I wouldn't go that far. Humans unfortunately tend to be enablers by default, if a colleague does something wrong we tend to defend them, if the culture is bad enough we may even assist them.

I'm not sure cops are particularly worse in this regard. There's certainly a few extra sociopaths and people with other issues who get in there specifically to abuse their power, and there seems to be a slightly more blue collar vibe that doesn't help, but for the most part I think cops are ordinary people who cut corners just like everyone else.

The problem is they're doing a job where you can't really afford to cut corners.

Yes. Basically there are 3 major health issues involving children that seem (more on that later) to have just exploded in the last 20 years and medical science have no answers as to why. They are:
1) Peanut allergies.
2) ADHD.
3) Austism.
As an American, I can only give my personal experience, but if you ask anyone over the age of 40 if as a child they ever knew anybody with a peanut allergy, you'll hear "No". I suppose someone might be the exception, but this was just simply unheard of anywhere when I was a child. Peanuts were ubiquitous as was peanut butter.

For many decades now, Americans have been struggling to determine why their kids are messed up. Each decade comes up with a different answer. In the 1990s and maybe early 2000s, the easy answer was to declare any problem to be the result of ADHD. Even things that were just normal life events (ie. a kid doesn't pay attention in class because he is bored) were chalked up to ADHD. This just became the medical world's and parents' answer to any problem at all. Junior threw a fit because you wouldn't give him $10? Well, it's not his fault. He's got ADHD. Every school room in America had multiple kids diagnosed as ADHD. Now I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I don't believe for a minute it exists in the numbers claimed.

Then there was an explosion in autism. Just this week I read that 1 in 55 kids is autistic to some extent. That is just a staggering number. It raises questions that we have no answers for at this time. Are those diagnoses correct? Is something causing autism to be more prevalent today than in the past? Was autism around in the past in the same numbers but we just weren't very good at detecting it? Nobody knows. So now there are all these seriously messed up kids in numbers seemingly never detected before and parents want to know why. So that UK doctor kook came out with his paper showing that vaccinations were to blame because they all used mercury. People generally don't like getting injections, so that was all they needed to hear that those vaccines must be causing it. Plus the fact that they were effective meant that since nobody knew anybody who actually had the diseases, the idea came out that we were risking health of the children for nothing. Finally, due to poor science teaching in the US, it became a general belief among the stupider parts of the US that vaccines were black magic anyway and nobody knew why they worked or if they worked and the whole thing wasn't any more scientific than being told to drink stump water under the light of a full moon. So all that has combined to create a climate in which significant numbers of people actually believe that vaccines are harmful and it's so obvious that they do much more harm than good that only crazy people would give them to their kids.

I'm curious about this myself, obviously dedicated opposition will oppose Putin and evade blocks regardless, so I assume the target is slightly apathetic or undecided Russians. I suspect they're mostly trying to stop people from posting articles on the equivalent of the Russian Facebook.

China is probably the best example of blocking on a large scale (by a country that dominates the language), there's clearly a lot of Chinese who go to great lengths to evade the censorship, but what about the ordinary people? When the dissident is blocked do they just not bother?

HS, I've actually answered all of your questions already

Now, that's quite a Gish Gallop!

I know, even though you haven't actually answered the questions *directly*, or *well*, as per Duane Gish and other creationists' logic, you've *answered* back at me, even though your answers made no reference to the actual questions given :)

"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

You've made a point (A). I've raised objections. I've given you a range of legitimate and defensible responses to those objections that were more than sympathetic to your point of view. You've chosen instead to Gishy Gish, and instead of actually answering *questions*, you've simply asserted those answers exist...somewhere...out there... :)

We'll call this the "microbox mambo" in honor of you :) The agile ability to dodge answering any directly line of questioning in order to preserve the illusion of correctness :)

The funny thing, is you *get* what a Gish Gallop is. You understand how Duane Gish was a git, and somehow, you've imbued the worst part of his rhetoric directly into your thinking about AGW. You can fully grok exactly how wrong Duane Gish was when he refused to answer objections directly, and instead bounced through his list...your innovation is that you haven't even *provided* the list, but just refuse, time and time again, to actually *answer* a question.

The count is forty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nineteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

Here, I'll channel you psychically and give your answer for you:

microbox: "Of course there are contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature. Although obviously this is like 'heads I win, tails you lose', I believe that someone, given enough time, could collect, *beforehand*, all of the *good* peer reviewed literature in defense of AGW/CAGW. And to answer your next question, no, I'm not going to do it for you, and yes, I do take this as a matter of faith, just as I take it as a matter of faith that there do exist unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation. It's not my job to be an expert, it's my job to believe in experts, and I've chosen to believe them. Yes, this is an argument from unspecified authorities, but just because it's a logical fallacy doesn't mean I'm wrong. It bothers me that you point out my hypocrisy with the scientific method, but not so much as to make me give up my belief system."

