INTEGRITY ™ — It’s about Thought Leadership.

[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.

Read More


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.

Read More

One can see too the public appeal of any ad hominem attack. Personal criticism fuels much of our public debate – certainly it is diet on which the mainstream media has grown fat. It holds within it the possibility of a hostile exchange – if not, then of provoking one – and so inevitably they are given much prominence and presented with much fanfare and drama; all of which is to the detriment of real and meaningful discussion.

The ad hominem attack |, a quote which has been reproduced on CA, and deleted where it was relevant. Notice also that most of the critical comments have not appeared in my RSS reader. Wonder why?

Why on Earth Would Anyone be Happy?

Why on earth would anyone be happy?

This was a figure of speech. It is alleged that the Erinyes were never quite happy, even when they should have been. Perhaps it was a part of their social function, if we’re to borrow a concept our fellow Shub is holding dear, or their bias, if we’re to borrow our beloved Bishop’s new ringtone.

Which was the point of my first comment hereunder, underhandedly censored. Procrustes would have been proud of the pea and thimble machine the contrarian blogland has developed. It is quite able to produce an indignated shriek or a sardonic laugh day, in day out, to a point where there is no valid reason to surmise that it will end after Mike’s demise, if that were to happen.

Contrary to mine, this kind of audit will never end.

Apparently, Steve, for you speculation trumps evidence whenever it allows you to make accusations against climate scientists.

Tom Curtis asks, with yet another critical comment that did not appear in my RSS feed.

Notice the reply: “Can you give me a page reference to the triptych in Lamb 1988 or are you just throwing a spitball against the wall?”

Comments get thrown into moderation and then just left there without being touched for days, until the conversation is dead, ensuring that only positive comments get through when most people are reading.

faustusnotes, noticing an editorial practice at CA.

Thank you, Oliver, to handle those whining lasses with such a splendid mix of vigorous passion and fatherly care.

How to dogwhistle among connoisseurs (NB. The comment did not last long.)

So Ocburgh is polite to you and you are an utter ass to him on your blog. So he doesn’t run an inquiry the way they do in mining companies or something. Personally I’d tell you to [snip] off if you emailed me again. which you’d then post on your blog as proof of how climate scientists are all jerks (and therefore incompetent).

Boris, not using the light touch Steve editorially advises to carry when using sarcasm. Readers will try to detect any sarcasm in Boris’ comment.

Our Beloved Gatekeeper

[It seems that I can’t post this comment on CA, in response to our beloved gatekeeper’s bullying tactics. Perhaps this is all for the better: as Steve said, naming and shaming is a “waste of time”. Let’s not wonder why Steve does that since 2005.]

On the Jul 7, 2012 at 12:07 PM, our beloved gatekeeper mindreads:

"The “effect” you were looking for was to create a link to a known fallacious argumentative technique.

First, this use of “effect” is not the same as the one he mocks: this creates an equivocation.

Second, presuming that an ad hominem is fallacious might very well be false: an ad hominem could very well be valid if it’s relevant to the point under dispute, as our beloved gatekeeper himself admitted a bit later in his comment.

Third, all this is irrelevant to Roger’s use of “ad hominem attack”, which falls under the second definition of the Wikitionary entry he provided on july 7, at 3:23 AM, nine hours earlier than our beloved gatekeeper’s comment:

A personal attack.

Since our beloved gatekeeper concurs that “criticisms of poor scientific behavior are indeed personal”, then he must confess being in violent agreement with Roger, however oblivious our beloved gatekeeper might look.

Our beloved gatekeeper should consult the relevant Wikipedia entries before issuing slurs like “ridiculously silly” and “completely off-base”: his own comment agrees with Roger’s, except perhaps when he refuses that the expression “ad hominem attack” can refer to something else than an ad hominem argument, which incidentally is not always fallacious.

Gatekeepers should let that one go, as they should let go of bullying tactics that are useless in our context, contrary to the ivory towers where our beloved gatekeeper seem to have honed them. Speaking of which, our beloved gatekeeper’s expression “insular tightly-knit circle” reminds us of this related claim:

You do not have “decades” of observations by “thousands” of scientists that shed any light on this matter. In my opinion, the viewpoint that is prevalent is based on the influence of a very small group of scientists, who use pretty shaky data to make a point that is politically charged.

Older posts RSS