No puerile sarcasm

Here’s a comment made today by Ken Perrott. Unfortunately his comments are copied immediately on Sciblogs, lending them a dignity they don’t deserve. Ken referred to the CCG as containing:

“puerile sarcasm aimed at denying the credibility of scientists and honest science.”

I don’t believe there is any “puerile sarcasm” here, and I would like to keep it that way. It’s acceptable to have one’s scientific thinking challenged or refuted, but the only way to brush off these insults is to be innocent of the alleged activity.

Anyway, we will agree, I’m sure, that Ken is fully skilled in judging the appearance and use of puerile sarcasm.

I encourage him now to address the scientific arguments given throughout this site against the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

But, considering his post simply offers juvenile mockery of those who disagree with him, I don’t expect very much. Perhaps he will surprise me.

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
AndyRichard TreadgoldLisa G in NZ Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Small typo in the title

peurile should be

puerile

Oops!! Thank you. –RT

Andy
Guest
Andy

Richard, I wouldn’t respond to these comments.

There are a few subplots in this blog. You have your particular issues with NIWA and the 7SS.
A few of us exchange links and references that we might find interesting. Whether this is an “echo chamber” or some kind of self-reinforcing weltanschauung is open to debate.
Personally, I’d love the opportunity to have a different point of view expressed here so we can have an open and honest discussion. Prof Hunter’s recent comments indicate that this is off the agenda.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to present ideas and links, or whatever (hopefully avoiding puerile sarcasm), without a bunch of aggressive and rude commenters intimidating you with emotional arguments and appeals to authority.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

As always, Andy, you talk sense. I’d love a proper debate, too. You can be confident that Ken will be refuted, not insulted.

Lisa G in NZ
Guest

You guys are great, detailed and accurate in your valid criticisms.

Me? I’m totally IN to puerile sarcasm… maybe I’ll ban myself from embracing that here, but I find it, along with ALL forms of free expression, my right as a human to utilize whenever I feel like it…

Truth doesn’t matter to AGW religionists, just their FEELINGS. They KNOW man is hurting the planet with their CO2… contrary to any actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE… they FEEL it so it MUST be SO…

Ok, I’ll take my puerile comments home to my sandbox now…

ta

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Lisa,

Lovely. With insights like that, you can stick around as much as you like.

You might notice that we’re not too far from descending into puerile sarcasm; do you notice the illustration with the next post: a carving of an ugly peasant sucking his foot? So I reckon that if PS is done with cleverness, you can get away with it. People sometimes even applaud.

If you’re an expert, we would enjoy watching you practice the ancient, noble art of PS here.

Andy
Guest
Andy

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but personally I’d rather have some wit at all than live in the abusive and humour-free world of the NZ Scientology blogs

Post Navigation