January 2013 Open Thread

Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    So you’re in denial about denial.

    I called it :-)

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    I beg to differ Lotharsson

    Beg all you like. Your past record of differing has been almost entirely Fail.

    And begging doesn’t change the fact that it’s “unsporting” (in your idiom) to demand a do-over at the opponent’s expense when you don’t like the outcome. And that remains true even if you personally didn’t witness the original.

    by your own definition you definitely did a flounce.

    You miscomprehend everything else, so why not this?

    (And one notes that your hypocrisy is almost entirely unbounded – and apparently entirely unembarrassing to you.)

    You finally have an adversary who is happy to play semantics with you.

    Your lack of comprehension leads you to claim facts that are not in evidence, Madame. But of course, you will deny that because you don’t comprehend your own error.

    …cheap shot on the Climate4you info.

    Nope!

    It refers back to my earlier unsuccessful attempts to educate you as to how it seeks to lead its readers down a particular pseudo-scientific path, all the while flattering them that they are deciding it all for themselves – and that they are doing a better job at science than professional scientists.

    And those efforts pre-rebut your foolish statement:

    Your use of words/phrases/assertions like ‘crank site’ are spectacularly meaningless unless you provide EVIDENCE.

    But since copious evidence demonstrates that bamboozling you on scientific questions is ludicrously easy for anyone so inclined, and that you can’t remember what you wrote yesterday let alone remember reading an argument that requires a little bit of thought to follow from weeks ago, you are not equipped to figure out that you are being manipulated and bamboozled or even recall that your claims were rebutted long ago.

    C’est la vie.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    January 28, 2013

    lemme get this right …. brad keyes wants everyone to guess what he’s thinking, and if they can’t then people who accept that global warming exists and that it is something to worry about are wrong?

    does bradley’s wet nurse know that he’s showing his willy to people on the intertubes?

  4. #4 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    Really Lotharsson?
    Here is the Climate4you website:
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    Please explain how this website is a crank site or is misleading people or pseudo scientific or claiming that it does a better job at science than professional scientists.
    Which ‘professional scientists” Lotharsson?
    Also Lotharsson?????
    I think Humlum IS ACTUALLY a scientist isn’t he?
    Or do you think his CV here is made up on the ‘crank’ website?
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
    I also think he’s probably classed as a ‘professional scientist’ considering he works in the field.
    Your so called ‘evidence’ was a work in character assassination via some links to sites where we had people in overdrive practicing what Walter Starck (who is also a professional scientist BTW) calls “an academic pissing contest” over a particular paper.
    There was no EVIDENCE about the claims you have made above Lotharsson!
    And before you get yourself tied up in knots, I am NOT (repeat NOT) therefore automatically a blind faith supporter of Climate4You or Humlum.
    I do however object to your attempt to practice character assassination and then claim you have based it on EVIDENCE.
    That is UTTER TOSH! (to borrow a JeffH term)

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Please explain how this website is a crank site or is misleading people or pseudo scientific or claiming that it does a better job at science than professional scientists.

    And there we have – with apparently no trace of irony – an unsportsmanlike request for a do-over! You couldn’t make this shit up!

    (But chameleon can.)

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Your use of words/phrases/assertions like ‘crank site’ are spectacularly meaningless unless you provide EVIDENCE.

    The cranks site like Anthony Watts’ WUWT or Jo Nova’s crank site specialise in cranky blog posts littered with cranky comments.

    Jo Nova’s site is completely riddled with LaRouchian nonsense and crankery about how the…er ..”banking families”…are behind the UN’s Fascist-Communist Agenda 21 world-takeover bid.

    And WUWT is ridiculous – there isn’t a crank too cranky or an argument too illogical that they won’t run it.

    What happened when Anthony Watts’ “Surface Stations” project proved the temperature record is sound?
    What happened when the BEST temperature reconstruction confirmed the “Hockey Stick” was correct?

    Watts just ignored it, pretended it hadn’t happened and went into denial mode – the surest sign of a crank is self-contradiction and an unwillingness to learn.

    If Chameleon wants to learn, she would ignore the untrustworthy and unqualified shonks to be visiting the following sites, run by qualified, trustworthy professionals:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx

    These people are honest, professional and qualified.
    The crank blogs are run by people without relevant qualifications who are in the business of political lobbying and misinformation.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Yes, Chameleon, Humlum is a crank.

    Who is he?

    Why would you go to some fringe Swedish geoscientist for beginner information on climate science instead of to BoM and CSIRO?

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Please explain how this website is … claiming that it does a better job at science than professional scientists.

    You have misinterpreted again. Read it again. And again. Until you understand your quote does not represent what I wrote.

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Ouch! Sorry for that crime against readability! (Feel free to delete it, Tim.)

    I’ll try again:

    @chameleon….

    I’m reluctant to criticise a friend (elógialo en público/eviscéralo en privado/etc.), but, since friends owe each other the truth, my fellow denialista and #1 splendid-hued, swivel-eyed (in a cool way), coldblooded negatrix… you quadruply fail the same intelligence test I’ve been known to perseverate in flunking for hours on end. Like an idiot.

    Without further ado, I present:

    The Anatomy of Denier Fail.

    **********************************

    1. The affirmer @Lotharsson

    —possibly a male, more likely a bug-ridden natural language worm whose “smarts” don’t even rise to the Turing pre-test of

    NAMING JUST THREE (3) SCIENTIFIC THEORIES A MEAN OL’ ARCH-DENIALIST LIKE ME REFUSES TO BELIEVE IN

    —types/echoes some string. (Usually long, and occasionally almost insane enough to make Wow look like he’s only going Part Retard, as he’s so fond of insisting.)

    2. You read said string.

    [Denier brain fail 1.]

    3. You invest your own finite and precious time upon this mortal stage addressing good-faith, responsive thoughts back at LOTH4R++ in the childlike, evangelical faith that what you write is one day going to somehow budge the tape-head that is Lotharsson’s nearest analogue to a mind.

    Completely naive of you, of course. Learning difficulties much? [Denier brain fail 2.]

    4. Rinse and repeat, substituting Wow for LOTH4R++.*

    As above, you lose 2 Denier Brain Points, bringing you to −4.

    (Don’t feel bad—my current lo-score is something like −12.)

    * —Wow’s string isn’t as long as Lotharsson’s.

    —Another difference is that Wow is definitely a real person; even bleeding-edge natural-language algorithms aren’t capable of 100% Retard performance yet. The technology is at least 10 years away, I’d say.

