Great Academics Go Along With the Pack

It would be an understatement to say that much of the focus in villifying skeptics has been on the skeptic’s funding.  The storyline goes that skeptics are only fighting the obvious because they are paid off by oil and coal companies.

But of course, it turns out that global warming alarmists get far more funding than skeptics, likely 100x as much or more (funding for skeptics is at most a million dollar or two a year, and that may be high — funding for alarmists by governments alone is in the billions a year).  The quick reply of leading alarmist scientists is that the money is incidental.

I am generally willing to take them at their word — I find trying to look into other people’s hearts to be a hopeless exercise.  And besides, does anyone really think the folks who, say, believe in or oppose string theory are taking those positions for the money.  If I really had to discuss incentives, I would argue that prestige and wanting to belong are actually stronger motivations for alarmist scientists, as preaching doom seems to lead to fame while being a skeptic seems to lead to academic shunning.

So I have generally avoided the topic of monetary motivation of alarmists, but what am I to think when Penn State makes the case in its report on Michael Mann?  In a rather straight-forward way, they make the case that Mann is a good climate scientist because he is good at obtaining funding

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…

Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…

Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

This argument is OK as far as it goes, but implicitly defines a great academic as “someone who goes along with the pack.”  Note that skeptics cannot claim to get  a lot of research grants, because the alarmists control the funding.  Skeptics can’t get into peer-reviewed journals, because, as the East Anglia emails make clear, a small group of alarmist scientists are blocking their publication.  Mann’s research has been judged outstanding by his peers because he agrees with his peers.

In a large sense, Penn State’s only test of Mann’s ability is that he is currently a member in good standing of the small in-crowd that dominates climate science.  His science is good because it comes to the right conclusions.

Unlike many skeptics, I have no desire to “get” Professor Mann.  I don’t need him fired or even investigated by Penn State.  The way to refute him is to refute him, not haul him in front of tribunals.

That being said, Penn State did start and investigation and as such has some responsibility to do the thing right.  And boy was this a joke.   The most charitable thing I can say is that his work is fraught with more questionable decisions and practices and approaches than anything I have ever seen that was taken this seriously.  We could talk about it for days, but here is one example to get you thinking.

30 thoughts on “Great Academics Go Along With the Pack

  1. Sean2829

    It seems that politicized science is like expert witnesses at a civil liability trial. You hire (fund) the people who will give you the conclusion you desire. As imprefect as the legal system is, at least you opposition is allowed to present a different point of view.

  2. Jimbeaux

    Which is more correct, “Mann’s research has been judged outstanding by his peers because he agrees with his peers” or “Mann’s research has been judged outstanding by his peers because his peers agree with him”?

  3. Waldomann

    So how much money did Mann make?

    And these are interesting deductions: Mann must be lying because he is so successful at getting funds and developing a solid reputation among his peers; not only that, he’s been officially cleared – he must be guilty!

    Keep following that logic, folks…

  4. Justa Joe

    “funding for skeptics is at most a million dollar or two a year, and that may be high — funding for alarmists by governments alone is in the billions a year”

    You think it’s not obvious that you just made that up? Pathetic.

    You make it clear that you have absolutely no idea how science work. Good scientists attract funding, and you seem to think that probably means they become personally enriched. They do not. They are given money to buy computing equipment, hire staff, that kind of thing.

    “implicitly defines a great academic as “someone who goes along with the pack.””

    You misunderstand, yet again. You’re so stupid it’s breathtaking.

  5. kdk33

    You hafta wonder why they bothered. None of the investigations seem an even reasonable attempt at satisfying critics and the alarmists didn’t need one – so why?

    Only in climate science is government money altruistic, private money tainted. Establishment Climate science is by and large a pork barrel project. Government funded science concludes we need more government to fund more science – who knew?

    Seriously, though, you can’t read a man’s mind or look into his heart. Just take people at their word. That’s the right approach.

