Sigh.

First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.

Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.

Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyond me.

Perhaps your little break from this discussion wasn't long enough, because you're still not thinking very clearly.

LOL, please quote what I said in support of Cook's paper.

so...yes..you're taking a break? That's probably a good idea.

Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.

What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.

I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.

I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in climate science.

Finally, I'm supporting poster Namarrgon's advise on citing source documents whenever possible - instead of citing sources that have such a low signal to noise ratio, it's difficult to get to the underlying science.

What your incoherent ramblings above have to do with anything I've said is beyond me. Maybe you should take a break for a while.

I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:

Thereby demonstrating the folly of relying on opinion pieces written by lawyers masquerading as scientists to support your arguments.

See above.

It comes as no surprise that you don't know what constitutes an ad hominem attack.

You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.

The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:

Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.

As an aside, pointing to an opinion piece on Forbes written by James Taylor, a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, hardly lends weight to ANY argument. Mr. Taylor claims to be a "scientist by training" because "I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses". His employer, Heartland Institute, has likened climate scientists to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

NOBODY said the peer review process is perfect. But as GP correctly states, it's the best we've got. You seem to think that just because some academic fraud exists, that it's therefore having a substantial impact on climate science. That's a pretty extraordinary claim...got anything to back it up?

That's not what GP was saying. Jesus. Namarrgon is saying that before YOU or some other guy on the internet starts pontificating about this or that scientific research, YOU should at least read the abstract of said research. But since you're happy to rely on opinion pieces and pop science articles that are chock full of hyperbole and distortion, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Namarrgon's wise advice is falling on deaf ears. At least in your case.

According to who? You? On what credible data do you base that extraordinary claim? Another James Taylor opinion piece in Forbes?

That's debatable. In any case, the fact remains that the big banks WERE bailed out, and everyday homeowners were left hung out to dry.

PopeRatzo's observation that banks/homeowners could have been bailed out together for the same amount (or less) than bailing out the banks alone has merit.

Your resentments aside, you seem to absolve the banks of their responsibility in the mortgage fiasco and lay the blame on those that took out loans they couldn't afford. Thing is, it used to be that no matter how stupid the lendee was, a bank loan officer would deny a loan if there wasn't convincing evidence that the lendee could meet the obligations of the loan. For some reason, banks didn't do that anymore. Why do you think that happened?

Which was the basis for my question. Who measures IQ anymore?

I guess my question would be *when* were you in the third grade? If it was last year, then I guess "they" are still administering IQ tests.

So a two sentence post (with one of the two using only one word) qualifies as a rant? Nice.

None of the above was in a reply to nadaou, it was in reply to me. You do realize that I'm not the one labeling the cliche as "stupid", don't you? If you had actually challenged nadaou on his use of the word "stupid" at the time he used it, then your excuse above might have some validity. But you didn't, so it doesn't.

Ironically, "beating a dead horse" is also an example of figurative language. However, your continued waste of words on an already settled matter indicates you may not understand the idiom's meaning. Kinda like the Forest/Trees thing.

You're seeing things that aren't there. nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche, not cliches in general. Further, if one takes the word stupid to mean unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, obtuse, or doltish, AC's post certainly qualifies.

In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth". Those are the positions you've been prattling on about, and the word "stupid" is nowhere to be found in your original post or in any of your subsequent posts - until now.

So what? From Wikipedia

I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.

But since I've already acknowledged your position that cliches contain an element of truth, I'm not sure why you've dug up a dead horse in order to beat it some more.

...which isn't the meaning of the idiom, yet you keep using it. But perhaps I'm mistaking your ignorance for malice. After all, your response to my post equated my simple question with creationist idiocy.

When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth. The only reason I could imagine why you decided to insert the issue into the discussion was that you were somehow trying to defend AC's rather pathetic post. Obviously I mistook your attempt to educate us all about the nature of cliches for something else.

I was using "obstinate adolescents" figuratively - i.e., as a proxy for "weak minded". Sorry you failed to recognize that.

Yeah, and I recognized your point about cliches/truth in my previous post, so there's no need for you to continue to be argumentative about it. But like I said above, the reason you decided to go off-topic and preach to everyone about the nature of cliches remains unclear.

BTW, you should probably stop with the "forest for the trees" idiom. You're applying it erroneously. You're stating (correctly) that I was asserting that you were making an argument that you weren't, and that I claimed there was no kernal of truth in some cliches. As you note, those are two different things, but this is clearly not a case of me focusing on details at the expense of the bigger picture.

Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.

Cheers!