    *******************************************

    Give it up, girlfriend.

    You are teh failing here.

    Do something fun—I dunno, give any domestic pets you have some affection, read a book, make up an iTunes playlist of the all-time most ass-shitting Pantera and publish/share it with a single click. It’s That Easy.

    Fuck those suggestions: listen to me now. Go read the fragnificent @tucci78’s latest at WUWT.

    (I think it’s on the thread about “And They Wonder Why Climate Realist Sites Get More Traffic Than Gullibilist Sites…”.)

    If you’re not familiar with Dr Matarese’s shit (he’s a GP by day and is no relation to “Dr Maharaji,” Jeff) then I envy you, @chameleon, because you have ahead of you an awesome literary discovery.

    Not to mismanage your expectations or anything, but imagine a cross between Hitchens and someone who learnt the scientific method. I hope he quits his day job. What happened to Hitch left a gaping, weeping hole in the world of letters.

    So, go away. :-)

    We’re only killing zomgies and time here.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Oh, fuck me. Failure to close italics carries over?

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Test.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    test.

  13. #13 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    January 28, 2013

    Never mind … that unclosed italics thingie can go on forever.

    Until someone stops it. It’s always fun to guess whether it will be your own post that is the stopper. (But I wouldn’t expect it on a public holiday anyway.)

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Yeah, mediocre blogging platform. Tim usually fixes close tag fails in the end.

    And to my mind the overdone italics do rather seem to go with the pungent whiff of spittle-flecked rant anyway.

  15. #15 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    @ VINCE
    WTF ????????????????????????

    January 28, 2013

    Yes, Chameleon, Humlum is a crank.

    Who is he?
    Why would you go to some fringe Swedish geoscientist for beginner information on climate science instead of to BoM and CSIRO?

    I’m searching and searching and searching and NOWHERE can I find ANYTHING where I said INSTEAD OF!!!!!!!!!!
    And Vince you bloody imbecile I googled the bloody Humlum CV
    Did you bother to read it??????????
    It doesn’t say that ” YES , HUMLUM IS A CRANK!”
    Good lord!
    What planet do you live on Vince?
    There is absolutely NOTHING illegal,crankish or wrong with his quals nor is there anything amiss with his methodology or use of scientific data.
    In fact IF YOU BOTHER TO READ THE WEBSITE, it is exactly the same climate data sources that most of the scientific community uses.
    For fox ache!
    And Vince!
    I go to BoM and CSIRO far more often than Climate4you.
    I actually live and work in Australia!
    Some of my best friends work in those 2 institutions.
    BUT VINCE????????
    Is there some unwritten law somewhere that says I’m forbidden to look at other sites?
    If I was paying attention to you, none of us should listen to or read anything that JeffH contributes because he works in Holland apparently.
    As I told Lotharsson quite some time ago, many of my family members, friends and colleagues have a scientific background (including myself and my husband)
    You folks at Deltoid are very amusing most of the time but I find your attempts at character assassination of perfectly legitimate people highly unpleasant.
    And Lotharsson,
    Forgive me once again for stating the bleeding obvious but you did indeed write this @ comment # 2 above:

    …cheap shot on the Climate4you info.

    Nope!

    It refers back to my earlier unsuccessful attempts to educate you as to how it seeks to lead its readers down a particular pseudo-scientific path, all the while flattering them that they are deciding it all for themselves – and that they are doing a better job at science than professional scientists.
    So this comment from you here:
    @#7

    Please explain how this website is … claiming that it does a better job at science than professional scientists.

    You have misinterpreted again. Read it again. And again. Until you understand your quote does not represent what I wrote.
    Is UTTER TOSH!

    And Thanks for the advice BradK.
    Can I have the money with just one answer?
    And that answer is:
    Drrrrrruuuuuummmmmm rrroooooolllllll
    You have NOT (repeat not!!!) DENIED one single, solitary scientific theory.
    It beggars disbelief how often these people here can write different forms of the word ‘deny’ in their comments and the write ABSOLUTELY EFFING STUPIDHEAD COMMENTS like the ones from Vince and Lotharsson above.
    What’s even more amusing is that they take themselves soooooooo seriously when they make those effing stupidhead comments.

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Is there some unwritten law somewhere that says I’m forbidden to look at other sites?
    .

    Yes. People who aren’t quite the full quid should stay away from crank blogs which will only serve to misinform and confuse them.

    There is absolutely NOTHING illegal,crankish or wrong with his […] use of scientific data.

    See?
    You are misinformed.

    Humlum’s use of “scientific data” is as execrable as his use of statistics. But you have no way of knowing that, because crank blogs don’t get the kind of quality control that BoM and CSIRO are subject to.

    Stick with CSIRO & BoM – stay away from the cranks – you are not equipped to defend yourself from the misinformation the crank blogs supply.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Forgive me once again for stating the bleeding obvious…

    No, I don’t. Because you have not stated the bleeding obvious.

    What actually is bleeding obvious is – as it was when I pointed it above – that you have misinterpreted what I wrote. You know, like you’re famous for around these parts.

    Read what I wrote again. And again. Until you understand how it differs from what you claim I said.

    Hint: who is doing the deciding in my statement?

  18. #18 bill
    January 28, 2013

    I’m with Loth – the permanent italics fit neatly with the current hysterical and over-wrought atmosphere that the same party has induced around here more generally.

    I’m hoping that other things get rectified along with the tag closures. I doubt I’m alone.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Conversing among the choir. Boring.

    Here’s an open question that might get this party started again:

    Why do organs of climate-alarmist discourse always seem to be irremediably slanted in their content?

  20. #20 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    What actually is bleeding obvious is – as it was when I pointed it above – that you have misinterpreted what I wrote. You know, like you’re famous for around these parts.

    Worse, the hypocrite goes all hysterical when someone DARES interpret what HE writes and DEMANDS that you show PRECISELY where those PRECISE words were said.

    What makes it even more of an idiot troll fest is that the silly bastard never manages to say anything coherent, so interpretation into actual nominative English is required.

    He loves to insinuate because he thinks he can never be found out.

    Trouble is, we do.

    Every time.

    And then he throws a tantrum over it.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    I have got you pictured all tangled up in knots in front of an overheating computer.

    Really?

    Let me guess: this is projection again, right?

    Your track record on according reality in your posts the proper respect ensures that your piteous claims are dealt with in the correct manner: laughed at.

