Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Popular Technology > Rebuttals > Rebuttal to Mothincarnate


Posted by: Andrew Mar 2 2011, 07:00 PM
Rebuttal to "http://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/many-genuine-sciences-papers-supporting-confidence-in-the-agw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/"

Mothincarnate is a dishonest, childish individual who cannot debate anyone so he censors their replies to his "punishment area" and intentionally does not reply to comments but edits yours, this way you will have no idea he replied and he can run around lying that you "ignored" his comments. This is a typical propaganda tactic alarmists use when their lies, misinformation and strawman arguments are exposed.


Preface: His list is a strawman argument. No credible skeptic has ever claimed there are no peer-reviewed papers that mention "anthropogenic global warming". The claim has always been by alarmists that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. This is one of the reasons why the list of http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html was created. The fact that it is frequently claimed by alarmists that there are thousands of "http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php" supporting their position in the IPCC report makes his list redundant.

Note: His original wording accompanying his list was filled with misinformation that is detailed http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3990. This post addresses his new wording.


1. He ironically starts off discussing his dislikes of doomsday predictions, describing them as, "guessing, without meaningful evidence."

I could not agree more and find Alarmism, defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic" to fit this criteria.


2. He creates a meaningless analogy to chocolates that has nothing to do with science or AGW.

Science is based on the scientific method and reproducible results not analogies to boxes of chocolates.


3. He falsely implies that papers on the Popular Technology.net list have been rejected by the manufacturer, "...while others are from the reject bin."

None of the papers on the list have been rejected by the author(s) or the journal they were published in. Implying anything else would not fit into his analogy.


4. He falsely implies there is no purpose to the list, "...There is no meaningful expression in the assortment."

The purpose of the list is explicitly stated,

Purpose: To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;


5. He falsely claims that the list does not prove anything, "...Such a list does nothing to prove or disprove anything."

The list proves these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,

"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?" - John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate


6. He keeps repeating this strawman argument that the list is not a unified theory, "Itís just a random collection that supports no conclusions of any sort at all."

No claim is ever made that the list is a unified theory but rather a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism.


7. He presents a totally nonsensical and false description of the list, "...the list is nothing but a haphazard list of random science, social and economic articles that while together cannot form a sensible coherent alternative Ė indeed many of the papers even contradict each other Ė but rather forms an inconsistent catalogue of various reports to encourage various forms of AGW 'scepticism'."

He continues with his perpetual strawman argument about the list not being a unified theory which has been explained to him ad nauseum; no claim is ever made that the list is a unified theory but rather a bibliographic resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. Some papers on the list may be mutually exclusive but they cannot contradict each other because the list is not a unified theory, it is a resource. These are included because the list does not discriminate between competing independent theories. Collectivists are more likely to reject the existence of independent thought.


8. He falsely implies that I would surely agree with a totally nonsensical and false description of the list, "Iíve gone on to ask if Iím correct in stating that... [...] As you can see from his comment above, he surely must."

I would never agree with such nonsensical and false statements based on a strawman argument.


9. He falsely implies that the real purpose of the list is for "trolls" to use against alarmists, "...is little more than a random scattering of bricks that he has laid out so that the so-called AGW 'sceptics' can hurl them at us 'alarmists' or 'warmist' and has little to do with scientific reasoning and investigation. Itís just an easy go-to place for the busy troll to stop by, chose a paper and demand others in the blogosphere 'prove it wrong'."

This is absolute nonsense as the purpose of the list has nothing to do with this. If what he claimed was true then there would be no reason to categorize them. The fact that he feels compelled to create his own list demonstrates that he considers the Popular Technology.net list as a credible threat to his beliefs.


