The Deranged Moth

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.


18 thoughts on “The Deranged Moth

  1. Yes, but only because you continue to engage with skeptics! That said, having people on the side of science who are deranged enough to continue offering rational criticism and explanation and still post good new blogs about positive things is definitely a plus.


  2. Moth,

    I think you need reminding of the old saying, “Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience”. Poptech has been banned from many places with good reason.


    1. lol – thanks for the reminder! The funny thing is, I’ve corrected where he took offence (and I agreed that I had been presumptuous), linked to his comment where I felt I was right, thereby leaving it up to the reader to make up their mind and explicitly outlined by problems with him. You know what he did – the old side step. Now it’s the messages I deleted that he informs me were filled with the pearls of wisdom I’ve chosen to ignore.. On a small scale, it’s not unlike Monckton’s tantrums.
      But I had a good laugh when I found out he thinks I’m deranged! lol – that’s what you get for actually taking the time in achieving tertiary qualifications in environmental science rather than “personal research”. C’est la vie.


      1. Incorrect you have not corrected any of my complaints where I took offense. You made flat out untrue statements about my position. Linking to the quote does not excuse this behavior.

        1. You lied that ‘Adam’ “recruited” me to comment on your blog.

        2. You lied that I considered a social science paper (Free speech about climate change) the same as a natural science paper.

        3. You lied that I was ignoring “scientific evidence” and simply demanding the right to be unconvinced.

        4. You lied that I believe any scientist who expressed confidence in AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.

        5. You falsely implied I presented you two books as a peer-reviewed scientific argument.


        This are egregious lies that you have failed to correct and I will make sure that anywhere they appear they are exposed as the dishonesty they represent.


      2. See, this is exactly why I’ve given up the stupid merry-go-round with you – neither of us get anything but a little older.
        1. I corrected this; grow up! I explained that you suddenly appeared after I first mentioned you for the first time. As Adam’s a fan of yours, I naturally suspected him to have recruited you. You said he didn’t, so I left is an open suggestion for your sudden appearance..
        2. “You lied that I considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” – man you have problems! I didn’t, you did yourself >>>> YOUR TITLE = “850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm” which includes “Free speech about climate change (Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)- Christopher Monckton” Either YOU “considered a social science paper the same as a natural science paper” or you admit not all your papers are relevant scientific literature!!!!
        3. NO! You warp scientific understanding… haven’t I made that clear on the list post?!?!?!?
        4. NO – you told me that those scientist that criticise this AGW “scepticism” and effectively those most common in scientific communication on AGW represent such a group.
        5. NO! I said that you expect me to learn something from grey literature that I’m missing from the scientific process – YOU’RE the one mixing things up and warping what others are saying.
        etc = BS
        I corrected 1, as it was a presumption that I didn’t make clear, otherwise you’ve warped my words for the rest and yet again, wasted my time….


      3. Your continue to represent complete dishonesty so this will all be copied to my site for the record.

        1. No you have not corrected this, it still explicitly says, “When I pointed out as much and the pointlessness of Poptech’s list, he seemed to have recruited Poptech’s own Andrew for support“. I’ve already explained to you multiple times that I was never recruited. If someone asks me to comment on something I will admit they did. I am the last person that cares if someone asks me to come comment on something or if anyone knows about it. It is not an open suggestion, it is a false claim. The irrefutable fact is he never did and you have not corrected this.

        2. The title is …”AGW Alarm” defined on the list as, “relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” That paper appears in the socio-economic section. I have never made a claim anywhere that the list only includes natural science papers rather that they are all peer-reviewed. What is considered “relevant” is subjective. Socio-economic papers are an important part of the debate otherwise there would not be a WGII and WGIII section of the IPCC report. Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report “relevant scientific literature”?

        3. I am well aware of many of your papers on your list. The only thing you have made clear is your intent to misrepresent my position by lying about it. As I stated before I do not consider the scientific evidence you have presented as convincing to support AGW Alarm. That is not ignoring it, that is finding it not convincing. Now you are accusing me of a new lie, that I “warp scientific understanding”.

        4. Quote me because I stated no such thing. Are you even capable of following conversations you have on your own blog? You stated, “Apparently (as Poptech/Andrew informed me) it does and the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.” Your statement clearly implies that I believe any scientist who believes AGW theory represent a small group of sheltered alarmists. I never stated anything like this at all, my comments were in direct response to your use of websites like and the late Dr. Schneider’s personal website.

        5. I made no claim that any book was equivalent to any scientific process. I suggested you read two books which BTW reference the scientific literature because they present some of the skeptic’s arguments in a very readable narrative.

        I haven’t warped anything, I’ve quoted you EXACTLY, you have failed to quote me in context for any of your lies. Keep it up as I will keep a record of your dishonesty and show it everytime your site is brought up in reference to mine.


