Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    And hey, it’s not like it’s Oreskes’ fault. All the elite, hand-picked tobacco-sponsored time-travelling Science Assassins behind the whole phenomenon of CAGW disbelief just happen to be of a, er, certain, er, ethno-religio-culturo-racio-, you know, category, so what is she supposed to do? Throw in a gentile Merchant just to avoid the obvious kneejerk accusations? Psht. No self-respecting half-geologist half-historian would censor the hard facts (beryllium is a heavy metal! arg!), no matter how un-PC they might be.

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Still feeling highly inflamed, O bilious one?

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    You don’t know what it means, if anything, do you?

    Er, no dear.

    We know what it means.

    We reckon you know what it means.

    We reckon you know that we know what it means, and you know that we know that you know what it means.

    Accordingly we just don’t see the need to play your little game. (Chameleon: this game of Brad’s is an example of “pointlessly arguing semantics”. See – an actual example!)

    And even your “40 comments and no definition” is a clearly erroneous claim. When our Resident Queen of Miscomprehension can find a definition that you can’t, you should consider the possibility that you’re really not cut out for this kind of thing. And it’s even more amusing to see you denying her reference to a definition of “denialism” by retroactively attempting to rule her source out of bounds.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Psht. I’m outty. Might check back just in case any y’all jokers grow the testicular fortitude to define “denialism.”

    (Don’t hold your breath though, chameleon—their powers of temporization are rightly legend.)

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Nothing retroactive about it. My original request, 45 messages ago and counting, was for something from, you know, a dictionary. If that’s not too much to ask.

    Now I’m really outta here.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    ROFL! Primary school taunts about testicles now! (Do you even know how many readers are of the testicularly challenged sex?)

    Nothing retroactive about it.

    Sorry, chum. The Queen of Miscomprehension spot is taken. Redefining “retroactive”, even after your earlier sterling efforts at redefining “denial”, “abolished” and the like, ain’t gonna go close to getting you that coveted title.

    Or maybe this is a subtle entry for King of Innumeracy? Sorry, that spot’s taken too. Asserting 86 does not come after 59 doesn’t even come close to predicting the atmospheric CO2 content will exceed 100% by fitting 5th order polynomials to historical data.

    Meanwhile, how about heroic Latimer’s abject climbdown? I notice you haven’t shared any thoughts on how heroic that was. Do you have any sort of estimate of when he’s going to get those European ocean scientists to correct their horribly mistaken FAQ?

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    My original request, 45 messages ago and counting, was for something from, you know, a dictionary.

    Not buying it. It was for “a definition”, and you said you hadn’t been able to find one in dictionaries. Only a fool would argue that English consists only of words in dictionaries…

    …oh, wait, you’re admitting you are that fool, and therefore that you don’t express your requests very clearly.

    My mistake. I agree that it wasn’t retroactive – although your comment about it was amusingly fallacious. It was merely a poorly expressed request on your part combined with a Latimer-like insistence that all methods of meeting an inquiry except the one you specify are not valid.

  8. #8 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    Chameleon is still a hoot:

    BTW it is googleable but it is a term that can be applied to just about anything.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    “Just about anything”…provided somebody is in denial of it.
    Duh!

    What a card-carrying lunatic she is.

    Take note:

    is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality

    Not sure what Brad finds so difficult about that – we have Meryl Dorey and her denialism about immunisation along with Bob Carter and his denialism about climate change.

    It’s often hard to pin the cranks down, but essentially, if you skim through virtually any page on the cranks blogs like Jo Nova’s or Anthony Watts’ crank blog, you will see:
    - people denying that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
    - people denying that it originates from human activity
    - people denying that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas
    - people denying the greenhouse effect
    - people denying the temperature record
    - people denying glaciers melting
    - people denying polar ice melting
    - people denying sea level rise
    - people denying ocean acidification

    Try to pin them down on any one of these things, though, and their brain explodes, causing them to say, “nobody has *EVER* denied that X, we’re just questoning Y”.
    And then, next time you see them posting, they will have gone straight back to denying X.