10. He hypocritically includes journals in his list not in the SCI, yet uses lack of a SCI listing to reject journals presented by skeptics,

"http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/anti-vaccination-vs-agw-denial/#comment-1266" - Mothincarnate

From his list,

- Seppšlš and Jokela (2010) - Biology Letters (Not SCI listed)
- Legras, Mestre, Bard and Yiou (2010) - Climate of the Past (Not SCI listed)
- Bosello, Roson and Tol (2007) - Environmental & Resource Economics (Not SCI listed)
- Rahmstorf, Archer, Ebel, Eugster, Jouzel, Maraun, Neu, Schmidt, Severinghaus, Weaver and Zachos (2004) - Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (Not SCI listed)
- Antilla (2010) - Public Understanding of Science (Not SCI listed)
- Feinberg and Willer (2010) - Psychological Science (Not SCI listed)
- Church, White, Aarup, Wilson, Woodworth, Domingues, Hunter, Lambeck (2008) - Sustainability Science (Not SCI listed)

SCI (Science Citation Index) is a for-profit, commercial product of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 3,700 peer-reviewed journals using a subjective inclusion process. There are thousands of peer-reviewed journals that are not included but are with competitors. Scopus indexes 17,000 peer-reviewed journals.


11. He endorses the practice of Internet stalking on his Blog by allowing a self-admitted Internet stalker to post there,

"Öcanít stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, youíll be followed." Ė Bud [Walt M.] other sockpuppet IPKA.

"Why should I care if he stalks you?" - Mothincarnate

Posted by: Andrew Mar 3 2011, 08:09 AM
Update: Mothincarnate is surprised that I do not accept his strawman arguments and false claims about the Popular Technology.net list,

"http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/250genuine-sciences-papers-supporting-confidence-in-the-agw-theory-and-relevant-environmental-concern/#comment-1551" - Mothincarnate

Who would accept strawman arguments and false claims about their work?

QUOTE
Poptech says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
March 5, 2011 at 11:03 am

"No Ė actually, Iím making a point about the results of good science compared to grabbing random papers that together obscure these results without providing a sensible alternative in their own right (except to make a pointless argument that such papers indeed exist)."

I still consider the analogy meaningless. I am not grabbing random papers and you just repeat your perpetual strawman about it not being unified theory. It is not a pointless argument that these papers exist as it is frequently claimed they do not.

"No I never make the claim that all have been rejected. You of all people should be aware that a number of them have been highly criticised Ė you also post some of the rebuttals. Thus some have failed or are no longer acceptable in light of newer evidence."

I never made any such claim either. Your implication does not fit your analogy because the rejected bin would only exist on the production line from the manufacturer. Thus this can only be implied to mean the author or journal publisher neither of which have rejected these papers. I have frequently admitted that some of them have been criticized but these criticisms have been rebutted. The existence of a criticism does not mean a paper has "failed" or is "no longer acceptable".

"No Ė I say the only purpose it to provide a resource and demonstrate that such papers indeed exist."

This is in relation to "...There is no meaningful expression in the assortment." and I changed it to falsely implies.

"No, it proves such papers exist, but it does not demonstrate any coherent conclusion at all"

That is not what is stated, "...Such a list does nothing to prove or disprove anything."

"you admit that it is not a unified theory."

Yes I have admitted you have stated this strawman argument many times.

"You do actually read what I write? I point out that you admit this Ė are you making a strawman argument about your own list? Bloody hell, this is stupid."

Yes you admit it but keep bringing up the same strawman anyway, "Itís just a random collection that supports no conclusions of any sort at all."

"You problem with semantics which Iíve explained."

Not at all I believe your description to be nonsensical and false.

"Not ďwouldĒ Ė I never stated that. But after explaining why Iíve come to my conclusions and suggestion that you ďshouldĒ (must) come to an equal conclusion. Itís my opinion, which by all rights Iím entitled to. You donít need to agree, but it doesnít change the fact that this quote is wrong."

I changed this to falsely implies.

"Again, this is a bitch about semantics. You say itís a resource for AGW ďscepticsĒ, I sat itís a resource for trolls."

It is more than that as it is patently false. The list was not created for this purpose regardless of the word used. Though yours is much more derogatory.