There, now was that so hard? :)

Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.

If you're asserting it's not a "good test", then what does it matter? You found a test AGW failed. Can you find tests it *hasn't* failed? :)

Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make.

No, to quote you *exactly*, you said, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend."

Two decades (20 years), last time I checked, is *not* less than 2 decades. Perhaps you count years differently? :) Or perhaps you weren't done defining "a trend"? Like Duane Gish, you left yourself some wiggle room - the statement "less than two decades doesn't make a trend" is logically compatible with "less than 31 years doesn't make a trend".

So, in your definition, does a decadal trend take 21 years? 22 years? 30 years? 100 years? Care to be precise at all, or will you continue to Gish Gallop away from actually *defending your argument*? :)

Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together.

So, are you now insisting that I can't just find *any* 20 year, statistically insignificant warming trend within the industrial age, but it has to be specifically cherry picked to the *last* 20 years?

Look, I showed you the data: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Are you going to argue that the dataset isn't proper? Is that the ad hoc special pleading you have left? :)

Here, from MSU.RSS, the last 20 years, minus 3 months (perhaps you'd be so generous as to grant me three months of reprieve from your cherry pick). :
Temperature Anomaly trend
Feb 1993 to Dec 2013
Rate: 0.859C/Century;
CI from -0.105 to 1.823;
t-statistic 1.747;
Temp range 0.110C to 0.289C

Statistically insignificant warming trend.

Look, if you want to argue your point (A) further, you've got to make a stand and argue with the data, or limit your specification of what AGW *precludes* with more ad hoc special pleadings. Do yourself a favor, and instead of gish galloping away, just pick one of the data sets that hasn't reached 20 years of statistically insignificant warming, and insist that *that* is your gold standard. At least then we can agree that you've come up with a test that hasn't been falsified yet - and we can come back to why we should cherry pick a dataset for your test after you've gone through more points :)

"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

I've given you my objection, and I've given you at least *one* fairly defensible way out (pick your preferred dataset, and be prepared to defend it against the ones you don't like). You can either continue dodging specificity, or you can stake your (A) claim on a specific dataset, and move onto B. I've given you the data for trends, so go ahead, pick the one you think is the most favorable to your cause.

The count is forty-five now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eighteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

"She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.

Your argument: the following is a "good test":

(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale.

decadal is defined as at least 20 years, by your definition (Your words: "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.")

My objection:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

We already have observations showing no statistically significant trend for 20+ years in some temperature data sets.

Your response:

Now, you could respond in any number of ways:

1) don't like the data set I've chosen
2) didn't really mean 20 years, really meant 30 years
3) didn't really mean "preclude"
4) don't care about statistical significance, just care about the trend regardless of error bars
5) didn't really mean (A), let's move on to (B)

Instead, what do we get? "Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?" Classy, real classy :)

I know it hurts that you've used "gish gallop" as an insult, and find yourself tarred by that brush. I'm sure you didn't intend to fit the shoes of Duane Gish when you decided to use that phrase as an insult. But you did. You've bragged about how many reasons you had, and then stumbled on the very first one out of the gate - and still, post after post after post, you've got no actual reply to the criticism of your argument.

The kind of behavior you're exhibiting is why I tend to lump AGW proponents with creationists - they behave in the same way.

The count is forty-three now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at sixteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

" Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12]"

Like Gish, you're not only galloping, but you continue to fail to answer the objections raised :)

The shoe fits, and you're wearing four of them :)

Do you not know what a decadal trend is?

You stated, "Less than two decades doesn't make a trend." - so, by your definition, at least 20 years is required.

Here's the data:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" to see the statistically insignificant areas greyed out.

Click on MSU.RSS

Note the greyed out triangular area beneath the 19 year diagonal line to the lower right of the triangle graph. You'll note there are more than 1.7 points in that data set :)

Now, do you want to have an ad hoc special pleading against specific data sets? Are you unwilling to concede your previously stated "good test" because you doubt the data?

The count is forty-two now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fifteen for the "constellation" question. Your Gish Gallop is reaching epic proportions :)

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

Are you aware of the difference between declaring there are a lot of aguments, and dumping a lot of arguments all at once?

Yes. Are you aware that the first is simply the second, minus the actual work? :)

You've done a phantom gish gallop, as it were, taking the worst part of the gish gallop, and adding appeal to unnamed authorities on top :)

Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.

What does that mean? You came up with what you thought was a "good test" for AGW. It failed. AGW is now falsified by your definition. Q.E.D. This isn't about data points, this is about *your good test*.

