Every legally-minded commenter should know about leading questions.
A leading question is in this form: “Isn’t it true that X?” In a trial an attorney is not permitted to ask his own witness leading questions because it is assumed that his own witness is eager to be led into saying the right things.
But when I say to you “Isn’t it true that X” that does not disadvantage you. You simply reply that no, it is not true. What am I missing here?
Fan,
Your driveby posts are mere taunts, with little follow-up by you, ie no discourse. Hence, your avatar is at odds with your moniker.
Judith demonstrates her tolerance by welcoming you to her blog. You demonstrate your ingratitude and disrespect for decency by taunting her and the denizens. Why? Does it amuse you to taunt, like a playground bully? Do you know that enlightened educators no longer allow this behavior in schools? So, why do you do it? Do you have anti-social personality disorder? Perhaps some self-reflection is in order. I don’t think it is too late for you.
“Most people would agree that “Moving away from coal is fine but” means the same thing as “I have no problem with moving away from coal except for this…”
Most people aren’t climateballers.
I’m enjoying watching Swood run up the score on the ballers, nailing the three-pointers while Willard spins ineffectively, Mosher guards the paint that nobody’s entering, and Joshua appeals to the refs.
March madness. Time for brackets.
@ JeffN
“…….there will be a new aristocracy, or should I say, kleptocracy.”
Well, if the determination is to be done empirically, based on which term fits observed behavior better, it will be ‘kleptocracy’ in a landslide.
guess i missed something. glad i did i guess.
@ swood1000
“But you will certainly be marked as a pariah if you release a study that questions the accepted facts.”
The observed rotation rates of galaxies (among other observations) does not match the rotation rates predicted by General Relativity. This observation can be reconciled with GR by assuming that 90+% of the universe consists of a combination of dark matter/dark energy whose existence, quantities, and distribution cam be deduced from the requirement that the universe behave–precisely–as predicted by GR.
There have been a few brave souls who have suggested that the observed behavior of the universe at large calls into question the ‘ironiclad-ness’ of GR and suggested theories which differ from GR at the limits and explain the observations without the requirement of either dark matter or dark energy. Look them up and see how their careers have blossomed. Or not.
Much like the careers of ‘Climate Scientists’ who question either part of the ‘Prime Axiom of Climate Science’.
Reports of altered temperature data ended the AGW debate.
The data were altered to hide effects of a secret solar force that produced, in solar cycle #24, the lowest sunspot number recorded since 1750. (Sunspots are produced when powerful, deep-seated magnetic fields emerge through the photosphere.)
The unacknowledged solar force was publicly pointed out in 2002.
See: “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)]: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/
Claiming ignorance while repeatedly “just asking” loaded and rhetorical questions is suboptimal.
A loaded question is one that contains a possibly unjustified assumption, as in “Have you stopped beating your wife?” But if I ask you a loaded question why can’t you simply say “Your question assumes that I beat my wife, which is false.” Instead, you seem to prefer to charge me with bad faith, to make reference to Wikipedia articles, and to refuse to continue the discussion. It may be that my question makes some assumptions that I would be happy to pause and demonstrate to be true.
I’ve a feeling we’re the eggs
=>> “But when I say to you “Isn’t it true that X” that does not disadvantage you.”
Do you find this reiterated notion of advantage and disadvantage in good faith discussion to be interesting?
Since as far as I know they never adjust the temperatures in a way that would weaken their essential claims, I’d have to say that it’s just a tad suspicious.
But then, I’m not Joshua.
Seriously? Ain’t nobody here but us chickens got deleted?
youre on your game today mosh.
;-)
“You made the wrong statement. Guess why?”
Hilarious, tonyb. ++
Andrew
Bill.. Long ago before it was Kool I did some work
In NLG. In the 80s. Code that wrote poems.
Kim has always reminded me of the output of those early programs
Bob Ludwick –
‘Enemies of humanity’, which is how Climate Science proposes to identify anyone who questions either part of the Prime Axiom
And then they wonder why they are described as being motivated by a kind of religious zeal.
Based on the recommendations of the hierarchy of Climate Science, the future prospects of Climate Science apostates do not appear rosy.
But if nature continues to refuse to cooperate, and if discoveries incompatible with alarmist theory continue to be made, how long can they keep this up? Don’t the apostates begin to gain the upper hand?
Trenberth was looking in the wrong direction, trying to find the missing heat.
You cannot find heat in outer space. He was looking in the right direction. The only direction a scientist could look.
Whatever that self adjusting process is, it also worked very well when there was lots of methane and no oxygen in the atmosphere under varying levels of insolation. It points suspiciously towards one molecule, and it ain’t CO2 I’m talking about.
Kim has more right brain than JCH has. (I know many engineers who would agree with JCH.)