"Get over it Ė I at least state when they are not. You insist that the SCI list is irrelevant (you even finish this post by stating as much! lol) Ė you canít have it both ways. This is a more pathetic strawman Andrew. Itís not hypocritical that I include them and so far Iíve got less than 10 of close to 300 papers. I flag them so that readers can check the journals credentials for themselves Ė I donít blindly let them use references from journals willing to publish papers of an iron made sun! lol. Iím no longer making the point about your list and SCI listing (what is said in other comments is done and dusted)."

I did not deny that you flagged them but it certainly is hypocritical when you apply one standard to skeptic's journals and another to your list. Either SCI is a requirement or it is irrelevant, you cannot have it both ways. I have demonstrated it is irrelevant to whether a journal is peer-reviewed or not.

The paper you are referring to failed peer-review and could thus only be published as an opinion piece.

I accept your rejection of SCI as a requirement for a journal to be scientifically valid.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 4 2011, 08:41 PM
Update: Mothincarnate demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty by refusing to read a suggested book,

"I will not read grey literature on how broken climate science is as much as I won't read books on rune stones and herbal medicine." - Mothincarnate

The book I suggested was,

http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683 (BjÝrn Lomborg, 2001)

BjÝrn Lomborg is a credentialed scientist,

BjÝrn Lomborg, M.A. Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1991), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1994), Assistant Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1994-1996), Associate Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1997-2005), Director, Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI), Denmark (2002-2004), Organizer, Copenhagen Consensus (2004), Adjunct Professor of Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (2005-Present), Director, Copenhagen Consensus Center (2006-Present)

BjÝrn Lomborg has refuted all published criticisms of his work,

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/?PHPSESSID=ace292b38c1efb47b1e18184f7520a5c

Kare Fog - Lomborg Errors:
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/102-file/Reply_to_Skeptical_Questions.pdf (PDF) (11pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/39-file/GodhedensPris.pdf (PDF) (185pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)

Howard Friel - The Lomborg Deception:
- http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf (PDF) (27pgs) (BjÝrn Lomborg)

Posted by: Andrew Mar 10 2011, 08:07 PM
Update: Mothincarnate childishly created a YouTube video to personally attack me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t0wzsGwVCw (Video)

Ironically the video mentions these specific sites,

1. I forced the video's creator [http://'http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3990'] to completely retract his post of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments.

2. I so thoroughly discredited the "GWSH" (Global Warming Super Heroes) website [http://'http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/'] that it went off line.

3. I made Skeptical Science resort to http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-censorship-of-poptech.html' at their website when they realized they were getting their http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html'.

4. I never debated the list at http://'http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html' since it was never brought up there.

The video is some sort of deranged alternative universe of what happened, because I was never afraid to comment at those sites. He equates censoring my comments to me "retreating", pure hypocrisy and further confirms my theory that he is a child.

Update: He is now censoring comments from the video.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 10 2011, 08:31 PM
Update: Mothincarnate continues with his previous dishonest behavior of lying about someone being unable to respond to him when he originally censored the replies, then later moved them off the original thread in a sad attempt to make the commenter looked like he is being "punished" for bad behavior and when he now replies he does so in the text of your original message making it impossible to follow the conversation or even know that he did reply as you will not get an email from WordPress about it. It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion in this manner but these are the desperate tactics alarmists use when they cannot win arguments.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 15 2011, 06:21 PM
Update: I contacted Peter Ridley to get his side of the story since he is mentioned in Mothincarnate's posts,

QUOTE
I am not aware that I have ever expressed hate for Tim. We totally disagree on CACC and I don't have his devotion to preservation of species but we have a lot in common on other environmental issues. Despite our differences I respect him for having the courage of his convictions and not hiding behind a false name. I've done a search on my "Sceptics" folder for anything that I've posted about Tim and the main ones that I could find were comments on:

- Steve Fielding's blog, "Respectful, Constructive, Rational Debate" thread on 2010_08_30 when I simply said,

"... - Mothincarnate Ė ecologist Timothy Lubke"

- Climate Sceptics blog, "Watching the real deniers deny the science and the truth." thread on 2011_02_24 saying,

