The Great Global Warming Swindle

Cliste

Cliste wrote: »

So they must be wrong?

What kind of argument is that!?

You tell me!

Cliste

Cliste wrote: »

I must look into that further, but if you go to the homepage of that picture, you're confronted by this:

and .... did you forget to turn off your webcam :pac:

Grudaire

Deleted User wrote: »

You tell me!

It just says that they are passionate/fanatical about it. It doesn't disprove what they say, just emphasises how much they believe it.

Deleted User wrote: »

and .... did you forget to turn off your webcam :pac:

Not quite, although he has a nice website! http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/

Run_to_da_hills

The carbon trading schemes of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty are analogous to the “indulgences” the Catholic church sold in the Middle Ages that people believed would "buy" souls of their loved ones from Purgatory. :rolleyes:

Mozart1986

bonkey wrote: »

But, in your example of "is the mind a computer", these people used their beliefs as a starting point from which to attempt to reach a conclusion.

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. There was massive consensus in the scientific subcultures of cognitive science and computer science that the mind was a computer and that some day they would create the equivalent of a thinking brain. I might add also that the real power behind this research was the US military and the CIA, who used the science to create smart missiles. They didn't care about creating a human mind, but the scientists filled themselves with fantasies about AI, that allowed them not to deal with the real motivations of their sponsors.

There was a general consensus until a very smart man called John Searle, who you can listen to on Youtube (I highly recommend it!) put forward an argument against it. He was lambasted and derided for his "religiosity", and the response to his contention was huge. There was a wave of criticism against him, but his argument is still contentious. Only after he stood up to the consensus did others follow suit, mostly because of the strength of his argument. Now cognitive scientists are looking into pan-theism and other wacky theories because it has become apparent that the mind is unfathomably complex.

I think that is a perfect example of a similar example of pathology within science, except for the fact that nobody, to my knowledge, has doctored their evidence within cognitive science.

As far as the general consensus within climatology is concerned, well that is an interesting aspect to the matter. Scientists, in general, are considered and reasonable people. This incident will not pass their line of sight. They will take serious note. Many will be doing projects based upon the evidence produced by UEA. Those people will not risk their funding, but over the next 5 years there will be heavy scrutiny put on the evidence for AGW. The popular mindset and the Green culture will take much longer to shift and adjust to the new circumstance. People are herd animals and culture is a juggernaut.

So the consensus that people keep mentioning, will be eroded should the evidence not stand up. I don't claim to know either way. But what is certain is that the general consensus in science was based upon scientists accepting the results of another institution. Now there is good reason to doubt those results. But things will not change rapidly.

As you pointed out yourself...the debate raged. There was no point where any significant majority of relevantly-qualified scientists said that not only did they believe the mind was a computer model, but that they had a scientific theory, complete with testable, falsifiable predctions.

So that is not what I said. You were putting words into my mouth. The people that keep pushing the scientific consensus argument are also saying that we don't understand the scientific method so we should keep our noses out. But science doesn't work on consensus. The consensus they keep pushing is artificial, because the truth is that they don't believe it as the GW apostles, they accept it, as what the evidence points to. But know they will reconsider that acceptance as the evidence is discredited. They will investigate, even if we are derided for it ourselves, as lay people.

auerillo

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. There was massive consensus in the scientific subcultures of cognitive science and computer science that the mind was a computer and that some day they would create the equivalent of a thinking brain. I might add also that the real power behind this research was the US military and the CIA, who used the science to create smart missiles. They didn't care about creating a human mind, but the scientists filled themselves with fantasies about AI, that allowed them not to deal with the real motivations of their sponsors.

There was a general consensus until a very smart man called John Searle, who you can listen to on Youtube (I highly recommend it!) put forward an argument against it. He was lambasted and derided for his "religiosity", and the response to his contention was huge. There was a wave of criticism against him, but his argument is still contentious. Only after he stood up to the consensus did others follow suit, mostly because of the strength of his argument. Now cognitive scientists are looking into pan-theism and other wacky theories because it has become apparent that the mind is unfathomably complex.

