Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. sends word of this via email. I’m a bit amused, but not surprised, as we know WUWT has been pushing the traditional media envelope, and we often tackle subjects they can’t or won’t. I liked this statement about skeptical blogs:
They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal.
She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
CSTPR Noontime Seminar
Fall 2012 Series
Thursdays 12:00 – 1:00 PM
The Communications-Policy Nexus
Media, messages, and decision making
* Tuesday September 11, 2012
THE CONTRARIAN DISCOURSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: WHAT ARE BLOGS GOOD FOR ANYWAY?
by Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna
CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue
Free and open to the public
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
========================================================
http://cires.colorado.edu/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=605
Can anyone go? Pielke Jr. reports he will be traveling.
tallbloke;
Enough, I’ll leave you to your ranting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And so tallbloke quits the field after raising not a single cogent argument to the matters of fact and substance which I raised.
PNS as defined by Dr Ravetz and quoted in full from his own comment upthread:
“Someone has asked for a definition of post-normal science. Let’s try: when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent, the paradigm-based puzzle-solving research confined to closed sets of practitioners is not adequate. We can call this a ‘post-normal situation’. Then there must be an ‘extended peer community’, using ‘extended facts’ which include traditional research results along with open criticism, plus data from non-traditional sources, and expressions of value commitments. Also, in such circumstances there is no possibility of results approaching truth to the same degree that is possible in traditional science; hence the debate will be about the quality of results. This is inevitably complex, since all scientific results depend on arguments where imperfect data and imperfect inferences are combined. Experience has shown that in such cases, which include all areas closely connected with policy, the ‘extended peer community’ plays a very positive role, not merely in legitimating accepted results but also in criticising controversial results. This practice of open debate, which is realised on the blogosphere with salient examples like WUWT, is post-normal science. Of course PNS is open to abuse, but then so is the closed-community practice of normal science, especially when it is closely tied to policy. For a good example of PNS in action, there is Phil Tattersall’s ‘Community Based Audit’ that operates in Tasmania. He has shaped his work by thinking about PNS.”
>>>>>>
Jerome Ravtez’ own definition fails the logic test. Any matter that is urgent can only be solved by those who have the unique combination of necessary knowledge and means to act at hand. If there is sufficient time for consultation beyond that “closed set of practioners” then the matter is, by definition, not urgent. If there is time for a “community based audit” then the matter is, by definition, not urgent. Dr Ravetz’ entire thesis fails on this single issue. He either fails to understand what the meaning of “urgent” is, or wilfully misrepresents it. Having begun with a false premise, the rest of his comment is also falsified.
We can all win arguments tallbloke if we are free to attach whatever meaning we want to the words we use. Dr Ravetz’ arguments on behalf of PNS can only have merit if we permit the complete rewrite of the meaning of “urgent”. Similarly his rewrite of the meaning of science which you accuse me of taking out of context. It is not out of context. It IS the context.
tallbloke quotes Jerome Ravetz;
To start, ‘quality’ now means ‘goodness’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The very first sentence of the excerpt quoted begins with the exact same strategy, which is to change the definition of a single word. Without this change in definition, the rest of what he writes is absurd. He seeks to change the definition of the words “quality”, “urgent” and “science”. Without these changes in definition, his entire thought process crumbles. We can attach value to his writing only if we allow ourselves to be tricked by this blatant subterfuge.
Another word for subterfuge is bullsh*t.
tallbloke will no doubt take me to task for my egregious remark rather than dealing with the substance of it. But bullsh*t is, in my opinion, as apt (and arguably better) description that subterfuge.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
And bullsh*t by any other name stinks just as much.
Richard Courtney: ‘Please see my post above addressed to Stephen Mosher at September 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm.’
Your 4.49 post contained this statement: ‘Politicians make decisions about uncertain issues by assessing available information – including scientific information – every day. IT IS THEIR JOB. In democracies it is what we elect them to do. Nobody elects “all stake holders”.’
True, but of course much of the ‘available information’ will be sourced from ‘stakeholders’, including scientists.