  6. ADiff

    Funding sources, incentives and intentions are independent of actual work but instructive of institutional and social bias potentially subverting accurate assessment (not to mention wasteful investments in bad work simply because it corresponds with what’s wished). Mann’s work was shabby (at best) and his results pretty much worthless as far as accurate understanding of climate is concerned. They do however provide reinforcement for the cheerios of DAGW, and their pet social engineering agendas. It’s obvious that DAGW advocates, both scientific and non-scientific, receive orders of magnitude more public and private funding than those questioning or challenging the purported consensus. It’s the obvious and blatant influence of profiteering and self-promotion for ‘Global Warming’ funding that makes it easy, and publicly costless (regardless the price to personal integrity) to hypocritically attack skeptics as being influenced by private underwriters…and it sells as well as any other conspiracy theory, like ‘big pharma’ suppressing so-called ‘Complementary and Alternative Medicine’ or the government supressing UFO facts…and it’s just about as truthful. The fact is that advocates of radical action to address Climate Change really don’t have any scientific position to stand on at all except that created in the public imagination, and so naturally this kind of tactic is perfectly understandable. Mann’s scientific work is fatally flawed and of no real productive value, as science. His personal integrity questionable. But that’s based on the character of the work itself, and Mann’s attempts to protect it from criticism and challenge (his attempts to silence challenges instead of answering them is a pretty solid give-away there, no surprise) impugn his scientific integrity. But that would be true regardless whether or not he personally benefits from the Academic-Government-Big Business DAGW bandwagon booster movement, and would be true regardless his funding or motivations.

  7. ADiff

    ….the logic is just an indirect appeal to popularity of course. Years ago scientists performing research into the relative virtues of different races attracted large volumes of reputable funding. So at that time they, as argued, must have been doing good science. The entire line of reasoning is so indefensible it’s laughable. One’s left with the impression use of such contention must result from his defenders having nothing better…which is to say, nothing at all.

  8. netdr-[the actual one]

    Waldomann:

    So how much money did Mann make?

    And these are interesting deductions: Mann must be lying because he is so successful at getting funds and developing a solid reputation among his peers; not only that, he’s been officially cleared – he must be guilty!

    Keep following that logic, folks…
    *************
    You miss the point as usual.
    .
    The logic of the university is that he is knowledgeable and good for them because he is good at getting grants.
    .
    That is correct from their point of view.
    .
    He wouldn’t be near as successful in getting funding if he were skeptical of CAGW.
    .
    From thier point of view he would be “BAD” at his job if he were a skeptic.
    .
    No one claims he is getting rich from his grants. That is a strawman but going along with the crowd does keep him employed with a roof over his head.
    .

    There is no “conspiracy” just a lot of individuals all doing what seems best for their self interest.
    .

    Climate alarmism isn’t a conspiracy, it is something far more insidious it is a CAUSE. It isn’t about making money although some will benefit greatly at the expense of others. It is about saving the planet. Who can possibly be against that?
    .
    I have read many research papers where any reasonable person could conclude the authors weren’t interested in the truth. They were interested in helping the cause. The problem with that is that skewed science produces incorrect results which generates poor policy making.

    .
    If I wanted funding to do a study on “The sex life of the North American Aardvark” and I wanted it to be published I would instead study the effect of “Climate Change on the sex life of the North American Aardvark”. I would get government funding or World Wildlife funding.
    .
    Once I had my funding would I find that the effect of Climate change to be minimal ? If I wanted further funding I wouldn’t ! I would make the most aggressive assumptions possible and find the effects would be catastrophic. If I had to use the model with the highest possible warming I would do it. I wouldn’t be lying would I ?
    .
    Stretching the truth for the good of the planet possibly. Who can fault me for that ?
    .
    Biased studies create biased reports which are then used to make more biased studies, and finally faulty government policies.
    .
    Those that don’t co-operate are banded “deniers” and are not “top scientists” by definition.

  9. Dr Waldo

    netdr, I might suggest that it is you who does not get it –

    everything you’ve posted is a replay of previous posts,
    cliche by this time,
    common knowledge (everyone knows that grant money is good for the college [I guarantee you I know more about this particular aspect than you do])
    and pure conjecture.

    Everything you post, and most of what your tribe posts (as above), and most of what Mr. Meyer posts, is pure conjecture.

    I just want to know if anyone here knows the actual facts of the matter.
    How much money has Mann brought to the school in the form of grants?
    How much has gone into his personal bank account?

    It is very easy to accuse people of things, particularly when they are generalities.
    That is the point you do not get.

