Andrew Banned: An Example of Needless Intimidation and Random Hate

“If you want people to alter their perception of you, don’t make false statements about them and then prevent them from defending themselves.”

Just one of the many comments that should rightfully come back to bite Andrew (aka Poptech) in the arse. This is largely due to his moving from complaining over my censoring of his comments (moving his comments to an age/sanity appropriate page so that they do not infringe on more stimulating and interesting conversations about all things non-Andrew related) to complaining that I don’t censor the comments of another that he has taken offence to elsewhere.

I’ve tried to be accommodating; every one of Andrew’s complaints, I read and responded to – either by retraction (where it could have been interoperated as a personal attack) or stipulating otherwise (generally reminding him that I’ve made it clear that it is my personal view and I leave it up to my readers to agree or disagree on their own). I’ve tried to be reasonable; including being thoughtful as previously discussed, I’ve also tried to defuse his rage by asking him to take a step back and calmly reflect. Up until our very last interactions he proved that (arguably to maintain his mindless anger) he was holding onto previously retracted statements (he should’ve just let my passing comment to another that I thought he was a loon – when he suddenly made his appearance on this blog – than go to such lengths to demonstrate it) and other comments kept elsewhere to which I now have no control. As I had stated to him on a number of occasions, it seems that he was angry for anger’s sake and was determined to remain angry.

Much of this followed the appearance of another commenter, Ipka. Ipka has made it clear that he disagrees with Andrew and is focused on debating the point with him. Andrew’s reply largely focused around the belief that Ipka was unreasonable, preferring personal attacks and therefore not worth conversing with (coming from the individual who attempted to bait me with terms, such as “deranged”, “childish”, “intellectually dishonest”  etc – go figure). He also claimed Ipka was stalker whom I should put in the same league as Pete Ridley (coming from the person who stated, “It is not a good idea to censor me, Rebuttal to the Deranged Mothincarnate. Any time your list shows up so with my post.” assuming that it was meant to read, ‘so will my post’, I can argue that he planned to stick to my work like a bad smell).

I tried to remind him that until such time Ipka intentionally exposes personal information on another commenter, became abusive in language or threatened another commenter, I had no reason to censor him (indeed until his appearance Andrew seemed to demand free speech). Andrew followed with this comment;

“…Oh yes and if I ever met anyone that stalked me I would personally knock them the fuck out. Lets really man up and have him give me his name and address but he will not because he is a scared little bitch who thinks I am bluffing as he continues to post from his parents basement.

Oh and you can quote me on all of this.”

Smelling the hypocrisy yet? I had asked him to ‘man up’, but clarified; [t]his is far from what I would suggest by “man up” – more the adolescent thuggery behaviour most of us civilised individuals left in the playground – so again, grow up. And such behaviour is exactly what I was referring to in Intimidation: The Fail Safe Reply to Climate Science.

Indeed it is exactly the problem I addressed in that post. Being a geek my whole life, I had been at the receiving end of such thuggery for much of my childhood and have come to expect better in my adult years. That grown men think that it’s okay to physically threaten others with whom they disagree with is frightening and has nothing to do with scientific understanding – so much so it’s by far one of the worst pre-enlightenment behaviours which should be openly discouraged as deplorable. Again, as I stated in that post, in retrospect I’m a little concerned that I was so open about my true identity when there are obviously such sick individuals as Pete and Andrew (and as warped as Elsa) among the blogosphere. I care greatly about innovation, development, sustainability and equality, but do I really want to risk having one of these individuals sneak up on me when I’m out shopping with my fiancée? It makes me feel sick just thinking about any one of them knowing who she is.

That was strike two (and apparently I’m unreasonable), which Andrew followed with,

“Since I am obviously not getting through to you, I will now be contacting Peter Ridley as he has not done anything to me and whatever your problem with him is not of my concern.

Updates coming soon…”

So now it’s not just a few unrelated individuals whom have made it clear that they dislike me and go to great lengths to avoid reality to maintain such hatred, Andrew plans for them to gang-up (he’s also “threatened” to give Adam room to vent hatred about me). Clearly in such an angry echo chamber, nothing but heightened and purely needless anger regarding myself will fester. No longer would I have such sick and isolated individuals to occasionally annoy but now committed hate – and one that has the potential to inspire the same in readers whom have otherwise had absolutely nothing to do with me.

