[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication?

[Lee Corbin]

I followed all of Damien's explanation (and admission that he'd
mistaken Alex's meaning), except for one:

> Alex failed to rebut anything I said, which is why I took his
> comments the way I did (evidently in error). He *asserted* that
> anthropogenic global climate change was non-existent, without making
> any rebuttal of Lee's citation from a climate scientist. He expressed
> vehement *disagreement*--

And I think that perhaps Damien also writes (though probably
this was from the posted article, an "angle-bracket" convention
I was not aware of (should I be?)).

> <Where is the consensus? I can't see it. I must have missed the end
> of the debate, I think it must have ended with all dissenters being
> shot, thus argument settled. Shameful derailing of the scientific
> process and a damning indictment of the state of our media driven
> scientifically illiterate society. How can you defeat such ignorance
> and blatant fraud? Show me the facts, not the opinions. >
>
> --without any attempt (other than a reference to past fluctuations)
> to show that this is incorrect:
> ...
>
> Calling "I think it must have ended with all dissenters being shot" a
> *rebuttal* is the same class of error made by the media when people
> are said to have "refuted" a charge against them when all they've
> done is *denied* it.

Is that because I was misusing the word?  I thought it meant merely
saying something contrary.  But I see on the web

a.. The introduction of contradicting or opposing evidence.
juryduty.nashville.gov/portal/page/portal/juryDuty/glossary/

a.. The introduction of contradicting or opposing evidence showing that what witnesses said occurred is not true, the stage of a 
trial at which such evidence may be introduced.
www.headinjury.com/lawglossary_r-z.htm


So now one must not use "refute" for "rebut", and must not
use "rebut" (as did I) for... for what?

Lee