    For instance -

    Denialism is far worse than an Internet phenomenon, it is a CAUSE.
    Mr. Meyer is only interested in posting his blog for personal satisfaction.
    netdr does not do his homework yet has hard core opinions on the subject of CAGW.

  10. netdr

    What waldo doesn’t say is more revealing than what he does say.
    .
    He calls the need for CAGW conformity in order to get grants “conjecture” but he doesn’t deny that it is a fact.
    .
    He doesn’t comment on the need to arrive at catastrophic [or near catastrophic] conclusions in order to get new funding.

    .
    How much money Dr Mann has in his bank account is a red herring ! He is employed in a job that he supposedly likes and doesn’t live under a bridge. If he were a “denier” would he still have the job ? Waldo doesn’t say.
    .
    The facts are that to be a “top scientist” you must get large amounts of funding. To do that you must believe the CAGW nonsense.
    .
    So far he hasn’t denied this obvious fact. Why not ? Because it is true.

  11. Wally

    One of the main problems with the peer-review system is that it is subject to what becomes trendy. In deed, the system of peer review publication and peer review granting can lead to an acceleration of this trend. You get your articles into big journals because people agree with you and you get more granting because of it, and then it makes it easier to get those big articles out there. This system of possitive feedback is again strengthened when a singular mindset starts to dominate such a small field. Larger fields are better able to counter these kinds of issues by having more minds with opposing points of view.
    -
    Ultimately, what this science needs is a generational turn over. Fortunately science has a natural negative feedback loop to counter this positive loop. And that the simple truth and that no scientists or politicians, no matter how influencial, can hide the truth forever. Eventually the data, and theories that best explain that data will win out. We may just have to wait a decade or so.

  12. Waldodr

    ****”He calls the need for CAGW conformity in order to get grants “conjecture” but he doesn’t deny that it is a fact.”

    Didn’t say anything of the sort. Not even 100% sure what you just said.

    But fine, scientists need grants – since labs, equipment, lab techs, and salaries all need money, scientists need grants. I fail to see your point here.

    Even if Mann funded his research through grant money, that alone does not invalidate his science. Cancer studies need grants. AIDS studies need grants. Geology studies, computer science studies, even disciplines which do not book a great deal of lab time such as math and English occasionally need grant money. Hey, I’ve actually received a few grants myself in my time.

    But that does not mean that one is bilking the system, only that one is using the system in the manner in which it is designed.

    Your point seems to be that AGW science is “nonsense” and therefore any use of public monies to fund it is illegitimate – but AGW is only “nonsense” in your mind, netdr. And yes, I know, abotu 60% of the general population believes AGW is some degree of “nonsense.” You know who does not believe AGW is “nonsense”? The scientists. Yes, the actual experts who work in the field. Those with blogs – they need convincing.

    Nor is it clear that one must propose “catastrophic” consequences to get funding. Hansen’s predictions are on a 200 year timescale if I remember correctly. You’ve made the charge, netdr, and you are not the first – what no one here has done is prove conclusively that money goes only to catastrophic predictions. In fact, no one has the hard numbers on anything here, which probably means you do not know and so must simply conjecture. As I posted before, it is easy to make a charge – backing it up is another story.

    You have simply made a charge with no backing information. As an “engineer and teacher,” you should know better.

  13. Waldaddy

    ***”If he were a “denier” would he still have the job ? Waldo doesn’t say.”

    Well, I don’t know. But it does appear Lindzen still works at MIT, Spencer still works at U Wisconsin, the Pielkes are still employed, no?

    Did these examples of happily employed deniers occur to you, netdr?

    Seems to me Botkin is still employed. So is Frank J. Tipler. I suppose I could go on – since there are a number of academic and professional scientists who do counter-AGW work – but I will not.

    Once again, netdr, you are implying a charge but have not thought it through or done your homework.

  14. netdr

    Waldaddy:

    ***”If he were a “denier” would he still have the job ? Waldo doesn’t say.”

    Well, I don’t know. But it does appear Lindzen still works at MIT, Spencer still works at U Wisconsin, the Pielkes are still employed, no?

    Did these examples of happily employed deniers occur to you, netdr?

    Seems to me Botkin is still employed. So is Frank J. Tipler. I suppose I could go on – since there are a number of academic and professional scientists who do counter-AGW work – but I will not.

