[After the scorched earth tactic, @ShubClimate rediscovers moderation.]
Thank you for your comment, Steve, which I just saw.
Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. You never use the F word regarding Mike, and you frown upon anyone who does at your blog. As a curator on wp.com, you are responsible for the comment section of your blog, and I believe we can agree that using the F word can lead to litigation. Also, your audit against Mike is way more profitable to ClimateBallers if it never ends. Channeling your pride may also be Mike’s best strategy, but that discussion needs to be set aside for another time.
The “regarding Mike” was implicit in my remark, which was preceded by a sentence you again forgot to take into consideration. I know your blog featured lots of fraud stories, and I believe they serve as perfect examples of how to stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness. You’re basically dogwhistling when you do that, and perhaps also conveying enough of “what you think” for having others say what you are prudent enough not to say. The contrarian blog ring provides a well adapted commensalist niche.
That you again use the “get your fact straight” is to be expected, as you use this for most of your gaslighting. How you played the “doctored quote” card was suboptimal, at least way more than playing the “eight” one. (I noticed how you changed subject when Nick Stokes nailed on that one, btw.) But that last card won’t prevent you from having to face the fact that Steyn used an F word, and that Dr Mann has been exonerated, as the title of the section you parsomatize indicates.
Sooner or later, you may need to do more than wage a public relation war against Mike.
You also say:
moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords
I have enough comments that did not appear to doubt your explanation of moderation at CA, Steve. Here again must I presume that you do not say what you think?
You might have more allies if you stopped playing cheap and dirty tricks, you know. A first good step would to link to the goddam documents you criticize. A second one would be to stop pussyfooting with expressions like “one of the parties” when you know damn well which party you might advise in a foreseeable future for a fee, and that you are openly helping pro bono if we exclude what comes by way of your Donate button, anonymously or not.
“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: <!— more —>
> I engage and get involved in policy discussions but do not advocate.
Something’s missing from that declaration: the fact that Judy does advocate. There are policy discussions to which she does not wish to add. But there sure are policies about which she advocate.
Notice how in the second quote “being an activism” is conceded, while “being an advocate is kept unsaid:
> Yes, I have stepped up my ‘activism’ regarding advocacy for integrity in climate research.
This concession followed weeks of pussyfooting around being or not being an activist. Nowadays, being an activist is now accepted behavior. But then we get the same pussyfooting about advocacy.
Since advocacy immediately follows from activism, I guess everything we said about activism can be transposed into our advocacy discussion. At the very least, we can see a similarities between the moves played. Here’s an example
- Y is an A. - Who is not an A? - Aren’t you an A too? - Anyway, I’m more of a B. - And Y is (or is not) a true A. - But isn’t it true that B entails A? - Perhaps, but I’m not A-ing about P. - If one is A-ing-with-an-adverb, I don’t mind. - Here’s a list of how we should do A-with-an-adverb.
Don’t you feel that most of our typological discussions have these moves being played, John?
There’s a similar game being played about modalities, triggered by words like “requires”.
All in all, there seems to be a abstract form for these rounds of pussyfooting. There are also characteristic speech patterns. Both interest me, the first because I study argumentation theory, the second because I like the poetry of it all.
Now that Killroy has found a round Tuit, I’ll try to offer a more constructive comment on Anderson’s claim later on this week.
[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.
And while I can see the relationship between the climate change debate and the concerns you’re expressing in this op-ed, for instance about younger Gavin’s zingers, I do consider them tangential. Unless of course the climate change debate is just another name for the competition among you and other climateballers in the race for credibility, as I told Michael Tobis in the chat you refused to understand, and which could be called “thought leadership”, to keep in the spirit of the theorical concept of the moment.
INTEGRITY ™ — It’s about Thought Leadership.
My own advice would be that Denizens should beware words that end with “ism” and name drops of political leaders.
“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.