Well, where to start. How about with her blog rules…
Take note of the last line. The fastest way to lose your freedom is with ad hom arguments. Well, I know all about that having had multiple comments snipped apparently for ad hom arguments. I’m not going to go into whether they were or weren’t as it is irrelevant for this entry. What is relevant though is the line in her rules above where she says, “…..demanding answers to your questions without providing answers to ours…” Now I realise that that could be taken simply to be that “your” refers to all first timers and “ours” refers to all experienced commenters, however, it could also be directed solely at those of us that disagree with deniers. After all, why hasn’t Jo snipped these comments?
Andy clearly needs some anger management, not to mention a class in manners. I found these relatively quickly and you don’t need to search too hard at Jo Nova’s to find other examples of AGW proponents being snipped and being subjected to ad hom attacks.
Now, I don’t actually have a problem if Jo Nova wants to run her blog that way. It’s her blog and she can do what she wants. I just wish she would have the guts to admit that she has double standards and put it in her rules. Here’s my suggestion.
If you accept the AGW hypothesis, be aware that I am more likely to heavily moderate your comments than any of my fellow deniers because I am a paranoid, self obsessed, narcisistic, condescending hypocrite, afraid of any information being posted that is inconvenient for me.
At least that would be honest.
But how could she convince the vast unwashed masses of the evils of the climate change cabal if she did that? If you hadn’t noticed thate is a lot of projection on the denier side. i am constantly accused of being close minded and guilty of confirmation bias, yet I am quite open to holes in current understanding of ACC. I know there is large uncertainty around clouds, I am very cognizant of the possibility of new or underrepresented carbon sinks, hell I am even open to cosmic rays and odd solar radiation having moderating influence on the effects fo CO2. I just won’t BELIEVE any of those things until I see actual evidence to both support it and explain why other indicators are wrong. Funny how this being “sceptical” really should work both ways.
My wife reckons i am the most sceptical buggar on earth, mate sent a video, opening a car door with a plunger, crap i thought and chased it up, mythbusters had busted it a while before yet mate thought it was amazing,
stuffing 10MB down the drain
have a look at john cooks SKS today, some great ones there, conspiracy
To Jo Nova, questioning the validity of the opinions a microbiologist might have about climate science is probably considered an ad hominem attack. However, it is nothing of the kind. On the contrary, in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting that she decided first what she wanted to believe and then went to find evidence to support that prejudice… it is simply logical; and any truly objective person would do it.