Examining denialist dodges, re Dr Mann #3

In for a nickel, in for a dollar, and I may as well share K's response to my previous post since he's getting a bit heated and demonstrating another typical ploy which affords me another opportunity to examine the anatomy of avoidance.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

K Responds: 

August 17, 2014 at 19:19

@citizenschallenge: “Hmmm, my emotional parody blog?”

~ ~ ~

K : Yes, your emotional parody blog. Unable to confront the rational discourse of people who disagree with you, you’ve created a site dedicated to emotionally lashing out at them. Labeling your opponents “denialists”, you dehumanize them at the very start, unable to imagine anything but pure evil intent on their part.

{de·ni·al, noun:  a) the action of declaring something to be untrue.  b) a statement that something is not true.}

{No buddy, I'm using the term as a descriptive for your attitude of rejecting authoritative scientific information.  

As for "inability to conduct a rational discourse", what about your demonstrated reliance and complete faith in WUWT's storylines and Steve the hostile armchair statistician, {who's work and claims have been examined and rejected, with cause, by a number of actual experts in various fields.} ?

Why isn't any of that good enough for you K?  Instead you reject their informed and considered judgements ... how do you justify that? 

And why shouldn't I call that Climate Science Denial?  Please explain.}

Investigating Dr. Michael Mann... a supplement

To supplement my previous post, here's a list of investigations into Dr. Mann and allegations stemming from the break in and hacking of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, courtesy of SkepticalScience.com.  I finish with a DeSmogBlog profile of the American Tradition Institute:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Now I understand why climate science 'skeptics' hate SkepticalScience.com (+ climategate)

{edited for some typos, and to add two more investigation reports.  7/18/2013}


I've been reminded this afternoon why science-skeptics demonize "SkepticalScience.com" so viciously.  It's because the SkepticalScience team do such a great job of collecting and organizing real scientific information in a wonderfully simple and clean, accessible manner.  The occasion was a discussion over at http://www.debate.org.  The topic being "The Hockey Stick is Bad Science."  The actual debate was about a year ago, now it's down to the sparsely visited comments thread.  

I made a comment and the debate "contender" showed up to reply.  Unfortunately he dished up the usual denialist mantra I've come to know so well.  The sentence that inspires this post is:

"The Climategate e-mails showed a deliberate attempt to suppress skeptical viewpoints from ever being published."

When I hear someone inflating Climategate, like that, it's like a red flag - and I want to yell: "Stop and learn about what you're talking about!  Why can I be so absolute?  

Because, when one actually takes the time to familiarize themselves with all the claims based on those stolen emails, it comes down to maybe a half dozen short quotes, taken out of context, at that.  Most pathetic of all is that we are talking about personal, private emails, not data-sets or studies or actual publications.