Evidence doesn’t seem to change Eric Raymond’s mind

Eric Raymond (the one responsible for the botched analysis of the stolen CRU code) responds to my post on Essex and McKitrick’s error in treating missing values as zeroes in a spreadsheet:

The error described is so stupid that I have trouble believing a statistician actually made it. Whether McKittrick understood thermodynamics or not is red herring; even somebody with my non-specialist knowledge of statistics alone would have known better, let alone a pro like him. The most plausible theory I can think of is that the spreadsheet was expressing temperatures as deviation from mean, that the “zeroes” actually pegged missing observations to that mean, and that the author misunderstood McKittrick’s response.

Raymond clung to his theory even after a commenter pointed out that I included a link to the spreadsheet and that you could easily check that they counted missing values as zeroes.

He also uncritically accepted David Bellamy’s story that the BBC cancelled his show when he came out as a global warming denier, even though Bellamy’s TV career ended in 1994 and he didn’t deny global warming until 2004. This too, was pointed out by a commenter, but Raymond did not change his position.

Comments

#1 Dave R
January 11, 2010

Guthrie @ 189:

I am happy to see my prediction of the mail article asbeing the next thing the denialists use for their arguments, is correct. Interestingly they seem to pick on Latif most, whilst ignoring that he agrees with the consensus

The Guardian [quotes him](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif) as denouncing the Mail’s disinformation.
#2 Betula
January 11, 2010

Lee,

Thank you for admitting that climate always changes. Now that wasn’t so scary was it people?

It’s amazing how far I had to go to get to this point….a war and the entire evolutionary process.

With that said, let me now go back to my point about distinguishing between man-made climate change and natural climate change, both of which fit under the catagory of climate change…

Lee,

When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?
#3 Lee
January 11, 2010

Betula:

“When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?”

I refer you to the various IPCC reports – where the effing science is very clearly laid out for you. Not that I expect the actual science will make any difference to you.
#4 el gordo
January 11, 2010

The MDOs over the last 30 years have caused half the warming, according to Latif. The other 50 percent is presumably derived from a particular trace gas.

But we are not confident that is accurate because most of the AGW warming signal, according to NOAA, NASA and CRU, is coming out of Russia.

Evolution doesn’t prove natural selection, but natural selection proves evolution.
#5 luminous beauty
January 11, 2010

Shorter [El Gordo.](http://www.sense.net/~blaine/funstuff/images/cart.jpg)
#6 el gordo
January 11, 2010

Great pic LB.
#7 el gordo
January 11, 2010

Here’s one for you.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42260
#8 Betula
January 11, 2010

LB @206

Classic picture.

Not only is it the symbol of the Democrat party here in the U.S., it is the best description of the current administration that I have seen to date. This one will be passed on.

Thanks.
#9 luminous beauty
January 11, 2010

Betula,

You realize, of course, the boxes on the cart contain the moribund remains of the Republic Party elephant.

This is for you:

[Betula's Amazing Card Trick](http://www.sense.net/~blaine/funstuff/trick.html)

Enjoy!
#10 Betula
January 11, 2010

“You realize, of course, the boxes on the cart contain the moribund remains of the Republic Party elephant.”

LB,

That’s an even better analogy…

The Democrats believe the Republicans are to blame for weighing them down, even when they are in control of the cart….you’re on fire today!

Now, I’m sure this is where Lee comes in like @175 and says to you….. “I see that [LB] has stopped even pretending to be discussing the science.”
#11 El gordo
January 11, 2010

The California Current is bearing down and the Humboldt Current is in reverse.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

It is easy to see why BOM are confident about El Nino.
#12 jakerman
January 11, 2010

>*Now, I’m sure this is where Lee comes in like @175 and says to you….. “I see that [LB] has stopped even pretending to be discussing the science.”*

The science isn’t your strong point is it Betula.
#13 Jeff Harvey
January 12, 2010

Betula,

Read what I have said again. Climate does change within certain natural boundries determined by scale. At large scales, it is highly deterministic and any changes that knock it out of equlibrium require some kind of forcing. This forcing can be natural if it is significant enough. But all of the evidence suggests that there are no natural forcings large enough to account for the quite signifciant changes observed since the 1980s.

