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:


Auditing Bias

Steve Postrel,

You say:

How can you have “no idea” why independent errors all pointing in one direction suggest political intent?

First, they’ve been called “misrepresentations”, not “errors”, because the author focus on claims he considers misleading.

Second, they have not been shown to be independent, something that affects their accounting.

Third, there are lots of different bias, some of which are not ipso facto erroneous.

Calling these so-called independent errors “misrepresentations” shows a very big auditing bias, insofar as we see the same pea and thimble game where an auditor uses technical nits to dogwhistle his editorial.

Read More

J’accuse the Editors

I thought that it would make more sense for Huybers to consider our Reply, assess whether it fully responded to his issue (which IMO) it did and then publish a joint paper setting out the issue and its resolution, rather than leaving readers to try to sort out a Comment-Reply.

The joint paper may be the result of some mediation, but it would not be its immediate product, as defined in the current op-ed:

They write a joint paper where they state the areas they agree on in order to narrow down the dispute, the fundamental points that they disagree about, and then **– this is the trick – they have to agree on why they disagree.**

The request that Huybers “fully agrees” with M&M’s results is not exactly the same thing as to report the results and then discuss agreements and disagreements in an explicit manner.

Read More


Older posts RSS