So it is inevitable that science will be part of the policy mix. And politicians will also need advice in assessing scientific information. The people best placed to offer that advice are scientists.
But in the case of climate science, the advice will have public policy implications. The issue then becomes the extent to which other stakeholders – those outside science – can have a say in public policy.
From what I have read on WUWT and elsewhere, climate sceptics are keen to have a seat at the decision-making table – for both the science and public policy – except that in this case they are rejecting the offer, which is puzzling.
tallbloke says: “Hi Mike. Ravetz isn’t claiming PNS is a science in and of itself.”
Jerry Ravetz says: “The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call ‘post-normal.'”
JJ says: tallbloke doesn’t pay attention to what Ravetz is saying.
…
tallbloke says: “I regard PNS as a realistic description of how scientific output has been manipulated by realpolitik, rather than as a practise to be followed.”
tallbloke says: “PNS is a description of what can happen at the science/policy interface after the ‘normal science’ is done. It also contains prescriptions for how that science/policy interface can be prised open by interested parties, some of them holding ‘leaked information’ etc.”
JJ says: tallbloke doen’t pay attention to what tallbloke is saying.
…
Science is epistimology, not politics. The epistimology of science encompassed the auditing and “quality control” of science by asserting the supremacy of facts and reasoning and replicability and dismissing as irrelevant the appeal to authority or majority. Science did these things, long before Jerry Ravetz decided to make a run at legitimizing the politicization of science. Kuhn described and promoted bad science. Ravetz describes and promotes politics masquerading as science, and he does this by referring to his political methodology as “science” – both in the title he picked for it as well as his narrative descriptions of it.
When “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” then you admit that what you are doing is politics in the absence of science. Leaving aside the laboratory air of the word “science”, you admit that what you are doing is politics in the absence of knowledge. If Ravetz had called his methodology “The Politics of Ignorance” and honestly desribed it similarly, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. He didn’t, and the reason he didn’t was that he wished to engender the very confusion that you are demonstrating.
JJ says:
September 3, 2012 at 11:47 am
tallbloke says: “Hi Mike. Ravetz isn’t claiming PNS is a science in and of itself.”
Jerry Ravetz says: “The new drug/food syndrome needs a new sort of science, what we call ‘post-normal.’”
JJ says: tallbloke doesn’t pay attention to what Ravetz is saying.
JJ doesn’t provide links so the context of his snippets can’t be checked.
DirkH says:
September 3, 2012 at 11:23 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8388485.stm
…
My conclusion: Hulme and Ravetz are manipulators.
And you conclude this without knowing if or how the article was edited by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation before publication?
davidmhoffer:
David,
You have provided a series of cogent posts in this thread and in my opinion you have saved the best till last. At September 3, 2012 at 11:42 am you say
Exactly so!
In my first post to this thread at September 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm I wrote
Anybody who fails to understand my anger at what PNS represents can find the answer by reading all of my above post at September 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm.
Richard
Brendan H:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 3, 2012 at 11:46 am.
I commend others to read and consider all your post because it is good. I write to address your final paragraph which says
I think your puzzlement derives from a misunderstanding; viz. I do not know of any climate sceptics “keen to have a seat at the decision-making table”.
There probably are a few who want that because e.g. there is a UK MP who was a frequent poster to WUWT threads. But most don’t.
In general, climate sceptics desire
(a) that science be conducted properly
(b) that malpractice in climate science be corrected and those responsible brought to account
(c) that the abuse of climate science as justification for political policies be stopped
(d) that politicians and public be informed of the realities of climate science.
PNS is a Trojan Horse: it pretends to offer climate sceptics “a seat at the decision-making table” when – in reality – it would make it impossible to achieve the desires I list as (a) to (d).
Richard
Tallbloke — thankyou you for your considered reply.I will quote you below then use that quote to somewhat shift the topic.
“If you hadn’t noticed, in the the climate arena, “real science” has been telling us lies for 25 years because the “real climate” scientists” and their IPCC pal review buddies got all emotionalized about “saving the planet” and thought the end justified the means.”