Given the fact that we are dealing in shallow time (e.g. one or two human generations, which is nothing in gelogical time), the current changes in climate at regional (more stochastic) and global (more deterministic) scales are large enough that some forcing must be accounting for them. That forcing, according to the most reliable empirical evidence, is anthropogenic. By repeatedly blathering on about change being the norm, you overlook the fact that change *within certain boundaries* is the norm; beyond specific thresholds it is not the norm. You might also argue that the loss of tropical forests is the norm as we know that the area of the globe covered by tropical wet forests has changed (grown and shrunk) over many millenia depending on regional and local climate regimes. We now also know that humans have felled about 50% of the world’s tropical forests in the past century or so, and using your absurd logic, one could say there is nothing to worry about because we know that the area of forest cover has changed in the past. But of course this is nonsense because we know that the primary driver of forest loss in recent decades has been due to human actions. In other words, change is the norm within certain thresholds, but beyond these change is not the norm and we have to look for alternative explanations.

Betula, given your comic-book level discussion here, I would be interested to know what scientific qualifications that you possess. I do not expect much in this regard.
#14 Sim
January 12, 2010

Betula’s bithering reminds me of the paraphrased quote:

>Guy in the street tells highly trained scientist in the field where he is wrong.
#15 jakerman
January 12, 2010

Jeff,

Your post @214 was highly readable and informative. Glad you’re back!
#16 dhogaza
January 12, 2010

The science isn’t your strong point is it Betula.

Does Betula have a strong point, and if so, what is it?

I suppose having a head denser than depleted uranium would be useful in certain sports, like american football, but other than that …
#17 Betula
January 12, 2010

JH,

Your concern is that significant changes over a short time are not normal. Because the changes are so sudden, they are beyond the scope of natural forcings, therefore must be caused by man.

These changes are taking place rapidly and therefore we have very little time act on putting policies in place to stop the damage that is being done now, and damage that may be done in the future.

Is that about right?

I find this interesting, since it was you who said the following @81…

“Vast changes in system properties as a result of the likely meteorite impact at the end of ther Cretaceous period did drive the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, but it is likely that this event took up to 20,000 years to be played out. And in terms of geological time scales, this is even a relatively short span.”

You used this point against “denialists”, claiming they are “programmed to think in time scales that relate to their own human experience”…..”and who somehow believe that trends in large scale regional or global systems that function in profoundly deterministic ways can be eludicated in 5-10 years” (by the way, that’s elucidated).

So it took 20,000 years, a relatively short time span, for vast changes in system properties to drive mass extincion, yet here you are claiming we only have a few years to act, because of “quite signifciant changes observed since the 1980s.”

JH, if 20,000 years is a relatively short time span, what do you call 30 years? Who was it you said was “programmed to think in time scales that relate to their own human experience”?

In addition, I note @182 you say a significant external force is driving climate change and …. “That significant force is anthropogenic.”

Could you explain to me what percent of that force is anthropogenic and what percent is natural?

This relates to my unanswered question to Lee @203…. “When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?”

Of course, the answer is…. you can’t.

So I find it funny when you state “the significant force is anthropogenic.” First of all, what percent “is” anthropogenic and secondly, where did you get the word “is” from? Was this derived from some form of “most-likely” or “probably”?

As far as my education, unlike Al Gore, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry and over 30 years experience in the field of Arborculture while licensed in 2 states.
I was also an engineer officer with the U.S. Marine Corps, serving as the HQ Commandant for the 2000 marines of the 26th MAU(SOC), since changed to MEU.

By the way, you might want to take up this subject with an ecologists who feels the same about this as I do…

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/biodiversity-and-climate-change/
#18 Betula
January 12, 2010

“Guy in the street tells highly trained scientist in the field where he is wrong.”

No. Guy in the street tells YOU he’s cold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
#19 Betula
January 12, 2010

“depleted uranium would be useful in certain sports, like american football, but other than that …”

You mean until Copenhagen…

“uranium will benefit from Copenhagen”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/oil-uranium-to-ride-global-warming-policy-wave/story-e6frg9ex-1225809987532
#20 ligne
January 12, 2010

“No. Guy in the street tells YOU he’s cold.”

Not so much. [Guy in the newsroom makes stuff up, misrepresents scientist](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif).

By the way, you do know the difference between weather and climate, don’t you?
#21 ligne
January 12, 2010

I should add that i’m not exactly surprised. the mail is the UK equivalent of the weekly world news, except with fewer facts and more racism.

high points include the headline “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding”, and spearheading the anti-MMR stupidity.
#22 Dappledwater
January 12, 2010

“No. Guy in the street tells YOU he’s cold.” – Betula

You sure must have a serious case of splinters from scraping the bottom of that barrel of denial.

What about the places that are currently “warmer” than usual?:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100106b.html
#23 Betula
January 12, 2010

Ligne @221

“By the way, you do know the difference between weather and climate, don’t you?”

