“Do you mean that after almost a decade you are finally going to get around to answering this question [When you remove the bristlecones and the Briffa chronologies, is there still a HS reconstruction?]?”—Boris, noticing it’s been awhile.
How can you have “no idea” why independent errors all pointing in one direction suggest political intent?
First, they’ve been called “misrepresentations”, not “errors”, because the author focus on claims he considers misleading.
Second, they have not been shown to be independent, something that affects their accounting.
Third, there are lots of different bias, some of which are not ipso facto erroneous.
Calling these so-called independent errors “misrepresentations” shows a very big auditing bias, insofar as we see the same pea and thimble game where an auditor uses technical nits to dogwhistle his editorial.
I thought that it would make more sense for Huybers to consider our Reply, assess whether it fully responded to his issue (which IMO) it did and then publish a joint paper setting out the issue and its resolution, rather than leaving readers to try to sort out a Comment-Reply.
The joint paper may be the result of some mediation, but it would not be its immediate product, as defined in the current op-ed:
They write a joint paper where they state the areas they agree on in order to narrow down the dispute, the fundamental points that they disagree about, and then **– this is the trick – they have to agree on why they disagree.**
The request that Huybers “fully agrees” with M&M’s results is not exactly the same thing as to report the results and then discuss agreements and disagreements in an explicit manner.
[In response to the Auditor’s “What’s your point?”]
My first point is that mediation (the topic of this blog post) should seek to prevent the phenomenon of having posts which start in the middle of the conversation, which arguably is the nature of more than your blog.
My second point is that I’ve heard your Ammann story more than 20 times, at the very least. This habit of yours (not only yours, I concede) might render the first point less definitive than one might think. If your conversations were as easy to recollect as Ammann’s “bad for his career” line, which I surmise is the whole point of recollecting this particular story over and over again, then I guess most of your posts would not start in their middle.
This is a common trick, chris. As far as I can tell, it fulfills two important functions.
First, it deflects the discussion on a theme the trickster, in this case Mr. Pile, needs to inject to gain the upper hand. Second, it burdens his adversary, in this case you, chris, with the gruesome task of either dissociating yourself from what the trickster attacks, or discussing how these attacks are baseless. In either cases, you end up falling for the trickster’s bait.
How to Insert a Number of Actants in One's Comment
[@WarrenPearce’s Making Science Public has deleted this comment. Compare and contrast with Mr. Pile’s previous armwaving. UPDATE (23:40) Brigitte Nerlich says that this comment was fished out from spam. Oh, well.]
[A] number of critics, from across the spread of opinion, were arguing in each case that there a a number of problems with Cook et al.
We thank Mr. Pile for his general concerns, and particularly for
introducing an indefinite number of critics in the debate. Let’s
introduce some more. Everyone should be welcome to debate.
A number of Revolutionary Communist Party members should see that Dan Kahan’s position and Mike Hulme’s position disagree about the quality of Cook & al.
“if sceptics’ never-ending audit is really damaging policy, that may be more a reflection of an overly scientised policy process than a basis for denying them a voice in debate.”—Warren Pearce, with kind words for everyone except “those who favour free market policies over regulation certainly have ample motivation to chip away at climate science if they think it will cast aspersions on the basis for policy”.
There was a guy, always standing around at the street corner. His name was Richy Lot, and he was a goon: rather than exhibiting the expected behavoir, he bopped everybody he didn’t like on the head, even if they approached him with the best intentions. And when my friend learned about him, Richy really had a reputation for this.
But something very very strange was going on, my friend told me: people got completely obsessed with Richy.
While I find merit in Dan Kahan’s position, I believe it downplays an important asymmetry in the strange game ClimateBallers play. Once upon a time, I tried to capture this with the help of an analogy:
Imagine a football game with many teams. There are more than two teams, but each teams has two roles. (We do not need the concept of team, only the concept of role, but I think the teams are imposed by the role. More on that another time.)
A team can play offense or defense. When a team plays offense, it has to move the ball forward. When a team plays defense, it has to prevent the ball to move. Ideally, it needs to get the ball, but that is not necessary. (We could argue that it must, but not now.)
Here is another important point: offense cannot grab, defense can. Like in American football, so it’s not hard to understand. So the roles are not symmetrical, both in the ends and in the means.