    Once again, netdr, you are implying a charge but have not thought it through or done your homework.
    *****************
    I’m sure you didn’t think of the word “tenure”!
    .
    If Mann was or pretended to be a true believer in CAGW then turned skeptic after he had tenure he would get away with it because firing him would be difficult ! If he revealed his true skepticism before getting tenure I doubt he would ever get tenure in an organization that depends upon government grant money. Since the federal government is the prime source of funds for climate research and they know what they want to hear even if he did somehow trick them he would run out of funding quickly.
    .
    Lindzen and Christy have tenure at MIT and Wisconsin although the administration would love to shoot them. If they were nontenured they wouldn’t stand a chance of ever becoming tenured. Some of the climategate e-mails even talked about stripping the PhD’s from a couple of climatologists that had left the CAGW camp. I don’t think they could do it but it was chilling to read !
    .
    People should read the real text of the e-mails not the interpretations of them. There was some spine chilling stuff in them.

    .
    Spencer’s job seems to be working with the UAH satellites. Even the climate alarmists can’t openly demand he show warming without looking crooked.

    .
    The climate alarmists seem to like to say that everyone that doesn’t buy CAGW is funded by “big oil” but I didn’t see any reference to that for him. He may have gotten a free airline ticket [coach] to Omaha and a ham sandwich at best. If he were a true believer he might have gotten a first class ticket to Bangkok and lodging at the Peninsula hotel.
    .
    I have never claimed Mann was bilking the system. That is just your imagination. Another red herring ?
    .
    I claim that his belief in CAGW serves to keep him employed.
    .
    I do not know Botkin but if he is in Russia the rules may be different.
    .
    If the Frank J. Tipler you refer to is the one who wrote “The Omega Point” he doesn’t seem to be doing anything in the field of climatology.
    .
    It seems you haven’t done your homework which is normal for you.

  15. Waldoholdup

    ****”If he revealed his true skepticism before getting tenure I doubt he would ever get tenure in an organization that depends upon government grant money”

    Conjecture, netdr. Again. You don’t know any of this. Again.

    ****”they know what they want to hear” “the administration would love to shoot them”

    You seem very certain of these statements. How do you know any of this?

    And colleges get money from many sources – tuition, yearly state and federal, alumni, private donations, investments. No college or department is solely dependent on grant money. By the way, it is not impossible to fire academics with tenure – happens more than you know, actually.

    ****”People should read the real text of the e-mails not the interpretations of them. There was some spine chilling stuff in them. ”

    A little melodramatic, don’t you think? I did read the emails. The only ‘interpretations’ I have seen are on places like this. Not very chilling but rather annoying in their melodrama.

    ****”I do not know Botkin but if he is in Russia the rules may be different.”

    Very American. That’s pretty funny, netdr. Do your homework.

    ****”If the Frank J. Tipler you refer to is the one who wrote “The Omega Point” he doesn’t seem to be doing anything in the field of climatology”

    Yup. “Omega Point” man. He has not done climate work, but like a great many skeptical scientists that does not stop him from commenting very openly in the media about AGW. Works for Tulane. And he is still employed there. I actually did do my homework, you see.

    You are making stuff up, netdr, and then presenting it as if it were accepted fact. You are simply making statements such as “the administration would love to shoot them” without actually being able to show this. You are arguing strawmen.

  16. hunter

    It is great to see if this place is still infested with trolls, find out that it is, but then get the hoot of Waldo() deciding someone is using cliches.
    Irony, thy name is “Waldo”.

  17. Waldogeeze

    Ah! Jo Nova! If Mr. Meyer has a 2 or perhaps 3 on a credibility scale (he at least has some engineering in his background) then Nova has about a 0. That is the kookiest, whacked out website yet. Plus, Greg, she is linking SPPI (a brain-child of the Heartland institute) and her other examples either link to programs in bio fuels funded by Exxon, dead links, other whacked out blogs, or the occasional primary document which she reduces to a paragraph at most. Nova is the perfect example of how I got hooked into the blog in the first place.

    Unlike some of you, I try not to simply lash out with mere invective here but I am sometimes tempted. I may have overestimated CS.

  18. ADiff

    Increasingly it seems apologists for the fading DAGW fad are being reduced to the same old worn-out ad hominem and baseless assertion, even to the point of pulling quantified ‘data’ out of thin air. Even their rhetoric is stale. It sad when they can’t even come up with fresh propagandist appeals, much less real data contrary to criticisms of the hypotheses to which they seem so desperately attached.