  22. #22 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    Tosh Lotharsson,
    I copy/pasted your comment.
    It’s exactly what you wrote.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Worse, the hypocrite goes all hysterical when someone DARES interpret what HE writes and DEMANDS that you show PRECISELY where those PRECISE words were said.

    That time I was talking about chameleon. But the level of hypocrisy is much the same.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Ah, well, chubby has tried to pick up the “successful” (as long as you’re an idiot troll) technique of Brat.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    It’s exactly what you wrote.

    Yes, it is – which at this late stage is a crashingly idiotic observation. I agree that it is what I wrote. Nothing I wrote above indicates otherwise!

    What I disagree with is your false interpretation. That’s why I did not ask you to correct a misquote, I asked you specifically to re-read what I wrote until you understand how you misinterpreted it. But you even misinterpreted that simple request!

    That’s almost pathological.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    January 28, 2013

    Time for some more reality to counter the post-modernist like humbug of a hi-jacker.

    The basis for this post has been around for awhile now but worth taking a look at a revamp, besides cham & co. would not know of the original anyway: 3-D Visualization of Arctic Ice Loss.

    No warming huh?

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    “Why do organs of climate-alarmist discourse always seem to be irremediably slanted in their content?”

    Aside from a few big words, this question could have come from Bill O’Reilly or some other dimwit pundit at Fox News.

    The terms ‘catastrophe’ and ‘alarmist’ are straight from the corporate funded think-tank handbook. Great propaganda terms those; they say nothing about the science or the potential consequences of inaction. Instead they reek of anthropocentric arrogance qand techno-unrealism.

    Brad, let me just say that you are heading for the sin-bin along with Jonas, Tim Curtin, and other time-wasters who have managed to get through the door soemhow and then waffle on endlessly about nix. It wouldn’t be so bad if you showed that you’d read some of the primary literature – just a tad for heaven’s sake – but your use of terminology suggests the closest you have come to the primary literature is WUWT, CA, Marohasy or Nova, Delingpole, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Junk Science or Climate Depot.

    In other words about a million light years from it. If Tim is peeking at this, he knows what advice most Deltoiders will give with respect to Brad and Chammy’s scientific contribution. The referee is going to blow the whistle soon. It will be a game misconduct in addition to 10 minutes for waffling.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon, this one is dead or dying—go to the Ridley thread if you want my responses to your comments!

    And then go do something better with your time.

  29. #30 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Brad, let me just say that you are heading for the sin-bin along with Jonas, Tim Curtin, and other time-wasters who have managed to get through the door soemhow and then waffle on endlessly about nix.

    I don’t think this will be a problem for the insane troll. They’ve hijacked two threads with complete bollocks, all that putting it in one separate thread would do is make it impossible to find any other thread because his ravings will continue unabated.

    Insane, remember.

  30. #31 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Brad, let me just say that you are heading for the sin-bin”

    LOL. Yes, I let you just say that opinion, but in the local dialect:

    “Citation?”

    The bottom line is, you’re wrong… unless you’re telling me Tim is:

    1. a bad blog businessman
    2. anti-debate
    and
    3. a coward and Lewandoskyist?

    I’ve actually met him, and I have a rather different impression.

    I could have grossly overestimated his intellectual integrity—it wouldn’t be the first time!—but surely not as grossly as that.

    “Aside from a few big words, this question could have come from Bill O’Reilly or some other dimwit pundit at Fox News.”

    Or the question could have been… I don’t know… a pun? (Re-read it.)

    Still, thanks for your response, as always.

    It doesn’t bother me at all that you’re wrong about everything and that you wrongly think I’m wrong about everything—you have (and retain) my respect for speaking your mind.

    :-)

    Have you decided you’d like to find out how to convert ACC-is-a-hoaxers to ACC-existsers?

    If you’ve accepted my offer, I didn’t see it.

    But that’s probably because I’ve been distracted—will try and catch up with missed posts now.

  31. #32 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    I think we need some new threads. Even Jonas is not so verbose. I almost miss the guy, given what’s happening on Deltoid over the past few days.

  32. #33 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    Now Chameleon has moved up in the world to Ole Humlum.

    Sheesh. Another climate change denying blog.

  33. #34 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    Now Chameleon has moved up in the world to Ole Humlum. OK, he’s better than Marohasy. JUST. Another guy with not that many studies or citations. But blogs are not where you will find science is done!

    Sheesh. Another climate change denying blog.

    Primary literature Chammy! Blogs are not the primary literature! I wann see primary studies!

    That won’t be easy for you, I know. It seems to me that the sceptics here (too kind a word, but let it go) have turned over every rock they can on the internet to find lonely voices crying out that it ain’t so! It ain’t so!

  34. #35 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @JeffH,

    In this comment, I will invite you to do a scientific experiment with me.

    it’s a depressing testament to the toxicity and bad faith of the whole Climate Debate that you’re condemning so strongly.

    We’re not enemies in any way, and you’re wrong to believe we are. (Whereas I’m correct in knowing we’re not.)

    I appreciate that everything you’ve ever been told—including by generally trustworthy sources—points to my being a bad person and your being a good person.

    But they’re playing you like a Monopoly car.

    Here is a bet: if you and I met, and nobody mentioned the word “climate”, we would be perfectly friendly and even, if events allowed, FRIENDS.

    How do I know this? Because, when you’re not wasting energy attacking me, you’re telling me about your own values and experiences and where you come from.

    So I know you fairly well!

    You have relatively few true ideas, and many false ideas, about me—but that’s not your fault, it’s the context in which our attempts at acquaintance are taking place.

    I have a fairly well-focused view of what your values are.

    And as far as I can tell, THEY’RE MY VALUES.

    Here’s your chance to test this, if you think I’m full of shit:

    Try to name a value we don’t share. Keep guessing as long as it takes to find one.

    Name a value of yours, and I’ll tell you about myself in relation to it.

    By “value” I mean an answer to a question like:

    – what is good in life?
    – how should a particular social groups treat another one?
    – pushpin or poetry?
    – is it better to be a pig contented or Socrates unhappy?
    – what should politicians try to achieve?
    – how important is money?
    – what is man’s role/relationship/responsibilities wrt the natural world
    – how important is science to me?
    – vinyl or DVDs?

    …. things like that.

    Even simpler idea: You can just ask me a list of values-questions without even telling me your own answer.
    I’ll trust you to say if I’m “same” or “different” in relation to your own answer.

    I bet my answers will be pretty much how you feel on the same tiopic.

    Bet ya can’t stump me.

    Bet we’ll be simpatico.

