4 ms·

> > you wanted to show the author wrong > No, absolutely not. I would like nothing better than for the author to be right I think we are basically done here,

by inimino 10y ago

> > you wanted to show the author wrong > No, absolutely not. I would like nothing better than for the author to be right I think we are basically done here, but I just want to point out this rhetorical trick. You demonstrate motivated reasoning pretty clearly throughout this thread, which is why I called out that you started with your conclusion and then looked for facts and arguments to fit (debate-team style). When I point that out here, you dodge with "I would like nothing better than for the author to be right", which neatly deflects the point. My criticism is not that you would prefer the author is wrong, but that you clearly started from a conclusion that he is wrong. That is why it didn't really matter to you what particular evidence you had, you just went with it. So pointing out that you would prefer if the author was right (misrepresentation aside) sounds like you are addressing my criticism, without actually doing so.

lisper 10y ago
> you clearly started from a conclusion that he is wrong I started with a strong Bayesian prior that he is wrong, yes. But it is important to not to lose sight of what is actually in dispute here. We are not arguing about whether climate change is actually increasing extreme weather events, we are arguing over whether the evidence for this is "scant". To dispute that claim, it suffices to show that evidence exists. Which it does: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201...
- inimino 10y ago
  This is not about your prior. This is about whether you are arguing fairly and interpreting the data impartially. You are not. You read the article, concluded the author was wrong, and posted anecdotes and a link about wildfires. After it was pointed out that the author said nothing about wildfires, you suggested that wildfires are caused by droughts, while admitting that the rain is moving around. Why not admit that your point about wildfires was simply off the mark? After I pointed out that wildfires can be caused by other things than droughts, you asked for me to name them, while admitting elsewhere that the wildfire issue is complicated. Why not simply admit that obviously there are many causes of wildfires? After I pointed out that you misrepresented what the author said as "not causing any serious problems" then you switched to whether or not the evidence is scant. Why not just admit that you misstated the author's position? After admitting that "scant" means something more like "insufficient" rather than "nonexistent", you are now saying that to dispute the claim requires only that some evidence exists. Why not simply admit that the issue is more complicated than it seemed to you at first glance and that you may have jumped the gun? > But it is important to not to lose sight of what is actually in dispute here. Indeed. Note that I am not responding at all to the drought data you found. I am simply pointing out the unreasonable way you are arguing.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > Why not admit that your point about wildfires was simply off the mark? OK: my comment about wildfires was off the mark. > Why not just admit that you misstated the author's position? OK: I misstated the author's position (initially) > Why not simply admit that the issue is more complicated than it seemed to you at first glance and that you may have jumped the gun? OK: I may have jumped the gun. > Note that I am not responding at all to the drought data you found. Ah.

by inimino 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

> you clearly started from a conclusion that he is wrong I started with a strong Bayesian prior that he is wrong, yes. But it is important to not to lose sight of what is actually in dispute here. We are not arguing about whether climate change is actually increasing extreme weather events, we are arguing over whether the evidence for this is "scant". To dispute that claim, it suffices to show that evidence exists. Which it does: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES2010.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-drought_WIRES201...

inimino 10y ago
This is not about your prior. This is about whether you are arguing fairly and interpreting the data impartially. You are not. You read the article, concluded the author was wrong, and posted anecdotes and a link about wildfires. After it was pointed out that the author said nothing about wildfires, you suggested that wildfires are caused by droughts, while admitting that the rain is moving around. Why not admit that your point about wildfires was simply off the mark? After I pointed out that wildfires can be caused by other things than droughts, you asked for me to name them, while admitting elsewhere that the wildfire issue is complicated. Why not simply admit that obviously there are many causes of wildfires? After I pointed out that you misrepresented what the author said as "not causing any serious problems" then you switched to whether or not the evidence is scant. Why not just admit that you misstated the author's position? After admitting that "scant" means something more like "insufficient" rather than "nonexistent", you are now saying that to dispute the claim requires only that some evidence exists. Why not simply admit that the issue is more complicated than it seemed to you at first glance and that you may have jumped the gun? > But it is important to not to lose sight of what is actually in dispute here. Indeed. Note that I am not responding at all to the drought data you found. I am simply pointing out the unreasonable way you are arguing.
- lisper 10y ago
  > Why not admit that your point about wildfires was simply off the mark? OK: my comment about wildfires was off the mark. > Why not just admit that you misstated the author's position? OK: I misstated the author's position (initially) > Why not simply admit that the issue is more complicated than it seemed to you at first glance and that you may have jumped the gun? OK: I may have jumped the gun. > Note that I am not responding at all to the drought data you found. Ah.