It *is* a reaction to persistent misinterpretation of facts and events. You ask a lot of good questions, and make some good connections. Other times, even in the face of pretty clear evidence that undermines an assertion you make, you persist in digging yourself in deeper.
That's very interesting, JD. I really have a persistent misinterpretation of facts and events? I persist in digging myself in deeper even in the face of pretty clear evidence that undermines an assertion I make?
Of course, seeing how you severely misinterpret English sentences like the following two, sort of makes me a little skeptical of your judgement and neutrality:
Don't think Nuri is the only one to blame here: Notice the sharp increase in mean CH4, and the subsequent decrease in refreeze (both extent and volume). Also note the sharp fall in 2013 extent and volume, following a 2600 ppb CH4 event last year.
It seems pretty clear to me from this, that [that «CH4 caused it directly»] is exactly what you are saying — that prompt release of CH4 had an immediate effect on the pack. We are not mistaking you.
Well, it may seem very clear to you, but it's still wrong.
1) Nuri really isn't the only one to blame for slow refreeze. If you think she is, you'd better have extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary assumption.
2) Asking people on a forum to notice 4 events, appearing in pairs, is something very different from saying «CH4 caused it
[melt/slow refreeze] directly». You should all notice this phenomenon, as it could be important for our understanding of Winter ice melt and refreeze (incidentally the
exact subject of the thread it was posted in).
So, clearly, you were wrong or prejudiced in making that judgement. Your
interpretation was sexy, I'll give you that, but persisting in keeping that interpretation even in the face of very clear evidence that it was wrong (me saying it directly to you, in writing, that it's wrong), is somewhat extraordinary.
But let's return to your two initial «not personal» assumptions, shall we?
I know how important it is for stuff like this to be corrected, in a social setting, as the «Wise Ape» has a tendency to value judgements from an oldtimer or authority figure highly, while almost not bothering to hear out the newbie. That's why we have to do this, JD.
- Assumption A: I have a persistent misinterpretation of facts and events.
- Assumption B: I persist in digging myself in deeper even in the face of pretty clear evidence that undermines an assertion I make.
That sounds really, really stupid to me, and if true, I must be a really, really stupid person, don't you think?
Now, seeing that you assure us these assumptions are «not personal», we must assume they are obvious truths, verifiable by (at least) anyone with a higher degree or similar training. And being such obvious truths, we must also assume there is plenty of evidence to back them up.
In other words, as these assumptions about my person or mental skills are «not personal», there must be plenty of examples that you can muster to show A: a persistent misinterpretation of facts and events on my part, remembering the meaning of the word «persistent» (here: never ever change or adopt a new understanding) and B: concrete particular assertions I've made and stood by even in the face of clear evidence that undermines them.
Remember, of course, that someone's opinion or claim is not automatically clear evidence. This means you have to prove that what you think undermines my assertions is in fact the scientific truth on the matter. No Hörensagen, but obvious facts. (Proving a theory 100% correct is of course philosophically impossible, but we'll go for «pretty clear evidence» in the here and now.)
That shouldn't be too hard if those two assumptions were indeed obvious truths, and not stigma thrown upon me as some sort of public punishment for touching on a taboo science area.
I wish you luck in gathering the evidence, JD.