Of course, that was strike three.

The sad this is that it has nothing to do with the science any more either. I don’t care what any of them have to say regarding the science – I’m quoting the available literature and if convincing evidence came to light that radically altered our our understanding of climate change, ocean acidification, peaking oil, biodiversity loss etc, I would be the first to step down from this point; but this hasn’t happened and none of them have been able to convince me otherwise. In the post about intimidation, I mentioned the chance find where I caught Pete writing me off to like-minded individuals.Coupling this with the enraged writings of Andrew, I can’t help but ask myself if I really need all this.

I have tried to be reasonable and addressed Andrew’s concerns from the beginning, but clearly there was nothing I could do, but for laying down my reasoning and accepting whatever he states to be true. Seeing as I refuse to do a such, he’s planning to assemble a party of hate. As much as he would like me to believe, “This is not a personal problem with you” it’s hard not to see such behaviour as escalating intimidation; one that I’m basically powerless to avoid.

Such people obviously have no concern for reason or civilised debate – only insults and threats. They are sure of themselves, their contrarian backgrounds and personal research and what I stand for (whatever it is – for I’m sure they see what they would like to see) is something they detest (potentially placing a mask over whatever faceless frustration they house). All I can hope for is that a drove don’t follow them down that rabbit hole of hate.


25 thoughts on “Andrew Banned: An Example of Needless Intimidation and Random Hate

  1. He showed his true self when he called you deranged to then be offended that you critique his list AND had the hide to steal his idea and come up with your own list ….well . At no time did he argue that papers on your list where wrong /refute by others it was all about how you had wronged him personally .

    If why cant people accept that sometimes their wrong ? hmmm he’s probaly saying the same thing about you


    1. As far as he’s concerned, I’m a childish liar out to slur him. It doesn’t matter that I’ve tried to meet him have way or that I’ve actually not resorted to name calling (I said he was more of a loon than Adam in a comment – which his “efficient” means made him discover my blog – which I removed and yet he continued to complain about). Everything he said was hypocritical of his own actions – I’m certain he never really looked at our conversation, my site or the relevant posts for what they are – it was all about being angry at me and he needed to continue it for as long as he could (he always jumped, for indignant point to indignant point; so much that he was never satisfied).
      I was sick of accommodating his stupidity, that’s why I changed the intro to the list, but then it was something else, then something else – ultimately it ended with his indignant noise referring to my refusing to unfairly censoring Ikpa and a comment I posted elsewhere and thus couldn’t do anything about. He had no interest in clarity, only in the fight. It’s such an unhealthy behaviour to harbour.


    1. Indeed… The terrible trap for me that many of these boneheads accuse me of being unable to defend myself and that’s why I delete their comments. I used Andrew as a case study – attempting to reasonably replying to his concerns, publishing each of his comments… etc, but, as he (and Adam) prove even on this comment thread (creating new ID’s! – getting into Elsa territory) – I’m still a liar and an idiot. There’s no point with such people and they will only serve as my example as to why I won’t tolerate such nonsense any further.


    1. Cheers for the example of how pathetic you are. Honestly Adam, you have little to say but that you have read a couple papers (I’ve noticed you’re no longer singing Scafetta’s note) and just how little to you think of me… Now, why would I entertain such silliness (is this your third pseudonym? Pretty sad).
      This pseudonym is now also blocked.


      1. Sigh…

        Still censoring all inconvenient comments I see.

        [Another example, for my readers, of the tactics utilised by such people. Of course, I want more than anything for clarity and understanding and by challenging me – by baiting me with claims that I wish to sensor the truth – I feel an overwhelming urge to allow this comment through (even though Adam has proven time and time again to cherry pick his information and resort to insults when I fail to “see the light” therefore leading my to ban his comments) which, as we saw with Andrew, just leads to a circular conversation that would lead nowhere. He has, in another comment I will not allow through, also challenged me, by claiming, “In my emails I tried to be reasonable, yet you avoided all of my points…” – which all occurred after I had told him I’d had enough of his few cosmic ray papers, insults and delusions of grandeur. You cannot reason with such people, for clearly, they think they’re above scientific training – as they obviously have none to speak of and utilise political-style debates to rope in and “educate” those who have bothered to attain such qualifications. I’m convinced the only way to help such people is to ignore them. For, if no-one listens to their illogical proclamations, they might be forced to eventually listen, rather to gloat and one day grasp the subject that they feel so passionate about]


      2. Readers, the Svensen graph linked to by Adam is from this paper (why deniers don’t refer to the actual papers, one can only conclude is aimed to stop people actually properly fact check).

