Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Considering Poptech's defense of funding (#3 in comment series)

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.
Andrew at 6:44 PM, January 26, 2016
has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 
The first link I actually provided was - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
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.
If you look at it from some distance it's profoundly infantile behavior, but so it goes.  All those brains, and no sense of enlighten self interest, or any appreciate for how much we depend on the good health of our biosphere.  Or for how vulnerable our complex global society is.

Yes, these old cold warriors were always convinced from day one that those brainy scientists didn't know nothing.  Nothing new there Poptech!

Now please explain what any that has to do with understanding the climate science you keep belittling?  Oh, as for those sustainability concerns...

Human Footprints on the Global Environment
Threats to Sustainability
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Living Planet Report
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The disconnect between indicators of sustainability and human development
By Fuentes-Nieva, Ricardo; Pereira, Isabel 2010

This paper presents an initial review of the theoretical and measurement discussions of sustainability and its relation to human development. As we show in this paper, there is an overall consensus about the importance of sustaining development and well-being over time, but in reality different development paradigms lead to different definitions and measures of sustainability. 

We review some of those measures, among which the Adjusted Net Savings (a green national accounting measure calculated by the World Bank and rooted in a weak concept of sustainability), the Ecological Footprint (calculated by the Global Footprint Network and rooted in a strong concept of sustainability, where environment is considered a critical resource), and the carbon dioxide emissions (a simple environmental indicator, used in international debate of climate change). 

Our analysis shows conflicting conclusions when studying the correlations between these indicators of sustainability and existing human development indicators, namely HDI, which emphasizes the need for further analysis to understand what “sustainable human development” means. Nevertheless, as we show here, over time there has been a close link between higher economic performance and energy consumption, which has been mostly based in the use of fossil fuels.
Download PDF: 
CC: "I like how you minimize the situation - We are talking about money spend on deliberately misrepresenting the science."

Your emotional position that cannot be supported by any factual evidence is the real conspiracy theory. 
My emotional position?  I beg to differ - there's damned solid scientific foundation for my position.  Mind you Andrew, I've been paying attention to learning about our Earth and evolution and our biosphere and our climate and global warming since the early '70s.  Don't play me for a chump, chump.

Now Andrew, can you help me get this straight, 
Am I really hearing you tell me with a straight face that there is no evidence for serious, (disruptive even), global warming going on?  Do you actually believe a change in our atmospheric insulation from a setting of 280 to one of 400 and rising isn't going to have significant impacts on our planet as we know it?

Because that's what I'm hearing you say, and if it's true, your disconnect from reality is simply staggering. 

Incidentally, I'm not writing all this for you, I'm writing for the younger people out there who expect to survive into the future. This is to show them what they are up against.  Hopefully they'll figure out how to deal with that Republican/libertarian slammed shut mind, or how to hide from them.  

Poptech, here is a selection of the sources I have linked to - I've excluded articles and kept it to the most authoritative.  

Now tell us, what's wrong with them?

CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Nothing is being "minimized", rather it is being put in its proper perspective - which is stated in the opening paragraph of my rebuttal that you omitted:

When confronted with the irrefutable fact that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed {But this is bullshit, as my above collection makes plain, but you'd have to read up on it, to know that.  And why do you keep ignoring the masses of papers that go into the IPCC reports?} papers exist supporting skeptic arguments, desperate alarmists like Christian will always turn to whatever smear they can come up with, in this case the tired old one that the authors were "funded" by oil companies. What is falsely implied is that these scientists are corrupt and oil companies are paying them to be skeptical. This is an easy argument to prove, you simply need to show that these scientists changed their position on ACC/AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company. Alarmists never show this because they cannot. These scientists all held a skeptical position prior to receiving any monetary donations.{Well yeah, as mentioned earlier, predominately old cold warriors resentful of environmental concerns from the gitgo.  So they were great candidates and it made a wonderful fit for both, plus great little extra income, and some pleasing attention during the fading years.} Any monetary donations these scientists received was because the donor agreed with the scientific position that the scientist already held. Alarmists cannot comprehend this irrefutable logic because they emotionally refuse to accept that there are credentialed scientists who do not share their beliefs.
CC: Get real, it's not a question of everyone being in agreement, it's providing this crowd of scientific crack pots, the monstrous megaphone this flood of anti-democracy money has achieved!

Yeah buddy, tell me about this irrefutable logic:

Idso's Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Remarkable recent increases
The Center's yearly grants and contributions have increased since 2005:
2009: $1,548,145
2008: $1,065,971
2007: $ 674,725
2006: $ 300,554
2005: $ 25,563
2004: $ 30,422
2003: $ 25,449

2005-2009 numbers come from the Center's 2009 IRS Form 990, 2003-2004 from its 2007 990, on 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Heartland Institute NIPCC Climate Denier Craig Idso - AGW Good For You
By Guest • Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Connor Gibson | 9 April 2014 
Not Just the Koch Brothers: 
New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
Alex McKechnie  |  December 20, 2013

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
TOTAL $30,925,235
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
Federal Focus
Environmental Literacy Council
Independent Women's Forum
Regulatory Checkbook
Institute for Policy Innovaton

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SHERWOOD IDSO - President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Denial Goes Vegas
The Heartland Institute hits the Strip with some much-needed comedic relief
Alexander Zaitchik   |  July 7, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Secret Heartland Institute memos map a climate-denial campaign
By Jess Zimmerman on 14 Feb 2012 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Global Warming Deniers and Legitimate Skeptical Scientists
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
ExxonMobil in Denial About Climate Science Denial
Elliott Negin  |  12/08/2015 

CC: "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."