I think that is a perfect example of a similar example of pathology within science, except for the fact that nobody, to my knowledge, has doctored their evidence within cognitive science.

As far as the general consensus within climatology is concerned, well that is an interesting aspect to the matter. Scientists, in general, are considered and reasonable people. This incident will not pass their line of sight. They will take serious note. Many will be doing projects based upon the evidence produced by UEA. Those people will not risk their funding, but over the next 5 years there will be heavy scrutiny put on the evidence for AGW. The popular mindset and the Green culture will take much longer to shift and adjust to the new circumstance. People are herd animals and culture is a juggernaut.

So the consensus that people keep mentioning, will be eroded should the evidence not stand up. I don't claim to know either way. But what is certain is that the general consensus in science was based upon scientists accepting the results of another institution. Now there is good reason to doubt those results. But things will not change rapidly.


So that is not what I said. You were putting words into my mouth. The people that keep pushing the scientific consensus argument are also saying that we don't understand the scientific method so we should keep our noses out. But science doesn't work on consensus. The consensus they keep pushing is artificial, because the truth is that they don't believe it as the GW apostles, they accept it, as what the evidence points to. But know they will reconsider that acceptance as the evidence is discredited. They will investigate, even if we are derided for it ourselves, as lay people.

Lay people are quite well ale to spot humbug when we see it. In any case, it's not just lay people who ask questions of the science behind the theory that man is responsible for global warming this time, but lots of scientists question also.

There are those, as is evident from this and other threads here, who resent questions being asked and who resent and ignore any evidence to the contrary, and it is sad for them that they have decided to believe this theory to the extent that they will block and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Science is about asking questions and learning.

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet climate change activists expect the world to take it as gospel that these figures are as accurate as the current measurements.

That's complete nonsense. The IPCC 4th report conclusion is 90% probability. Like I said, the Mathematics and the Science in all this is very complex and with all science there is an error in measuring anything which also has to be factored in.

Tim Robbins

Mozart1986 wrote: »

So should we assume that scientists don't let their belief systems infringe upon the direction of their science, i.e. what they believe to be provable, and what matters deserve their attention?

There are no proofs to anything in science. The scientific method uses inductive logic. It's a tentative philosophy. Proof means it's complete and can't ever be disproven. Nothing in science is complete. What happens is that hypotheisis gain momentum through a rigourous process known as the scientific method and then become scientific theories which explain a cause / effect relationship. For example, gravity, evolution or atomic theory. None of them have any proof. Even gravity, Einstein showed Newton was wrong, but only fractionally.

"Proofs" are only in deductive logic. For example Maths.

Like I said, understanding the scientific method is crucial to understanding any scientific thinking. You never know something. You get to making a theory and you keep testing and testing and testing and testing if it fails the theory is thrown out otherwise it remains as our best scientific understanding.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's complete nonsense. The IPCC 4th report conclusion is 90% probability. Like I said, the Mathematics and the Science in all this is very complex and with all science there is an error in measuring anything which also has to be factored in.

Note, I did use the phrase "climate change activists!", these are people who generally don't need to hear thet the probability is less than 100% they are suficiently convinced already.

Akrasia

Convinced based on the weight of the evidence. But open minded to new information.

So far there are no credible alternative hypothesis to explain global warming. If the skeptics can provide one that is consistant with the evidence, of course I will look at it, but this mish mash of various pseudoscientific theories "it's the sun" "it's cosmic rays" "it's an unknown magnetic effect" "global warming has stopped" "we're in a cooling phase" "It's a conspiracy to raise carbon taxes" etc etc None of these constitute a credible rebuttal to the CO2/greenhouse effect theory which has overwhelming evidence to support it.

Tim Robbins

Deleted User wrote: »

Note, I did use the phrase "climate change activists!", these are people who generally don't need to hear thet the probability is less than 100% they are suficiently convinced already.