"... I've had numerous exchanges with Ti(Moth)y on his own "Mothincarnate" blog . He is an ecologist who simply refuses to budge one inch from his faith in the CACC doctrine. He is sincere but misled and simply accepts the IPCC propaganda about our continuing use of fossil fuels leading to catastrophic changes to the different global climates without being inclined to do his own research .. I hope that you can use this in your exchanges with .. Ti(Moth)y .. "

- Climate Sceptics blog, "Watching the real deniers deny the science and the truth." thread on 2011_02_25 saying,

".. Mike .. has teamed up with Timothy Lubcke (a blinkered young ecologist who uses the false name Mothincarnate) and Megan Evans .. They have started a new thread "Generation [A]daptation: the new collaborative blog wants you" ...they do not understand climate science so they cannot debate it.  They believe that that reading about 6 months of weather events is the same thing as understanding what causes climate change so in their ignorance they propose to run around like headless chickens squarking "catastrophe, catastrophe, the end of the world is nigh". What misguided young nitwits. All three refuse to open their minds to the possibility that the UNís Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate ChangeĒ message is purely speculative. It seems to me that they are simply using it to promote their environmentalist ambitions. It is noticeable that both Tim and Megan have the courage of their convictions (although misguided on the effect of our use of fossil fuels on global climates) and make no effort to hide behind false names, .. Tim is advertising this new blog on his Mothincarnate site .." - Just Grounds Community message Geoff Brown on 2011_02_24 saying " ..I've had numerous exchanges with Ti(Moth)y on his own "Mothincarnate" blog. He is an ecologist who simply refuses to budge one inch from his faith in the CACC doctrine. He is sincere but misled."

I can't see any hate in that lot, just a mix of disdain and respect.

If anyone wishes to consider me a stalker because I use information that they have willingly placed on the Internet then that is their choice. To me, stalking requires malicious intent and I have none against anyone that I track down, simply a desire to know who is hurling insults from behind the cover of a false name

Tim and I have had numerous exchanges so I would need to know what specifically Tim is objecting to before being able to comment further. I have been impersonated on more than one occasion so perhaps it has happened again.

Best regards, Pete.

Posted by: Andrew Mar 29 2011, 03:47 PM
Update: I contacted Adam Jayne to get his side of the story since he is mentioned in Mothincarnate's posts as well,

QUOTE
Me and Mothincarnate had met previously on another warmist website. We had a brief exchange there, including a time when I pointed out several flaws in one of his articles. I commented on one of his articles a couple of months later, because I found one of his articles disgraceful. He compared AGW skeptics to people who were against vaccinations. In my comments I gave him the populartechnology.net list of peer reviewed papers supporting scepticism of man made global warming alarm. He didnít look at it; he just dismissed it for no reason. I tried making him actually consider it, but in his replies all he did was repeat claims based on faith alone (e.g. that the list was just 'cherrypicked', that all the papers came from E&E, that the list didnít mean anything, etc).

Mothincarnate had made no credible argument against the list, and he made no attempt at actually consider any of the papers provided. In his mind, the list was wrong, and that was that. Because of this, I just wrote a comment stating "Mothincarnate, if you are so sure that the list is 'silly' and 'full of crap' why donít you go and do a point by a point refutation of every single one of the 850 papers on the list.".† Now, I have tried to explain to him that I didnít literally mean for him to do exactly what I said; just that he should make an actual valid argument instead of just repeating mindless claims. But Mothincarnate made such a big deal out of that comment. In most of his articles and comments about me he constantly referred to my comment, and emphasised it, claiming that Iíd given him an impossible challenge, and that I was so unreasonable and stupid, etc. In his original post announcing his list of Pro-AGW papers he said that

"Recently, a troll by the name of 'Adam' made some insane demands (that I debunk Poptech's list of 800+ papers or admit that AGW and the well understood greenhouse gas properties of CO2 are scientifically weak and myself to be an unsceptical devotee of the AGW faith).", which is entirely false. I never said that. He then just repeated my comments out of context, and then just used it to support his position; that 'neither lists mean anything'. He kept making out as if it was some major challenge that I made, and that I actually intended him to what I said, which I explained to him wasnít true. I mean it was just one brief comment. And I admit, that I really should have worded it better, but I never expected him to take it so seriously.