    Fruitloops. Denialism is a symptom of a mental disorder. In Chameleon’s case, it’s a very simply case of not having a functioning brain – she gets random thoughts zooming through her head all day long and can’t make sense of them, so she’s found some crank blogs that are designed to appeal to the stupid and that’s where she hangs her hat.
    Brad, on the other hand, while plainly of below average intelligence, hangs his hat on crank blogs because it allows him to vent his anger and frustration resulting from having for so long suffered a bad case of intellect-envy.

  9. #9 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Come on, clown, that’s the sum-total of the ‘anti-Semitism’ in this book of Oreskes‘ and Conway’s, an ‘anti-Semitic pamphlet’ published by Bloomsbury Press, is it?

    A smarter man than you might perhaps have admitted he hadn’t read the book, and certainly would not have published such remarkable claims, but, do keep going…

    A denier: One who denies. In your case, AGW. Denialism: the social and institutional practice of denial – in this case of AGW – whether formal or informal.

    Now, you’re going to have to do better on the very, very dangerous claim of ‘anti-Semitism’ here, Braddie – and, Rachel Carson, discussion thereof in this book you’ve ‘read’, please -

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    …and that goes for Latimer, too. An intellectual failure, he’s found the perfect conduit for avenging himself on all those people who are so much more clever than he was able to be: he just accuses them all of being wrong, with no valid evidence or logic, but with the reassuring back-up crowd of flaming torch and pitchfork-wielding luddites and sociopaths from places like Anthony Watts’ crank blog.

  11. #11 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Braddie, you can – and certainly shoulddisappear – but in a very real, and legally-binding, sense – to quote Monty Python – you’ve just published something very remarkable indeed.

    You really should have bolted when I suggested that you ought to, you know.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    I’m baaack. 20 minutes (or 12.5 Lotharsson-pages in the old money) later, just checking on the local gonadal developments.

    Hmm, disappointingly sparse.

    “ROFL! Primary school taunts about testicles now! (Do you even know how many readers are of the testicularly challenged sex?)”

    You’re right—“Lotharsson,” “bill” and “Vince Whirlwind” could mean anything.

    “Meanwhile, how about heroic Latimer’s abject climbdown?”

    Didn’t see it (if indeed it occurred). Can you cite a range of comments? As I said, I’ve got a life, so no guarantees I’ll get round to reading it.

    “My mistake. I agree that it wasn’t retroactive –“

    Thank you for admitting your mistake. Perhaps there are 2 intact ‘nads to be had between the regular [ant]agonists here.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “you’ve just published something very remarkable indeed.”

    Oh well, since the legal horse has bolted, allow me to further blow your mind by adding that Naomi Oreskes is unusually ugly, very dull and a deliberate traducer of the scientific method.

    As you should have picked up when reading—oh, er, listening to someone read—her book.

    On your marks, lawyers.

  14. #14 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Thanks! Shouldn’t be too hard to trace you, I expect.

    And this toxic, venomous dill is an small hero of yours, Chebbie? One of the good guys, eh?

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Thanks! Shouldn’t be too hard to trace you, I expect.”

    No, not since I’m the kind of person to whom it wouldn’t even occur to bother coming up with a pseudonym or heminym for mere blog comments, billy-boy. (I’d wonder what you were afraid of, but then… I read your comments.)

  16. #16 zoot
    January 24, 2013

    Brad can’t even flounce convincingly; a real Nellie Melba.

  17. #17 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Proudly using the cloak of pseudonymity to defame his betters – and to, in best sexist oaf manner, abuse a woman based on her looks.

    Has an obsession with testicles, too. Inadequacy, anyone?

    A real class act, Braddie, a real class act.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Troll flounces ain’t what they used to be, that’s for sure. But troll miscomprehension, projectionism and miss-the-point-ism are pretty much the same.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Proudly using the cloak of pseudonymity”

    says bill (a type of small bird, apparently) to me (Brad Keyes).

    I’d make a lame joke about irony meters if I were a regular here.

  20. #20 bill
    January 24, 2013

    It’s my real name! Just go, ‘Brad’. You’ve showed us exactly who you are, and it is genuinely ugly.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “It’s my real name! Just go, ‘Brad’.”

    B-b-but—you’re depriving me of the pleasure of a good flounce. You’re a real meanie, Bill D. Byrd (if that even is your real name!).

