32 of 33
32
Science, science, science.
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 466 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 06 November 2017 06:12 PM

Yeah, so it turns out you actually don’t know one graph from another either, no wonder you are confused.

One more time for the record.  You made up that narrative out of shear ignorance and too much blind hatred.
And of course you’ve yet to produce objective evidence to support your fantasy - well I can understand why you never produce anything close to objective evidence . . .  if only you possessed some scruples you might ask yourself WHY?

But no time to explain it again, although there is this for the serious among us who want to understand what’s really going on.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 31 October 2017 06:51 AM

Mikie the Contrarian what two events are missing?

hockey_stick.gif
(Figure 1)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html

Libelous Accusations of Fraud
The accusations of fraud are of course entirely baseless, but stem from the “Mike’s Nature trick” email which was made public during the Climategate theft. 
“Mike’s Nature trick” referred to the technique of plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data. 
This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.  This graph is commonly known as the “hockey stick.”

There is of course nothing ‘fraudulent’ about plotting instrumental temperatures on the same graph as reconstructed temperatures. 
Both the instrumental (red) and reconstructed temperature (blue) are clearly labelled in Mann’s 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al. 1999,
and the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (IPCC TAR).

There has been subsequent scientific debate regarding the statistical methods used in Mann et al. 1999.  It was after all a groundbreaking study - one of the first northern hemisphere millennial temperature reconstructions, so of course subsequent research has resulted in improved methodologies, even by Mann himself in Mann et al. 2008 (Figure 2).
NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
However, there is zero evidence that there was any fraudulent behavior whatsoever Mann et. al 1999, and in fact every subsequent millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has confirmed the general ‘hockey stick’ shape.  For example, see the summary of subsequent research on the subject in the 2007 IPCC report.

Additionally, every investigation into the Climategate emails found that the scientists whose emails were stolen, including Michael Mann, were not guilty of any wrongdoing.  Quite simply, any accusations of fraud are entirely without merit, and qualify as defamation and libel.

Sandusky Comparison Beyond the Pale
It should go without saying that comparing anyone - particularly an honest scientist - to a convicted serial child molester is simply reprehensible and should be universally condemned. ...  (therein lies another interesting story about the malicious nature of the alt-right contrarian machine.)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html


You’re kidding, you are giving me an easy one, thanks. By the way, nice job on posting the graphs. The Medieval Warm Period was warm weather around 1000 AD and lasted until the cold period known as the Little Ice Age in the 14th century. In 1999 Mann published his second chart which went back 2000 years. Both events were missing from the chart.
220px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Having trouble downloading two charts.
In the 1990 IPCC report the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were the best-know temperature fluctuations of the last millennium. Red line warm and ice period, blue line, Mann.
By 1995 the scientists were complaining about the Hockey Stick. The IPCC had already backed Mann and the Hockey Stick. So now the science was changing to match the Hockey Stick Chart.
By 2001 the IPCC was using Mann’s chart to conclude that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.
By 2007 the events were none sufficient items.
By 2013 the Medieval Warm Period had been replaced by the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Professor Jonathan Jones - The hockey stick thus requires you to believe that:
a) The tree rings are reliable proxies in the pre-thermometer era;
b) They remain reliable in the age of thermometers as long as both the thermometer and the tree ring are going up;
c) If the thermometer’s going up but the tree ring’s going down, then it’s the thermometer that’s accurate and the tree ring that’s junk.
 
The problem is the post-1960 “divergence”. The thermometer heads north but the tree rings head south - which is why Mann had to “hide the decline”. If the tree rings can’t read the 1960s correctly, why should we believe what they tell us about the 1560s or the 1260s?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 467 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 468 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 10:14 PM

 
The problem is the post-1960 “divergence”. The thermometer heads north but the tree rings head south - which is why Mann had to “hide the decline”. If the tree rings can’t read the 1960s correctly, why should we believe what they tell us about the 1560s or the 1260s?

I don’t know how else to say this. You can’t take a modern thermometer back to 1340 and measure the temperature. Maybe you could go answer my question in the philosophy section about what “believe” means. Because in this thread, you are making no sense at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 469 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1608
Joined  2016-12-24

MikeYohe, thank you for that concise list, now we are getting somewhere.

