The Adventures of Poptech – The movie!

Here’s a side project I’ve tinkered together over the past few day. All I can say is some people sufficiently annoy my enough to inspire random acts of, how should I put it… derangement. lol


BTW, to Andrew and fans; I won’t be entertaining any of your nonsense regarding what is little more than a practical joke. In his infinite wisdom, I encourage Andrew to “debunk” this moment of humour all he wants on one of his own threads. I don’t care to hear any of it any further. Cheers.


16 thoughts on “The Adventures of Poptech – The movie!

    1. Cheers mate! All I can say it that his running back to his own site to build up the story as he sees it, before backing it down leads me to this obvious conclusion! hehe.. Cartman – did you see that episode that he was addicted to a compute game? Certainly an inspiration I must admit. 😉


  1. Who were the 4 knights you were alluding to from the land of reason? Something about global warming I’m guessing? In anycase – well played Moth, I approve! :p


    1. Yeah, it’s probably my of an ‘in-house joke’ in replying to Poptech’s list. GWSH = The Global Warming Super Heroes (which seems to have gone offline – another win to loud and annoying trolls). SkS = Skeptical Science’s reply. GF = Greenfyre’s reply. MI = my reply. All of which Andrew thinks he has vanquished, leaving the only natural reply of throwing an interesting expression and a big thumbs-up to Andrew while ripping out Boston’s ‘More than a feeling’. lolIn short, no-one with any scientific training or serious understanding of science in general would find his list a compelling case in it’s own right. It’s just a patchwork assortment, as opposed to the wall of scientific understanding (ie. forced together in the former case, mutually supportive in the latter), but Andrew of course (and his fans) FAIL massively on this point. On another thread, Andrew even went as far as providing an unsubstantiated claim that, “I have been personally contacted by many scientists with extensive credentials who find the list incredibly valuable.
      I’ve asked for him to provide evidence, to which I got the response… Nothing. Funny how the same people who loudly state that they’re unconvinced demonstrate such open disregard for evidence anyway (thus why this AGW “debate” is not a reasonable debate at all in my opinion).


      1. Of the 4 sites. I think I can take credit for chasing him off 3. I’ll admit too, I didn’t even need to provide any scientific evidence, because a denier doesn’t want them. I know the questions to pose a denier that’ll force him to admit his dishonesty, or run away in shame.

        Good call on asking him to provide evidence of being contacted by credentialed scientists. Hey, give him a break, he said “they find it incredibly valuable” he didn’t say “for what purpose” I bet it’s science teachers in college classrooms using it as an example of poor research, propaganda, spam and denial.

        I know this because very often, school teachers show Holocaust denial websites in their material as “examples of poor credibility”.
        Here’s examples


      2. It’s not the first time. He kept telling me what his list was about, so I sort out clarification – to which he continued to ignore. Once I decided to stop waiting for his response and simply run with my interpretation, he had to respond… what with? “It’s a smear!”
        Potholer has given us the most effective way of dealing with such people. On my quotes page, Stephen provided some excellent quotes, my favourite being, “The scientist is… disposed to regard his opponent as an honorable enemy. This attitude is necessary for his effectiveness as a scientist, but tends to make him the dupe of unprincipled people in war and politics.” -Norbert Wiener
        This is exactly why I get stuck in circular conversations with people like Andrew and when I grow sick of it, they claim a victory. It’s like, as Diethelm and McKee’s denial piece of 2009 explains; scientific debate can only work if both sides adhere to certain rules and if one doesn’t they tend to win the argument unfairly – hence why the loudest reason deniers are generally not expert on the field at question, why they are elevated to levels they don’t deserve (ie. “honourable enemies”) and why they seem to win.
        Potholer has provided the antidote to this. Rather than countering the reason denier’s argument, demand their sources, question their reasoning; break down their argument until they expose their ignorance. Arguably Andrew does that at any given moment he puts finger to keyboard. As I stated to Matt – I’m intrigued how the often “unconvinced” people are willing to make claims that they can’t back up – it’s hypocrisy in its rawest form.
        Of course, Andrew, in his usual style, might decide to claim that he doesn’t have to divulge his “experts” – that they may not wish to be known… We know what to think of such a dirty little trick however. lol


  2. Moth, I couldn’t agree more.

    That’s why I don’t rest with Andrew, and he’s run off, I guess that means I can claim victory while he accuses me of being a smearer, stalker, liar. Deniers love crying “credentialism” “free speech” but when your source isn’t as “unbiased” as his , he’ll say “it’s not perfectly unbiased” without actually addressing the points you’re making, they do that because they can’t ACTUALLY DENY OR REFUTE the facts, they can only complain its not presented in a fair way by a fair person.


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