This is me over the weekend dealing with an extraordinarily resolute climate change troll:
The blogpost in question was my "How wrong is Krauthammer?" from last February, when I discussed Charles Krauthammer's views on the humble patent clerk Albert Einstein, whom Krauthammer feels he rather resembles, except for the humble and working-for-a-living parts.
Devil's snare. Via harrypotter.wikia.com. |
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Oh please. You do not understand the data better than all these people. http://t.co/u4M8BTH7Td
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 10, 2014
And pretty much downhill from there:
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer You got that from Patrick Moore, shown wrong in easy to understand terms here http://t.co/OgXNuslR4g
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer For a more sophisticated refutation using the correct number (14 years not 17) http://t.co/XPus5mk8lo
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Also as noted in my blog post this data is only mean surface temperature in isolation from other data.
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
The blogpost in question was my "How wrong is Krauthammer?" from last February, when I discussed Charles Krauthammer's views on the humble patent clerk Albert Einstein, whom Krauthammer feels he rather resembles, except for the humble and working-for-a-living parts.
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Who wrote that? Peer reviewed vastly documented study reaches other conclusions http://t.co/GNtiqIioFs
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer It certainly matters where it comes from. You cite secretly funded GWPF http://t.co/MkH4U5xXJs
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer The founder Lord Lawson is connected to coal industry, scientists they cite work for ExxonMobil
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Not marginal. Evidence of motive and opportunity. For means go to the science itself (previous links).
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer No, deniers don't submit to peer review> That's exactly what NY mag showed. Or http://t.co/oi0Kb7Ig26
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Not lucrative. Here's a personal report http://t.co/6rNbs1pYUK
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer And here's a systematic view of the wider funding picture. http://t.co/FCVjNhLwfX
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
@LTCFBurns @ElMonte08 @intelligencer Go home, you're drunk. I'm not responding to any more unless you provide links.
— Yastreblyansky (@Yastreblyansky) May 11, 2014
I violated this promise, needless to say. He never did give me any links after the Lord Lawson one, though. Pax. And, while we're on the subject, go read the Vixen.
No comments:
Post a Comment