First let me say that the definition of science that i have posted elsewhere on this thread is — “Science is a systematic enterprize that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” The above people are not scientists. I have never considered them to be scientists.
Secondly it is generally true that things exist before they are named. (Whether or not the Tooth Fairy “came into existence because it was named” all depends on how broad your definition of existence is. It can be argued that “existence in name only” is a form of existence.)
The point I wish to make is that we have been seeing Post Normal Science in operation for the last 25 years — before someone finally named it. The process you deplore above is Post Normal Science in application. And the result of that application is that the voice of “real science” has been shouted down.
When you think about it isn’t it obvious that the political process that has promoted “global warming” can best be named “applied Post Normal Science”? You deplore the reality of that which in the abstract you advocate.
Now to shift the topic a little bit. First we need to get a definition of the art term — Postmodernism.
“Postmodernism is largely a reaction to scientific or objective efforts to explain reality”. From that we can say that Postmodernism is the employment of non-scientific and non-objective efforts to explain reality as a reaction to scientific or objective efforts to do so — without getting too many people’s knickers in a twist.
Since Post Normal Science advocates a political process that promotes non-scientific and non-objective efforts to explain reality as a reaction to purely scienctific and objective efforts — then we can say that the politics of applied Post Normal Science is really nothing more than a bit of staged Postmodern art.
I have said elsewhere that Post Normal Science is “anti-science” and when you properly categorize it — it undisputably is.
This type of thinking comes out of the “soft sciences” which most people recognize as being largely “art” and not science.
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — The “scientists” who advocate for global warming would best be described as “Postmodern Scientists” — I know its a contradiction in terms but thats what helps to make it funny.
tallbloke;
JJ doesn’t provide links so the context of his snippets can’t be checked.
and
And you conclude this without knowing if or how the article was edited by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation before publication?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seriously tallbloke, your loyalty to your friend is admirable, but you are increasingly grasping at straws and obviously so.
tallbloke says:
JJ doesn’t provide links so the context of his snippets can’t be checked.
All the quotes are from this thread. If you can read my post, you have ‘the links’.
That said, for the purpose at hand there is no need for ‘context’ beyond that provided by the quotes themselves. You contradict Ravetz, and you contradict yourself. And you play “blind eye” to the balance of my posts with throw away dodges like that.
When you find yourself behaving like that, introspection is in order.
It is an overt intellectual misrepresentation by Ravetz et al to peddle their proposed social/political programs as a ‘science’. PNS is not science in any logical sense.
Ironically, we’ve seen John Cook misrepresent his consensus climate science website with the name ‘Skeptical Science’, now with the same overtly misleading strategy we see Jerome Ravetz refer to his proposed social /political prograns as science; as Post Normal Science.
Both are common examples of the systematic lack of intellectual integrity by those cashing in on the manipulations of IPCC climate related products; manipulations being done by a core of scientists (see CG1 & CG2) whose research is biased by sociopolitical ideologies.
John
JJ:
re your post at September 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Have you only now noticed? He has done it to me three times in this thread.
Richard
What Einstein did to Newton’s theory?
“…. forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.”
He should be burnt at the stake, this guy named Albert!
Tallbloke
There is only one small document that you need to read, that I think will settle the argument on this thread and let you know what Ravetz is all about.
This is it.
h/t Bernie Lewin
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/post-normal-science-and-the-corruption-of-climate-science/
“Coercive Dialogue,” not even Orwell came up with such a sinister example of doublespeak as this.
Ravetz “participatory democracy” is really chaotic mobs of protesters using vandalism, violence and the threat of it to get their way. It is straight out of the Marcuse play-book. Look at the first three pictures in that document.
I could (and will if you insist) provide a point by point comparison between the work of Ravetz and Marcuse, but perhaps this will suffice for now.
Marcuse also gets a mention in Ravetz’s book.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jng6AAAAMAAJ&q=marcuse#search_anchor
Some historical background on Marcuse.
Tallbloke
You say that: “And it’s not that Ravetz wants science to be the handmaiden of politics. He merely observes that it is in fact what has happened. He is not advocating it, he is commenting on it. He then goes on to say that if that’s how it is, then a wider range of people (including sceptics with their leaked documents) should be involved, because everyone is affected by the fact that science isn’t conducted in a vacuum of serene rationality and objective disinterest.”