        These two papers have discussed it in detail;
        Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007) Proceeding of the Royal Society A
        Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise. Lockwood (2007) Proceeding of the Royal Society A
        But for more on the subject of cosmic rays (how such people can argue that, “oh, CO2 is only trace element in the atmosphere – how many tonnes are added per year?? – cosmic rays – energy from sources millions of light years away which reduces exponentially with distance – is really to blame!” is really beyond me) see;
        Solar Influences on Climate. Gray et al. (2010) Reviews of Geophysics
        Solar trends and global warming. Benestad and Schmidt (2009). Journal of Geophysical Research.
        PS Adam; just because you talk civil now, when your initial condescending nature began your banning (yes, even before you’re beloved quoting of my frustrated replies in emails) doesn’t mean your ban has been lifted (and challenging me to lift your ban by baiting me about censorship will only lead to further papers upon papers in reply). As I’ve explained, I’m not really interested in the public debate, but rather debating with the already engaged about how human activities can be made increasingly sustainable. This isn’t a cop out – it’s simply knowing where best to spend my energy. I may lose you as a reader, but quite frankly, it’s a risk I’m willing to take – try tertiary qualifications on the subject, rather than insults, condescension and paper hurling, and you might again be welcome here (for other readers – I’m currently forced to delete pointless and continual assertions that cosmic radiation is to blame for current climate change from a few cherry picked papers handed to me by someone to has done no scientific research himself).


      3. Even MORE explanation as to why we know it isn’t the sun (or oppositely, as it is only a function of solar activity, cosmic ray exposure) and that you avoid science to perpetuate pseudo-science and an illusion of being well informed:

        6mins in. For you’re own sake, really look into tertiary education in physics.


      4. “even though Adam has proven time and time again to cherry pick his information and resort to insults when I fail to “see the light” therefore leading my to ban his comments”

        Mothincarnate, why don’t you actually provide proper evidence that I have ‘cherry picked’ my information. I gave you peer reviewed studies, and I explained to you why AGW was invalid. I asked you to show where my papers were wrong (in order for you to support the claim that they were ‘cherry picked’). Yet you did not do so.

        Also, I do not insult you when you ‘fail to see the light’. Might I remind you that I offered for a proper simple debate on AGW, yet you deleted my comment. Your statement is also hypocritical since you’ve called me a ‘troll’ plenty of times, and have claimed that I’ve stalked you and pestered you and all that. I’ve read your comments with Andrew.

        “He has, in another comment I will not allow through, also challenged me, by claiming, “In my emails I tried to be reasonable, yet you avoided all of my points…” – which all occurred after I had told him I’d had enough of his few cosmic ray papers, insults and delusions of grandeur.”

        Moth, I offered for a simple debate. Yet you turned me down. The reason I presisted in my emails is because you failed to answer any of my point and just made nonsensical claims and ad homs. Might I also remind you, that you STILL have not answered the points I raised in my emails.

        “You cannot reason with such people, for clearly, they think they’re above scientific training ”

        Moth, me and Andrew have tried to reason with you, yet you just dismiss everything we say. For example, I pointed out that there was absolutely no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and temperature, so surely that could be a credible reason to question AGW, but once again you just ignored me.

        “I’m convinced the only way to help such people is to ignore them.”

        Moth, could you please explain the logic behind that statement?
        If you cared about science and really wanted to “help us” then surely you would actually our points, instead of just avoiding the argument and running away.


      5. You went on to “offer me a simple debate” after a long winded circular argument revolving largely around your ego – to educate and humour me. I’ve explained why I’m no longer interested in discussing this with you and simply over deniers self-righteous claims that they can prove the AGW theory is wrong – why the hell waste my time with such a wonderful hypothesis? Write it down and submit it to science journals and see what the scientific community think of you hypothesis.