In the first article I commented on, Mothincarnate asked me how it was possible for the feed-backs for CO2 to be negative, and for the sun-climate linking to be positive. Which was fair enough. I answered with several detailed comments, in which I explained to him that warming caused by changes in the sun, and changes in CO2, were not the same, so therefore the feed-backs towards each of them would not have the same effect for each of the. I explained to him that a lot of data showed that the sunís effect on the climate could be amplified by shielding the Earth from cosmic rays, which would then reduce cloud cover and warm the Earth. The solar/cosmic effect on the climate is entirely different from the way CO2 effects climate. That clouds were not just feed-backs. For the sun, changes in cloud cover could be the driving force behind itís role in climate change, but for CO2 clouds were just feed-backs, and that the feed-backs were most likely to be negative.† I provided Mothincarnate a peer reviewed paper supporting what I was saying. The paper (Shaviv and Veizer, 2003) showed that throughout the past 600 million years, the temperature showed a much better link to changes in the cosmic ray flux (hence supporting the argument that cosmic rays are indeed the positive amplifier of the sunís effect on the climate) and that there was absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature (therefore supporting the argument, that CO2ís effect was minor, so therefore the feed-backs for it are negative).

Now several times Mothincarnate has written these long passionate comments, saying that he cares about science, that he considers himself a proper environmental scientist, and all that. So if what Moth said in his comments was true, he should have answered all of the points that I brought up.

But he didnít answer me. He just deleted all the comments that I wrote.

I asked him why he didnít answer the points that I raised; and then he just started rambling and saying that all my papers were 'cherry-picked' and just 'fringe science'.

Mothincarnate did not and still hasnít answered any of the points that I raised. In another post I repeated them again, but once again he deleted it. I even gave him a link to a documentary explaining an alternate theory to AGW, but he just ignored me.

In my comments I gave him links to papers by a solar physicist called Nicola Scafetta. Moth kept claiming that I was "obsessed with Scafetta". I am not obsessed with Scafetta. I admire him and think he has a brilliant mind, but I am not 'obsessed' with him. The only reason I kept bringing up his papers was because each time I did, Moth failed to answer them. Also, if people really read our comments closely theyíll see that it was actually Mothincarnate who brought up Scafetta first and not me.

He then wrote another long comment, explaining that he "cared about science", and had worked hard for his career as an environmental scientist, and that he genuinely believe the science supported AGW, and stuff like that. I read his comment, and I thought that there may be a possibility that he might actually be genuine when heís talking about himself and all that, so I thought that if he meant what he said there was the possibility that me and him could actually have a proper scientific debate.

I then wrote a very long comment inviting him to a proper simple scientific debate. I explained to him that I had looked at the science and had become a skeptic, but I understood that he had also looked at the science and come to a conclusion that AGW was valid. I said that we should respect each other's views on the issue and not insult them because of it. I offered to start over again, and just have a simple proper debate.

Mothincarnate couldnít even be bothered to reply. He just deleted my comment.

After that I felt pretty insulted, so I emailed him and he replied and then we started an email exchange. I tried to be reasonable with him in my emails. I answered every single point that he made. But Mothincarnate avoided all of the points that I made, just kept simply ranting. He was rude, made ad hominen, and nonsensical claims about skeptics being under the pay of big oil. In the end I just got fed up with him, and stopped trying to reason with him since I knew it wasn't working. In his articles Moth claimed my emails were 'vial' and 'vulgar and insulting', yet anybody who actually read my emails would know that wasnít true.

Mothincarnate has now banned me from his blog, but sometimes lets my post through if I use a pseudonym. In his comments and articles he constantly insults me, calling me a 'troll', claiming that I've 'stalked him', and that Iím 'really annoying'. Yet like Pete, I have not expressed any personal hatred towards him.