Is this what you believe or what the GOP propaganda machine has handed you?
I ask, because the problem we’ve had in this dialogue is that you ignore what I’ve shared,
it never seems to get absorbed and your faith based tenets remain as absolutist as can be. 
At least that’s how it looks to me. 

I ask you MikeYohe, if you are more than actor, if you are a living person who possesses a sense of personal ethics and honest intellectual curiosity,
if I produce clear responses to every one of those points, including references back to scientifically authoritative sources for further learning,
would you be willing to modify any of the following?

Let me know.

MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 10:14 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 06 November 2017 06:12 PM

Yeah, so it turns out you actually don’t know one graph from another either, no wonder you are confused.

One more time for the record.  You made up that narrative out of shear ignorance and too much blind hatred.
And of course you’ve yet to produce objective evidence to support your fantasy - well I can understand why you never produce anything close to objective evidence . . .  if only you possessed some scruples you might ask yourself WHY?

But no time to explain it again, although there is this for the serious among us who want to understand what’s really going on.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 31 October 2017 06:51 AM

Mikie the Contrarian what two events are missing?

hockey_stick.gif
(Figure 1)
https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html

Libelous Accusations of Fraud
The accusations of fraud are of course entirely baseless, but stem from the “Mike’s Nature trick” email which was made public during the Climategate theft. 
“Mike’s Nature trick” referred to the technique of plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data. 
This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.  This graph is commonly known as the “hockey stick.”

There is of course nothing ‘fraudulent’ about plotting instrumental temperatures on the same graph as reconstructed temperatures. 
Both the instrumental (red) and reconstructed temperature (blue) are clearly labelled in Mann’s 1998 Nature article, the follow-up Mann et al. 1999,
and the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere mean temperature anomaly in °C (IPCC TAR).

There has been subsequent scientific debate regarding the statistical methods used in Mann et al. 1999.  It was after all a groundbreaking study - one of the first northern hemisphere millennial temperature reconstructions, so of course subsequent research has resulted in improved methodologies, even by Mann himself in Mann et al. 2008 (Figure 2).
NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
However, there is zero evidence that there was any fraudulent behavior whatsoever Mann et. al 1999, and in fact every subsequent millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction has confirmed the general ‘hockey stick’ shape.  For example, see the summary of subsequent research on the subject in the 2007 IPCC report.

Additionally, every investigation into the Climategate emails found that the scientists whose emails were stolen, including Michael Mann, were not guilty of any wrongdoing.  Quite simply, any accusations of fraud are entirely without merit, and qualify as defamation and libel.

Sandusky Comparison Beyond the Pale
It should go without saying that comparing anyone - particularly an honest scientist - to a convicted serial child molester is simply reprehensible and should be universally condemned. ...  (therein lies another interesting story about the malicious nature of the alt-right contrarian machine.)

https://www.skepticalscience.com/mann-fights-back.html


You’re kidding, you are giving me an easy one, thanks. By the way, nice job on posting the graphs. The Medieval Warm Period was warm weather around 1000 AD and lasted until the cold period known as the Little Ice Age in the 14th century. In 1999 Mann published his second chart which went back 2000 years. Both events were missing from the chart.
220px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Having trouble downloading two charts.
In the 1990 IPCC report the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were the best-know temperature fluctuations of the last millennium. Red line warm and ice period, blue line, Mann.
By 1995 the scientists were complaining about the Hockey Stick. The IPCC had already backed Mann and the Hockey Stick. So now the science was changing to match the Hockey Stick Chart.
By 2001 the IPCC was using Mann’s chart to conclude that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.
By 2007 the events were none sufficient items.
By 2013 the Medieval Warm Period had been replaced by the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Professor Jonathan Jones - The hockey stick thus requires you to believe that:
a) The tree rings are reliable proxies in the pre-thermometer era;
b) They remain reliable in the age of thermometers as long as both the thermometer and the tree ring are going up;
c) If the thermometer’s going up but the tree ring’s going down, then it’s the thermometer that’s accurate and the tree ring that’s junk.
 
