Monday, January 25, 2016

Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few questions please.

This evening I noticed there are two other long winded Andrew Poptech comments in moderator limbo at Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at Poptech's game   Apparently he sent them while I was busy responding to his first comment (here and here).

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.
 A few questions for Poptech: 

Explain why you think the MWP is relevant to today's situation?  
Describe the geophysical drivers of the MWP? 
Describe the geophysical driver of today's AGW? 
Why do you ignore that the scientific community has spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying the MWP and the LIA, along with the entire climate history in our past, to the best of modern abilities?   
Don't you know that the lessons from those earlier fluctuation are being thoroughly incorporated into today's understanding? 
Why are you ignoring what the IPCC has written on the topic? 
(Which I bet incorporates many of the studies you're trying to use as bludgeons against them.)

The point Poptech doesn't want anyone thinking about is that it isn't about disputing his list of studies, it's about disputing Poptech's establishment bashing, self-certain conclusions about those studies.

Previous posts:
Poptech, what about this list?

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (2/2) - a look at Idso's co2science game


The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Understanding the IPCC Reports
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained
By Denise Chow, Staff Writer   |   September 18, 2013 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Key Findings

IPCC's Chapter 5 - Information from Paleoclimate Archives


IPCC - Chapter 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years

6.6.1 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variability What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?


Unknown said...

18 years without warming and you still don't understand it.

Now even Trenberth is predicting global cooling.

citizenschallenge said...

Here's an example of the stupidity folks like Poptech instill in their followers.
These people actually believe themselves.
That every indicator on the planet proves that warming continues unabated -
doesn't mean a thing to them.

Andrew said...

Why are you still censoring all of my comments? Do I have to re-post them at my website?

citizenschallenge said...

In due time. You can find your Andrew (at 2:01AM - Jan 26, 2016) comment over here:

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.
You're also welcome to response to my response to your 2:02AM Comment

citizenschallenge said...

Oh and Poptech, Why is it OK for you to side step critical questions about world observation throughout our biosphere???

Your grand indignation is mind boggling.
But, you feel quite comfort ignoring everything important that doesn't fit your game plan. How's that work?

How about it? What give you the right to ignore this stuff?

til tomorrow.

citizenschallenge said...

Andrew Poptech COMMENTED| January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Poptech writes: "Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"? "

(The full comment will appear in a post of its own, when I finish my thoughtful response.)
Poptech stop taking yourself so ridiculously serious.

Libelous? Seriously? Oh stop.

Just trying to sort out everything you've thrown at me which of course leads to more links of you going on and on that then lead into more wormholes. All the while shepherded by your crafty rhetoric and constant boundary setting. Sort of like you're playing master of the universe or something.

Have you ever heard of the notion that "we need each other to keep ourselves honest"? Seems to me rather than being on a search for understanding, you are in a struggle to shore up barricades.

From the outside that Republican/libertarian echo-chamber you folks inhabit is a hideous place to imagine. Such a sterile two-dimensional sense of this planet Earth you inhabit for your short moment of life. And what about the total disregard for our children's futures - heck you don't even notice all we've lost as a society over the past decades, too dazzled by Hollyworld and dreams of too much never being enough.

Maybe you hate "Alarmist" (as though there were nothing to get damned alarmed about.) and "Warmists" and "Environmentalist" simply because we do appreciate our planet is a real organism,
Four and a half billions years worth of folds within folds of accumulating harmonic complexity flowing down the stream of time. A beautiful unfathomable thing to wonder at and learn about and to nurture, protect - heck and why not love it?

Well, that was the hope at least, we've made a pretty big mess of that, and you don't even notice. Crisis, what crisis??? or "What Me Worry!"

Rather than admit personal mistakes and beginning to learn about what's happening to this planet Earth we depend on - you turn on your fellow humans.

Which brings me back to the beginning and your plaintiff cries of 'liable, liable'*

Dude, going through your comments and links is consuming hours worth my time, all before getting around to collecting the relevant information to support my claims. Don't tell me you're not all about overwhelming in order to confuse rather than to clarify.

*Oh and Poptech, When it comes to making liable statements about people, do I get to hold you to the same lofty standards you're trying to bludgeon me with?

As for your frantic fusillade yesterday evening, once again, rest assured I'm saving all of them, they'll get posted in due time.

I've even put a couple more important projects on the back-burner for this interesting segue.

citizenschallenge said...

Oh and Poptech, I see you have no time for these Real World basics.
It's all in your self-selected lists, is that what it is?
Can you explain your disconnect?.

Once again:
Why is it OK for you to side step critical questions about world observation throughout our biosphere???

How about it? What give you the right to ignore this stuff?

But, you feel quite comfort ignoring those Real Down To Earth observations, because they doesn't fit your sphere of interest. How's that work? Oh, yeah, you're telling me all those scientists and technicians and support staff are not to be trusted. You've got your list of 900.

Poptech - Why isn't understanding what our living geophysical planet is doing, the important thing?

citizenschallenge said...

phann son at 4:16 AM:
"Your grand indignation is mind boggling.
But, you feel quite comfort ignoring everything important that doesn’t fit your game plan. How’s that work?"

Phann, your vapid comment is worthless.
The SPAM you follow it with is even dumber and disqualifies your comment from being posted.

You got name calling, nothing else.
If I'm so stupid you should be able to toss substance at me.
But no. Instead it's spit wads.

Phann Son your grand indignation at standing up for intellectual honesty is what's pathetic.
Not to mention self-destructive.