Disagreement Pyramid

[IanC]

So Ian -- is there a part of this pyramid method where you can compensate when your debate opponents then keep asserting the same refuted propositions? Do you get extra points if you just WHACK them with the sharp tip of the pyramid?

I must admit I get discouraged when Old Rocks or crickham just ignore evidence, and then go on to make the same rebutted statement at a later time and then demand that it be proven wrong all over again.

it is possible that we all ignore and forget evidence that goes against our worldview of how things work but I know for myself that my position has changed a lot since I first started commenting on climate change. my thoughts have evolved as I weed out false or even dubious evidence. some of the others here simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again. no interest in learning I guess.

Alarmists will never get beyond stage 1 or 2. They have no evidence to support their position which will stand review and replication. They hide their work and run from open and honest scientific review. One need only look at the actions of Dr Tom Peterson of NCDC who recently published a private letter of dissent and questions about his work. He went to a left wing hack blog known for lies and deceit allowing them to publish the letter instead of answering the questions. By doing what Peterson did he outed himself as a liar and a deceiver. He lost all professional credibility as a scientist.

Sadly Ian this is SOP of the alarmist shills.

I have repeatedly stated that I think the 'idea' stands on its own merit, and that it does not matter who voices the idea. many of the warmers here (and some from the other side as well) automatically search out to smear the reputation of the author of the idea first, so that they do not even have to read or digest the idea.

a personal anecdote from when I first started posting here. I started a thread about a new paper soon to be released, on the greening of the globe or some such thing. the paper was trash. the results were not significant because the time frame of data was so short and the results were opposite if started a year later. Old Rocks agreed that it was incorrect to publish such a shoddy paper. the next week the paper was actually published and press releases were put out in many newspapers and other media. Old Rocks started quoting the press releases!!!! even though we had discussed the failings Old Rocks could not help publicizing crap that he knew was misleading!

as to your infuriation of Peterson releasing Watts email- I think it was a poor choice by Watts to write it in the first place. even if it was the climax of previous altercations it was still in very poor taste. it reminds me of the time Heartland put up billboards quoting the Unibomber's belief in Global Warming. bad taste, and I dont like my side stooping to the level of the warmers.

 

[mamooth]

You really should get your time line straight. The letter was a private communication protected under federal law from distribution without the authors consent.

Don't make up weird stories about the law. If someone sends you an email, you're free to post it wherever you please.

And if someone sends you an abusive and threatening email, as Watts did, you're especially encouraged to publicize it.

And if you've bragged about stealing thousands of someone else's emails and publishing them, you especially don't have a leg to stand on.

Watts sent the letter to Peterson and his boss Karl as with all potential disciplinary matters the direct supervisor is included in all communications.

And that means nothing. Email was sent to Peterson, so he can do with it whatever he wants. Take a lesson. Don't send anyone email that you wouldn't want to see publicized.

Peterson refused to respond to Watts

A flat out lie, as Peterson wrote a detailed polite response to Watts, which Watts refused to publish, contrary to his promise. That response is here:

HotWhopper The perversity of deniers - and the pause that never was with Tom Peterson

and instead choose to relay that letter to Miriam Obrien, in violation of both the records act and government agency policy.

Internet lawyers are funny.

And Billy, nobody gave you permission for you to publicize Sou's private info. So just stuff the hypocrisy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really should get your time line straight. The letter was a private communication protected under federal law from distribution without the authors consent.

Don't make up weird stories about the law. If someone sends you an email, you're free to post it wherever you please.

And if someone sends you an abusive and threatening email, as Watts did, you're especially encouraged to publicize it.

And if you've bragged about stealing thousands of someone else's emails and publishing them, you especially don't have a leg to stand on.

Watts sent the letter to Peterson and his boss Karl as with all potential disciplinary matters the direct supervisor is included in all communications.

And that means nothing. Email was sent to Peterson, so he can do with it whatever he wants. Take a lesson. Don't send anyone email that you wouldn't want to see publicized.

Peterson refused to respond to Watts

A flat out lie, as Peterson wrote a detailed polite response to Watts, which Watts refused to publish, contrary to his promise. That response is here:

HotWhopper The perversity of deniers - and the pause that never was with Tom Peterson

and instead choose to relay that letter to Miriam Obrien, in violation of both the records act and government agency policy.

Internet lawyers are funny.

And Billy, nobody gave you permission for you to publicize Sou's private info. So just stuff the hypocrisy.

All I can do is laugh at your ignorance of the law and federal agencies policy... Rather than look at the posting dates you keep your lie alive by ignoring the facts.. keep your faith in slandering Sou...

 

[Crick]

Then you might want to speak to Mr Watts about his stated policy of publishing emails he receives, including the email addreses of their authors.

In a WUWT article from less than a month ago - posted on 13 May 2015, Anthony Watts announced a policy of publishing private emails he receives - with email addresses and all (archived here):

Hump day hilarity: WUWT’s new policy on hate mail – your hate mail will be published

In that article he not only posted the email, he posted the email address of the sender, too. (Posting email addresses etc is against HotWhopper policy).

Here is the archive of Watts statements:
Hump day hilarity WUWT s new policy on hate mail your hate mail will be published Watts Up With That

Stating in part:
Typically though, I just delete hate mail like this. Today, given a few other elements that made me laugh, and since this person is obviously ignorant, misinformed, and filled with hate, I’ve decided to publish it. It’s not like the person wasn’t warned, our WUWT contact page has this statement:
“
Contacts made under this form (especially hate mail and threats) are considered to be fair game for publishing, just like the “submit story” form.
*********************************************************************************************************************************

So, Anthony Watts believes he has the right to publish any and all email he doesn't like.