Since when is asking to support an emotional argument with factual evidence a "high bar of expectations"? It is not possible for a strawman argument to be a double standard since neither of your links are to my website.

CC: "Thee good ol impossible expectations, then closing down the discussion, period. That's not how real learning operates"

You mean closing the discussion down how you censor my responses here? 
CC: As you can see, I'm not censoring a single word of yours. 
I'm just exploring what you wrote, because I think there are lessons to share. 

Poptech, "Impossible Expectations" is refusing to learn from the evidence at hand, while hiding behind exaggerated straw men, or even lying about uncertainties and what they mean to understanding the whole Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, that we depend on for everything.  The PR mugging and witch-hunt regarding Dr. Mann and his team's "hockey stick graph" is a perfect example. Likewise with the Dr. Santer - WSJ, Seitz travesty.

Humanity has never done anything with certainty, we gather as much information as possible and draw the best conclusions we can and proceed forward, always adjusting as we go along.
I provided very reasonable requirements to support the conspiracy charges leveled against skeptical scientists, unlike the fact-free emotional ones you apparently rely on.
You would think they were "very reasonable" - but then you are trapped within your bubble of perception and have yet to exhibit self-skepticism or a willingness to look beyond your personal convictions.  Besides all you are interested in showing is that there are a number of people who can't get themselves to believe the grown up understanding that climate scientists have achieved.

Oh and speaking about conspiracies, this one is rather ugly.  When I imagine where we could be, considering what we knew in the '70, '80.  You know, we just needed to slow down a little, be a little  more thoughtful about our impacts and our expectations.  But no, our children's future's weren't worth the effort.  

ExxonMobil faces inquiry on what it knew about climate change
9 November 2015

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
By Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Suzanne Goldenberg  |  July 8, 2015

A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.

CC: "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."

Funding is funding and if you are unable to support your allegation that "money was spent on a PR campaign intent on misrepresenting science" then you are posting libel.
Well, there is a pretty good mountain of evidence piled up.  Please refer to the above links.

CC: "What about the people's right to honest learn about what scientists have learned about these critically important changes in our planet?"

I agree which is why I created my list, so people can be made aware of all the scientific evidence supporting skeptic arguments.
But from my glancing through your list of papers, you have an awful lot of stuff I'd categorize as distracting garbage.  Case in point, Reifsnyder's ridiculous opinion piece.
That wasn't about scientific research or evidence, it was closer to bar room banter.  Or is that seriously what you consider "scientific"?  

CC: "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?"

This is a strawman argument, I hold no such contempt or have any such hostility. I do believe that much of government spending is being squandered, lacks transparency and is wasteful. After years of research on this subject I do not find that our environment needs to be "protected" from increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). 
As for your self-assumed objectivity, from the outside, we don't see it, you're biased to the core.  Incidentally, uni-directional skepticism equals denial.

Considering your easy dismissal of Earth observation evidence and global weather news, I would say you're completely disconnected from any appreciation of this Earth that we all depend on for everything.

I see that you're some computer whiz, living in the world of numbers I imagine.  
I could see how your perspective could be skewered.  What I don't see is how you can justify your extreme self-certitude.  I mean you actually believe your causal study trumps full-time experts.  Like you think the world is supposed to bend itself around your personal standards and those that don't, are bad or deluded or both. 

Rational young people who respect science, need to look at you and other doing what you are doing and try to understand what makes youz tick, and perhaps figure out strategies for how to get through those thick self-certain skulls.   After all, we'll need each other in the end.

Andrew at 6:50 PM, January 26, 2016
has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 

CC: "I'm concerned with the messaging you're broadcasting, so this is important."

Really? So far you have extensively misrepresented my work by copying and pasting links to long debunked nonsense that you have clearly never read and now claim to know what my "messaging" is. Oh please tell me or are you going to try and Google it from another smear website? 
Now I have posted your #3 comment, actually 2 comments in one.
No words have been deleted or changed.

I have done my best to engage in a serious discussion and to rationally explain how I see your "messaging" and why I believe you are a malicious fraud.  We don't need to like each other to have a constructive conversation.  Understand I'm just a old guy who's been paying attention to this circus for too long, a bit crusty for the effort, but I do my best to be thoughtful and rational and to share what I've learned.  I'm not filled with self-certitude and feel no malice towards you.  

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer

No comments: