M-heh! (BISHORL?)

Read this in the comments section on a post with about a 2006 NRC press release allegedly vindicating Mann's infamous "hockey stick" chart used by the IPCC after his team's methodology were discredited. I read the press release several times and can find nothing in it that vindicates the chart. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it supports the critics. But that's not the point of this post.

There is a commenter named "Per" ... that fortunately has the nads and apparently the scientific background (and understands scientific method) to go toe to toe with the believers with narrow focus and their constant resorts to name calling and doing about anything but refuting what he says.

But I found this close to one of his posts rather amusing, and wanted to file it away:

If only you hadn't got your words completely wrong, and if only the words didn't mean something completely different, you would be right.

Per, here, gives an excellent example of how I feel conservatives ought to argue (just do searches for "posted by: Per"). Don't get abusive. Stick to the subject at hand. Argue facts and logic about the points without relying ad hominiem attacks against people who have made those points, and just ... give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll come unravelled pretty quickly and become unnerved by your cool.

And you're allowed to be amused as they dangle. They're not actually hanging, after all. Just pushed from their comfort zones.