Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD slinks away.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.

Dr.Holmes aka 1000Frolly sends me an email (updated June 17, 9pm)

This morning I received this from Dr. Robert Ian Holmes:

clink on images for better viewing

Dr. Robert Holmes,

Let’s be clear, you are the malicious YouTube slandering liar Frolly1000.  Your letter arrived unsolicited and I’m not bound to any confidentiality with you, in fact you can be sure my dialogue with you will be carried out in public.  

I’m curious, was your letter written on University time?  How would the Federation University of Australia feel about you using their logo as a shield to impress and intimidate?

Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly why are you threatening me?

Though I was given the tip years ago, it wasn't until this morning that I'm able to confirm that the prodigious YouTube liar and AGW science slandering 1000Frolly is in fact one Dr. Robert Ian Holmes from Australia.  (not to be mistaken with Hulme!)  

A 'scientist' with rather tarnished credentials thanks to his efforts to convince folks that CO2 science is mistaken.  Writing that's so disconnected, even climate science contrarians dismiss him.   

Welcome to the Age of Trumpkins - where truth is despised and bullying is everything.  This is what decades of liberal intellectual complacency has achieved for our complex global society.

Right now I really need to focus on a more important writing project, so can’t let this sidetrack me more than it already has.  Besides it would be good to let this steep awhile, since I have a number of responses and questions for this Dr. Robert Ian Holmes, whom I actually had not had time for in years, but who seems scintillatingly upset at a couple confusing comments Bob Trenwith recently dropped at WUWTW.

“Inciting mob violence”?  Seriously Dr Holmes?  What are you talking about?  Please.  Or are we simply dealing with another frantic drama queen, . . . or what?  Can you explain yourself?

For now I'm going to settle for a trip down memory lane and a look at my tenuous involvement in this Dr. Holmes/1000frolly/Monckton distraction.

Schooling Pruitt's Red Team about our planet and its climate engine

I wrote the following column mid December for the Four Corners Free Press out of Cortez, Colorado.  Since then it seems that the GOP doesn’t think much of Pruitt’s Red team Blue team idea and his challenge appears dead.  Still as I explained at Confronting Science Contrarians I believe Pruitt’s challenge is worth exploring, if only in outline.  Beginning with an observation and a pointed question:

Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine. 

Now, will you, can you, pay attention to the answers you receive? 

Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s GOP Red team

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/science-educates-pruitt-redteam.html

A rough outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following column was inspired by a lecture that Kevin Trenberth  gave at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado on November 9th, 2017.  Pruitt's "challenge" happened to jump into the headlines giving this story the hook that had been alluding me for weeks.  Worth noting is that most of what I write here at CSC is intended for readers up to speed on the science and the public dialogue - these columns for the FCFP force me to write for an audience preoccupied with other concerns, which produces a different sort of piece.

==========================

January 2018 - Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado

Early in December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers he intended to organize a “Red team v Blue team” exercise to debate climate change science.

Pruitt is being willfully blind to the fact that the scientific aspects of global warming have already been thoroughly debated by experts. It’s expected that Pruitt will orchestrate a lawyerly winner-take-all debate. One that’s based on rhetorical trickery and a ruthless disregard for facts.

It’s a shame, since we Americans needs a constructive educational dialogue. A debate where honestly representing your opponent’s arguments and data is as important as honestly representing your own data. One where objective learning is the goal, and where truth matters.

Speaking of honestly representing the science, November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth (the distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, and 2007, a giant in the field of climate assessment), gave a talk at the Fort Lewis College Climate Symposium explaining what scientists have learned about our planet. It sounded to me like a potential Blue team opening statement.

Since, today climate scientists and the science itself is under attack like never before it’s critical for more citizens to become aware and engaged. That’s why I want to share what Trenberth explained to us, along with some additional science. Information that makes clear what an internally consistent understanding scientists have achieved.

Trenberth underscored that pretty much all scientists agree. As for the few outliers, they are driven by other causes, such as religious and political inclinations. He explained that: “… as a whole the data are of mixed quality and length. If you were to look at one little piece of it you might be able to be skeptical that climate change is happening, but when you put it all together there's no doubt whatsoever that this is happening.”