        “Moth, me and Andrew have tried to reason with you, yet you just dismiss everything we say. For example, I pointed out that there was absolutely no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and temperature, so surely that could be a credible reason to question AGW, but once again you just ignored me.”
        That’s complete bs – I provided 5 papers that demonstrates quite the opposite to your web-link. You’re ignoring the facts.

        “If you cared about science and really wanted to “help us” then surely you would actually our points, instead of just avoiding the argument and running away.”
        I don’t run away, but as you and Andrew make clear; you’re not interested in learning about the subject that you pretend to be experts about – you’re only interest is to push your nonsense. I did entertain you, until I got sick of you paper hurling war (I notice, and have already stated this – which you’ve ignored – that you’re no longer pushing Scafetta, but moved on to new heroes. Science isn’t done like this. I read your guess post, “this is difficult, but I’ll try to explain it as best I can” and had a little chuckle – I’d really like for you to actually go to university and acquire education on the subjects you already assume you know. Put yourself into the science and then in a few years get back to me and see if you still think I’m a complete idiot).

        I’m not here to educate you or people like yourself. You don’t here me saying, “listen up AGW ‘sceptics’ here’s climate change 101!”. I’m convinced and not overly focused on climate change, but rather a whole spectrum of environmental concerns and dysfunctional human activities. My work here is focused on addressing the, “what should we do now?” with the already engaged and interested lot, not wasting my time on a bunch of self-educated entrenched cowboys who demand to be convinced on a subject they clearly don’t understand. That you’ve read papers doesn’t make you a scientist Adam.

        You’ve failed to understand me here – as much as I do discuss AGW here, it doesn’t mean I’m keen on debating it with self-proclaimed “sceptics”. It’s a pointless activity that has little to do with the actual science. You’ve demonstrated that you’ll push the few papers that supports your view, Andrew has demonstrated that he’ll turn the discussion into one that feeds his ego, Pete Ridley copy and pastes the same rubbish over and over, clearly not really reading or thinking, Elsa makes dumb claims and signs in as other people to support her dumb claims, rogerthesurf just resorts to childish name calling… etc… Whatever the tactic, self-proclaimed “sceptics” simply waste my time and I certainly didn’t start blogging to educate such people. There’s a wealth of information and initiatives out there as well as already engaged people – I hope to establish better networking across such fields (as I feel local governments and academic groups have too many political hurdles to jump to be as successful as they should be). Mike, on the other hand has a blog called “Watching the Deniers” – clearly more focused on engaging with self-proclaimed “sceptics”.

        Indeed the best thing I can do is ignore people like you, for I’m no good at this political style of debate. I fail to do the scientific awareness any good in such an arena and get drawn into tedious exchanges of nothingness. I personally feel that many of the “sceptics” fail at even a basic understanding of science, which takes such discussion even further away from reason and the delusions of grandeur (ie. “I explained to you why AGW was invalid” – no, you provided a couple links to hack science communicators websites and on the rare occasion, the odd science paper – you’ve not done the work, or even understand the work or have provided, to the scientific community a strong reasoned argument as to why AWG is invalid – you’re simply trolling the web, big noting yourself) makes the exchange even more annoying.

        Again, I strongly recommend that you attend a university on astrophysics or something similar, acquire the accreditation and get a feel for how real science is done. Maybe someday you’ll put your own blog together and have trolling “sceptics” try to educate you with some half-baked hypothesis and humour you by maybe reading some of the lit you provide to them for further background.

        It’s not running away, Adam, it’s simply knowing what my goals are, my limitations in the public debate arena and where I’d like to invest my energy – certainly not on educating each “sceptic” one by one.