Sure I do, the problem is with the man in the street who is more concerned about frostbite.
#24 Betula
January 12, 2010

Dappledwater..

“What about the places that are currently “warmer” than usual?”

The man in the street has been trying to get a flight to one of those warm places, but flights have been delayed due to snow.

By the way dapple,

What is it exactly that you think I deny?
#25 Lee
January 12, 2010

Betula:

“This relates to my unanswered question to Lee @203…. “When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?”

Of course, the answer is…. you can’t.”

Oh, fuck this. Look betula, you lying little fuckfaced twit:

@204:
”
Betula:
…
I refer you to the various IPCC reports – where the effing science is very clearly laid out for you. Not that I expect the actual science will make any difference to you.

Posted by: Lee | January 11, 2010 3:13 PM
—

Look, asshole. When you ask a stupid question, and we show you right where the answer is, and invite you to go see it, you can of course ignore it and retain your ignorance. Hell, I predicted you would ignore it. It’s a complex answer, more than one can easily put into a blog response – but it is there, in detail, if you simply had the guts to risk your convenient ignorance and go actually spend some time understanding it

But when you refuse to go look at the answer we provide, and then continue to claim that we – that I – have no answer… that is dishonest, and it is lying about me. And there, I draw the line.

So fuck off.
#26 Gaz
January 12, 2010

Ditto.
#27 luminous beauty
January 12, 2010

>”depleted uranium would be useful in certain sports, like american football, but other than that …”

>You mean until Copenhagen…

>”uranium will benefit from Copenhagen”

Trust Betula to be unable to distinguish between depleted and enriched uranium.

>This relates to my unanswered question to Lee @203…. “When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?”

>Of course, the answer is…. you can’t

[Si se puede.](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/)
#28 jakerman
January 12, 2010

Betula finds it preferable to depend upon [the opinions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2199505) of some ill informed fictious [non-person](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2199499). Is Betual now spokes person for the ill infomed?

Betula seems to demontrate the prerequisites to represent the fraction of the populous that are opinionated, argumentative and willfully ignorant on the topic.

It also seems Betula’s tactic for running away from the science.
#29 Betula
January 12, 2010

Lee,

Just because you gave an answer, doesn’t mean you answered the question. And swearing doesn’t prove you answered the question either.

The fact remains, when using the term climate change, you cannot distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural, because the definition itself contains both.

The IPCC glossary used to say this back in 95′….
“because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these
causes.”

Of course, that phrasing seems to have disappeared and it now states…

“Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

Unless you use the UNCCC definition, which states:

“climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”

So slowly and subtly, the term “climate change” is being changed to mean changes only caused by man, though it’s not there yet.

Of course Lee, you already new that.
#30 Betula
January 12, 2010

LB @228..

Which part of “within the same term” did you not understand?

Let me guess….”the”

Honestly, all these attacks and nobody noticed I misspelled “arboriculture” @218?
#31 Betula
January 12, 2010

“Betula finds it preferable to depend upon the opinions of some ill informed fictious non-person”

Jakerman, when have I ever asked for your opinion?
#32 Bernard J.
January 12, 2010

Betula, in response to:

Guy in the street tells highly trained scientist in the field where he is wrong.

says:

No. Guy in the street tells YOU he’s cold.

Apparently Betula thinks that his focus on weather, like [Fatso's similar focus](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2195448), makes a different point about climate than does mine or any other sensible person responding to them. And that somehow this does invalidate the science…

Well, this man/scientist in the street has spent the last few days in nothing but a pair of shorts, sweating in the extreme heat of [10 January](ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/temperature/maxave/daily/colour/history/nat/2010011020100110.hres.gif) and [11 January](ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/temperature/maxave/daily/colour/history/nat/2010011120100111.hres.gif). I’ll ask you the same question that I put to Fatso: what do you think that Australia’s summer weather means in the context of your comment?
#33 jakerman
January 12, 2010

Betula, thanks for [emphasising](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2200648) my point:

>*Betula seems to demontrate the prerequisites to represent the fraction of the populous that are opinionated, argumentative and willfully ignorant on the topic. It also seems Betula’s tactic for running away from the science.*

Your school-yard come-backs puts you in a legaue…with school boys.
#34 el gordo
January 12, 2010

BJ

It hardly matters. We can sit here splitting hairs over weather and climate, but the increased death toll from excessive Australian heat will be insignificant against the NH freeze.

The Brits won’t be retiring in Spain anymore and I can confidently predict a mass migration to Oz over the next quarter century.

They will lose faith in AGW and vote with their feet.
#35 Bernard J.
January 13, 2010

It hardly matters.