Fair enough. Yeah some of them have their own agenda. Basically, if you think about it this way the worst case scenario w.r.t. climate change isn't even close to the numbers that die currently of things like starvation, malnutrition, malaria, aids etc.

One problem with science is that every science has to fight for research money. They all do this by arguing their research is of upmost importance then their post doc group gets another few years funding.

Look at all the money that goes to cancer research. The same amount of money would safe a lot more lives if it went to malaria. But cancer is more emotive in the west. Something similar happens with climate change. It gets way more attention and money than it should get vis a vi other humanitarian problems which kill a lot more.

But to go all the way to suggest the hole climate change thing is a conspiracy is as daft as believing in UFOs.

I think Bjorn Lomborg makes some really good points. We'd be actually better off planning for climate change. Building up banks, re routing rivers and water ways and then investing in R&D to come up with better, cleaner technologies.

It works out a lot cheaper than having these meaningless interational summits which incur thousands flying to them from all corners of the globe when surely video-conferencing would be more eco-friendly.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote: »

So far there are no credible alternative hypothesis to explain global warming.

There doesn't necessarily need to be one.

A hypothesis which can be shown to be false should not continued to be treated as true just because there is a lack of alternatives.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

There are those, as is evident from this and other threads here, who resent questions being asked and who resent and ignore any evidence to the contrary, and it is sad for them that they have decided to believe this theory to the extent that they will block and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is being blocked or ignored? Do be specific in your response.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Like djpbarry, you appear to avoid discussing anything specific...

Excuse me? I have asked you several specific questions that you have so far failed to answer, on this thread and others.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

It could be, and in fact is true, that scientists place their faith, just as we do, in other scientists. They do this by accepting they're results and building their research upon them.

That’s ridiculous – scientists critique the work of their peers all the time. Published results are not ‘blindly accepted’ – if the results cannot be reproduced, questions will be asked. The case of Jan Hendrik Schön is a good example.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

I spent 20 minutes writing this so dont' delete it!

I don’t care how long it took you to write – most of it is barely relevant. This is a discussion forum, not a blog – opinions are only valid so long as they relevant to the topic at hand.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

This is used to highlight that there seems to be some evidence for the "little ice age" (which you seem to doubt).

There is evidence for a lot of things, but there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the supposed Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, for the obvious reason that a global instrumental temperature record does not exist for that period of time.

jawlie wrote: »

Your next suggestion will probably be that it's only in England and there is no evidence for it happening anywhere else, to which I'd suggest a trip to the national gallery to do some research on Dutch and German artists of the time, as a good starting point, quite apart from the fact that it will be an enjoyable experience.

Is it possible to reconstruct a global temperature record from paintings?

TheScribbler

probe wrote: »

No surprises in this TV programme. Blame Margaret Thatcher for inventing it! Like today’s financial crisis, the Anglo-Saxon war against Iraq (Thatcher got Bush senior to go to war against Iraq), the pension mess (which started with Equitable Life going bankrupt, (it had one of the best returns for pensioners/policy holders in the industry since it was established in 1762, mainly because they paid no commissions to brokers - they went out of business thanks to Thatcher liberalisation of the financial system, the property bubble (caused by easy money from the de-mutualisation of building societies and liberalisation of the home finance market leading to 120% loan to value mortgages), the destruction of Britain’s industrial fabric (she wanted to promote services - and the brain drain into useless financial services, at the expense of manufacturing and farming industry), the CO2 / climate change story which she invented to ramp up nuclear Britain (because she was anti-Muslim, anti-British coal miner), etc... they can all be traced back to one person – Margaret Thatcher. Madame “there is no such thing as society”.

While she isn’t solely to blame for the problems of the world, this arrogant, gullible and easily influenced, self-indulgent individual did more than her share to mess the world up, ramp up terrorism risks, start wars, and reduce the quality of life for mankind.