I’m not sure I know what Ravetz wants, but I would not disagree with the assertion that science has already become the handmaiden of politics – if not entirely, then certainly to the point where it is difficult to imagine a decent policy debate without some form of scientific input. And if one were to concede that science is obliged to take on this role, and that such a role cannot be unwound, then one might indeed propose that the only effective political counter to the fusion of science with politics is greater transparency and accountability in the policy formation process.
The problem is that this casts science in a role that it is not really well equipped to play. Stripped of its modern hierarchical overlay, the ‘output’ of science is not a set of statements of the form: “X, Y, and Z are true subject to caveats A, B, and C”. Rather, the ‘output’ of science is statements of the form: “Because of observations P, Q, and R, we now know that hypotheses X, Y, and Z are not true”. The normal conduct of science then is not to build a set of truths but, rather, to progressively knock down a set of provisional hypotheses. And all that remains standing once things have been knocked down remains provisional – and not an assertion to be promulgated as a truth. Policy formulation, on the other hand, requires statements of the form “We the people hold X, Y, and Z to be self-evident”, or “They the scientists have demonstrated that X, Y, and Z are true”. It is upon such positive assertions that collegiate action is built.
But you already know all this.
Of course, many are willing to put themselves forward as figures of authority on certain topics, to become advocates – and the incentives to do so are great. I fear that in so doing they misrepresent themselves, their science, and the institutions they represent.
Keith G says:
September 3, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Tallbloke
You say that: “And it’s not that Ravetz wants science to be the handmaiden of politics. He merely observes that it is in fact what has happened. He is not advocating it, he is commenting on it. He then goes on to say that if that’s how it is, then a wider range of people (including sceptics with their leaked documents) should be involved, because everyone is affected by the fact that science isn’t conducted in a vacuum of serene rationality and objective disinterest.”
I’m not sure I know what Ravetz wants, but I would not disagree with the assertion that science has already become the handmaiden of politics – if not entirely, then certainly to the point where it is difficult to imagine a decent policy debate without some form of scientific input. And if one were to concede that science is obliged to take on this role, and that such a role cannot be unwound, then one might indeed propose that the only effective political counter to the fusion of science with politics is greater transparency and accountability in the policy formation process.
I don’t think Ravetz knows what Ravetz wants either. There’s no doubt that in the deep past he has flirted with philosophies of action which militate for radical change in the way society is controlled and manipulated by the ‘scientific-technological elite’ Eisenhower warned us all about. In his middle years he courted and was courted by groups and movements which have attempted to subvert the system from within. In his mellower later years he has grappled with concepts of truth, quality, the epistemological underpinnings for the enterprise of knowledge production and rational ways of reconciling different world views and interests in non-violent ways.
Those with black and white views about politics like David Hoffer and those with commercial and intellectual interests to protect like Richard Courtenay see Ravetz’ desire to democratize the corridors of power and peer review as dangerous and wrong. Well, Ravetz always liked a bit of danger and struggle, and has long experience of being vilified, so I doubt their bellicose pronouncements bother him much. Pretty tame stuff compared to the lambasting he got from Willis Eschenbach last time round anyway. He is amused by pompous irrationality and frequently elicits it for fun. He’s a bit of an old rascal in this respect.
Through the months long email conversations Ravetz and I had in 2010 post climategate, I think he came to see just how duplicitous and self serving the environmental movement and the climategate scientists had become, and was disillusioned by their abandonment of integrity and their naive adoption of means to ends strategies, including their misuse of his own ideas. Hence his short essays on truth, integrity and quality published on my blog, followed by his organising the Lisbon conference, which the arch warmists refused to turn up to. I warned him he would end up taking flak from both sides if he adopted the middle ground. But he is of an age now where he doesn’t really mind what others think of him, so long as he is still effective in stimulating debate on the important issues. His closing words in the essay on PNS, Truth and Science are:
“I am still not content with my resolution of the problem of Truth. The way I see it now (which I certainly don’t say is True) is that there is a connection between truth and integrity. This might be cast as attempting ‘the truth as best as I can achieve it’, or, more fundamentally, ‘being true to myself’. This is not always easy, as I may be under great internal pressure to protect my personal investment in a particular theory when it is under attack. The theory might about the course of climate change and its causes, or even philosophical considerations of truth, uncertainty, and responsibility in scientific knowledge. The challenge is never-ending.