  35. #36 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    Aha! It looks like Chammy found Humlums humbug through – you guessed it – Marohasy.

    Oh what a tangled web of denial they weave!!! The deniers are so desperate they will scrape up anything to downplay AGW.

  36. #37 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    oh, how could I forget:

    ethical values!

    These are answers to questions such as:
    in a given situation how should you respond?

    I bet my answer to moral dilemmas will be the same answer you’d give.

  37. #38 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    “Here is a bet: if you and I met, and nobody mentioned the word “climate”, we would be perfectly friendly and even, if events allowed, FRIENDS”

    Brad, you are right. I do have friends who question AGW. I disagree with them, and think that they have been misled somewhere along the line. Same with politics. I am sure we could be good friends.

    But the main point I am making is that our species is at a critical crossroads. We’ve entered a bottleneck purely of our own making, and its going to take a lot more than our evolved intelligence and wisdom to get us through it and out the other side. I will have to be honbest and say that I do not envy those who have been born in the past 10 years. The planet they will inherit when they get to adulhood is going to be a very different one that I grew up in. By and large, most (though not all) people – at least in the quad – take a good lifestyle for granted. They assume that everything they received growing up will continue to flow to them, and possibly even get better for their own children (since western policy is primarily aimed at plundering from the resource-rich countries of the south, I cannot include thse unfortunates in my calculations).

    This is evolutionarily programmed into us. Forty years ago meat was a once a week luxury, Now we can wolf it down every day in the west. Our societies are more materialistic than ever. Capitalism feeds off ever-increasing consumerism and its attendant economic growth, without reconciling this on the natural economy which provides it. Nerw technologies enable us to dig deeper, to go farther afield, to suck more resources from natural systems. They don’t allow natural systems to replenish these resources any faster. That was one of Bjorn Lomborg’s most massive mistakes, He argued that we are catching more fish than ever; what he didn’t say is that this has come against the background of massive over exploitation of marine stocks, collapsing recruitment and imploding marine food webs. Jellyfish now occupy the terminal end of the food chain along much of the south Atlantic coastlines. This would have been unthinkable just 40 years ago. Overharvesting. A clear symptom of overshoot. Its so critical now that many oceanic piscivorous birds are doomed. Their just aren’t enough fish for them to maintain minimum viable populations.

    At the planetary level now 10-40% of well studied organisms are threatened with extinction. This means vertebrates and macrophytes. The list is swelling. Many species that should be on the endangered species list are not yet, simply because the IUCN is so slow to respond to demographic changes. Still, more than 1500 species of birds out of 9500 species world wide are on the list. We are Easter Island in macrocosm.

    The Brundtland Commission said that 25 years ago to feed and clother all of humanity the economy would have to grow by a factor of 5. They failed to say that the quad (Japan, Australia, Europe and North America) would have to seek social justice and equity in their foreign policy agendas. Well, that is not going to happen ever. Why? Because western government and corporate planners know fully well that if everyone on Earth lived like we do in the rich world, then we’d need another 2-4 Earth-like planets to be sustainable. Last time I looked, Earth-like planets were in short supply. We have one. This explains why prominent US planners like Kennan, Nitze and others openly admitted that US policy should be to maintain wealth and resource disparity without threat to their national security. In otehr words, use slogans like ‘democracy promotion, freedom, human rights et al’ in speeches but don’t in reality mean a word of it. British historian Mark Curtis goes a step further: he says that the only reason that Britain has existed as a state for the past 200 years is to support British corporations. There has been no other reason. Read some planning documents and you’ll be hard pressed to disagree.

    I give lengthy lectures on the relationship between global and regional economic policy and environmental destruction. Climate change is just a part of it. Its certainly clear enough to me that humans are sleep walking towards extinction. We have had 20-30 years to get it right, and in that time we have actually gone in the opposite direction. We have embraced, since Reagan and Thatcher’s time, fiscal policies based on shock therapy and deregulatory free market absolutism, all which carry with them huge social, political, economuc and environmental costs. Since 1990, anti-environmentalism has really ratcheted up the agenda, and the internet has made it possible for all kinds of extreme ideas to become mainstream. There is abundant scientific evidence that we are sending the planet’s ecological systems to hell in a handbasket and many people just do not want to listen. Those with power and priviledge are near the top. They like it the way it is and are investing heavily to make sure that things don’t change.

    I mayh be a party-pooper but sorry, I speak on the basis of what I have learned during my professional career. To reiterate: humans and nature are on a collision course. It is getting closer each and every day. What the consequences of this collison will be is hard to know exactly, but it won’t be good. Our time for extinction as a species would come anyway, but why hasten its arrival?

  38. #39 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    “Here is a bet: if you and I met, and nobody mentioned the word “climate”, we would be perfectly friendly and even, if events allowed, FRIENDS”

    Why the hell is that so important to the denier crowd?

    I’ve not heard anyone say of Abu Hamsa “Well, if nobody mentioned islam or christianity, we would be perfectly friendly”, do they.

    Reality doesn’t care if we’re all BFF.

  39. #40 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Wow rightly observes that:

    “I’ve not heard anyone say of Abu Hamsa “Well, if nobody mentioned islam or christianity, we would be perfectly friendly”, do they.”

    but the reason nobody says it is it’s deluded.

    It is absolutely not the case that a normal person could get on just fine with an Islamic fundamentalist so long as the concept of Islam were never mentioned or debated.

    For one thing, Islamic fundamentalists are also wankers. (Studies show this.) They simply don’t have the same values as the rest of us.

    In order to avoid unfriendliness with such a person it is typically necessary ALSO to go out of one’s way to avoid like the plague any mention of:

    women
    women’s rights
    women: how DO they force otherwise blameless men to rape them?

    today’s gainfully employed black: should he aspire to more than decapitator (and other jobs in the penal end-services industry)?

    the Jew: acceptable nuisance, or a race whose tolerability has long run out?
    the Jew: human, porcine or pongid?

    violence, and its use in rhetoric

    music: how can we get rid of it?

    figurative art: bad

    law and order, crime and punishment

    pornography

    the crime of domestic violence: an oxymoron?

    whether it is morally halal and humanly possible to get through a pleasant evening’s dinner WITHOUT mentioning Islam

    ….. the list goes on.

    These people DO NOT share the same values as any decent human being.

    Whereas Jeff and I ARE decent beings whose values are compatible with sharing a meal, and going to a movie, and EVEN the occasional, nonviolent exchange of views about climate—though it won’t be as pleasant as going to a movie together

  40. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Jeff H:

    now that moderators have intervened, this won’t make as much sense, but remember when nobody could switch off the italics around here? And how annoying and taking on the reading system that got, especially after the first dozen comments?