Alternative source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3IhIUBghPc&feature=related (8 video files for the entire TV programme, SD)

PS: The very limited role of CO2 in climate change was discussed here over two years ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055110595

I'm sorry but I cannot let that go unchallenged. I saw the programme too. We have a terrible tendency to view history with a modern, and may I say it, a rather smug perspective.

Thatcher came to power in Britain on the wave of public opinion and popular support. The previous Labour administration had utterly bankrupted the country, as this present one has done. There was a desperate need to find innovative ways to get the economy moving again and she did so. We may argue that some of her measures had outcomes that were regretable but had she not taken the stand she did the country would have sunk. She also inspired many countries to embrace aggressive economic principles that took them out of various strangleholds. It brought in the principle of competitiveness.

So please when you make comments of this type, could I suggest that you seek to convey a balanced perspective!

The issue of global warming is clearly a growing problem but it is evident to everyone that the world's politicians are busy playing their own games of gain which I for one find nauseating. There is no unified European view on anything these days because we have no statesmen, merely politicians.

TheScribbler

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s ridiculous – scientists critique the work of their peers all the time. Published results are not ‘blindly accepted’ – if the results cannot be reproduced, questions will be asked. The case of Jan Hendrik Schön is a good example.
I don’t care how long it took you to write – most of it is barely relevant. This is a discussion forum, not a blog – opinions are only valid so long as they relevant to the topic at hand.

I fully agree with you

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

There is evidence for a lot of things, but there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the supposed Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, for the obvious reason that a global instrumental temperature record does not exist for that period of time.
Is it possible to reconstruct a global temperature record from paintings?

Is it possible to engage and discuss, rather than ask silly rhetorical questions?

If you want to decide that the MWP didn't exist, that that's your perogative. Others here and across the world may beg to differ.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote: »

There doesn't necessarily need to be one.

A hypothesis which can be shown to be false should not continued to be treated as true just because there is a lack of alternatives.

True, but I don't think the greenhouse effect has been disproven, and I don't think we can ignore what appears to be a significant change in our climate or wait around until a new theory is developed.

The 'skeptics' Neither provide their own explanation for why global warming is happening, nor do they satisfactorily prove that global warming is not happening. All they do is dredge up old, discredited papers and use conjecture and half truths to instill doubt where the issue has already been discussed in minutia within the literature and the quesitons of the "skeptics" have been largely resolved.

Deleted User

A comment taken from another thread in the weather forum.

Look in the original thread to see the graphic, it clearly showa a possible corelation between solar activity and temperatures.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html




http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/minus-13-degrees-the-coldest-its-been-in-april/11794
Last April, Australia




http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bureau-records-coldest-perth-september-day-in-10-years/story-e6frg1rc-1225781188834
(Western Australia)




http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow
USA more recently


Harvard Astro

bonkey

Akrasia wrote: »

True, but I don't think the greenhouse effect has been disproven,
and I don't think we can ignore what appears to be a significant change in our climate or wait around until a new theory is developed.

THat's not quite teh point I was making.

If anyone showed that the models attributing warming effects to human activity was flawed, they shouldn't be required to supply any alternate hypothesis. If a theory or model is demonstrably wrong, it is demonstrably wrong. The lack of an alternative is neither here nor there.

To that end, the "can't afford to wait around" argument is equally flawed. Based on current models, we can't afford to wait around, and so action is the logical avenue to persue (although the question of what action to take may not be so clear). If those models are shown to be sufficiently* wrong that they are no longer trustworthy, then still saying "we can't afford to wait around" would seem to be a position based on very little.

*The use of the word "sufficiently" is key here. No model is entirely accurate. Its a question of where the thresholds of usefulness lie.

The 'skeptics' Neither provide their own explanation for why global warming is happening, nor do they satisfactorily prove that global warming is not happening.

I'm not disagreeing with these points.

What I'm saying is that the position you're staking seems to ignore the option of "show the current models are wrong, without offering an alternative". If someone showed that the models attributing cause were badly flawed, then its not a case that they would be showing that global warming isn't happening, nor offering an explanation of why. It would be a case of showing that the currently accepted "why" is wrong.

