Fred Singer about Nay-Sayers (Like Me)

Fred Singer claims in a recent post at WUWT that Climate Nay-Sayers are giving Climate Scientists a Bad Name. I think that Fred puts me into this detestful category of deniers and the issue is again that (in)famous "back radiation" or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR. Fred writes:

• One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; 
• i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. 
• It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. 
• One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. 
• But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Fred is here deliberately misrepresenting me: I am not saying that there is no "greenhouse effect" from clouds and water vapor and a little from CO2. What I do say is that "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface of magnitude 300 W/m2 is fake non-physics and I understand that a pyrgeometer reporting this quantity does that with a fake invented scale which could be anything.

To argue that a certain scientific statement gives climate scientists a "bad name" is a trick to shift the discussion from the scientific question of what a pyrgeometer in fact measures, to a question of value and "entartete kunst" or "bad science". This is neither clever nor very nice, or effective. Scientific arguments cannot be replaced by value arguments.  

Speaking about science, it is remarkable that Fred pays so little attention to the 2nd law stating that energy cannot by itself be transferred from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface, simply disregarding the 2nd law as a "simplistic argument". Remarkable indeed Fred. Or what do you say?

PS I have asked Fred to respond to my above reaction to his post. I would not be surprised if Fred to this request simply returns silence. This is how nay-sayers (like me) should better be handled and thereby be removed from science. Of course "enartete science" must be annihilated to preserve "good science"  giving "good scientists" the "good name"  they rightly deserve.

Fred and I debated "back radiation" when we met in 2011, and evidently that question is still nagging in Fred's mind...