Friday, January 29, 2016

Poptech's 14 Articles of Self-Deception (#5 in comment series)

(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.

Andrew to What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. at January 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM
Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Poptech’s list of Confusion - ItsNotNova": 

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.
4. To fully confirm his illiteracy, he goes to the, "Rebuttals to Published Alarmist Papers" section (now linked off the list) and selects a paper that is being argued against! That section "listed" alarmist papers (which were never counted) followed by papers that support skeptic arguments against them.
To fully confirm your tendency to confuse issues, we don't know who "his" you are talking about, specifically which paper are you talking about.

Also rather than insulting, you would do better to try and educate the unfortunate, by explaining their misunderstanding.

5. The list is a resource not a unified theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. It should be noted that skeptics accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.
So it's a collection of whatever.  It doesn't represent anything coherent or explain any of the issue we need explaining.

What the heck good is it?  Confusing people.  Shame of you Andrew.

6. No paper is listed where the author has conceded their paper to be "seriously flawed". A few papers have had corrections made to them and published but this is standard practice in scholarly journals. Published corrections are included on the list following the original paper. All other criticisms have been rebutted by the authors and the published rebuttals are also included on the list following the original paper. Just because a critic claims a paper is "flawed" does not make it so.
I wish you would remember that when you're dismissing the tens of thousand of establishment scientists who's works are collected within the international learning effort known as the IPCC.

You're little clique of in-house extremist scientists, has beens and wanna bes, is a insulator circle jerk of passionately biased individuals more interested in personal goals and political economic considerations than in any learning about the Earth we depend on.  

Why should anyone take anything they say at face value ! ?

7. This is just abject idiocy - no author's paper is listed that was "peer-reviewed by themselves" as no scholarly journal has any such policy. [...continued] 
Come on don't tell me William E. Reifsnyder: A tale of ten fallacies: was peer reviewed?  I find that difficult to believe.

Also a serious educational effort doesn't need your constant derision, that's pandering to sheople's base emotions, grow up!  Or at least get honest and admit what you are doing is about propaganda and has nothing to do with learning about our climate system and what we are doing to it

Andrew to What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. at January 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM
Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Poptech’s list of Confusion - ItsNotNova": 


8. The list is a resource and includes a handful of older skeptical papers in the Historic section (pre-1970) for reference, these have no effect on the list count.
What about listing everything that's been learned instead of every contrived doubt that fertile politically motivated minds can come up with?

That's got nothing to do with learning!?  That's propaganda propagation.  Propaganda that is maliciously misleading about what scientists have been learning about our climate system.

9. No paper is listed were the author admits their entire paper or science was flawed. Even where errors were found, they were corrected but the author did not dismiss the entire paper. Any published correction is included on the list following the original paper.
Well, I imagine William E. Reifsnyder was quite convinced of his every argument even if an objective review reveals them to be vacuous bar room talk rather than any sort of serious scientific musings.  

We need each other to keep ourselves honest - that is why I trust the establishment scientific community, I appreciate it's not absolutely perfect, but having thousands of informed skeptical eyes peer reviewing (both before and after publication) studies sure beats trusting the various politically motivated think tanks, you treat as intellectual gold when all they are propaganda mills.

10. This is a strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.
So what, a thousand self selected papers who's whole intension is to provide fodder for apathetic climate science denialists, regardless of their seriousness or relevance.  

Your sole intension of dismissing the tens of thousands of papers that go into the forming the scientific community's considered, learned, professional understanding, aka consensus.  

You have shown not an ounce of curiosity or interest in learning about the substances or lessons these "skeptical argument" have to teach us.  You got a one way conversation going with, with nothing new entering your senses.

Poptech, that's not science, that's propaganda!

11. This is nonsense, as the list includes various papers that support low climate sensitivity in the "Climate Sensitivity" section.
There have been hundreds of studies into various aspects of establishing "climate sensitivity" - cherry picking the studies with very lowest estimates, studies that have often been revealed to have serious flaws, is propaganda, not science!

Besides the whole "Climate Sensitivity" is another red herring - all you need to pay attention to, are the already observed changes in Earth's climate system and behavior over the past decades, to know that climate is damned sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases.  

A vague number is a great place for self-liars to hide, but it has nothing to do with understanding what's happening to our atmosphere.

