain rhetoric and his self-selected lists upon lists, that add up to what, we don't know. Nah. I'm a kid from the streets. I'm not going play that game with him. Here at WUWTW we're going to take this a bit slower.
I'll try to get Andrew to understand that I'm all about trying to understand. That requires digesting information and thoughts, it's not about who can toss out the most soundbites and heap up the biggest lists one can make up.
Secondly, I thought I'd use them as bargaining chips.
You see, I have some questions that I'm hoping Andrew will answer.
If he doesn't, ..., well that would speak volumes.
Now, lets see if Poptech is capable of explaining anything fundamental.
Since Andrew Poptech is enamored with long lists I though it only appropriate to share this list, and this one comes with a coherent explanatory story. You could learn a few things from it. Here's the list of referenced papers attached to the IPCC section that deals with our planet's paleoclimate history.
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Key Findings
Andrew Poptech himself responded to my recent blog post - of course, he dismisses every critique leveled against him, acknowledging nothing, learning nothing. You have a choice: believe him, believe others, or take the time to read up and learn about it yourself, then make up your own mind.
Andrew Poptech is an example of someone who has convinced himself that so long as he can put together endless lists and classify them according to his own personal desires that it's the truth and nothing but the "truth" - and the Republican/libertarian PR machine agrees, so they put plenty of wind under the man's wings. But, in the end of the day Andrew Poptech's lists are a dilettante's game that don't inform anyone about anything - it's great for wagging doubt in front of the uninformed, disinterested, who are more worried about getting through the day than understanding what's happening to our physical planet. But that is all it's good for. Has nothing to do with learning. Think about Poptech's game. He believes he can dismiss the entire community of scientists who have been focused on learning how our climate system operates. Genuine trained experts (well over a centuries worth and from around the globe!) who are striving to understand the details of this global warming we are experiencing. People who have done an excellent job of learning about it and sharing their information with those willing to listen. All of that, Andrew Poptech and pals dismiss with a self-certain wave and a stack of papers classified according to his druthers, it's nothing but vacuous doubt mongering. Serious science is done in the full light of day and is exposed to the examination of thousands of skeptical informed professionals. Foremost it is about learning and clarifying. Since Andrew Poptech is enamored with long lists I though it only appropriate to post the list of references attached to the IPCC section that deals with understanding our planet's paleoclimate history. Poptech what about this list?
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Key Findings