The problem is the post-1960 “divergence”. The thermometer heads north but the tree rings head south - which is why Mann had to “hide the decline”. If the tree rings can’t read the 1960s correctly, why should we believe what they tell us about the 1560s or the 1260s?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 470 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 07 November 2017 08:27 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 10:14 PM

 
The problem is the post-1960 “divergence”. The thermometer heads north but the tree rings head south - which is why Mann had to “hide the decline”. If the tree rings can’t read the 1960s correctly, why should we believe what they tell us about the 1560s or the 1260s?

I don’t know how else to say this. You can’t take a modern thermometer back to 1340 and measure the temperature. Maybe you could go answer my question in the philosophy section about what “believe” means. Because in this thread, you are making no sense at all.

I am not a scientist. That was coming from Professor Jonathan Jones. I guess I need to do a better job of quoting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 471 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
DougC.V2 - 07 November 2017 12:03 AM

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 
wonder: If there’s a 97 per cent consensus, why is it always the same handful of names in these pieces? Even amidst the somnolent drones of American magazine writing, does it never occur to anyone that maybe this time it would be nice to hear from someone other than Mann and the usual suspects? He may indeed be “the target of the most powerful deniers in the world” (the Koch brothers, me …er, did we mention the Koch brothers?) but his unscientific science is also the target of Nobel Laureates, the President of the Royal Statistical Society, and the man who coined the term “global warming”. He’s also the target of significant numbers of Scandinavian climatologists who think that, instead of regarding “the end of human civilization” as his day job, Mann ought to concentrate on his actual day job and learn to handle their raw data with minimal competence. Why do we never hear from them? Why is it always Mann and a handful of other ayatollahs of alarmism? Imagine how much more interesting the public discourse might be if the climate conversation expanded beyond the pre-stressed self-traumatized navel-gazers. Come to think of it, how come they suck all the CO2 out of the room anyway?
From Steyn, Mark. “A Disgrace to the Profession”.

The guys at skepticalscience are part of the Hockey Team. They do good work and seem to be very scientific. I have always agreed the humans are causing Climate Change. That’s why the term Climate Change means changes in weather caused by things that are not Mother Nature. So, really Climate Change is 100% caused by humans and some other factors. Like cows farting.
 
Easy consensual science. Now, please give me some numbers. After all mankind can’t live on consensual science alone, can we? I have heard that mankind’s cause of Climate Change is now estimated to reach 1% of the Global Warming. Of that 1% of GW, CO2 is said to contribute over 50% of that warming, by consensual agreement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 472 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 07 November 2017 08:27 AM
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 10:14 PM

 
The problem is the post-1960 “divergence”. The thermometer heads north but the tree rings head south - which is why Mann had to “hide the decline”. If the tree rings can’t read the 1960s correctly, why should we believe what they tell us about the 1560s or the 1260s?

I don’t know how else to say this. You can’t take a modern thermometer back to 1340 and measure the temperature. Maybe you could go answer my question in the philosophy section about what “believe” means. Because in this thread, you are making no sense at all.

The known expert in this period of time is Hubert Horace Lamb. Mr. Lamb as published reports on this time period and was used in the beginning of the IPCC reports. The Hockey Stick conflicted with Lamb’s data and the Lamb agreed that CO2 was causing problems with tree data. What is interesting to me is the JUMPS and LAGS in weather patterns. The Medieval Warm Epoch and The Little Ice Age are small jumps in weather. Also, Lamb has predicted we will begin the next glaciation is 3 to 7 thousand years. You can look Lamb up and get more data about this time period.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 473 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 November 2017 09:14 AM

MikeYohe, thank you for that concise list, now we are getting somewhere.

Is this what you believe or what the GOP propaganda machine has handed you?


