Thanks for this. I don’t have much time this week-end, but let’s return to Judge Judy’s rhetorical question:
Recall all the flack I took last year for talking about the ‘pause’?
We can agree that she took flak, but was this flak really for talking about the ‘pause’? This rhetorical question does seem to hint that Judge Judy received flak because she deemed to talk about the flak.
Not because of what she said exactly, nor because to whom she said it, but because she deemed to say it.
And what she said is not supposed to be unlike what Hansen, Trenberth, Pierrhumbert, or Santer said.
And yet we don’t have a link to what she said nor to the flak, so we have no means to verify what was the critical basis for this flak.
And yet all the flak we have comes from the Dittoheads, whereas Judy declared her interests, which excluded the Dittoheads, except perhaps to dismiss them or use them as flak throwers. How is the flak from the Dittoheads relevant to Judge Judy’s purpose?