    That’s why I said “the content” at this “alarmist site” was “irremediably slanted.”

    Slanted? Geddit?

    No big Alex-Jones-level conspiratorialism, no anti-environment hate agenda or anything like that.

    Just a pun.

    Hackles down.

  41. #42 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Jeff,

    would love a link to your lecture slides/notes and even a URL or email number where I could give you my thought/reactions/responses/praise AFTER I read your material.

    Cos we’ll get further that way than we can possibly get here.

  42. #43 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    D’oh

    “email number”

    :-)

    I sound like my grandmother.

  43. #44 Lionel A
    January 28, 2013

    BK

    @Jeff,

    would love a link to your lecture slides/notes and even a URL or email number where I could give you my thought/reactions/responses/praise AFTER I read your material.

    Now here is an idea BK. If you are as clever as you think you are why don’t you simply look up the research that Jeff has been involved in, check out his papers and go from there. After all he has put up pointers to that here before.

    Too difficult for you?

    Too much work for you?

    If you think that then just consider all the hours of often dangerous and uncomfortable work that the many thousands of field researchers have put in, in the field and then all the hours of data logging, data interrogation and careful appraisal to enable the hard worked papers that resulted.

    Consider the huge totals of such peer reviewed papers that resulted and which were carefully analysed to produce the IPCC AR4 which tells you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Now consider that all these years later much more such work has been carried out which will add to the Fifth Assessment Report and also the many more that have been produced but too late for even that. All of these too telling you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

  44. #45 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    “but the reason nobody says it is it’s deluded.”

    Sorry, do you know him socially?

    How do you know he’s not a nice person as long as you leave religion out of the conversation? Bought drinks with him? No? Then you don’t know.

    All you have is what you think is true.

    So why should anyone give a shit about whether you are a potential friend or not?

    Maybe thinking that would be deluded too.

  45. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Now here is an idea BK. If you are as clever as you think you are why don’t you simply look up the research that Jeff has been involved in, check out his papers and go from there. After all he has put up pointers to that here before.”

    Out of respect for his judgement and sincerity, I had an even better idea!

    Let JEFF HIMSELF decide which available work he thinks best captures his current view, and would be most helpful/relevant to the kind of disagreements he thinks he and I have.

    I’m happy to just call up all his work, but I’m giving him the discretion first.

    As to your other interpretations for the motive behind my request, would it be possible that you go fuck yourself please? That would be an equally important contribution to the goal the rest of us adults are trying to get to: an end to the Climate Shitfight and the real possibility of amicable climate bilateralism. That’s my dream, and (dear readers) if it isn’t yours, do the rest of us a favor and lurk but don’t touch.

  46. #47 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    No, do your own homework you lazy bastard.

    Jeff has PRODUCTIVE work to do.

  47. #48 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “How do you know he’s not a nice person as long as you leave religion out of the conversation? Bought drinks with him?”

    Have I gone out drinking with a fundamentalist Caliphatist mujahid?

    Uh, no.

    ROFLMAOAYCUFIOWYTA.

    Wow, let me ask as gently as possible:

    How much do you know about Islam?

    About as much as you do about the climate debate, I’m guesstimating.

  48. #49 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Seriously Wow, how much is Heartland paying you for this, and how can I get in on it?

  49. #50 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @JeffH,

    I’m really glad you agree that we could be friends.

    If you think we are at existential threat from carbon-dioxide, then the worst possible things you could do are:

    1. don’t talk to me in a way you wouldn’t talk to a friend.

    2. stop avoiding my offer to explain what separates ACC-hoaxers from ACC-acceptors, and how to move almost anyone you’ll ever meet out of the former position and into the latter.

    That’s insane.

    That’s no better than some of your fellow believers, who were up all last night and deep into the morning desperately running away from the easy money I was throwing at them.

    It’s anti-rational behavior.

    It strongly suggests a fear on your part.

    It strongly suggests that you would rather NEVER understand what the “other side” is trying to say, because you currently derive comfort, clarity, and power from continuing at all costs to MISUNDERSTAND the other side.

    What do you have to lose from discovering how skin-deep our differences are?

    Why does that information threaten you?

    Would you lose your moral fire?

    Well, you may think so now but trust me, having gained similar insights myself, there’s nothing to fear; you don’t get weaker by discovering how similar your “opponents” are to you—you stay just as strong, but smart about where to apply your strength.

    Would you lose friends?

    That depends—are you friends with a bunch of bitter fanatics whose favourite time of the day is Two Minutes Hate?

    Then yes, possibly, if you realised how misguided that hate was, your fuckwit friends might stop returning your calls.

    I’m sure you have plenty of other, better friends anyway.

    Would you lose your job?

    Hardly likely.

    So why aren’t you asking me what my technique is?

    Your silence isn’t a good look.

    large swathes of what you just wrote are perceptive, logically waterproof and, overall, damn hard for any informed climate-debate junkie (like myself) to object to.

    I say this just in case you thought I was being literal when I said you were wrong about everything, especially

  50. #51 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Brad, if you were really interested in rational discussion, there are simple rules for such.

    You are more in the breach than in compliance. By a long shot.

  51. #52 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    “2. stop avoiding my offer to explain what separates ACC-hoaxers from ACC-acceptors, and how to move almost anyone you’ll ever meet out of the former position and into the latter.”

    Stop being coy. If you have something cogent to say spit it out.

    Asshole.

  52. #53 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Jeff Harvey:

    Large swathes of what you just wrote are perceptive, logically waterproof and, all in all, damn hard for any climate junkie (like myself) to object to.

    I say this just in case you thought I was being literal when I said you were wrong about everything, and that you were wrong to wrongly believe I was wrong about everything.

    Hyperbole.

    **************************************
    And I meant to write this:

    If you think we are at existential threat from carbon-dioxide, then the worst possible things you could do are:

    1. talk to me in a way you wouldn’t dream of talking to a friend.

    2. keep avoiding my offer to explain what separates ACC-hoaxers from ACC-acceptors, and how to move almost anyone you’ll ever meet out of the former position and into the latter.

  53. #54 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013
  54. #55 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 28, 2013

    Jeff, thank you for your obviously heartfelt prognostication on the imminent doom of Mankind. However, as reported in National Geographic last December from “papers by nearly 500 authors in 50 countries. Spanning four decades of data, it represents the most comprehensive analysis ever undertaken of health problems around the world” it appears that there is Good News (sorry and all that):

    “We’re living longer. Average life expectancy has risen globally since 1970 and has increased in all but eight of the world’s countries within the past decade.