Look, if you want to have a do-over, fine. Let's simply restate A as "AGW does *not* preclude...", and you can move onto whatever "B" you want to :)

The count is forty-one now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at fourteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

HS, with the gish gallop, arguments are dropped all at once, without giving a person a chance to respond in a reasonable manner.

Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating :)

that Popper was talking about finding good tests

And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for :)

Or are you saying you were trying to give me a list of *bad* tests for AGW? :)

Look, it's okay, I get why you're not actually answering the questions put to you - you've already argued yourself into a corner, and you're hoping that by ignoring your prima facie hypocrisy, that it'll just go away. Being ashamed is understandable - even your best way out is an admission of error, since your options are to redefine the word "preclude", or admit that your first proposed "good test" was in fact a bad one.

Here, you might like this tool when it comes to seeing how long we've gone with statistically insignificant warming:

http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p...

Click on "trend+significance" - you'll note that for some datasets, we've already gone well past 20 years (decadal, in your terminology).

The count is forty now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at thirteen for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

"In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved. The individual points must also be fairly terse, so that each point individually can be easy to refute because it simply proves nothing."

Your words:

"There about a few dozen things to cover in order to describe the tests for AGW."

You've boasted about a "few dozen things", and failed to even get your first one right :)

(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend.

If you want to move the bar to 20 years, fine - we've certainly observed rising CO2 and 20 years of statistically insignificant warming in some modern temperature records, and in the long term proxy records as well.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326"

Your need to move the goalposts here is *classic* ad hoc special pleading, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you'd be arguing that 25 years isn't enough once we hit that in the modern instrumental record.

Put simply, you have not established one whit of credibility here with your "precludes" statement - you've made an empty statement, since your preclusion, be it 20 years, or even 100 years, has been observed in the historical record, and your response to that is invariably an ad hoc special pleading.

Put another way, there is no "A" - properly and honestly stated, the only thing you can defend is this:

A) AGW does not preclude the absence of a warming trend - it is possible for it to be true no matter what temperature trend is observed over any period of time.

Unfortunately, since you haven't started forbidding observations, you haven't even begun the process of Popper's falsifiability :)

The count is thirty-nine now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at twelve for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

Not straying off topic at all - just stopping you from your gish gallop away from your statement of a falsification criteria for AGW that has already been observed, therefore falsifying AGW.

You described a test, and that test has been failed.

Do you *retract* your statement that "AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"?

Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?

preclude |priklood|
verb [ with obj. ]
prevent from happening; make impossible

The count is thirty-eight now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at eleven for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

I enjoy class warfare at times, but you are just dead wrong here in two ways. First of all, the flight was going from Malaysia (I assume Kuala Lumpur) to Beijing. This is not a "trans-pacific" flight. Second, as someone who is hardly rich and has actually flown trans-pacific, the flights are expensive but not insanely so. It is possible for average people to afford to fly such routes.

Okay, so you proposed a falsification criteria, you've admitted that it was observed. Do you now admit that AGW is falsified?

Okay, so there is some warming

Follow along - there is also some lack of warming during a period of rising CO2. If (A) mattered at all to the truth or falsity of AGW, then this singular observation would be enough to falsify it.

How do you defend AGW in the face of the fact that it *precludes* something that we have observed? *Your* words:

"AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend"

We've observed the absence of a warming trend. Q.E.D.

Or did you have a different definition of "preclude"?

preclude |priklood|
verb [ with obj. ]
prevent from happening; make impossible

The count is thirty-seven now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at ten for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?

My ISP, who is not Comcast but another major American ISP, also blocks certain websites via DNS failures. Simply switching DNS to Google's DNS servers or FreeDNS resolved the problem.

(A) AGW precludes the absence of a warming trend -- measured at a decadal time-scale.

Let's be more specific - AGW should preclude the absence of a warming trend if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase, at a decadal time-scale.

NOAA 2008 came close to this assertion, excluding 15 (or 17) year periods of statistically insignificant warming with rising CO2.

We've already *observed* this - http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Are we ready to assert AGW has been falsified now? Or do we come up with an ad hoc special pleading to protect the central conceit? From Popper:

"A clear appreciation of what may be gained (and lost) by con- ventionalist methods was expressed, a hundred years before Poincaré, by Black who wrote: ‘A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge.’1"

Do you agree that the world has seen warming at a decadal time-scale?

Do you agree that the world has seen an absence of warming at a decadal time-scale while CO2 has continued to increase?

The count is thirty-six now for the low climate sensitivity answers, and it now stands at nine for the "constellation" question.

Can we agree that your contention is that there are no contradictory predictions in the name of AGW/CAGW in the peer reviewed literature, and that you furthermore contend there exist thus far unspecified good tests to discriminate AGW from natural variation?