Au contraire!

If the coverage of Australia’s heat waves in recent years had been over Europe, and if Europe’s temperatures had similarly covered Australia, there’d still be many more deaths in Europe. This, for the simple reason that Europe is presently 39 times more populated than Australia.

Of course, although there might be immediate consequences of public perception from the death rates that are observed, in the longer term the subjective impressions of scientifically illiterate people will not stand against simple physical science and its biological consequences.

“[L]os[ing] faith in AGW” will not stop physics, and your “predictions” might be “confident”, but as they are themselves based in ideologically-motivated faith, they are as irrelevant to the progress of atmospheric physics as any other pseudoscientific piece of nonsense espoused by the Denialists.

As ever, I will ask you the same questions that I’ve [asked previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083), although I have little confidence that you’ll actually deign to provide substantive answers.
#36 Betula
January 13, 2010

Bernard…

“I’ll ask you the same question that I put to Fatso: what do you think that Australia’s summer weather means in the context of your comment?”

Easy. If the guy in the street were in Australia, he would tell the scientist he’s hot, only it wouldn’t be due to weather, it would be “due to global warming”.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6040IE20100105

C’mon Bernard, everyone knows that.

Now…

1. Did you consider the context of the comment I was responding to @215?

“Guy in the street tells highly trained scientist in the field where he is wrong”

Which was a comment directed at this @203….

2.”When using the term climate change, how do you distinguish between that which is man made and that which is natural within the same term?”

The answer to #1 is you didn’t, because the answer to #2 is you can’t.

So perhaps we should rephrase the original question…

Where did highly trained scientist prove to guy in the street that he is wrong?

Bernard, we all know “climate change” is always happening. But now we put a stigma on it to infer man is causing it, even though the definition includes natural causes.

Where it MAY be true that man is influencing part of climate to cause some change, it is impossible to distinguish that part, from the natural, within the stigmatized term climate change.

The goal is to change the meaning over time. It’s already being done. Soon, “climate change” will be used to mean changes solely caused by man, and “climate variability” will be used to mean that which is caused naturally, even though they are indistinguishable.

In other words, we will never see “climate variability” in the headlines.
#37 luminous beauty
January 13, 2010

Betula,

>LB @228..

>Which part of “within the same term” did you not understand?

>Let me guess….”the”

Huh?

>The following figure shows changes in climate “forcings” or factors that have contributed to __climate change__ since 1750.

All forcings, natural and anthropogenic, _within the same term._

Is it the intent of your semantic dissembling only to prove you are dumb as a box of rocks? If so, you are succeeding.
#38 Lee
January 13, 2010

So, this is all about a semantic point, Betula? Yes, it is true that ‘it got warmer’ means the same thing whether the cause is natural variability or anthropogenic forcing. And yes, in that technical report they defined ‘climate change’ to mean ‘anthropogenic climate change.’ That seems to be the only meaningful thing you’ve said in this last wave of posts. So fucking what?! WTF does all this have to do with the science?

The fact is, we CAN parcel out the contributions of natural variability and of anthropogenic forcing, to the observed warming over the last century or so. A whole chunk of AR4 was devoted to exactly that. You seem to be trying to substitute this semantic argument in place of the science, as a way to imply that we can’t distinguish those, without having to actually touch the science.

Please stop being so fucking dishonest.
#39 Betula
January 13, 2010

1.”So, this is all about a semantic point, Betula?”….”Please stop being so fucking dishonest”.

So you don’t read a question properly, react with rage, and then call me dishonest because you misunderstood?

A simple “oops” would have been sufficient.

2.”WTF does all this have to do with the science?”

If semantics are being used to generically describe anthropogenic global warming via the term “climate change”, then it has to do with the science.

Lee, I suppose I could ask you: WTF does Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with the science, or peace?

The difference is, I have an answer.
#40 Betula
January 13, 2010

“All forcings, natural and anthropogenic, within the same term”

The “box of rocks” has a question for the crushed stone….

Please show me where your figure includes natural internal processes as defined within the term “climate change”.
#41 el gordo
January 13, 2010

Anyone like to hazard a guess why tropical cyclone activity is at 30 year lows?

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
#42 luminous beauty
January 13, 2010

>Please show me where your figure includes natural internal processes as defined within the term “climate change”.