To see this in strategical terms, suppose a game of Chess where one of the two players has a big edge. What should he do? According to the usual algorithm, he should seek to simplify, which in principle diminishes the dynamical possibilities from his adversary. The player who has a bad game should do the opposite, i.e. create chaos. His only way out is if his opponent makes mistakes: there are better chances if things get a little bit irrational. A very good book on this is Chess for Tigers, by Simon Webb.
“If you let the economists write the legislation, it could be quite simple.”—Henry Jacoby, who would fit the whole bill on one page, basically taxing fossil fuels in proportion to the amount of carbon they release, in Economists Have A One-Page Solution To Climate Change : Planet Money, via NPR.
“Instead of refusing to take anyone’s word for it, the early members of the Royal Society retrained their faculties for recognizing “who knows what they are talking about” to discern those of their number whose insights had been corroborated by science’s signature way of knowing.”—Steven Shapin, in is Social History of Truth, via Cultural Cognition
Guided by the risk information-seeking and processing model, this study examines positive and negative affect separately in their influence on information-seeking intentions and avoidance through structural equation analyses. The highlight is that information avoidance seems to be driven by positive affect, while information seeking seems to be more heavily influenced by negative affect. Another interesting finding is that informational subjective norms are positively related to both seeking and avoidance, which suggests that one’s social environment has the potential to strongly influence the way he or she handles climate change information. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
[Neal J. King discovers that conflict and stress are tied up around the Auditor’s quest.]
I spent an hour last December talking with Steve McIntyre at the AGU meeting in SF; quite civil. But his main topic was his struggles to get data out of Michael Mann about the hockeystick – the main events of which took place years ago. I stopped him, and asked:
Steve, I’m really not that interested in this – this was years ago. I’m more interested in knowing, What does Stephen McIntyre want his life to be about now?
I did not get an answer to that. Steve declared that he had to catch someone at another talk, and we parted on pleasant terms.
[Richard finally provides references for survey design he deems proper.]
I think the keystrokes were introduced for perceptual studies, to inspect record rates that are in ms or less. This could be useful here to discriminate raters that would have followed the Auditor’s advice:
Note that I suggested that readers spend equivalent time to those who responded to Lew’s survey. If, for example, you don’t care about the quality of your answer or you are answering the question the same way – as some Lew respondents did -, it takes scarcely any time to fill out the survey. **Indeed, if one were so inclined, one could submit multiple responses very quickly.** If one were so inclined, HideMyAss.com enables IP address changes in the blink of an eye as well.
> But isn’t that precisely what this whole “Calling out climate change deniers in Congress” is all about [squirrels]?
Saying “look, squirrel!” is just another way to refer to what is called an_ ignoratio elenchi_. Even if a webpage accomplishes little in the grand scheme of things (it’s about time Denizens acknowledge this about our weekly hurly burly), it still should be about what it is.
Topicality is a fuzzy concept and aboutness is even worse:
[Bart R requested that I find seven exemplary, accurate, pragmatic, persistent politicians who’ve directly making accurate scientific statements about climate, with adequate economic plans to address relevant issues meaningfully and effectively. Here’s a first tentative.]
That might be tough to find, but perhaps that’s not impossible. I’d even venture that when all these good representatives stop rehearsing talking points, they start making sense. To me, what matters are the talking points, as they become thinking points .
Your challenge is tempting. I wonder how you’d score Bernie Sanders’ proposal:
“As Henry David Thoreau wrote — “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” — so will we practice. Our aim is to recruit teachers — citizens from every part of society who will work with us to spread the recognition of the corrupting influence of money, and help us build the movement to reform it.”—About Rootstrikers
“Back in the day, we called comments “letters to the editor.” Someone read them, picked the best ones, & published them. Many were STILL bad.”—Please subscribe to AvoidComments: be the change you want to see in the world. Avoid reading comments.
“My friend said to me, “I think the weather’s trippy.” I said, “No, man, it’s not the weather that’s trippy, perhaps it is the way that we perceive it that is indeed trippy.” Then I thought, “Man, I should have just said, ‘Yeah.’”—Mitch Hedberg
> Willard is a bully. Just like Mac. Just like me.
Perhaps, but not long ago Moshpit was distinguishing good and bad bullies. Where has the special pleading gone?
Bullying qualifies anyone who resorts to violent means to intimidate in communication. Nicknaming is only one of them. Labeling is another one. Among its practitioners, we must include Judge Judy, who just used a trick to qualify Indefinite Others as wingnuts, and recently called Less Indefinite Others dittoheads.