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    By the way, does that attractive, blonde, scientifically-literate, metallurgically-knowledgeable champion of the scientific method by the lovely name of Ms Oreskes have a sequel in the works to Merchants of Doubt?

    Cos by golly, I can’t wait for Protocols of the Elders of Doubt. Or is The Banality of Doubt next?

  23. #23 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    I’d make a lame joke about irony meters

    Yeah, except there is no irony because Bill isn’t defaming anybody, you monumental dickhead.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Thanks, Drama, for that erudite contribution from behind the arras of pseudonymity.

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “A denier: One who denies. In your case, AGW.”

    bill, n: one of a family of flightless, clueless birds identifiable by their rich summer plumage of pseudonymity

    Hopefully you won’t add assault to my rap sheet, o bilious one, but here’s me birding you with a clue bat:

    I’ve never denialised AGW.

    (Damn, why does spell-check keep underlining that perfectly cromulent word?)

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Vince shakes his fist:

    “In Chameleon’s case, it’s a very simply case of not having a functioning brain – she gets random thoughts zooming through her head all day long and can’t make sense of them, so she’s found some crank blogs that are designed to appeal to the stupid and that’s where she hangs her hat.”

    Well then, she’s found the right place—where vortical luminaries like yourself think the BEST team’s study of the past 250 years of temps proves that the Hockey Stick “was correct.”

    As Lotharsson would type: ROFL!

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Brad’s really (ahem) “shaking” his Godwin Fist.

    Perhaps he’s asking to be put out of his commenting misery? Maybe he envies the others their own threads.

    He sure isn’t here for the hunting. He hasn’t got the equipment for it, for one thing.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer Alder was right, u guys r fun.

    Why is nobody coming out to play?

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Oh, didn’t see you there Lotharsson.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Can’t even address me in the 2nd person?

    Murgh, this place is dead.

  31. #31 Marco
    January 24, 2013

    Guys, no need to play anymore. Brad Keyes dismisses Oreskes & Conwey for two basic mistakes, and refers to MBH99 as Mike’s Nature paper. Well, since MBH99 was published in JGR, we have found an obvious and basic mistake by Brad Keyes, and therefore he himself will now declare himself unworthy of further discussion. Right, Brad?

    The others here may take note that my really basic requests for evidence regarding a specific statement by first Latimer Alder and a little bit later Brad Keyes have ‘conveniently’ been ignored by both.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    No Marco, I asked whether it was his Nature paper. I didn’t refer to it as such. Understand the difference?

    But yes, I should have guessed that Nature still had some standards. I can only pray you’ll forgive me for not remembering every second-rate pseudoscientist’s entire bibliography in detail.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes dismisses Oreskes & Conwey for two basic mistakes,

    Actually Marco, if you read more carefully (try this fun tip from bill: only read as fast as you can talk), you’d know I dismissed Oreskes’ and Conway’s book for the basic mistake of being a piece of crap from beginning to end.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “No Marco, I asked whether it was his Nature paper. I didn’t refer to it as such. Understand the difference?”

    Correction—you were right, I wrote:

    “Ah, Mike’s Nature trick paper. Is that the one for which he won his Nobel Prize?”

    I thought I’d put the question mark on both clauses, not just the first. Sorry for going off at you.

    So I repeat:

    I can only pray you’ll forgive me for not remembering every second-rate pseudoscientist’s entire bibliography in detail.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Yep, that reiterates “no need to play any more”.

    Better trolls, please.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Still, your inability to insult me in the 2nd person, combined with Lotharsson’s identical inability, confirms the deadness of this joint. I’m going to look for action elsewhere before the birdbrain on my clue bat dries.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    Chameleon opines:

    “I have no issue with JeffH’s position and/or experience.
    He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera”

    Neither has Noam Chomsky. He is a linguist. That doesn’t mean he isn’t one of the worlds’ pre-eminent experts on the political economy and the mass media.