      4. Geez, did you choose that pink horse or the cart? I’m so over circular discussions.
        1. I’ve simplified it even further – why does it matter so much anyway?
        2. Basically you’re list isn’t focused necessarily on the science behind the AGW theory then. Thank you for the clarification (thus Adam’s demand is pointless)
        3. Get over it – aren’t you calling me deranged, fixated on Monckton and like a scared child? Don’t you think you’re the pot calling the kettle black?
        4. What do you think of the majority of the scientific community, literature and scientific bodies that concur with the high confidence in the AGW theory then?
        5. You’ve warped this entirely – reread what I actually wrote. I said you’ve done your “personal research” and suggested I read those books – what’s your hang up on this?
        Yes, you have warped what I’ve wrote and also demonstrated hypocrisy. Please, just move on and bitch about me on your thread 🙂


      5. 1. There is nothing magic about knowing how to use the Internet efficiently. It matters because it was not true.

        [So you admit your that narcissistic that you regularly google yourself to see if anyone’s talking about you? I’d have stayed with the claim Adam recruited me if that’s the case]

        2. You still have not corrected this blatantly false statement, “How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who considers Monckton’s article on free speech on climate change in the same league as say an independent study in PNAS which returns the same conclusions as previous studies in like scientific journals?“. Whatever strawman argument you have created about my list is irrelevant to the truth. No where have I stated that my list only includes natural science papers and nowhere did I confuse any natural science papers with social science papers. You failed to answer the question, “Do you consider the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report ‘relevant scientific literature’?”


        Adam already clarified his “demands”,

        I didn’t mean for mothincarnate to do exactly what I was saying. I was just trying to say that he should actually provide evidence for his claims and actually try and have a valid argument against the list. He has not shown anything wrong with it at all.” – Adam

        [so it’s effectively a null point – prove the list is crap (ie. Greenfryre, GWSH, SkS, my own mentioning that it represents a fragmented, haphazard scattering of opinions and random papers, many of which contradict each other: all of which you feel, Andrew, that you have thoroughly “debunked”) – but don’t really bother to do so…?]

        3. Get over you misrepresenting my position? “How does demanding that one has the right to say they’re unconvinced by the science behind AGW counter scientific evidence to the contrary?” I never made any such argument.


        My comments (deranged ect…) were in direct response to your behavior when I attempted to get you to correct blatantly false statements made by you about me.

        [Again, you originally jumped on to my space complaining that I referred to you as a loon – seems a little hypocritical, don’t you think? Especially as I’ve fixed these statements]

        4. That has nothing to do with what I stated and what you falsely presented. I have never stated that “the scientists who express confidence in the AGW theory simply represent a small group of sheltered alarmists.” This is a blatant lie. What I stated was, “The sites you listed are either environmental activist sites or alarmist scientists which do not represent the mainstream scientific community. They represent an insulated group of activist scientists who push AGW alarmism.

        [So what do you think of, say, the scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports? How about the scientists listed above? Either their work (my list doesn’t support contradictory ideas, so we can conclude that the work above all helps construct our wall of scientific understanding) is part of your “alarmist” group.. or, what?]

        5. That is not what you said, “He also informed me his ‘personal research’ has lead to his conviction and suggested I read the questionable grey literature;“. By calling it ‘grey literature’ you are implying I was presenting it as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed science paper. I made no such claim all I asked was that you to read two books. You continued this false implication at the end of your post, “apart from this list above providing a good resource for those who actually wish to learn about the subject from respected journals as opposed to questionable journals, grey literature…“.

        [I thought I clarified this?!?! Well, just in case it still wasn’t clear enough, I’ve made it bleeding obvious]


  3. Just wondering but does anyone other than Andrew ever comment on his blog? I admit I’ve only skimmed through a few threads in his ‘The Sciences’ section but there’s only so much time I’m willing to waste.


    1. I’m not sure, but he’s certainly put in the effort to provide “his side” of our discussions.

      It’s amazing to see how he sees me! I’ve often said that if ‘climate’ wasn’t such a heated political debate, I doubt many of these characters and myself would have such a problem with each other. It’s clear that nothing I could possible say would alter Andrew’s perception of me – just like his perception of Monckton, The Heartland Institute, Fraser Institute, The Marshall Institute and that most climate scientists, who actually back the confidence in the evidence of the reality of AGW aren’t simply ‘alarmists’. All I can say is, C’est la vie. Ultimately all we can do is stand up for the evidence, lead the way with action (ie. Gen[A]) and hope the change follows – such dregs won’t change, but will be dragged along to an increasingly sustainable future. 🙂


  4. Poptech you really need to get outside more geez , you like me and alot of other people are really not that important , you are only a computer analyst who probably works for Blizzard analysing Horde/Alliance populations in World of Warcraft . WoW !!
    No one and I mean no one apart from you really cares if your good name is besmirched , ooh apart from Adam and for all we know your Adam as well or is Andrew Adam ? oh who cares really . Meh
    PS Lava Lamps are cool get one it will help you chill out 😉


  5. I think a measure of pity is involved here. Just think of those poor deluded old Japanese guys, hiding in the jungle, still thinking they were fighting the enemy 30+ years after the war was over.

    Once they were discovered and repatriated, how bewildered and disappointed they must have been. They’d devoted their lives to fighting a lost war.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s