Op-Ed Pixie

[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)

The Rest of Us

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)

Anger, confrontation and provocation

Jonathan Green, suggesting that this is the foundation of the populist business model.

THANK YOU

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)

We can try to identify meta-rational people through their cognitive and conversational styles. Someone who is really seeking the truth should be eager to collect new information through listening rather than speaking, construe opposing perspectives in their most favorable light, and offer information of which the other parties are not aware, instead of simply repeating arguments the other side has already heard.

Cowen & Hanson, perhaps self-deceiving themselves.

Repeating a deception does not make it true.

A very tall guy with a good ringtone.

Go ahead. Keep stalling.

BartR, unaffraid of playing chicken with one.

From INTEGRITY to authority

You’re shifting from the conceptual to the rhetorical, Mosh.

On the rhetorical level, sounding more business-like might be a better strategy in congress, if only to create an aura of INTEGRITY (tm). But your observation still carries that prescription: if you want to have INTEGRITY (tm) in congress, try to sound business-like.

On the conceptual level, this business-like strategy only hides the prescription. Compare (1) AGW is real and we should seek to implement a carbon-tax with (2) AGW is real; a carbon tax might reduce its long-term effects. The conceptual difference between (1) and (2) is not that (1) is normative, while (2) is not.

The question we should ask ourselves should be this one: on what authority can you say (1) or (2)? All this is in Toulmin’s Uses of Argument. This is very basic.

John NG says something along these lines there:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/


Here’s Hansen’s 1988 testimony, btw:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

I don’t see any carbon tax there.

Older posts RSS   Newer posts