Another thing, which I found odd was on his blog he states "I don't understand how someone can hold so much hatred for SkS's John Cook and continually use Jo Nova as a reasonable link.". Firstly, I do not 'hate' John Cook; what I merely stated was that his website Skeptical Science was not a reliable source of information. Secondly, itís strange that he claims that I have constantly given links to Jo Nova. This is wrong. In all my comments on his blog, I have not once given a link to Jo Nova's blog. I copied an image from her website, but that was about it.

Mothincarnate simply censors comments that he knows he cannot answer, and then just writes articles claiming that he is the victim. I commented on a recent article of his under a pseudonym. He then gave me links to two papers, which he claimed refuted another paper I gave him. I read both of them, and simply pointed out to him that neither paper did anything to refute one of the previous papers I gave him, or show how the data used was wrong. In both of his papers all they did as just repeat the same argument that they did in their original paper, which was still flawed, and still very questionable. He also repeated one of his long emotional comments again; he even claimed that he welcomed critiques. I responded with a copied long comment, explaining why CO2 was not the primary driver of climate changes over the past 800,000 years, and therefore no reason to believe CO2 was driving the current climate change. Mothincarnate deleted both of these comments.

To put it simply: Mothincarnate lives in a world of his own. He believes that he is on the 'right side', but cannot face answering questions. As shown by his comments with Andrew he just acts completely childish. He moves comments to his 'punishment corner' and like with Andrew, makes stupid cartoons insulting them. Moth even acted surprised that Andrew was insulted by the video, but I pointed out to Moth that, as Moth knew full well, the only reason he created that video in the first place was to insult Andrew, so he is being very hypocritical acting surprised that Andrew is insulted.

Moth also strongly hates both Joanne Nova and Donna Laframboise. He writes numerous articles about them, insulting them and ranting about them. In her emails to me Donna Laframboise wrote:

"I see no benefit in responding to people who won't even identify themselves by their real names on their blog. Either one has the courage of one's convictions or not. In the latter case, there seems to be little point wasting energy on such individuals.

I've looked around Mothincarnate's articles a bit and I can't say I'm impressed by Mothincarnate's ability to reason. He thinks what he thinks. I hold views of my own. May the best arguments win in the court of public opinion."

Mothincarnate not only lies, but he is also a hypocrite. There is a huge difference between what he says in his comments (his more emotional ones), and what he actually does in real life. Many times I have explained to Mothincarnate why AGW is invalid, but every time he avoids all of the points I have raised. I repeatedly ask him to show where the arguments I presented him were flawed, but he keeps ignoring me.

The main points I said to him were:

* That for the past 600 million years, the climate showed a much better link and correlation to changes in cosmic rays.

* That there was absolutely no correlation with CO2 throughout the past 600 million years, so therefore the effect of CO2 is most likely to be weak. (I.e. that if CO2 was a dominant driver there should have been a correlation, but there wasnít).

* That for the past 10,000 years there was absolutely no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and temperature. That CO2 increased significantly, yet temperature dropped by four degrees Celsius.

* That tropospheric temperature over the past 30 years shows a perfect correlation with cosmic rays, and therefore no reason to believe that climate change is anthropogenic.

* That for the past 800,000 years CO2 always lagged the temperature change by 800 years. I explained to Mothincarnate how the argument that CO2 amplified the temperature change was invalid.

He did not answer any of these arguments, and still hasn't answered any of them. He just kept ignoring me or avoiding the question. I think the fact that he hasnít answered tells me something about his character; and that he thinks of AGW more than just a scientific theory.

And if Mothincarnate is reading this now, once again I will offer him a chance to answer the points that I raised. That if he considers himself a proper scientist, then this is what he should do. If he doesn't answer them, then this will just show that he can't answer them. If he just carries on on his blog, then it will tell us about the sort of person Mothincarnate is.

Here I have summarized what has happened between me and Mothincarnate. If Moth denies anything I have pointed out, then maybe he should actually say what it is. He may just carry on ranting about me on his blog.

To summarize, Mothincarnate is dishonest and childish. He deletes my comments and avoids the points that I make. He rants and insults people. He makes things up. He doesnít care about anything that disagrees with him, and he is not rational. He has strong hatred for people who disagree with him. And Moth will not consider anything that goes against his world view.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)