    Both men and women are gaining years. From 1970 to 2010, the average lifespan rose from 56.4 years to 67.5 years for men, and from 61.2 years to 73.3 years for women.

    Efforts to combat childhood diseases and malnutrition have been very successful. Deaths in children under five years old declined almost 60 percent in the past four decades.

    Developing countries have made huge strides in public health. In the Maldives, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Iran, and Peru, life expectancy has increased by more than 20 years since 1970. Within the past two decades, gains of 12 to 15 years have occurred in Angola, Ethiopia, Niger, and Rwanda, an indication of successful strategies for curbing HIV, malaria, and nutritional deficiencies.

    We’re beating many communicable diseases. Thanks to improvements in sanitation and vaccination, the death rate for diarrheal diseases, lower respiratory infections, meningitis, and other common infectious diseases has dropped by 42 percent since 1990.”

    Of course, that might be Bad News for you because I gain the impression that you consider your fellow human beings to be a threat and a menace. So severe is your misanthropy that I tremble to think of what measures you might advocate in order to, er, save us all from ourselves! Personally, I am always a bit leery of people who claim to know better than me what’s good for me. They tend to end up killing anyone who disagrees with them – er, not you, of course, but, well, I’m just saying like . . .

  55. #56 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 28, 2013
  56. #57 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @luminous beuty

    Stop being coy. If you have something cogent to say spit it out.

    Asshole.

    No problem.

    But you have to ask nicely.

    Which you cannot do!

    Therefore the offer is, practically, open only to decent human beings.

    Just my way of keeping pigs from accidental pearl ingestion.

  57. #58 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Pretty please, asshole?

  58. #59 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    That’s what I was talking about, @luminous.

    You are psychologically incapable of being nice, even when some really important information is at stake.

    Your nastiness is inbred.

    You can’t help it.

    You are not—ever—going to be an adult about this.

  59. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Though it’s going to be funny watching you parody adults.

  60. #61 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Brad,

    I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll start being nicer, when you stop being so stupid.

  61. #62 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    It’ll be easy to keep.

    Brad’s idiocy is bone deep…

    :-)

  62. #63 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Brad,
    Just for the record; I am highly skeptical that anything you have to say about persuasion is going to be ‘really important’.

    The only thing of which you have persuaded me is that you are an idiot.

  63. #64 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    And an asshole.

  64. #65 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    “Your nastiness is inbred.

    You can’t help it.

    You are not—ever—going to be an adult about this.”

    Is this an example of Brad being nice?

  65. #66 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    To be clear, Brad,

    What I’m pointing to is your tendency to obfuscate. A symptom of denial.

  66. #67 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    And what I mean by ‘tendency’ is full blown psychotic fugue of obfuscation.

    My advice. Stop abusing drugs.

  67. #68 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Remember, Joan has this down pat: if you don’t say anything, you can’t be shown wrong.

    All they do is insinuate then whine and bitch when you put the missing intended meaning to their words.

    Note they have NO problem in doing the same to everyone and everything.

    I’m still flummoxed as to how the warm streak of piss thinks that the books in his doctor’s bookshelf contain “evidence”.

    Evidently, never read one.

  68. #69 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    All you have to do is ask nicely, guys.

  69. #70 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    No.

    So fuck of and die in a terrible accident you warm streak of piss.

  70. #71 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    I’m being way too generous and patient here, but…

    Perhaps the following story/trivia will trigger the insight that finally shames one of you into behaving like an adult.

    Tom Cruise hates this American guy called Nathan Jessup.

    But one day Jessup had some information/paperwork that Tom Cruise needed. Of course, Cruise has the resources and connections to get it from somewhere else——hell, he could have asked his secretary to get it——but Jessup was offering the information on a silver platter.

    Freely.

    (A bit like a certain Climate Crazeeness Fast Money Dead-Easy Challenge that some of you may remember cravenly dodging and/or encyclopedically flunking.)

    So: Jessup said he was happy to give out the information, adding “… but you have to add nicely.”

    Now:

    Bearing in mind that …

    1. these guys have a personal animus from way back

    2. Cruise pretty much hates everything for which Jessup stands; for example, he’s essentially come out and said that Jessup is to blame for American soldiers being killed overseas

    3. Cruise could have gotten the information elsewhere if he really needed

    4. no matter what else you might think of Tom Cruise, you can’t begrudge the objective fact that he’s a high-functioning human and therefore, in evolutionary terms, a fairly well-adapted primate

    … what do ya reckon Cruise did?

    HE ASKED NICELY.

    If you people’s form is any guide, I cannot help but conclude, with some disappointment, that every believalist in this thread is LOWER ON THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE THAN TOM CRUISE.

    Feel free to prove me wrong.

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    D’oh!

    I meant:

    Jessup said he was happy to give out the information, and added “… but you have to ask nicely.”

  72. #73 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Yeah you should leave and not let us see your “generosity”.

    Bye.

  73. #74 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    “I’m being way too generous and patient here, but…”

    We don’t deserve you, Brad.

  74. #75 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    The bottom line is, you’re wrong… unless …:

    Therein follows a transparently fallacious attempt at primary school level manipulation.

    Does it actually work on the kind of people you normally hang around with, and is that why you continue to try it on here in the hope that – damnit! This time, surely this time it will work?

    Here is a bet: if you and I met, and nobody mentioned the word “climate”, we would be perfectly friendly and even, if events allowed, FRIENDS.

    Good grief, your denial even extends to that. You really do have major problems with self-awareness, don’t you?

    Noting that that comment wasn’t addressed to me, but my reaction is probably representative of most people here – you exhibit qualities here that I find repellent. You come across as a most hypocritical, manipulative and reality-untrammelled person who gives off the distinct whiff of being a congenital liar and a veritable plume of overweening self-importance wrapped in the gaudy garb of an irremediable Drama Queen.

    For starters.

    To put it in your simplified terminology, you are a wanker – one of the biggest wankers I’ve ever virtually met. I’d be very very surprised if these qualities did not also feature in your relations to people in meatspace. And most people don’t choose friends with those qualities.

    If you actually want to be friends with people, or even just have a frank exchange of viewpoints, don’t be a wanker. And that includes following the rules luminous beauty linked to at #53.

