Touché, sorry, too subtle for me.

So there won't be any more Alan Siddons contributions?

Trouble is, using it can make you just look stupid. See the "Molten Core" post.

Jennifer,
And also as Cat Stevens said, "the fancy dancers that move so smoothe but got no answers".
Plenty of replies though.

I take then Jennifer that you will be removing Politics and Environment from the blogosphere, now that your exercise in Socratic irony over the last few years has been revealed for what it is?

Won't all of your supporters be surprised...

Does Alan know he's been used?

Post-facto face-saving bollocks.

"So there won't be any more Alan Siddons contributions?"

SJT proves once again that he's not a "pose of ignorance", but the genuine article.

Here's a challenge then,
who can come up with the best "Socratic Irony":

here's mine:
I heard that the Sun is warmed by the Earth. If that was true, wouldn't Global Warming be a good thing?

So, how many years have you been maintaining this pose?

"Here's a challenge then,
who can come up with the best "Socratic Irony":"

Actually I think Jen's "I don't understand the difference between power and energy yet feel comfortable holding forth on the physics of global climate" is pretty much archetypal. If only it actually were an example of Socratic Irony we'd have a winner.

But it wasn't. That's just a big old lie.

FDB, This is a weird moment in the life of this Blog. It feels a bit like "Checkmate", but somehow I think tomorrow this post will be forgotten and the Jen-vestigations will continue as usual.

I thought the method of asking dumb questions was started by Detective Columbo (as played by Peter Falk). Who's this Socrates guy?

Jen, methinks you have been posing ignorance for far too long - it's starting to rub off on you.

NT.

I think that the empress has been revealed to be wearing no clothes. Her protestations to the crowd that "no, no - they're invisible" might fool the adoring courtiers who just "luuuuv the fabric, darling", but the rest of the crowd will watch the parade shamble into the castle knowing full-well that there are no garments draped over this mannequin.

Short of offering up a a big slice of mea culpu pie, Jennifer has painted herself into a corner.

The real irony here is that all anyone has to do is to link any future (or past, for that matter) threads to this one and the internal inconsistency, that now defines Politics and Science, will scream out to any reader who does not see into the 'invisible' region of the EM spectrum.

Clunk.

Which particular piece of ignorance is the Socratic one? Are they all?

What will the perfectly serious defenders of... whatever it was (because there are always some) say when Jen cuts 'em loose?

So, what do we call an ignoramous who believes he or she can predict the future?

Oh, that's right: an AGW'er.

Ooooh, sweet comeback theWord!

If only you'd spelt 'ignoramus' correctly, you mightn't have outed youself as one. And just imagine if you'd said something remotely pertinent to the thread... the sky'd be the limit! You could have your own show!

Bernard J.
Still waiting for one of your erudite brave new replies over at BBBlog.

Jen, are you going to review the Callendar paper?

Well, Jen, for such a short post it certainly flushed out the bimboscenti. Simple and apparently silly questions are the most productive and informative questions in any investigation of fraud or misconduct. That is why Mann, Hansen, Lindenmayer et al consistently refuse to answer them. The truth is always in the simple facts, the bull$hit is always buried in the volume and complexity.

"checkmate moment" indeed. Dream on little broomstick cowboys.

It was about one week ago that I requested information about the causal linkage between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and global warming. (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003315.html)

The request was made in good faith and no doubt so was one of the first responses. That was by John Quiggin claiming there are “hundreds of papers on both the causal link and the question of sensitivity”.

But there aren't. Indeed the paucity of peer-reviewed science on the issue of causality and the complexity of the physics would suggest there is a place for much more robust discussion indeed there is no doubt also a place for more socratic irony.

WONDERFUL! Now Ian is saying that it's all a double bluff! Or should that be double double bluff... I am not sure...

And this:
"The truth is always in the simple facts, the bull$hit is always buried in the volume and complexity."
Was this more Socratc Irony? Or do you actually believe that? Hmmm if you do believe it it would explain why you don't actually understand it. Do you consider Quantum Mechanics simple? What about Relativity? Is Evolution "simple"... I guess it must have been you just being Socratically Ironic.

The best bit is that Jennifer hasn't even bothered to reply. So that way she can just make it mean whatever she likes later on. It's a Jen-vestigation (TM) once again!

Well you can correct my last post. Jennifer did reply after all.

Jennifer:
"But there aren't. Indeed the paucity of peer-reviewed science on the issue of causality and the complexity of the physics would suggest there is a place for much more robust discussion indeed there is no doubt also a place for more socratic irony."

Yes and if I don't look for something I won't find it either.

Oh hang on! You're just giving us some Socratic Irony!!! So you are trying to make us find the data for you! Which is really lame and unscientific!!
I mean if I wanted to buy a car, would I ask people on some blog what the best car was? No way!

(PS Actually, I was just being Socratically Ironic and I do want people to tell me what car to buy... No seriously, I am thinking of buying a car so any advice would be valuable. Actually invaluable, because if I receive no advice then I won't buy a car... Seriously... Actually I will begin to doubt the need to buy a car)

"But there aren't."

Come, plenty of papers were put forward. You claimed to have read one, said it wasn't good enough, and ignored all the others. I think people got the idea pretty quickly the exercise was a waste of time.

But there aren't. Indeed the paucity of peer-reviewed science on the issue of causality and the complexity of the physics would suggest there is a place for much more robust discussion indeed there is no doubt also a place for more socratic irony.

-----------

it became obvious that you aren t seriously interested in looking at papers, searching for answers.

and if you would simply stat by looking at the IPCC report you would have been busy for a while and not posting "socratic" nonsense...

Socratic irony? Check this little doozie out.

steve watkinson:

"The thing is, it's just not just all about thermodynamics, is it?"

