The Bitching Hypothesis


I have little time, since I’m busy with rereading Popper at Bart’s. But I promised a link for Tol’s comment. Here it is:

Discussing mistakes in influential, published papers on important topics is not “bitching”; it’s called criticism, and it’s an important part of science.

I put this quote to make two points.

Read More


The Takeback Tactic

Instead, we get a sustained attempt at delegitimization.

Not quite unrelated, Brad has started to request more homework on the Twitter:

@nevaudit When you’re not being manipulated, thinking you’re being manipulated might lend some support to a diagnosis of paranoia.

To which I replied:

MT Self-awareness in spades: @BradPKeyes demands for an example of manipulation or else invokes paranoia.

Bunnies might appreciate how Brad exploits his “skeptic” take backs:

  • abuse your interlocutor until compliance with your over or covert request;

  • when the request is [met], take back the abuse;

  • rince and repeat, [reiterating one’s wish] to have a “conversation”;

  • intersperse everything with lulz.

Dead Baby, Dead

Willard is dead.
Willard is silenced.
Willard has been defeated.

We won!

Oh. (No.)

Willard is alive!
Willard has issues.
Because IF We Made Willard
Do it, THEN BB.

May Willard get the hell out of our faces?




Manufacturing Windows

[I]n my day the Overton WiIndow was referred to as Manufacturing Consent.

I’d say that stretching the Overton window may be a way to manufacture consent, AnOilMan. The levels of descriptions seems to differ, just as Climateball operates at a lower level than the Overton window. Moves implement strategies that operate in total wars.

Read More


Mansplaining, Dogwhistling, and Gaslighting

[After the scorched earth tactic, @ShubClimate rediscovers moderation. UPDATE - Shub says “pussyfooting” triggered moderation.]

Thank you for your comment, Steve, which I just saw.

You say:

Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. You never use the F word regarding Mike, and you frown upon anyone who does at your blog.

Read More

Rounds of Pussyfooting


Thank you for your comment.  To answer your question about why I am doing this, I could reply that I like to solve puzzles, that I earned enough money and could indulge in an excentric hobby, or find another line already used by the Auditor. I could also epilogue about philosophical scepticism.  Instead, I’ll simply return to the first sentence I quoted from Judy:

Read More

From Is to Ought

Had Broker said:

  1. Climate changes because of CO2.
  2. There are risks coming from (1).
  3. Reducing CO2 emissions would reduces risks caused by (1).

he would be immune to Judy’s criticism. They all are factual claims. Yet it’s quite clear that we can hear what to infer from these factual claims.

Why is that? Because we listen to a broker B with some action A in mind. This action has some relevance R to the topic T under discussion.

The formula is therefore B x A x R x T.



On the Inexistence of Any Consensus

There is no consensus.
If there was, we wouldn’t know.
If we knew, we wouldn’t be able to spell it out.
If we could spell it out, it would not matter.

H/T to Gorgias:


Older posts RSS