Responding to malicious slander with a character reference.

When confronting science contrarians, we are dealing with people who have no serious evidence or honest science on their side, thus they have no interest in actually discussing these questions seriously.  Sowing confusion, divisiveness and inaction are their only goals. 

That's why defenders of science will find that contrarian opponents are constantly diverting the discussion away from the issue at hand using amoral tactics such as attacking, belittling, even maliciously slandering the messenger, while ignoring the message.  Better yet, hit below the belt, frazzle their opponent into descending into the mud pit of insult slinging and losing all sight of the original discussion.   

These tactics are intending to demoralize all who attempt defending serious science.  I've been at the receiving end more times than I care to remember.  Then the notorious Andrew Poptech took it to another level when he wrote up a vile fabricated fantasy about me.  In response I decided that it was time for me to start getting down'n personal too.  Here's that effort:

On building stairs, integrity and malicious slander.

August 15, 2016

Recently over at Center For Inquiry's forum which I visit regularly, I was confronted with another joker repeating Poptech's conjured description of me as a guilt-riddled strung-out druggie and lost soul.  Poptech's slander is his way of responding to my fact checking, critiquing and challenging his claims.  Others of his persuasion have been quick to embrace the malicious trash talk.

It seems that every few weeks some new joker finds Poptech's article and gleefully grabs his ammunition and blasts aways at me in the middle of some other discussion.  That they are dealing with figments of their own imagination matters not one wit to them - it's character assassination they're interested in.

What else is there for someone who consistently misrepresents serious climate science?  They sure don't have solid evidence on their side.  Nor do they have the requisite intellectual curiosity to learn about the things they don't understand.  When something confuses them, assume the worst, with ignorant certitude.

Distraction is their game.  Marginalize the messenger and marginalize the message.

Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?

Sadly all too many.  

I often hear people, not just the religious with their paper thin understanding, but educated rational people who superficially accept the notion of evolution, - (but who've spent little time absorbing what Earth's pageant of evolution has been all about) - dismissing the need to learn anything about it.  As if learning how to make money and survive in our modern society is all that matters to understanding our place in the world.

This disregard has led to a general apathy that I can't for the life of me comprehend.  Especially considering what an amazingly beautiful, complex, mysterious and absolutely relevant story it is.

Some introductory thoughts

This blog will be a remaking of my What'sUpWithThatWatts Blogspot intended to reach a wider audience.  

I'll be first to admit that many climate science communicators I respect don’t think much of my WUWTW or my gritty button-holing style.  I’m not sure what to make of that except that we can see how disastrously their strategy of sidestepping fundamental issues, appeasement and intellectual seepage has worked (or not) for conveying simple physical reality to our fellow citizens and leaders these past decades.

My speciality has been confronting climate science “skeptics” with fact based constructive debates and it usually follows the same trajectory.  I call out false claims, statements and question their reasoning with explanations, arguments and an assortment of relevant links to further authoritative information so people can learn about these issues for themselves.

If they return it’s with a round of bluster and distractions that morph into ad hominem attacks on people, either me, reporters or scientists.  Never any indication that new information was read and assessed, let alone absorbed.  I respond with more facts and reasoned arguments, they respond with final insults and slammed doors not to be heard from again.  Leaving me with Virtual Debates where I strive to document the dishonesty that too many others seem to pardon.

These are the same talking heads who are astro-turfing media outlets demanding public debate, but who steadfastly run from our debates.