Classic!

Wipes CO2 right out of the atmosphere for a start....(;-)

All this proves is that no one has refuted let alone proved Arrhenius's initial assertion.

CO2 AGW remains pure pseudoscience because it has no basis in empirical fact, only in a belief that it causes warming.

I have to admit, I've found irony a dangerous tool to use on the Internets. Maybe Jen could spell out which posts employed Socratic ignorance, and which merely displayed the common-or-garden variety. My guess is that everything in the last week (the refutation of thermodynamics, denial of basic geophysics, HIV denialism and so on) is meant to be Socratic and the rest was just ordinary. But maybe just the comment on my blog was ironic, and the stuff from Siddons, Kininmonth and others was meant seriously.

FDB,

Sorry, I wasn't aware this was a spelling bee.

I assume you can tell the future, though?

Steve Short: just grabbing bits out of context for fun now, are we? As you perfectly well know, I was talking about both rates of calcification (not de-calcification), and the recent study indicating that sea urchins do not reproduce well, in lower pH waters.

So, care to tell us what you had in mind when you said in February: "In my view what is inarguable is that we now exploiting this planet in an almost mindless way which is largely unsustainable." Are you claiming socratic irony for that?

The thing I love about Socratic Irony is you can say any old garbage and then say "I was being Socratically Ironic" That way you maintain your credibility.
True story.

"I have to admit, I've found irony a dangerous tool to use on the Internets"

But not censorship, eh John?

On this thread,

"jquiggin Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Since you’re new, you get a free response on your first point Arctic could be ice-free in a year: scientist.

Your score: 0 with no points deducted for misspellings

Thanks for playing!"

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/01/24/yet-more-nonsense-on-global-warming/#comment-209130

I've tried twice to post information on the current Arctic ice extent, neither has appeared after at least a couple of days. I also posted once asking what happened to my first post. That appeared for a short time, now it has disappeared.

Here is a link to the Arctic ice map

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Your score: 0 credibility.

I didn't see this post, but I wouldn't be surprised if Akismet flagged it as spam. Certainly the idea that anyone would cite a snarky/silly IT publication as a source on Arctic ice cover is a nice piece of Socratic irony, as this site has shown.

There's plenty of other sources for that map John, as I'm sure you know. I used other links in my posts.

I wouldn't be surprised if troublesome bits of information are flagged as spam at your blog.

I see you do not dispute the current Arctic ice extent, but instead mangle the definition of Socratic Irony, and attack the source of the graphic.

John Quiggin.

The rules are easy.

Runaway global warming on increase in CO2 is the scentific argument and you and your mates said we are right because we agree, you called up all your pathetic mates and had a vote.

This is science not a protest at Gallway gaol.

Science is not a debate. It's a thing called proof.

CO2 runaway warming did not happen.

Prove that man made CO2 will burn the world or fock off as a terrorist.

It's not political, shit it's not even about God.

John Quiggin twist and shout. It hasn't happened.

Not even in a laboratory.

Prove it Quiggin or fuck off as a terrorist.

It's not a democracy it's called science, not me and my mates and how hard we can yell (and our mates will kill your family) and we will make sure you never teach or hold position again.

CO2 manmade increases, a measurable, the temperature does not rise to hell kind of temperature and we all die.

Have a cold shower and think.

Piss off.

Steady on, John VK!

I'd like to assure Jennifer that my suggestion of Callendar's paper was made in good faith - I am eagerly awaiting her review. And my $1000.

I do hope this repeated usage of the phrase "in good faith" is not laying the groundwork for a claim that the suggestions by Luke, Ken Miles and Nexus 6, not to mention myself, are not "in good faith" and thus Duffy can claim his offer wasn't in good faith either and wriggle out...

No mate, this is about the word.

They use bully shout.

I saw Irishmen die in towers and I hear Irish bludgers betray doing politics and not science or even law.

There are two types and its got nothing to do with the numbers of toilets.

Shit my mum was part Irish.

Nurse!!

Hang on - this is bunk. His name must really be MacKrimpen. But Steven dare I suggest an excellent contribution highlighting the inherent discrepancy between the dualist position vis a vis the existential contradiction that Bird might be the One !

"and our mates will kill your family" - John could join Mottsa at the Eureka stockade siphoning at the Coroong barrage. This is the sort of no b/s knuckle busters that Motty needs.

And again how can you both have a shower and think if you have to piss off. Unless of course you did it in the shower. But then you wouldn't be thinking - so here we have another flawed denialist position.

But he may have us - how can CO2 burn the world of it's used in fire extinguishers. Eh eh? I reckon he has us there. Drat - we didn't think of that. So CO2 actually extinguishes heat.

Spangled Drongo.

Replied.

Runaway global warming on increase in CO2 is the scentific argument...

Well, no, climate science tells us that runaway global warming will not happen. Just warming.

So, tell me, which form of ignorance does the quote demonstrated? The real kind, or just the irony kind?

Is there some sort of Explanatory Filter we can apply to the problem?

Well I'm going to pick a topic. The Arctic ice pack sounds good.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/arctic-topography-and-bathymetry

This map of the topography looks familiar to me. I couldn't put my finger on it at first.

Then it occured to me if you were to color the deep blue Arctic basin with white you end up with the outline of the 2007 Arctic melt.

TheWord: "I assume you can tell the future, though?"

Can't answer for FCB, but yes, I can tell the future. The sun will come up tomorrow. I even know where and when. I know I'll be in a traffic jam around 9 am tomorrow. I know that tomorrow's weather will be mostly like today's weather. I know what movies will be on TV tomorrow. I know tomorrow some people will still be denying even basic science.

I know you're going to completely miss the point of this post.