    For the past 20 years I have read a huge volume of literature linking social, economic and political factors with environmental quality and ecosystem services. I am actually in the processes of preparing a book on the subject when I get time to do a sabbatical. Reading your comments and those of brad are actually cringe-inducing. Both of you use the strategy – jJonas is an expert in this so you both belong in his asylum thread – that if one doesn’t know anything about an area then there is nothing to discuss. In addition to Oreskes book and excellent work exposing a huge and well funded anti-environmental lobby, their are the works of scribes like Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg, Jeffrey St. Clair, Sheldon Rampton and Jeffrey Stauber (at PR Watch), Sharon Beder and others who have researched the area. I have given hour long lectures on it at many universities and at invited venues. Essentially, I show how think tanks, public relations firms, astroturf groups, other front organizations and the like are funded by third parties (corporations) to downplay the seriousness of various environmental problems in order to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. When I gave these lectures in Denmark, they were presented to full houses (more than 200 people) at Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities, I also presented it at Princeton and Stanford (US) and in Helsinki (FN) and in several Dutch universities.

    Brad wants to know what denial means. Applied to Wise Use and the large, well-funded and organized and politically influential anti-environmental lobby in the US (also Australia: read some of Bob Burton’s work), it refers to individuals and groups who deny the seriousness of anthropogenic threats to the environment across the biosphere. They downplay or ignore these threats, and believe that little or no remedial action to deal with them is necessary. Hence, business-as-usual should remain the primary political agenda.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    One last point:

    Alarma bells start ringing when Brad describes scientists whose work he doesn’t like as ‘second rate pseudos’ or as being ‘ugly’. Perhaps you are a pin-up boy Brad, or perhaps you look like the rear end of a bus. That means Jack-****.

    I have asked Jonas this a million times and I will ask you: what is your esteemed contribution to science? Publications? Teaching? Qualifications? I have seen the climate change deniers AND down-players (happy now?) on Deltoid, people whose science is at classroom level, routinely smear the names and reputations of scientists whose work they don’t like. Its so easy to do this on a blog, but out there in the big bad world of real science, they’d evaporate in seconds.

  39. #39 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    I’m going to look for action elsewhere before the birdbrain on my clue bat dries.

    And while you’re there, stop beating yourself on the arse with the cluebat and you’ll no longer get birdbrain on it.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “stop beating yourself on the arse with the cluebat and you’ll no longer get birdbrain on it.”

    Hey, I can’t control where bill chooses to perch.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “”Perhaps you are a pin-up boy Brad, or perhaps you look like the rear end of a bus. That means Jack-****.”

    You’re right of course, it means nothing. And if I’d simply been referring to a second-degree, dermis-deep ugliness, then I’d be the first to apologise to the unlovely N. Oreskes. But I wasn’t.

    “Brad wants to know what denial means.”

    Thanks for your polite answer Jeff (in all seriousness), but since denial is trivially… undeniably!… real, my actual question was about a mysterious entity called “denialism.”

    Are you really asking for my qualifications, Jeff? Why?

    It’s weird how credentialism is alive and well in the believosphere.

    In the deniosphere, not so much.

    In any case:

    —I’m a student.

    —I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    —And vastly less damage to science, history, the good name of Hannah Arendt, or any number of other things you (hopefully) hold dear than Naomi Oreskes.

    Those are my qualifications.

    How about yours? Nah, I’m just being polite. I don’t care in the slightest. I’m more interested in your arguments than your CV.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Anyway thanks for raising the tone Jeff.

  43. #43 FrankD
    January 24, 2013

    my actual question was about a mysterious entity called “denialism.”
    Brad nails his colours to the mast of his inability to find a dictionary definition of denialism. Seriously pissweak trolling, there. Oxford Dictionary good enough? Took seconds: oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/denialist
    (oh and to head off the obvious feeble retort, do be sure to read the whole entry.)

    I’ve never denialised AGW.
    I’ve never communised anything, so by Brad’s “logic”, communism does not exist. Perhaps English is not the native tongue of our latest fountain of intellectual onanism? He does sound a lot like Joan, after all.

    I’m a student.
    I hope Brad’s studies are a Bachelor of Douchism, because otherwise he’s wasting some obvious talent.

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Thank you FrankD. Yes, Oxford is plenty good enough, notwithstanding the bathos of the answer.

    And it only took 84 comments!

    Gotta love the [sole] example they give:

    “the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists”

    As far as I can tell, there’s no other use for it. It was tailor-made for weak-minded self-styled majoritarians.