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    We don’t deserve you, Brad.

    lb FTW!

  76. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Lotharsson, thank you for your question:

    “Does [logical argument] actually work on the kind of people you normally hang around with, and is that why you continue to try it on here in the hope that – damnit! This time, surely this time it will work?”

    Spot on.

    It certainly does work—and with little difficulty—among the university graduates who fill most of my circle of friends.

    It works especially unproblematically if they have any philosophy or science background.

    But even my other friends, without exception, have the wit to understand an argument the first, second or (AT MOST!) third time it’s presented.

    You’re also quite right in diagnosing me with an almost maladaptively powerful faith that if I just offer you believalist billy-goats one more example, if I just re-explain the argument in the right words, if I’m patient enough, then at one point, one of you is going to learn something.

    Incurable optimist?

    Guilty as charged.

  77. #78 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    So, your circle of friends is largely drawn from the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…

    …that totally fits.

    And spare us the “wit to understand … the first, second or … third time it’s presented”. You’ve gone way past that number on several points that have been presented to you and you still show no sign of understanding them.

  78. #79 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    And since I was discussing how big a wanker you are, editing someone’s quote without pointing it out is a wanker move, especially when you do so to give the impression they said the very opposite of what they said, and even more so when you use the false quote to dismiss their point via assertion rather than demonstration.

    But I guess a wanker’s gotta wank.

  79. #80 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Humorless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humorless cultist
    Eternal umbrage

    Thanks a lot, Lotharsson. Now I’ll have the tune in my head all day.

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Accusations of lack of humour – the ever so predictable last refuge of the wanker who is called out for it.

  81. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Lotharsson,

    I must say, old friend, you don’t seem to have too high an opinion of philosophy or science as disciplines!!!

    How revealing, if not exactly surprising.

    I mentioned to you, regarding my always-smart and usually-tertiary-credentialed friends, the fact that,

    “‘[logical, nuanced and in-bona-fide argumentation of the quality with which you associate me for my comments on this blog] works especially unproblematically if they have any philosophy or science background.”

    You preceded to dismiss my science- and philosophy-trained friends as “the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…”

    Your comments do have some relation to the truth, I think. (That of reflection about the BS axis.)

    Citation for your perverse belief, please?

    “So, your circle of friends is largely drawn from the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…”

  82. #83 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    I must say, old friend, you don’t seem to have too high an opinion of philosophy or science as disciplines!!!

    I must say, your lack of comprehension is approaching chameleon-like levels. But hey, that’s apparently what’s necessary to “sustain” some of your “arguments”, so why stop now?

  83. #84 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    I must say, old friend, you don’t seem to have too high an opinion of philosophy or science as disciplines wankers!!!

    FTFY

  84. #85 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Lotharsson, stop spinning. You’re caught out.

    *Writhing on the floor laughing my ass off at your hebetude.*

    Have some dignity and cop it sweet.

    Let the Unforgetting Eye of the Interwebs record, for now and ever, that the son of Lothar has freely proffered his laughable “idea” that people with a background in philosophy and/or science are the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates.

    I’m not making this up, folks. (Scroll up and see for yourself, if you have the abs to withstand the laughability of Loth.)

    Yep. This vile Viking of Bile thinks people trained in either or both of the traditions of human thought most intimately associated with Skepticism itself—philosophy[!] and science[!!]—are the most gullible.

    That’s not a misprint.

    I did not meant to write “least gullible.”

    Yes, it’s hard to believe, even by his Low, Low Stardards, but this fanatical idiot has somehow manipulated himself (teh irony it burns, &c.) into computing that having a background in either of the two great Skeptical systems—philosophy or science—makes you MORE, not LESS, credulous.

    Has the mind of the religious cultist—in its infinite and wonderful capacity for self-sodomy—ever been so willingly offered up for inspection by the Unforgetting Eye of the Whole World Wide Web as by our village idiot Lotharsson this day, the 27th day of January, 2013?

    LOL.

    Dear, sweet, simpleminded bastard of Lothar, I hate to break it to you—actually, that’s a lie, I’m enjoying every second of it—that the capnophobia cult you’ve wasted your life championing now flaps nakedly and spastically in the cyberwind…

    …hoist by its own retard.

  85. #86 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    D’oh!

    If I understand the local rules of logic, the final triumph (see above) over the forces of Full Lotharssonian Retard is completely invalidated by my denialist delusion about the date.

    Lucky escape for you, Lotharsson.

    But if history has taught us anything it’s that victory always triumphs over defeat in the end, so enjoy your respite, moron—it’s temporary.

  86. #87 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    (It was just a typo—but I wouldn’t dare ask anyone to believe me.)

    Like I said, enjoy your stay of execution, tard—it’s temporary.

  87. #88 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Yep that does appear to be the case here:
    BradK @# 76:
    It works especially unproblematically if they have any philosophy or science background.
    Lotharsson @# 77:
    So, your circle of friends is largely drawn from the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…

    …that totally fits.

    But maybe, just maybe because those comments are chronological (one immediately after the other) , they maybe crossed?
    However,
    Luminous @#83 seems to indicate that there were no split hairs or crossed wires or whatever in this particular instance.
    You have some serious ‘nuancing’ to do here Lotharsson.
    It may actually be smarter and easier to apologise for an over emotional and thoughtless comment (I note that JeffH can manage to do that sometimes).
    And BTW JeffH, how on earth have you deduced that I found out about Humlum from Ms Marohasy?
    In this instance you appear to be labouring once again under the misconception that there is a highly organised ‘climate change denier’ organisation ‘out there’ which is directing me to certain people and certain links.
    Do you think that Humlum and/or Marohasy directed me to the Australian Greens policy page or the Getup website or the ACF website or some of the other links I have put up here?
    Has it crossed your mind yet that I am NOT your enemy or ‘anti the environment’ or a member of some denialsim organisation?
    Has it crossed you mind yet that calling people silly names and tacitly supporting the use of sneering analogies by media and politicians is NOT helping your case at all?
    BTW, for everyone’s benefit:
    Misanthrope or also Misanthropist: n. 1 A person who hates mankind. 2 A person who avoids human society.
    From Greek : misos “hatred” + anthropos “man”.

