There it is, then.

They cannot always win. There are rules in this game (to their eternal consternation), and not even they have complete immunity to such rules.

“Not even they” — huh. I wonder if they realize just exactly where they rank in this whole business.

RTF

Actually, the most favorable defense of the IAC position that I can see amounts to (in effect) the following:

All the scientists consulted are mortal;
McIntyre is mortal;
Therefore, scientists “such as” McIntyre have been consulted.

Just substitute “have/has views on the IPCC process” for “are/is mortal”.

The problem, as was already suggested by Jeff Campbell, is that “such as” means “for example”; it does not mean “like”.

“Like” can, in fact, be taken to mean “for example” in certain cases.

But in many other cases, “like” either can or must be understood to mean “similar to”.

Thus, one cannot say that, just because “like” might sometimes mean “for example”, that “such as” is always equivalent to “like” or is an equivalent substitute for “like”.

The foregoing seems to me to be an important point, because if it is not stated clearly and quickly, then the opponents of Steve McIntyre have an open door to argue in the alternative, whenever it might be convenient for them to do so, and however unsupportable their argument might be. But the mere fact that they try to make the argument will carry weight with some, and therefore I believe it can only help to state the obvious truth explicitly and up front, before it becomes a point of contention between Mcintyre/McKitrick and their opponents.

Richard T. Fowler

McIntyre is mortal;

Therefore McIntyre has been consulted on the IAC report.

I always did have trouble with syllogisms…

A 3 hour 49 minute recording is on line now.