    As for the rest of your “comment” “FrankD,” it seems I was premature in congratulating Jeff on elevating the tone of this place.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Anyway Jeff, having said this:

    “I’m more interested in your arguments than your CV.”

    …if you can link me to any of the work you’ve done on Wise Use or the other ideologies you’ve mentioned, I’ll do my best to read it. As you might guess from the fact that I got through Merchants of Doubt, I’m open-minded.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Since non-literal discourse obviously confuses you FrankD, let me translate this:

    I’ve never denialised AGW.

    into the more banal:

    I’ve never denied AGW.

    Get it? I haven’t denied AGW.

    Making sense now? Yes, no?

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    January 24, 2013

    The point is, Brad, that if one looks just a little under thew surface they will find a lot of pretty nasty stuff where any issues dealing with environmental policy are concerned. Orekes actually just focuses on linking climate and tobacco – in his book, ‘Green Backlash’, Andrew Rowell digs a lot deeper and unearths some pretty unpleasant truths. Some it involves Matt Ridley. The book is now 16 years old but it is as releavnt as ever. Tom Athanasiou’s ‘Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor’ is another quite excellent read. What annoys me about Chameleon’s comments is that she argues from a point of knowing very little, as if that is a strength. I have encountered many people during my scientific career who use ignorance as a foundation for debate – in other words, when new information is presented to them, they resoirt to all kinds of smears, cursory dismissals, rank humor and the like to belittle their opponent for daring to present something that they don’t know.

    George Monbiot, the UK-based journalist (I don’t agree with some of his arguments, but others I do agree with) wrote a quite poignant comment: He said, “Tell people something they already know and they’ll thank you for it. Tell them something new and they’ll hate you”. This metaphor is really appropriate here, but also in all walks of life. I have seen it also amongst scientists reviewing my own research as well as others, so scientists aren’t immune from it either. In my case, I had a paper rejected because an expert reviewer couldn’t believe the results. I was studying a new system and the reviewer clearly did not know of it. So their rebuttal was to argue that the results cannot possibly be true. I offered to send my research material (in this case insects) to the resarcher but they declined. Strangley enough, when I sent the paper to another journal it received glowing reviews and was published. This shows that scientific novelty depends on the eye of the beholder to some extent.

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “In my case, I had a paper rejected because an expert reviewer couldn’t believe the results.”

    That’s pretty much the opposite of science as I understand it.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “I have encountered many people during my scientific career who use ignorance as a foundation for debate – in other words, when new information is presented to them, they resoirt to all kinds of smears, cursory dismissals, rank humor and the like to belittle their opponent for daring to present something that they don’t know.”

    That sucks. But how much of what you perceived as proud ignorance was just posturing or bravado as a function of the medium (the debate) itself—which may not be (in fact, it almost certainly isn’t) the ideal way to get to the scientific facts, and is virtually calculated to bring out the snarkiest, most bombastic and least skeptical side of the participants?

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    So you assert.

    But you assert a lot of stuff and demonstrate very little.

    As far as I can tell, there’s no other use for it.

    Argument from personal ignorance, despite other examples having been given earlier on the thread.

    The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    (When I wrote “least skeptical”, I was using the proper sense of the word. I meant the least critical of their own as well as others’ reasoning.)

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Argument from personal ignorance, despite other examples having been given earlier on the thread.”

    Other examples of the use of “denialism”? From a real linguistic corpus? Really? Then I missed them. As I’ve repeatedly told you w.r.t. the Latimerian Wars, I haven’t read the whole thread.

    Which comment number are we talking, roughly?

    And I suggest you cut down on the snark and pop-psychology, since you don’t know whereof you speak (ironically, given that you’re “speaking” of Dunning-Kruger).

  53. #53 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    Citation needed.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    “I was using the proper sense of the word. I meant the least critical of their own as well as others’ reasoning”

    That doesn’t apply to you, brad. So why did you use that word with that meaning?

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Jeff, I notice that you say:

    “I offered to send my research material (in this case insects) to the resarcher but they declined.”

    So you’re a kind of opposite of Michael Mann?

    I’ll have to buy you a drink if you live somewhere in Australia.