  19. Shills

    ADiff,

    What is sad is the fact that you keep writing these over-general and over-wordy (you not a scientist??) posts that easily describe deniers, if AGWers as well.

    Why don’t you contribute to the overwhelmingly unbalanced level of scientific literature that is the greatest and most important discrepancy between deniers and AGWers?

  20. ADiff

    Your comment deals only with a straw-man conception of what a “denier” is. AGW is clearly a ‘work in progress’ in need of significant revision, but DAGW is clearly just a load of ideological crap. And that’s simply all there is to it. Understanding of the various sources of climate change current and historic are clearly still pretty speculative. Those claiming the most significant factor in current trends are this or that, certainly enough to act upon the determination, are off-base. The same is true of those claiming it is just as certainly not this or that, too. In that sense you’re right. But when you climb aboard the ad hominem band-wagon trying to silence opinion contrary to those critical to particular ideological agendas, you simply make yourself another ‘helpful idiot’ for those who’s commitment is to those agendas, not to scientific accuracy or objectivity. The simple use of the term “denier” clearly indicates your statement is fundamentally political and ideological and must be responded to as such.

    Policy decisions must NEVER be handed to ‘scientists’….EVER. It’s the worst mistake a society could make, destructive to society and science alike. If you liked the Wiemar Republic then you’ll LOVE ‘science based government’…which will end up pretty much the same. Far better to give policy to professional athletes or popular entertainers than to Scientists…the former may be stupid and arrogant, but at least they don’t think they know it all and have a lot harder time convincing folks they do.

  21. Shills

    ADiff,

    Firstly, the word ‘denier’ is useful to differentiate between honest, genuine skeptics and those who won’t listen to reason, in a constant state of denial. Skeptical groups all around the world, peeps who embody the definition of skepticism (go look em up) do not want their title sullied by the so called ‘climate skeptics’, so it is out of respect to them that I, and many others, use ‘denier’ to describe you folk.

    I have made no ad hominem attack. Where is it?

    Secondly, How the hell can you still blabber on so confidently about parallels between the present day and German history, without any kind of evidence approaching the scientific standard seen with AGW/DAGW, which you readily condemn? Don’t you see the huge double standard you have going there?

    Thirdly, you dread that policy decisions might be made by scientists. What? No one is suggesting that.

    Fourthly, and this is just as hypocritically unsubstantiated as your earlier crap, why do you think scientists are terrible decision makers? The philosophy of science flows though out all good decision making in any field. Why would they suck so bad? And why the hell would pop. stars or athletes do better????

  22. ADiff

    Shills….look up ‘Article 48′. It’s one illuminating example of why Scientists should not be trusted with Policy, and the case to which I refer.

    The word “denier” is used PURELY to try to conflate dissimilar cases (i.e. those who argue against the solidity of current AGW theory or dispute the case that observed warming and its affects constitute any substantial danger or threat, or that warming is amenable to alternation by taxes, or energy policy, or attempted restrictions on emissions…and folks who refuse to accept perfectly sound evidence for the moon landings, the safety of vaccinations, the holocaust and so forth). Your dissimulation attempts to evade the use of that purely ad hominem attack, which only purpose is to try to discredit critics without actually having to address the evidence they bring to bear.

    The case has not been made that CO2 is the principle, or even the most significant, driver of the overall warming observed since the late 19th Century. This is in spite of the fact that there has been some, significant but not unprecedented (in spite of alarmist claims to the contrary, not helped by obviously passionate attempts to ‘spin’ data to that end on the part of some of them) warming over the past couple hundred years. We experienced, according to the best interpretations of the data available, a rather faster warming in the years prior to WWII, then a cooling period for the next 20-30 years, then a warming period for the next couple decades, which now appears to have ended. Where climate goes from there is still ambiguous. Citing questionable studies as if they were conclusive, and passionately demanding huge investments and tremendous sacrifices on that basis deserves to be contested. And when such contentions are forwarded with propaganda efforts, such as Hansen’s and Gore’s scare-tactics, largely based on mis-representations or exaggerations, they deserve contempt too.