In the title of the page:

>DATASETS AND IMAGES
Forcings in GISS Climate Model

>>We summarize here forcing data used in the GISS global climate models in recent years

Those ‘natural internal processes’ are temporal and spacial atmospheric, oceanic, lithospheric and cryospheric energy transfer fluctuations, which are defined by the model outputs. They aren’t forcings.
#43 jakerman
January 13, 2010

I don’t think Betula knows what he is agrguing about. He earlier seemed to argue that [Arctic errosion doesn't prove AGW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2169105)- that’s a fat strawman, given that errion was provided as a consequence of AGW, the science for AGW comes from other multiple lines of evidence.

Now Betula appears to be arguing that the word “climate change” does not prove AGW, another strawman. Especially given his complaining when [presented with](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/) comparisions of Anthropogenic forcing vs natural forcing.

Betula your semantic sophistry is a transparent game. I don’t think you know what you are talking about, hence its not surprising to see you keep running around in circles.

Yet, Betula you seem satisfied with being argumentative and empty.
#44 Bernard J.
January 13, 2010

Bernard, we all know “climate change” is always happening. But now we put a stigma on it to infer man is causing it, even though the definition includes natural causes.

Betula, “we” haven’t put a “stigma” on climate change per se, “we” have recognised the potentially very serious consequences of human-induced global warming that is the basis for referring to a different beast – anthopogenic climate change. You are, as Lee notes, playing with semantics.

Oo, and it was the Republican spin doctor [Frank Luntz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming) who advised the Shrub administration to employ the term ‘climate change’ as a way to make the issue appear to be innocuous. The reason the term has such offensive connotations for you now is that although a name change might temporarily have removed the import from the US public’s mind, a hothouse rose by any other name stills smells as sweat…

The science doesn’t go away just because of a relabelling, no matter that your ideology would that it were otherwise.

Ironically, even Luntz now concedes the serious nature of AGW.

FYI the answer to #1 is “I did”, and the answer to #2 is “we can”: if you read the scientific literature you would know that climatologists and physicists understand the physics of temperature forcing, and are able to ascribe the relative contributions of each to the best of the current body of knowledge.

And before you say it, don’t try the “we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing” argument – unless you wish to demonstrate again to the thread that you would rather put logical fallacy ahead of best understanding…
#45 Sim
January 14, 2010

[Betula refers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2201526) to my comment @215:

>*”Guy in the street tells highly trained scientist in the field where he is wrong”*

Betual states that my comment was “*directed at this [@203](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2196465)*”….

Howevr Betula mistakenly narrowed the focus of my target. My comment was in response to blithering Betulisms such as this:

Betula @188
>*John, your worry about “climate change” is the same as an alarmist worrying about evolution.*

And [your blithering Betulism](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2169219) about no evidence for a link between Arctic coastal errosion and AGW.
#46 John
January 14, 2010

John @179

“It’s the denialist equivalent of saying “Well, if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys around today?”

John compares this statement to that of saying climate has always changed and always will.

So let’s examine the logic of this comparison…

Obviously, a monkey has evolved into a monkey, and we have evolved into humans from a common ancestor. And we know that evolution is always occuring and always will, much like “climate change is always occuring and always will”…

Anyone who denies this, is an evolution denialist.

So a proper comparison would be more like this:

John, your worry about “climate change” is the same as an alarmist worrying about evolution.

Of course that would be ridiculous, unless we changed the meaning of the word evolution and gave it a stigma. That’s right, we could all fear evolution and it’s future consequences.

I can see one of the headlines now:

“John is evidence that evolution is happening and we must act now to stop it”

I am pleased my little joke has made you fly into an incoherent, sobbing rage.
#47 Betula
January 14, 2010

Sim @246…

I think I’m actually beginning to feel sorry for you.

If those were your targets, then obviously you are unable to put them in the context of previous and past statements before them.

I am beginning to understand the way in which your logic is defective, and it is a scary thought.
#48 jakerman
January 14, 2010

Betula, thanks again (@248) for [re-emphasizing my point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2200678). Your empty comments are transparent.
#49 Betula
January 18, 2010

Jakerman @244

“I don’t think Betula knows what he is agrguing about. He earlier seemed to argue that Arctic errosion doesn’t prove AGW- that’s a fat strawman”

and again @244…

“Now Betula appears to be arguing that the word “climate change” does not prove AGW, another strawman”

Jakerman, overuse of the word “strawman” doesn’t prove AGW either. In fact, nothing “proves” AGW or the speculated worst case hypotheticals that come with it.

Now that’s a hard fact to swallow.
#50 jakerman
January 18, 2010

Again Betula is straw baled upon starw. Afraid that I can’t over-state the desrciption of starw when describing your tactics.

And Betula [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/evidence_doesnt_seem_to_change.php#comment-2205412) re-emphasizes my point, that he is just argumentative and empty.