Merely pointing out what Judy has said in the past and finding conflicting statements later to show hypocrisy is not corrective action in good faith IMO.
Here’s what I did, John:
When Judy (rhetorically IMO) asked “what am I advocating for,” I pointed out that one can advocate against. A point that Steve Postrel seems to agree with. He called this a pothole, and I agree with him.
“Willard should open a ClimateBall(tm) course (with a reasonable fee, of course, we do not have Heartland Institute backup to pay Willard) for beginners. It would save a tremendous amount of time for everyone.”—bratisla, with an interesting idea!
[I]n my day the Overton WiIndow was referred to as Manufacturing Consent.
I’d say that stretching the Overton window may be a way to manufacture consent, AnOilMan. The levels of descriptions seems to differ, just as Climateball operates at a lower level than the Overton window. Moves implement strategies that operate in total wars.
“Which I wish to say is this
There is no beginning to an end
But there is a beginning and an end
Why yes of course.
Any one can learn that north of course
Is not only north but north as north
Why were they worried.
What I wish to say is this.
Yes of course”—Gertrude Stein, from Stanzas in Meditation
“Radio, television, film, and the other products of media culture provide materials out of which we forge our very identities; our sense of selfhood; our notion of what it means to be male or female; our sense of class, of ethnicity and race, of nationality, of sexuality; and of “us” and “them.” Media images help shape our view of the world and our deepest values: what we consider good or bad, positive or negative, moral or evil. Media stories provide the symbols, myths, and resources through which we constitute a common culture and through the appropriation of which we insert ourselves into this culture. Media spectacles demonstrate who has power and who is powerless, who is allowed to exercise force and violence, and who is not. They dramatize and legitimate the power of the forces that be and show the powerless that they must stay in their places or be oppressed.”—Douglas Kellner
Thank you for your comment. To answer your question about why I am doing this, I could reply that I like to solve puzzles, that I earned enough money and could indulge in an excentric hobby, or find another line already used by the Auditor. I could also epilogue about philosophical scepticism. Instead, I’ll simply return to the first sentence I quoted from Judy:
[A comment that failed Judy’s moderation. I wonder why.]
> The subject of [who shall not be named] is not relevant to the climate change debate.
I disagree, Judy. Most of what may be called “the climate change debate” is a libertarian creation. Since you seem to have some kind of libertarian affinities, I believe you should agree that debates about proxies are proxy debates.
“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.