12. No paper is listed without first confirming the journal is peer-reviewed. With all journals that are challenged as to their peer-review status, further confirmation is done using bibliographic databases from EBSCO, Scopus and Thomson Reuters. This detailed information is provided in the Journal Notes following the list.
Tell us, who did the deciding here?  What kind of committee with what kind of background?  And on what basis do you think it trumps paying attention to and learning about the information that is packed into the IPCC reports?

Considering you included that garbage by William E. Reifsnyder your selection process is untrustworthy and your standards are base.

13. Engraving in stone his ignorance of everything relating to peer-review, as he fails to understand that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature, these should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".
Constantly verbally demeaning your opponents, is the sign of a phony.  

Just conjuring cheap emotional tropes for your outrageously biased audience is pure propaganda propagation has nothing to do with learning.

Besides this is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with learning about and understanding what we are doing to our Earth, it's biosphere and planet.  Oh yeah, you want everyone to ignore all that real world stuff, it's all about peddling confusion and doubts.

14. This is a strawman argument as I made no claim I agree with the findings of each paper, as the list is a resource for skeptics not my personal theory.

Only my most incompetent debate opponents spam what you posted here. thank you for proving my point that you are scientifically illiterate and do not comprehend anything that you post. 
Self declared victories are so pathetic.

It's doesn't really matter if you believe anything you say or not - I suspect if you are actually an intelligent individual you don't believe most of what you put on that list, just another game to play.  Seems a little sociopathic to me, but I realize that's where much of the libertarian crowd's heads are at these days.

That reality in itself puts you right into the category of malicious frauds out to deceive the public.  But hey, it's "free speech" to lie and slander serious scientific information - Besides, you won't pay the price, why care.

That our children will be bearing the burden and misery of our collective failure means nothing to you people, but so it goes.

(Saturday morning (the 30th). I read through this again, found half a dozen goofy typos to correct, cleaned up a couple sentences, not too bad considering this was written in a rush late at night and early the next morning, as I had other commitments to run off to. 
Thinking of Poptech's, dare I say emotional, comments below - I willing to stick by the basic questions, observations and arguments I presented to Poptech - if anyone were to list specific questions or complaints, I'm ready to listen and to clarify and to learn, as rationally dictated.   
To Poptech, I told you before, this wasn't about playing your game, this was about looking at your effort and exposing your intellectual bankruptcy. 
Poptech's broad insult laced dismissals - leave nothing to work with or learn from - but than that's in character with the Republican/libertarian anti climate science PR machine.  Confusion is their game, it's all they got.  Confusion and hostility are like food and drink to them.  To be frank, that's really screwed up.   It's setting all of humanity up for one hell of a disaster sequence, out here on our real Earth.  How I wish folks like Poptech were capable of seeing through their self-deception - or that others could figure out how to crack that shell of hubristic isolation.  As Greenfyre's puts it: My heart is moved by all I cannot save.  But, I can be a witness!

Speaking of Greenfyre, 

Poptart gets burned again, 900 times

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies


Andrew said...

You are a laughable joke, not only did you did not even read my rebuttal to "itsnotnova" but you failed to comprehend it. Instead you made irrelevant, illogical and emotional comments to my 14 summary points. I have never read such an idiotic reply in any of the debates I have had online. What an embarrassment you are to the alarmist cause.

citizenschallenge said...

Of course, Andrew, of course.
If that weren't your typical reaction to all critique I might be impressed.

As it is your game is an ad hoc piece of contrived self-deception.

And of course I see you haven't responded to any of the real important questions, like the fact that your list has nothing to do with learning about what' is happening upon our physical planet.

Andrew said...

It is not possible for irrelevant, illogical and emotional comments to be a "critique" of anything. My 14 points were summaries of my rebuttal to "Itsnotnova's" bullshit that I refuted in extensive detail. You responded to these points as if they were directed at your strawman arguments. I have never seen anyone do something so idiotic in all of the debates I have had online.

"your list has nothing to do with learning about what' is happening upon our physical planet."

Why would my list have anything to do with any of your strawman arguments? You keep posting laughable nonsense like this over and over. Almost every one of your responses is a strawman argument distorting and misrepresenting each issue.

You attacked my list by spamming nonsense you obviously do not possess the intellect to comprehend or defend.

