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.