      6. “I’ve read your comments with Andrew.”
        Honestly, don’t you have anything better to do?
        This is, just like how we interpret scientific understanding, something that separates the two of you from myself. For instance, I’ve only looked at Andrew’s work twice (first when he initially linked to it and second to find a quote). That the man demonstrates quite childish vindictiveness, a frantic obsession with his character and overwhelming hypocrisy with his insults does nothing but trivialises his attempt to rebut and I certainly don’t care to keep tabs on whatever raging slur he inflicts in my direction – it’s laughable (if not somewhat disturbing) that he produces such needless work of hate. The same can be said with the condescending nature of your comments; which led to you no longer being entertained here or via your stalking emails (David also informed me that like you’ve attempted here, you also bombarded his comment thread with move than 10 comments in a single evening). I simply don’t care enough and won’t be chasing the two of you to find out if you’re talking about me.
        It’s disappointing, as I greet every new commenter with a high level of regard. But one must learn when the exchange is as futile as it is time consuming. You cannot take back your initial ignorance of my arguments nor can you the condescending attitude towards a fellow who actually took the time to acquire tertiary level scientific training followed by a fairly diverse professional career. To take the indignant attitude that I would not step back from that when you later offered a simple (and must I remind you; pointless) debate is nothing short of absurd. You’ve done your dash – especially when I’m not really in the game of informing the entrenched – and I have no doubt that further exchanges would only lead back down your path of avoiding the evidence I provide. Believe it or not, I do enjoy constructive criticism; Adelady has on a number of occasions pulled me up on my more rash assertions, and I thank her for it. But this is entirely different to the baiting criticism that you and Andrew employ to stir up circular conversation. As I said; one needs to know when enough is enough and I’ve had enough of you and Andrew. The two of you are after something which I’m not interested in providing and believe me, it is anything but a meaningful scientific debate. You will disagree and probably monitor this site or attempt to inform others on my behalf – whatever you do, you will not be entertained here further.


  2. You continue to lie, I never posted IPKA’s name anywhere because I don’t know it.

    I only threaten those who stalk me not those whom I disagree with. Don’t stalk me and we will never have a problem. IPKA has admitted to this,

    “…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – IPKA AKA Bud, Walt M.


      1. Those are aliases he used at other sites. One site he used “Bud” another “Walt M.” I have no idea what his real name is because he refuses to tell me so it is impossible for me to post it anywhere.


      2. Thank you for also clearing up another point – your “evidence” regarding his nature is, as I always said, unrelated to this site and therefore leaving me no reason to censor him. But okay, I take it back – you don’t know his real name, feel free to quote me on that.

        Andrew, as much as I’m flattered that you obviously think my writing is important enough and my readership so great that clarity about your person must vigorously be employed, I have to for the last time, ask you to move on to greener pastures. I have removed the pdf you took great offence to and have attempted to correct all the statements I have made about you, (where I can sensibly make such changes) leaving only what is clearly my own opinion. This pasture is now barren – there is nothing left to feed your ego. You have quite successfully berated me into submission where by I am sick of writing your name or thinking about our exchanges. With great skill, not unlike squawking of a seagull over a chip, you’ve driven me away from the dirty chip on the pavement – it is yours, take it with all my good will.
        You have not, however, provided anything that alters my awareness of the various environmental concerns facing this century, which has resulted from a career and university training in environmental science. Oh, I’m well aware that you and Adam will walk away, sure of my ignorance, sure of my lapse in higher awareness and that is, I’m afraid, something that I will have to live with (however painful it might be). We will forever see science differently. I know, for instance, Adam sees science like a mountain – in which he can dig through the “dirt” until he finds the rare and elusive gold nuggets of “climate change is the result of comic rays, not CO2” (and arguably, you are not greatly different, although not only looking for the gold, but silver, “climate sensitivity is low”, copper, “some other story” etc.) where I see the weight and mutually supporting solidity of the mountain itself as the tangible structure of understanding. We cannot sensibly continue such an exchange, as enjoyable as the two of you find it.
        I do hope, that on some distant day, you are able to reflect on all this without your emotional drive, and see how much I did attempt to be sensible and indeed “fix” my statements regarding your person and that the cartoon was playful at worst and in such stoic review, you are able to let go of your needless vendetta via your thread insults and automated stalking.


  3. “Andrew, as much as I’m flattered that you obviously think my writing is important enough “

    Of course he does. Let’s apply Andrew’s logic again :
    The fact that he is even attempting this demonstrates the perceived threat

    So, the fact Andrew replies to people who write about him demonstrates he is threatened by facts or even opinions.
    The fact Andrew debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories demonstrates he is threatened by idiots
    The fact Andrew writes anti-marijuana resource demonstrates he is threatened by people who think it is safe.

    That explains it, Andrew makes threats because he feels threatened first.


      1. Well he’s not well known for consistency or honesty. Cheers for the heads up – good to keep him on his toes when he goes around threatening people as he has here.


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