Well, it seems that to follow Andrew (aka ‘Poptech’) and produce a like list of science papers leads to be labelled “deranged” (see Andrew’s mild-threat here). For the record, he thinks I’ve taken him out of context in the introduction and conclusion of my own list and if it interests you, please feel free to read them and compare them to my series of exchanges with Andrew on this post and this. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not I’ve taken him out of context, simply paraphrase or if I’m blatantly deranged.
For me, I try to base my reasoning on the scientific evidence. I don’t enjoy all this public debate nonsense over the AGW theory because it’s much more political and for the most part a war of papers rather than a reason-fuelled debate. “Adam” demanded I debunk Poptech’s list or accept that I’m not scientifically sceptical. I took great offence to this; after the effort I’ve applied to be where I am today, the vile misspelt insults I endured from Adam was beyond the joke. I tried to explain as much to Andrew, but he felt Adam had a point.
Hence my list.
Science is not a random collection of papers (as either list can be seen to be – in Andrew’s case, many of the papers contradict each other not unlike the teaching of the bible), it’s the result of research and review. Those that stand up to criticism build on our wall of scientific understanding, those that don’t, don’t. Beyond the pointlessness of either list, I’d also argue that many of Andrew’s papers are not really part of our wall of scientific understanding – some didn’t make the cut, others are simply irrelevant and others provide a cherry picked perception, where the paper finds fault in previous work (thus appearing to discredit the AGW theory) but lead us to greater confidence following this (models and sensitivity would be good examples of this). If you read our exchange, you’ll see that I’ve tried to explain this to no avail.
At least I can provide top-notch science literature for my readers as a counter-weight while also keeping up-to-date with the latest research!
Anyway, I wish you all a good weekend!
– One deranged Moth
Update: Apparently as well as being deranged, I’m like a scare child who places his fingers in his ears instead of facing the fact that there’s not Santa.. lol.. If after more than a century of investigation, the fundamental properties of the sleigh and reindeer processes were well understood and demonstrated in high school class rooms, the physical properties required for such a monumental effort of one-night-global-transfer were mathematically demonstrated and modelled with high confidence and if after more and 3 decades and billions of dollars, other possibilities, such as sneaky parents, the Easter bunny or spontaneous gift creation etc, where eliminated… oh and Santa himself came out into the public eye and went under appropriate investigation to conclude that it is very likely that he is in fact himself (although impossible to be labelled as a fact), I would certainly not go to such efforts to ignore all the above evidence to conclude Santa beyond all reasonable doubt (at the obvious benefit of promoting excess consumerism). I encourage anyone at all interested to visit Poptech’s rebuttal and make up their own mind. Personally, I don’t know if I should be flattered or a little concerned by the amount of effort this man’s putting into this venture…
Either way, I’ve come to the conclusion there is no point trying to reason with such people. They’ll only dig the rabbit hole deeper and pray your stupid enough to consume the questionable substance labelled “Eat me”. Thus, let’s move on – we have a wonderful growing resource and the loons at the gate, full of venom and unreasonable doubt.