Poptech's "Truth" re WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot - Examined

In my decades long experience dialoging with climate science “skeptics" they consistently respond to reasoned critique of their arguments by sidetracking the discussion with personal attacks intent on making their 'opponents' seem as detestable as possible thus making any facts irrelevant, as Zoe so ably demonstrated in the last post.  

Respect, fairplay, honesty, honor, constructive learning means nothing.  Decapitate one’s ‘opponents’ before they can drive home any arguments or evidence regarding Manmade Global Warming. 

Poptech at “populartechnology-net” provided a text book example last year and since he seems to be slinking around the internet peddling his fable again, I figure I’ll get personal myself and share the response which separates Poptech’s fabrications from the facts.

Besides, it fits right in with the pathetic John Bates’ Affair - John’s MO is the same, malicious manipulation and omission of facts, spin the narrative away from the matter at hand and aim for character assassination.

__________________________________________________

ORIGINALLY POSTED FEBRUARY 2nd 2016 under the title: "Lord of the Flies* (#8 Poptech's Truth).

I thought I could avoid Anthony Watts and Andrew 'Poptech's' attack piece on me, figuring I'd get to it later.  But my old pal AL (a debate mate from this past November 23 to December 13th in the "debating sock-puppet" series.) just couldn't resist rubbing it in my face, and since his link went to Poptech's post, I figured, OK in for a nickel, in for a dollar.  

AL writes Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:19 citizenschallengeYT Hahahahaha…:P  http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1

Oh boy, talk about desperation to dig up shit, well they dug and they dug and oh the facts and links they've unearthed. But, even more impressive than what they unearthed - is the vindictive theatrical spin they put on everything.

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at Poptech's game

Another diversion, but so it goes.  My YouTube profile must be growing, as reflected by the creepy clowns crawling out of the woodwork to take pot shots at me, reminds me of some cheap zombie horror movie.

A favorite meme is: CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past, as though that has anything to do with today's world and the reality of adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2 on top of the natural flux into our climate system every month after month.  One would think Republican types would know all about accumulating compounding interest and what that can do to numbers in a hurry - it doesn't just work that way in the financial world.  Why they ignore such simple rational fundamentals, is beyond me.

Another favorite, goes like this:

CC writes:  

Great so you object.  Now do you have any objective evidence to support what you believe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude (I'll going to start using the generic Dude for multiple YouTube characters) writes: 

A lot, actually.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php

Here's a small (but informative) collection of evidence. If needed, I can provide a lot more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC writes:

All you folks seem to point to co2science, watts up with that, has it become your bible or something?  It's run by the Idso Clan who are paid spokesmen for Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil - it has been shown to dishonestly represent the science.  But that's all you got - and you refuse to look beyond your smug little certitude.

But, learning requires some times getting out and assessing the reality going down on this one and only planet of ours - that we depend on for everything.  A bit of healthy self-skepticism would go a long way too.

~ plus~

What about all the information and detailed explanations and the hundreds of referenced papers that are collected in there???

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf - 

also see:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test 

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Climate Science Watch 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude writes: 

The IPCC? You are really going to reference people who still believe in the hockey stick graph and a 97% consensus? OK.

Here's a lot more papers (1,350+):

www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html