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)

[John Nielsen-Gammon, that’s who.]

John Nielsen-Gammon would be a very tough opponent to confront on subjects in which Denizens indulge themselves at Judy’s and elsewhere. Perhaps this explains why we have amateur climatologists entertaining us with their theories here instead of entertaining John Nielsen-Gammon. But if they ever wish to do so, here’s where he is:

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

If there was a pause, there was a pause. Dana should have known better. You say there was a pause, even if you believe somebody will run with it.

First you say it is true that there is a pause. Then you make a pause yourself. You pause to make sure everyone got you just acknowledged something.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

[Chewbacca’s modus operandi is quite easy to grasp.]

Notice how the discussion switched from the blog rules to the indexation of this site. And now that you are backpedaling, readers might get the impression that Chewbacca was right all along. Because that’s what matters, right: being right all along.

Notice how he took your reply (“see if I care”) as an argument. This has the interesting effect of not having to deal with my own reply, which was an argument, which questioned Chewbacca’s invocation of the blog rules. Chewbacca is quite obviously applying a double standard here, don’t you think?

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

It is important to realize that economic models show that the overall impact of a moderate warming (1-­‐2oC) will be beneficial.

First, please note Lomborg talks about economic models. Does that mean all, most, or at least one which is the one Lomborg prefers?

Second, please note that Lomborg does not say why is it important to realize that the overall impact &c.

So, why?

Read More

(Source: planet3.org)

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)

Bart R,

Thanks for your answers. I agree with the first one. I tell about the same thing about those who ask me: if you want to win chess games, play chess games. To play chess games, you need to sit in front of a chessboard and play. Really, play. It’s a game. You have to feel what it’s like to play.

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)