What do you mean what attacks? Do you expect me to do all your research for you? 'My time and interest are both very limited'.

Well, ACK, I tried a little mitigation there; he is a pretty face.

Well, now and then a rictus sneer.
==============

kim I see a problem here. We are too much alike and so keep stepping on each other's toes. I bow to your superior wit.

'As I said of a Gorebot over on Watts Up, 'wonderful sophistry handicapped by occasionally regrettable rhetoric'. They are taught manners, but also taught religious faith in the alarmist meme, and that blessed ignorance slips out as arrogance eventually and inevitably. A hallmark, faint as a watermark, but always present.
=============

Naw, ACK, I play in the sandbox building castles of crystallized sounds; your critiques are more apt.
=============================

ACK

Here it signifies frustration that attempts to debate issues are railroaded into distractions, debating points ignored or derided without cause,

I get a lot of that from the regular sceptics here. As you say, it becomes very frustrating.

It seems unreasonable of you to object when Phil Clarke follows your own rules of debate.

PCar. Apart from this latest episode, when you and I have clashed it has been on matters of opinion - like the merits or otherwise of methods used to maintain grouse moors vs rewilding. For these there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, just differing opinions. So when I realize there is no possible way of shifting your opinion, or if I just grow weary of the debate, I just stop. But then you accuse me, repeatedly of not answering questions "when I know I am wrong" and bringing out the troll word. Just stop it.

I have written before
1) I have the right to stop arguing at any point on matters of opinion , without the implication that I am "wrong"
2) I have the right not to answer questions, especially if I judge them to be bullying.
3) I have the right to keep to my own opinions upon matters involving my politics. If I am wrong on matters of fact I will acknowledge it (as I have done recently).
4) I have the right not to be called a troll for just disagreeing with someone on matters of opinion or fact.

Does anyone reading this wish to dispute these rights, or give up one or more of them themselves?

Sep 2, 2016 at 7:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

So now EM not only denies the science of the pause, he stands as the arbiter of this discussion. Kim notes accurately the watermark of the climate consensus true believer.

So EM. I complain of Phil derailing discussions, ignoring debating points [but the debate does not stop as I did when I found PCar's comments insulting or just too intense] or derided without cause. Just how am I depriving Phil of his rights (as I defined them)?

Are you criticizing those "rights"? Or just what is it that you are complaining about? Don't you think Phil capable of defending himself or are you so used to playing second stop?

kim
there are times where what you write strikes me dumb, like "building castles of crystallized sounds". I have no response. We ought to have a discussion thread of poetic utterances at BH - you would fill it.

Hah, A, I first read that as 'as dumb' and thought, yeah, that's apt.
======

kim. But that might be misconstrued by some of the Irish persuasion as a dreaded ad hom. I''m so glad my evil spellchecker and keyboard allowed me to write what I really felt.

What do you mean what attacks? Do you expect me to do all your research for you? 'My time and interest are both very limited'.

Sep 7, 2016 at 1:07 PM | ACK

ACK, Climate Science is incapable of proper peer review, despite the vast sums paid, and has to rely on others to do it unpaid for them.

"Original" work is either made up, or consists of copying someone else's mistakes.

So it is only natural for climate science experts to expect you to do their research for them.

If you are not already familiar with the circumstances can I recommend you Google Arkell v Pressdram for further guidance on dealing with unreasonable demands?

Hunter

Nobody is arbiter of BH discussions nowadays, though ACK or I do try occasionally.

It is one reason why the site has gone to the dogs.

Woof

Barkers gotta bark.
=============

EM. Further on debating rights:
1) The right to stop arguing at any point on matters of opinion, without that being misconstrued as being wrong. Where EM do RR, kim or myself violate this?
2) The right not to answer questions. This does not preclude the questioner from drawing their own conclusions.
3) The right to maintain opinions regarding politics. I do not recall questioning Phil's politics ever.
4) The right not to be called a troll. Did I ever call Phil a troll?

Still no spoor of the Lion Phil over there but here's Ken Fritsch's latest on the latest at StevieMac's:

'...a more or less trendless reconstruction in the pre-industrial period with a modern warming period enhanced by proxy selection after the fact and a spliced instrumental record says much about what is wrong with these temperature reconstructions and the manipulations to make the reconstructions fit an evidently preconceived pattern.'

Willful ignorance of Nature and dangerous arrogance about it. When will they ever learn?
================

ACK

You missed my point. You got all special snowflake after Phil Clarke exercised his rights under Rule 1 and Rule 2.

Since Radical Rodent tells me that an accusation of hypocrisy is not an ad hominem attack, a less polite person than myself might legitimately apply the term to you.

If it wasn't for blogs like Climate Audit, Climate Science would still be talking up the Hockey Stick. Climate Science is left trying to talk up temperatures and faked up science papers, to match the falsified "projections".

Meanwhile, somewhere in China there is a nice piece of paper, recently signed by President Obama, about clearing up the mess from noxious emissions. It is in glass case, hanging in a lavatory cubicle above the loo roll holder, with a sign on it stating "In Emergency, Break Glass". AR5wipe is the future for Climate Science, as it is not capable of self cleansing.

kim it is most unreasonable of you to suggest Phil venture his little paw over at the big wide savannah that is StevieMac's. He'll get eaten alive, or if he's lucky only get his tender parts clawed. Now aTTP does venture in, but he's too tough to make a good meal out of (and he keeps wandering off worried about people's motives). Difficult to pin down for the killing strike.

EM. Rule 1 applies (in my view) when you no longer wish to continue the debate. Phil commonly switches topics to avoid admitting he has lost or has run out of objections, but still wishes to argue. Rule 2: I have never questioned Phil's right not to answer questions. I have never subjected him to demands that he answer my questions, over and over, a situation I have been subjected to.

Try again?

ACK

I think I've made my point. Since my main interest here is discussing climate change and the discussion has movedaway from the science into the insulting of outsiders phase I will exercise my rights under Rule 1 and Rule 2, and leave you to it.

Bye for now.

EM. I must agree with you that your debating points are commonly railroaded into distractions, ignored or derided without cause (but with respect, you do the same) and, in the past, I have sometimes defended you. But now you virtually call me a hypocrite. Interesting tactics.

RR. Like many things here that I do not fully understand, I simply ignored EM's comment. I don't understand what "all special.snowflake" means. I am sure EM does not mean to convey what I should like the phrase to mean - that I, like every other person in the world, am unique.