Understanding that challenge makes it easier for me to attempt non-violent communication, and to escape from the assumption that all who disagree with me, or even who criticise me sharply, are wrong or malevolent. Enough.”
These words speak to me of a man who is still mentally agile in his middle 80’s, and one who is not so overly attached to his own previous output that he will defend it against other, different and at least equally valid points of view ‘no matter what’.
An attitude that certain climatologists would be wise to emulate, before they do irreparable damage to their own reputation and self worth, and perhaps more importantly so far as the rest of us are concerned, science itself.
“tallbloke says:
JJ doesn’t provide links so the context of his snippets can’t be checked.”
The quote comes from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7vvmwn907bj5h21j/ where Ravetz continues:
“Also, we understand that an appropriate foundation for regulation and ethics is not so much “objectivity” as “awareness.” In an age when “consumers” are becoming concerned“citizens,” the relevant science must become post-normal”.
aware
n adjective having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. (from COED)
In the case of Ravetz it would seem that “perception” is the definition. In which case decisions should not be made on empirical evidence rather they should be made according to the perception (understanding) of the consumers (concerned citizens).
In these days, when education has been dumbed down (certainly in the UK), and “science” is dictated from authority, post-normal science would seem to be a dangerous practice.
David Ross says:
September 3, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Tallbloke
There is only one small document that you need to read, that I think will settle the argument on this thread and let you know what Ravetz is all about.
Participatory Approaches to Environmental Policy
by Bruna De Marchi & Jerome R. Ravetz
http://www.clivespash.org/eve/PRB10-edu.pdf
Hi David, thanks for this. The standout passage in relation to this debate is this one IMO
“The very nature and dynamics of current environmental issues impede the
effectiveness of explanations, forecasts or decisions based on a reductionist
approach – those that assert definitive rather than probabilistic value-based judgements.
Environmental systems are complex and their future characteristics uncertain.
Consequently there is no privileged perspective on environmental issues. We cannot
eliminate radical uncertainty about the factual basis for most applications of
environmental evaluation. We can, however, encourage public debate on the
merits thereof.
Environmental evaluation can be viewed from the perspective
of ‘post-normal science’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993); that is, facts are
uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. The traditional
distinction between ‘hard’ objective scientific facts and ‘soft’ subjective value judgements
is now inverted. All too often, we must make ‘hard’ policy
decisions where scientific inputs are irremediably ‘soft’ in the sense of being
insufficiently reliable to provide conclusive support for a policy decision.
Traditionally, economics has acted as a ‘normal’ science based on clearly
defined postulates. It has sought to demonstrate how social goals are best
achieved through the mechanisms operating automatically in an essentially
simple system. The argument goes that conscious interference in the workings
of the economic system will undermine achievement of these goals. However,
in relation to decisions about the global environment, inherent judgements are required
that go well beyond normal science.
Even when pricing rather than control is advocated
for the implementation of environmental policies, the prices must be set, consciously,
by some agency. When externalities are uncertain and irreversible, setting ‘ecologically
correct prices’ is impossible either in actual markets or surrogate markets that are used
in contingent valuation studies (see also Policy Research Briefs 1 and 3). In this case
special hypotheses, theories, visions and prejudices of the various policy-setting agents
all come to bear on the policy debate.
The public, whose members have their own
perspectives, witnesses these contrasting and conflicting visions amongst actors in the
policy arena. Experts are hence best regarded as one set of actors in a process of
analyses and decisions. Rather than appealing to outdated notions of positivism and
absolute knowledge, scientific expertise needs to establish a ‘new social contract with
society’ (Gibbons 1999). This new style of governance requires that many social
actors are involved in an extended dialogue where different types of knowledge and
perspectives are brought to the forum and taken into consideration.