I don't believe this has been done either...I just feel it is incumbent on us to recognise that this would be a valid avenue by which the current consensus could be shown to be misplaced

All they do is dredge up old, discredited papers and use conjecture and half truths to instill doubt where the issue has already been discussed in minutia within the literature and the quesitons of the "skeptics" have been largely resolved.

[/quote]
Ben Goldacre commented on just that in his column, recently.

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

Is it possible to engage and discuss, rather than ask silly rhetorical questions?

If you want to decide that the MWP didn't exist, that that's your perogative. Others here and across the world may beg to differ.

Do you have evidence that the MWP was a global change or just a regional one?

Akrasia

bonkey wrote: »

THat's not quite teh point I was making.

If anyone showed that the models attributing warming effects to human activity was flawed, they shouldn't be required to supply any alternate hypothesis. If a theory or model is demonstrably wrong, it is demonstrably wrong. The lack of an alternative is neither here nor there.

To that end, the "can't afford to wait around" argument is equally flawed. Based on current models, we can't afford to wait around, and so action is the logical avenue to persue (although the question of what action to take may not be so clear). If those models are shown to be sufficiently* wrong that they are no longer trustworthy, then still saying "we can't afford to wait around" would seem to be a position based on very little.

*The use of the word "sufficiently" is key here. No model is entirely accurate. Its a question of where the thresholds of usefulness lie.


I'm not disagreeing with these points.

What I'm saying is that the position you're staking seems to ignore the option of "show the current models are wrong, without offering an alternative". If someone showed that the models attributing cause were badly flawed, then its not a case that they would be showing that global warming isn't happening, nor offering an explanation of why. It would be a case of showing that the currently accepted "why" is wrong.

I don't believe this has been done either...I just feel it is incumbent on us to recognise that this would be a valid avenue by which the current consensus could be shown to be misplaced

Ben Goldacre commented on just that in his column, recently.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that Link. I agree with everything you have just said.

Where the models are wrong, they should be improved or discarded. It is, of course, useful to have people error testing the science, but there is a format for this kind of discussion, in order for it to be useful, it needs to be accurate, honest and methodological.
What many/most of the 'skeptics' engage in is not helpful to the advancement of science.

Mozart1986

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s ridiculous – scientists critique the work of their peers all the time. Published results are not ‘blindly accepted’ – if the results cannot be reproduced, questions will be asked. The case of Jan Hendrik Schön is a good example.
I don’t care how long it took you to write – most of it is barely relevant. This is a discussion forum, not a blog – opinions are only valid so long as they relevant to the topic at hand.

Of course it isn't relevant if you disagree. Thats the way it goes here.

You're right though, I was being ambiguous with that particular comment. They don't ordinarilly accept things other scientists say blindly. But the data collection mathods of a major institution have been shown to be potentially disingenuous in the interpretting stage. There will be a large investigation into his methods. People will do it at home, and people will also do it in the major institutions like MIT. And if it should come out that the use of this data was deceitful as the rise in temperature was artificially increased, as I suspect it was, then the scientists that use this data will be shown to have failed in their duty to properly peer review.

Please be more agreeable in your criticisms, you don't need to jump on the small, slightly rash, comments that are not the brunt of my argument, in order to create an perception of disagreement without the substance.

P.S. I notice you didn't make any note on Scribbler's "irrelevant" comment. I don't think it was irrelevant, I appreciate his perspective. But on your standards, it most definitely is irrelevant. But no comment;)

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s ridiculous – scientists critique the work of their peers all the time. Published results are not ‘blindly accepted’ – if the results cannot be reproduced, questions will be asked. The case of Jan Hendrik Schön is a good example.
I don’t care how long it took you to write – most of it is barely relevant. This is a discussion forum, not a blog – opinions are only valid so long as they relevant to the topic at hand.

How can anyone "peer review" the work of Professor Jones, who claims he has lost the data on which he is basing his claims?