    The point is a “denier” refuses to admit or accept EVIDENCE. It is not denial to call a hypothesis into question on the basis of contrary evidence. It is not denial to argue that evidence does not justify policy. And to try to characterize these arguments as ‘denialism’ is itself intellectually dishonest and destructive of both science and polity.

    Scientists make terrible policy makers because science must be morally and ethically neutral. In science nothing must trump objective accuracy and correct physical results. Policy cannot be adhere to these dictates, because it is driven by Values judgments, where accuracy and objective truth must take second place to policy ends. Scientists make terrible policy makers to whatever extent they are good scientists, and terrible scientists to whatever extent they are good policy makers (i.e politicians, to call the thing what it is in practice). When scientists decide to become policy advocates they are faced with the dilemma of ultimately either sacrificing good policy decisions to Science, or good Science to effective policy decisions. The Wiemar Constitution was a case in point. In the attempt to create a sound, logical and rational intellectual construct, the social scientists (leaving aside any questions as to whether or not the Social Sciences really are ‘science’ at all) created a document that was terribly ineffective in the policy arena and that ultimately crippled the government on which it was based and provided the means for the alternative (the NSDAP) to seize power. The greatest threat from ‘science based government’ is the credibility they possess (although we’re seeing that’s dissipation now) allows them more easily to secure the people’s deference, which actors and athletes would not see so forthcoming.

    No…we’d be MUCH better off with a football team at the helm than a bunch of physicists…by far.

  23. Shills

    ADiff says: ‘The word “denier” is used PURELY to try to conflate dissimilar cases…’

    Well that might be how you deniers see it but I’m afraid you are on your own. As I said earlier, even most (every?) skeptic groups around the world, peeps who care most about the definition of skepticism, regard your stance as denialist. And it may seem that peeps just use ‘denier’ to avoid criticism, but you’ll probably find it is because that criticism is the same old rubbish that gets continuously raised since ten years ago.

    Your commentary on science and history is still pretty hypocritical coming from someone who is not happy with the level of science in AGW. You even hint at the inadequacy of social science when your surrounding comments are trying to be exactly that, but…

    You say: ‘Scientists make terrible policy makers because science must be morally and ethically neutral.’

    No they don’t they must be morally and ethically astute.

    You say: ‘Policy cannot be adhere to these dictates, because it is driven by Values judgments’

    Those value judgements and policies would ideally be derived from reasoned discourse, something that scientists do. What value judgements do you think science would screw up?

    You seem to suggest that scientists are rigid and too conditioned for the real world. I don’t know why you have this idea. Most scientists are just ordinary peeps too, who probably don’t think that much differently to the rest of us.

    You say: ‘The greatest threat from ’science based government’ is the credibility they possess…allows them more easily to secure the people’s deference’

    It is one thing to be more credible, but to abuse it is another. The foundation of science is sound, open reasoning, not manipulation and the kind of persuasion you are suggesting.

  24. ADiff

    Shills, I’m not suggesting it’s what DAGW advocates are doing….I’m flat out saying that’s what they’re doing, plain and simple.

    Your appeal to popularity avails you nothing, at least with regard to the veracity of your claims. In fact resort to such suggests quite the contrary.

  25. Shills

    Lol. How does it ‘suggest quite the contrary’??

    And I wouldn’t call it an appeal to pop., the genuine skeptical movement is probably well informed enough to know the definition of ‘skeptic’, so it is more aptly deemed a (non fallacious) appeal to authority. Of course, they could be wrong about deniers. perhaps you are genuine skeptics, but you have no evidence for such.

    If I’m not mistaken, it looks like my claim has more veracity than yours.

    The rest of your historical analogues and science-bashing remains unsubstantiated dribble.

  26. ADiff

    Shills,

    “[I]t looks like my claim has more veracity than yours.”

    No, but it is the more ‘officially’ accepted at the moment.

    Veracity isn’t relative, and in this arena still outstanding.

  27. Shills

    ADiff,

    In the absence of better evidence, invoking authority is still a (weak) form of evidence. Compared to what you have, my claim is more robust.

    And if now you are willing to call this contention ‘outstanding’, perhaps you can pull back all that other earlier crap to the level of ‘outstanding’??

  28. Shills

    Why yes it is.

    Still very inferior to hard evidence. but still better than your crappy opinions.

Comments are closed.