Neverending Audit

Anteros,

I acknowledge that you consider Hansen wrong about his definitive statements outside his area of expertise and that you share Lindzen’s opinion that CAGW is all but a scare in an echochamber, if I may paraphrase what you are saying in #71. Lindzen might not have any particular qualification in the psychology of masses, but he sure can find effective images, the one you underline sounding a lot like an ad superbiam. In the field of rhetoric, we can both surmise that Lindzen is a natural.

Read More

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

David Wojick,

Thank you for your explanation, which makes more clearer where you come from. If I hear you right, the inverse is simply the node above a question. This means that the root can’t be a question.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Dear mike,

Your comment at 11:43 could very well be a record, even by the Denizens team standards (?).

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Dear mike,

Your last comment dearly lacks your effortless inventiveness. The last time this happened, the conversation was soon brought to a closure. So let me summarize what happened in this conversation.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

I was about to continue my reading of the other thread, but I got distracted by Judy’s thread on Climate science in public school.

Read More

Marco,

Calling someone an hypocrit, even talking about hypocrisy in a more general way, should be kept to your epideictic moments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epideictic

Think of Feynman’s famous ceremonial address as a good example of when it’s appropriate to do so.

In any other mode, I contend that it amounts to name calling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

Name calling is still name calling, however justified name calling might be.

What’s the point of using propaganda techniques anyway?

Showing is always better than saying.

Most of the times, showing is enough.

(Source: ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com)

Dr. Kramm,

Your educational background and your name calling are duly noted.

The reason you gave to Marco deserves due diligence.

Read More

(Source: metaclimate.org)

[T]he true believers [1], once they hijack a thread [2], carefully avoid anything topical [3] so as to devote all of their energy [4] ignoring the inconvenient bits [5] and in pretending their distorted [6] and ignorant [7] quotes are the real topic [8].

This sentence by hunter in #134 is quite efficient:

Read More

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

See, in their little minds [1] as soon as they see talk of theology, or God, or His creation, or anything else that sounds religious [2], they know it must be superstitous non-sense, hence wrong and anti-science [3] because its… well because it’s religious.[4]

kdk33 might not be here to bring peace, but to bring a magic sword:

Read More

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

[An excerpt from Bertrand Russell’s Praise of Idleness]

Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e., of advertising.

(Source: panarchy.org)

Jeff,

Here’s the last sentence from the article to which we are alluding:

If you like your hypocrisy sandwiches served with a side order of double standards, then these leaked documents are certainly the place to dine out.

Read More

(Source: noconsensus.wordpress.com)