Please share this response with your Skeptical Science budies so they can laugh at you as I and everyone I have shown this post to has....

"To fully confirm your tendency to confuse issues, we don't know who "his" you are talking about, specifically which paper are you talking about."

ROFLMOA! My 14 points were responses to "itsnotnova" - the moron's nonsense you spammed in another thread because it showed up in a Google search. Thus, "his" is referring to "itsnotnova". This is why you should keep the comments in the discussion they originate so you stop confusing yourself.

Are you on some form of medication? Maybe medical marijuana?

citizenschallenge said...

Poptech you're too predicable, yet another comment totally side stepping my questions and rather than offering any constructive insights to explain yourself - you go all macho and take off your gloves off and go straight for the pig wallow.
But then being trapped within one's own self-created bubble-chamber, will do that, I imagine.
How's that old tobacco commercial go, he'd rather fight than switch.

In a serious conversation among real people, one makes an effort to clarify one self,
if you think the other's totally confused and missing your point,
you try to outline the misunderstanding and explain yourself a bit better.

Why do you seem incapable of that? You know if it were just me, (sure I'm playing slightly out of my league, so what, particularly when I see the dishonest intellects and cheap con jobs on the libertarian side.)
thing is, you attack everyone who points out your nonsensical PR game with the same schoolyard bluster and insults and avoidance of the real questions, thinking your rationalization say it all.

Is hostility and self-certain bitch-slapping and bluster all you have in your intellectual repertoire?

Guess if nothing else you've provided an excellent example worth sharing with the innocents who are
just getting up to speed on trying to communication with the Republican/libertarian climate science denying PR machine team.

In event, Poptech let me remind you of some questions you've steadfastly run away from:

Poptech owes it to intellectual integrity to answer a couple simple questions.

Why should anyone bother with his list of confusion? (It's nothing but propaganda fodder, not the stuff of learning.)
If Poptech doesn't agree with that,
please explain what purpose it serves, in connect 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 amassed?

BONUS QUESTION: Why do you think your list of ad hoc collected "papers" is superior to the thousands of papers collected and reported on in the IPCC's reports?

CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Understanding the IPCC Reports
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained
Global Analysis - Annual 2009 -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Key Findings
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge said...

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?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Tracking some of the Republican/libertarian war chest - earmarked not for learning about climate realities, but to malicously fight against climate science education and the public's right to honest learn about what our own actions are doing the planet we depend on for everything. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dark Money

Kevin O'Neill said...

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.

The only doubt then is magnitude and effect. Magnitudes are pretty well bounded and room for scientific disagreement exists, but the margin of disagreement leads to differences of at most a couple or three decades before we reach popular temperature benchmarks (2C or 3C above pre-industrial).

Effects are multiple and confounding. I.e., global warming has winners and losers. The general consensus is there will be more losers than winners.

1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 peer-reviewed papers don't change any of the above. It's the Sun! No, it's the wind! No, it's cosmic rays! No, it's the AMO (PDO, NAO. CIA, black-helicopters)!

But tree-rings .... clouds .... emails .... Al Gore is fat!

The question really comes down to: Ignorant, stupid, insane or just plain evil? Which category does PopTech fall into?

I consider the run-of-the-mill commenter at WUWT to just be ignorant. No, great sin in that - we're all ignorant on different subjects. Of course more than a few simply can't understand the basics even when they're spoon-fed the answers. You can't fix stupid. And of course there are the requisite number of conspiracy theorists - global warming is just a big fraud promoted by a cabal of well-paid climate scientists. Yes, and the moon landing was staged on a Hollywood backlot.

Now, if your local denier/pseudosceptic doesn't fall into one of the above categories we have but one left: just plain evil. Evil knows. They know the snake oil they're peddling and do it with eyes wide open.

Four glass slippers; which one fits Andrew?

citizenschallenge said...

Kevin, you nailed it.
I hope you don't mind, I had to put this comment front and center,
With some luck it'll be a fitting final post in this Poptech series.
I do want to get back to my fun project.

Kevin O'Neill said...

No problem. It's been a recurring theme that I find applicable in most areas of controversy. I initially came up with it in regards to American politics 15 or 20 years ago.

Ceist said...

The guy behaves like a self-entitled sociopath. Creepy.