Neverending Audit

John,

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?

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Bart R,

Showing that Peter Lang armwaves unsubstantiated accusations thread after thread suffices. There’s not much else he could reply, at this time of the exchange. Unless, of course, he was bound by the INTEGRITY ™ he put himself on the table.

We could wonder about Peter Lang’s lack of INTEGRITY ™. But as far as I am concerned, his recurring armwaving speaks for itself. See how this works.

First, demands that we do all the work for him.

Second, verbal abuses to motivate that we do all the work for him.

Third, baseless rejections of ALL THE WORK.

Fourth, gloating about his favorite pet peeves.

Fifth, rinse and repeat, using his buzz words of the moment.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

On April 25, 2013 at 10:20 am, Bart R’s cites Ackermann’s criticism:

> But why focus on my criticisms, when [Ackermann] has other, more widely-known critiques?

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/24/congressional-hearing-rescheduled-2/#comment-315671

On April 25, 2013 at 6:43 pm, Tar Baby epilogues:

Read More

[I]t’s been my experience as a skeptic that chasing the claims down to the foundation of their reasoning inevitably leads nowhere.

Mine has been that it leads to the next op-ed.

All they need is a bag with enough pixie dust for a screen that lasts the time their host renew their talking points.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

As you clearly have no evidence for such a claim […]

Well, for what it’s worth, we do have Leake’s quote:

Professor John Christy director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said the Arctic had indeed warmed, but there was also anecdotal and other evidence suggesting similar melts from 1938-43 and on other occasions.

Some may think this does not suffice to prove that we do have evidence that John Christy intentionally told anything to Leake.

The rest of us may think otherwise.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

BartR,

Please beware that Latimer oftentimes follows the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm, see:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33362796798

A very big THANK YOU to Latimer for inspiring this very important Procrustean bed.

If you wish to interact with such algorithm, I suggest you provide one example at a time. The reason is that some quibbling might happen, in the line of “yes, but is it really an instance of what you’re saying?” If that happens, I suggest you provide another example.

Then another example.

And another example.

However sour the conversation will turn out, you’ll have a collection of examples.

And I will waive a very big THANK YOU for that collection.

(Source: judithcurry.com)