Plenty to discuss there. 🙂
A couple of quickies to get us started:
1) Was the situation urgent? Hoffer says not and I’ve always thought the same. But the powers that be were led to believe it was by the public pronouncements of the climategate scientists, even though they privately expressed doubts, as demonstrated by the emails. However, we can’t blame policy wonks writing in 2000 for not knowing stuff which wasn’t revealed until late 2009.
2) Don’t underestimate the political impact of the Prague ‘velvet revolution’, and the lynching of Ceaucescu (sp?) in Romania. This set sphincters pulsating in Brussels. Public involvement in decision making beyond a once in four years opportunity to vote for one set of corrupt politicos or another suddenly became fashionable.
3) Prime time for Ravetz and Funtowicz! Suddenly, people are taking their stuff seriously. Were they as unready for this as Phil Jones and the CRU?
4) All this European stuff looks alien to U.S. American eyes, but how much are they not privy to behind the scenes? Isn’t Ravetz’ insistence on the spotlight being shone into the policy corridors a good thing? To be able to deal with something you first have to know it. Is there any willingness on the part of the U.S. public to get out there and force their mandarins to open up?
5) Is Ravetz right that positivism regarding climate science is unwarrranted and outdated? Or has he put a pejorative label on what should have been a simple enough exercise in ruling out the possibility of extreme climatic effects from emissions? How careful do we need to be not to have our judgement clouded by 20-20 hindsight?
Eugene S Conlin says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:26 am
The quote comes from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7vvmwn907bj5h21j/ where Ravetz continues:
“Also, we understand that an appropriate foundation for regulation and ethics is not so much “objectivity” as “awareness.” In an age when “consumers” are becoming concerned“citizens,” the relevant science must become post-normal”.
No he doesn’t. Ravetz actually continues with:
“The new drug/food syndromeneeds a new sort of science, what we call“post-normal.” This is inquiry at the contested interfaces of science and policy”
So, nothing to do with interfering with empirical science done before the science reaches the “contested interfaces of science and policy”.
You are trying to blacken Ravetz with selective snippets dishonestly conjoined and I won’t bother dealing with further examples. Shame on you.
tallbloke:
I am getting fed up with your repeated refusals to address my arguments but, instead, your repeated attempts at ‘poisoning the well’. The latest example of your despicable tactic is in your post at September 4, 2012 at 12:34 am where you write
Forget what you mistakenly think and assert are my motives. Answer my arguments: you have yet to answer a single one of them.
Indeed, in one post you completely ignored my response to a question you posed to me and, instead, gave ‘yes/no’ responses to my numbered list of corrections to your false assertions of what I “think”. Enough is enough. Answer the arguments.
Richard
tallbloke says:
September 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
Those with black and white views about politics like David Hoffer and those with commercial and intellectual interests to protect like Richard Courtenay see Ravetz’ desire to democratize the corridors of power and peer review as dangerous and wrong.
I cannot imagine how you get involved in these arguments and controversies on the internet. It is a complete mystery.
I thought that might get Richard Courtney’s attention.
Richard, when you and David stop mischaracterising what other people are saying with misquote and straw man argumentation, I’ll take your righteous indignation seriously.
****
Steven Mosher [September 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm] says:
But it looks like I win my proposition bet..
Open water north of 85!
****
Yeah, even here at 37N, I can feel it — alittle dizziness and slight nausea. A major disturbance in the farce. I can’t imagine how people in Barrow can survive the onslaught…
tallbloke:
At September 4, 2012 at 5:37 am you reply to my rebuttal of yet another of your false assertions about me together with a demands that you stop making untrue assertions about me but, instead, address my arguments (none of which have you addressed). Your reply says in full
So, you choose to condemn yourself.
You have no answers to my arguments and your post I quote here adds another excuse to your series of excuses for not addressing my arguments. Indeed, your excuse on this occasion is an addition of two more to your list of false assertions about me.
At September 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm davidmhoffer wrote:
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Richard