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you have evidence that the MWP was a global change or just a regional one?

Centennial Variations of the Global Monsoon Precipitation in the Last Millennium: Results from ECHO-G Model – Liu et al. (2009) The authors investigate how the global monsoon (GM) precipitation responds to the external and anthropogenic forcing in the last millennium by analyzing a pair of control and forced millennium simulations with the ECHAM and the global Hamburg Ocean Primitive Equation (ECHO-G) coupled ocean–atmosphere model. … Conversely, strong GM was simulated during the model Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1030–1240). … The simulated change of GM in the last 30 yr has a spatial pattern that differs from that during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that global warming that arises from the increases of greenhouse gases and the input solar forcing may have different effects on the characteristics of GM precipitation.”

Blueprints for Medieval hydroclimate – Seager et al. (2007) “A review of proxy evidence from around the world indicates that North American megadroughts were part of a global pattern of Medieval hydroclimate that was distinct from that of today. … A positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) also helps to explain the Medieval hydroclimate pattern. … Tentative modeling results indicate that a multi-century La Niña-like state could have arisen as a coupled atmosphere–ocean response to high irradiance and weak volcanism during the Medieval period and that this could in turn have induced a persistently positive NAO state.”

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? – Broecker (2001) “During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.”

I am aware, that there are different opinions regarding the MWP, and the following is also an opinion.

Medieval Climatic Optimum – Mann (2002) “Thus, current evidence does not support the notion of a Medieval Climatic Optimum as an interval of hemispheric or global warmth comparable to the latter 20th century.”

Although Mann was the man who is quoted as saying ""... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." so we have to be careful when taking his opinion at face value.

djpbarry

TheScribbler wrote: »

Thatcher came to power in Britain on the wave of public opinion and popular support. The previous Labour administration had utterly bankrupted the country, as this present one has done. There was a desperate need to find innovative ways to get the economy moving again and she did so. We may argue that some of her measures had outcomes that were regretable but had she not taken the stand she did the country would have sunk. She also inspired many countries to embrace aggressive economic principles that took them out of various strangleholds. It brought in the principle of competitiveness.

Do I need to point out the obvious and state that this has no relevance to this thread?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

If you want to decide that the MWP didn't exist, that that's your perogative.

There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty associated with reconstructed temperature records for this period in history – concluding with a high level of confidence that the current mean global temperature is higher/lower than it was during the MWP is not possible. But considering that we are unlikely to be in a position at any point in the near future to correlate mean global temperature during the so-called Medieval Warm Period with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, solar activity, cosmic rays, etc. it’s something of a moot point.

However, I find it rather inconsistent that those who question whether the mean global temperature is currently increasing and/or whether increasing CO2 concentrations are responsible will so readily accept that the so-called Medieval Warm Period did exist and during this period, global temperatures were higher than they are today, despite the rather limited evidence. It would certainly not be the position of a 'sceptic'.

auerillo wrote: »

How can anyone "peer review" the work of Professor Jones, who claims he has lost the data on which he is basing his claims?

Because raw data is rarely (if ever) presented for peer review.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Of course it isn't relevant if you disagree.

No, it was irrelevant because it was a rant (your word, not mine) about science in general and the public’s perception of it – this thread (or even this forum) ain’t the place for that.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

But the data collection mathods of a major institution have been shown to be potentially disingenuous in the interpretting stage.

As I have already stated on this thread, we are still a long way from demonstrating that any wrong-doing has taken place.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

...if it should come out that the use of this data was deceitful as the rise in temperature was artificially increased, as I suspect it was...

Seeing as the GISS temperature record, for example, is in general agreement with that of the CRU, it would appear that you also suspect NASA of wrong-doing?

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Please be more agreeable in your criticisms, you don't need to jump on the small, slightly rash, comments that are not the brunt of my argument, in order to create an perception of disagreement without the substance.

Call it an obsessive compulsion, but I do feel the need to “jump” on the small details. Such is science.