  88. #89 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Yes on a reread of comments # 76 & #77 as well as Luminous’ contribution at #83 it does appear that Lotharsson has some serious nuancing to do.
    Mind you, it could be way smarter to just apologise for an over emotional and thoughtless response.
    I notice that JeffH is capable of doing that.
    BUT! I’m fascinated to know why JeffH is so certain that he has figured out how I came accross Humlum and the Climat4you website?
    Does that then logically follow that Ms Marohasy (with whom I have no particular relationship) has directed me to the Greens Policy on ‘global governance’, the Getup website, the ACF website, the AEF website and several of the other links I have posted here?
    I don’t know why JeffH seems to think that I am his enemy and/or anti the environment and/or a member of some ‘climate denialism organisation’.
    None of those implied accusations are correct but of course now that I have tried to question an implied incorrect accusation or an implied negative statement it can now be argued that I have denied something or other :-)
    BTW for everyone’s benefit:
    Misanthrope or also Misanthropist: n.
    1 A person who hates mankind
    2 A person who avoids human society.
    From Greek: ‘misos’ (hatred) + ‘anthropos’ (man)

  89. #90 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    @Lotharsson, stop spinning. You’re caught out.

    Good grief. He still doesn’t get his mistake! I thought he was the smart one in the room? Isn’t he always telling us that? Maybe he actually thinks I wrote the butchered quote he provided, and can’t remember that he butchered it for his own purposes?

    I’m not making this up, folks.

    Sigh.

    Yes, you are. And still apparently basing it on your miscomprehension. You’re spending too much time basking in chameleon’s adulation – her lack-of-comprehension skills are catching.

    As I frequently say to chameleon, go read it again until you understand how your version differs from mine. (And if that’s too difficult, get a high school English student to help you out. Or maybe even a smart primary school kid.)

    Hint: for starters, one of your key instances of “the” in your latest revision refers to a different set of people than my “the” did.

    (Which means any “retard hoisted” here is not me, but you.)

  90. #91 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @chemeleon,

    shall we collaborate on the next phase?

    (And yeah, I did read between the lines of your faint praise, and I know exactly what you’re saying—but there’s a method to my Climate Madness.)

    @chameleon, email me.

    The “stem” of my address is my real name. If you don’t know my real name, I can point you to the comment in which I explained to a certain avian idiot of our mutual acquaintance what my offline name is.

    To address an email to me:

    Type the full, formal first name.

    So if, hypothetically, my parents had named me after a species of flightless, brainless bird, you’d type the seven-letter form (william) not the four-letter form (bill).

    Of course, they didn’t—that’s just a frinstance.

    Then type a dot between my first name and my surname.

    Then type my surname.

    Then type at.

    Then type “gmail.”

    Then type a dot.

    Then type “com.”

    The next phase will be fun.

  91. #92 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    And careful readers will note that Brad has doubled down and extended his “editing” of my quote in #81 after I objected to it earlier, and continues to use the edited version in his argument to try and bolster his interpretation of what I said.

    Chameleon, of course, did not notice. But then she had no problem lying about what Richard Simons said either…

  92. #93 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Lotharsson,

    Stop spinning mate.

    You’re giving Vortical Vince a run for his money in the vertigo stakes.

  93. #94 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    ??????
    Hint: for starters, one of your key instances of “the” in your latest revision refers to a different set of people than my “the” did.
    ????????
    Lotharsson @#74:
    Does it actually work on the kind of people you normally hang around with, and is that why you continue to try it on here in the hope that – damnit! This time, surely this time it will work?
    BradK @ #76 In answer to that question:
    It certainly does work—and with little difficulty—among the university graduates who fill most of my circle of friends.

    It works especially unproblematically if they have any philosophy or science background.

    Lotharsson @ # 76
    So, your circle of friends is largely drawn from the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…

    …that totally fits.

    Where is the misunderstood ‘the’ in any of this exchange?

  94. #95 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Oops!
    Lotharsson was at #77 for that last comment.
    Comment #81 is not what ‘the’ problem is Lotharsson.

  95. #96 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Lotharsson, oops, I meant keep spinning.

    :-)

    @chameleon, remember what Napoleon said about interrupting an opponent when he’s making a blunder.

    And your time would be better spent working out my real name and shooting me an email anyway.

  96. #97 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    Where is the misunderstood ‘the’ in any of this exchange?

    I wasn’t as clear as I could have been, but this shouldn’t have been too hard to see because firstly Brad set the terms of reference, which you quoted:

    It certainly does work—and with little difficulty—among the university graduates who fill most of my circle of friends.

    Note: Brad discusses “most of my circle of friends”, and declares that they come from the unrestricted set of “university graduates”.

    And note what relation Brad specifies to people with “philosophy or science background”:

    It works especially unproblematically if they have any philosophy or science background.

    There’s no relation there to how many of his friends have that background. His definition has not changed – he is not now claiming his circle of friends is drawn from the narrower set of science and philosophy graduates. He is simply claiming that his manipulation “works” better on those of his friends with that background.

    So it shouldn’t have been too hard to see because secondly my response, which you quoted, echoed those same terms of reference defining the set from which the bulk of his friends are drawn. Echoing the same terms of reference is usually considered a strong indication that one is talking about the same concept, and not one with different terms of reference:

    So, your circle of friends is largely drawn from the most easily manipulated subset of university graduates…

    “Largely drawn from” corresponds to “most of my circle”, and “university graduates” is identical to Brad’s “university graduates”. So which “subset” am I referring to? A subset that Brad defined using different terms of reference which I did not echo, and which Brad did not hold up as the source of “most of his circle”?

    No.

    My “the” refers to the subset of the unrestricted set of university graduates defined by their susceptibility for Brad’s kind of manipulative “logic”, regardless of their area of study.

    (And it should be obvious from experience that in the rather large set of university graduates – or even in the still fairly large set of science and philosophy graduates – there are certainly enough who are susceptible to manipulation from which to form the bulk of a “circle of friends”. One does not need more than a small fraction of the set to have a decent pool to draw from.)

  97. #98 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    And one would have thought an alleged philosophy graduate – a discipline that relies on hyper-fine parsing – would not have made such a gross parsing error.

    Then again, there’s been little evidence of Brad’s ability to comprehend a whole bunch of things that competent university graduates usually manage to comprehend…

  98. #99 Dave McRae
    January 29, 2013

    Great article on blog comments from a science viewpoint.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

    I do think Deltoid suffers from being denier spammed too. I used to read the comments here most of the time, great gems from John Mashey et al enticed me back and back time again. But lately, endless reruns of same crank .. getting very difficult to wade through the pages, at several threads, after 2-4 days absence .. with little return but seeing same deniers.

  99. #100 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    Dave, useful article – and some good links. Maybe Tim should try the kitten setting?

Current ye@r *