Only got time for one question, got to run. Will get the rest latter.
The GOP propaganda. During the election the Global Warming was a big issue. Especially in Europe and Asia. Trump’s appointments have angered the alarmists.  The government has offered an open challenge to debate Global Warming on national television. A perfect opportunity for a few scientists to become rich and famous like Mann and make and a name for themselves. And what an opportunity for Mann himself to put the Hockey Stick to bed by debating the government.  I mean, just think, with a 97% consensus, what scientific data can the government have. Who would be backing and representing the government’s view and science? Well, maybe hundreds of pissed off scientists who think a major fraud has been perpetrated on the general public. This would be one debate that I would like to watch.
 
When Trump took office, he had this Global Warming problem. If the government saw scientific fraud being committed they had to figure out the best way to handle the problem. One thing that could be done is to cut the funding. Bingo – done. Then to stop the government departments from backing the fraud. Bingo – also done. Next, they would try and shut down any regulations connected to Global Warming. Bingo – done.
 
We now know that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent. How should we treat those who approved it? What should the EPA do now proposing to adopt rule making for CO2 mitigation? To do so they must embrace the underlying fraudulent science, and the terrible harm it will bring. EPA action seems simple: do not proceed with the rule making for greenhouse gas mitigation. Have the courage not to mitigate man-made CO2 and avoid joining with the scientific deceptions. Close analyses of the hockey stick scandal are essential for policy makers, educators, media, and many scientific institutions and their PhD staffers. All of them played a role in creating and/or spreading the deceptions. It has shaken the pillars of institutional science to its foundation and undermined the public trust science once had. We are either dealing with willful scientific deceptions or woeful and lazy scientific mediocrity from PhDs themselves. Steyn, Mark. “A Disgrace to the Profession”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 474 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21
MikeYohe - 07 November 2017 11:48 AM

  I mean, just think, with a 97% consensus, what scientific data can the government have. Who would be backing and representing the government’s view and science? Well, maybe hundreds of pissed off scientists who think a major fraud has been perpetrated on the general public. This would be one debate that I would like to watch.
 

Debates are not science. Debates are for the politics that should be based on science. In a debate, each side gets an equal amount of time. They present arguments for their side and refute the others. The idea is to come into them open minded and make your decision based on the facts and how well they are presented. But we are talking about one of the biggest sets of data ever accumulated. There is no way anyone could watch a couple hours of debate and make that decision. Especially if the side that was wrong was using lies and bringing up questions about people’s integrity and issues of funding. Those kinds of accusations are not easily followed up on, they are intended to create doubt, not shed light on a subject.

If you were going to represent the consensus in a format similar to a debate, you would have 97 scientists on one side of the room and 3 on the other. That would appear unfair, but the fairness is not in the presentation, it’s in how those 97 people got there. They got there by doing the hard work, by proving their conclusions over and over and submitting them to scrutiny and repeating their experiments and putting up with whining amateurs like you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 475 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2017-09-24
Lausten - 07 November 2017 12:04 PM
MikeYohe - 07 November 2017 11:48 AM

  I mean, just think, with a 97% consensus, what scientific data can the government have. Who would be backing and representing the government’s view and science? Well, maybe hundreds of pissed off scientists who think a major fraud has been perpetrated on the general public. This would be one debate that I would like to watch.
 

Debates are not science. Debates are for the politics that should be based on science. In a debate, each side gets an equal amount of time. They present arguments for their side and refute the others. The idea is to come into them open minded and make your decision based on the facts and how well they are presented. But we are talking about one of the biggest sets of data ever accumulated. There is no way anyone could watch a couple hours of debate and make that decision. Especially if the side that was wrong was using lies and bringing up questions about people’s integrity and issues of funding. Those kinds of accusations are not easily followed up on, they are intended to create doubt, not shed light on a subject.

If you were going to represent the consensus in a format similar to a debate, you would have 97 scientists on one side of the room and 3 on the other. That would appear unfair, but the fairness is not in the presentation, it’s in how those 97 people got there. They got there by doing the hard work, by proving their conclusions over and over and submitting them to scrutiny and repeating their experiments and putting up with whining amateurs like you.

It’s not even that, the 3% dissenting view has been shown to have no scientific basis.

So it would be 100 actual scientists who do peer-reviewed research on one side of the room and a bunching of friggin’ corporate lobbyists on the other.

And don’t worry “Mike Yohe” isn’t suddenly getting it, deniers have had 40 years to get it and are still off in the damn boonies when it comes to climate change.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 476 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1608
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 07 November 2017 11:48 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 November 2017 09:14 AM

MikeYohe, thank you for that concise list, now we are getting somewhere.

Is this what you believe or what the GOP propaganda machine has handed you?


Only got time for one question, got to run.

NO,no,no that’s not the important question and your comment is more utter fantasy - 
as is evidenced by your inability to offer direct links or citations to information supporting your outlandish claims.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  You haven’t provide anything but half-truths and outright deceptions.

Please go back and read that comment #469 -

Answer the important question.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 November 2017 09:14 AM

I ask you MikeYohe, if you are more than actor, if you are a living person who possesses a sense of personal ethics and honest intellectual curiosity,
if I produce clear responses to every one of those points, including references back to scientifically authoritative sources for further learning,
would you be willing to modify any of the following?

Let me know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 477 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2207
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 07 November 2017 12:04 PM
MikeYohe - 07 November 2017 11:48 AM

  I mean, just think, with a 97% consensus, what scientific data can the government have. Who would be backing and representing the government’s view and science? Well, maybe hundreds of pissed off scientists who think a major fraud has been perpetrated on the general public. This would be one debate that I would like to watch.
 

Debates are not science. Debates are for the politics that should be based on science. In a debate, each side gets an equal amount of time. They present arguments for their side and refute the others. The idea is to come into them open minded and make your decision based on the facts and how well they are presented. But we are talking about one of the biggest sets of data ever accumulated. There is no way anyone could watch a couple hours of debate and make that decision. Especially if the side that was wrong was using lies and bringing up questions about people’s integrity and issues of funding. Those kinds of accusations are not easily followed up on, they are intended to create doubt, not shed light on a subject.

If you were going to represent the consensus in a format similar to a debate, you would have 97 scientists on one side of the room and 3 on the other. That would appear unfair, but the fairness is not in the presentation, it’s in how those 97 people got there. They got there by doing the hard work, by proving their conclusions over and over and submitting them to scrutiny and repeating their experiments and putting up with whining amateurs like you.


In your make-believe world of 97 to 3. Did you dream that up or did a little birdie give you those numbers? Oh, I get it. You believe those 97% consensus numbers. Just like the numbers of Hilary’s changes of winning was 100%. And the whining is still going on a year later. 
 
In the real world there will be no problem with the number of scientists on both sides of the issues.
 
There have been famous debates that have gotten the public thinking. The Bohr-Einstein debates for example. The Oxford evolution debate. The Edison and Tesla debate. You don’t want a debate against your climate religion any more than churches want to have a debate about their religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 478 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1608
Joined  2016-12-24

What do you know about debate MikeYohe?

Ironically I’m in the midst of something that includes a little section defining the two main groups of debates.
From your behavior in this thread and others, I’m pretty sure which one you ascribe to:

Define the Debate.

A Constructive semiformal Argument based on facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand. 

Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required.  Along with striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject/modify it on the merits of your facts. 

If we fail, it means something.  It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest.  Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout.

Z Legal Debate, winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle.  Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is the prerequisite, objective learning doesn’t occur.

Amorality, facade and theatre are it’s hallmarks.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 November 2017 09:14 AM

I ask you MikeYohe, if you are more than actor, if you are a living person who possesses a sense of personal ethics and honest intellectual curiosity,
if I produce clear responses to every one of those points, including references back to scientifically authoritative sources for further learning,
would you be willing to modify any of the following?

Let me know.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 10:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 479 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1608
Joined  2016-12-24

the final

Define the Debate, A to Z

A Constructive Argument based on real facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand. 

Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. 
Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts. 

If we fail, it means something.  It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. 
Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout.

Z Lawyerly Debate, winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. 
Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite.  Objective learning is not the object.

Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2017 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 480 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4170
Joined  2009-10-21

Mike,  are you coaching Kathleen Hartnett White

Profile
 
 
   
32 of 33
32