  56. #56 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Apologies for the delay. Different time zones, no doubt.

    Denial is synonymous with rejection; denialism is therefore synonymous with rejectionism.

    We all know what denial and rejection mean, so why the fuss? In the specific case of the climate ‘debate’, it is universally understood by all except those fitting the description that denial means unsceptical and unsupported rejection of the scientific consensus on AGW.

    This usually (but not invariably) involves scientific illiteracy and misrepresentation.

    A topical example of this can be found in your remarks about Mann’s findings on the soi-disant MWP (and your confusion about which papers say what).

    If you want to know what Mann and others think about the ‘MWP’ you can easily find out by reading Diaz et al. (2011). Mann and Hughes are co-authors.

    Anyone who can read Oreskes & Conway’s book in a mere four hours will not find this challenging. It is a short review paper.

    Remember: argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy…

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    Citation needed.”

    Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.

    Wow, I’ll give you the same advice I gave Lotharsson, which is to take a leaf from Jeff Harvey’s book and talk like a big person. If you’re too grumpy then go to bed. Both good options.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Other examples of the use of “denialism”?

    Indeed. Ironic that you talk about not knowing what you’re talking about with respect to Dunning-Kruger, when you … er … don’t know what you’re talking about on this topic.

    Vaccine denialism, often rebadged anti-vaxxers. Usually claim that vaccines are linked to autism spectrum disorders and even more fringe claims. The big corporate money is in selling vaccines so there’s no big corporate dollars helping to push this form of denialism along.

    HIV/AIDS denialism – the denial that HIV causes AIDS. Fairly fringe movement in the US – the big corporate money is on the side of selling anti-HIV drugs, so they’re not motivated to push that form of denialism. Unfortunately became government policy in South Africa and the resulting policy disaster caused an explosion in HIV rates.

    Evolution denialism, usually because the denialists are Young Earth Creationists. No corporate money in that either – but close ties to political power in the US.

    Moon landing denialism.

    Various other forms of modern medicine denialism.

    And there are plenty more – and they’re not hard to find (which begs the question – if you’re so competent, why haven’t you found any?)

    The term has been used in this fashion since even before this paper from 2007. There’s a whole blog by the same author along with some others on the topic of denialism.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    …I’ll give you the same advice I gave Lotharsson, which is to take a leaf from Jeff Harvey’s book and talk like a big person…

    Which would almost be amusing, if you weren’t so juvenile in your written interactions. Self-awareness doesn’t seem to be your strong suit either.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    BBD,

    Thanks for Díaz y al. Will read it.

    Gotta go watch Django.

    Will check back for adult developments later. (Still waiting for comment citations, Lotharsson.)

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.

    Yep, the fallacious deployment of the “prove a negative” gambit when asked to justify a comparison which embeds your unjustified presumptions in it. Why, it’s almost like you’re merely tossing out assertions, but totally unwilling to demonstrate reason to believe them.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    (Still waiting for comment citations, Lotharsson.)

    Do your own homework. You really need the practice. Your research skills are appalling, and you rely on your inept inability to find things to assert that they don’t exist.

    Which, come to think of it, was one of heroic Latimer’s grand failings. Ain’t that a coincidence.

  63. #63 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Skip, skip, skip…

    Just like Latimer.

  64. #64 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Why, it’s almost like you’re merely tossing out assertions, but totally unwilling to demonstrate reason to believe them.

    For the deniers, it’s all about faith. And when you have such unshakeable faith as these denier idiots do, there’s no reason to believe any of it.

    THEY JUST BELIEVE.

  65. #65 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.

    Except you’ve made a POSITIVE claim.

    Apparently you don’t know the difference between + and -, Brat.

    Now THAT’S dumb!

  66. #66 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.

    According to the latest idiot here, this claim is unprovable.

    Yet STILL insists it is true.

    So, Brat here believes in things that he thinks can never be proved.

    And he complains about “a faith site”…?

  67. #67 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Cham:

    The issue is policy platforms, legislation and politics.

    Only once the science has demonstrated the potential nature and scale of the multiple problems. For the real issue is the reality of nature and nature, as Feynman’s well wrought dictum stated, cannot be fooled (Space shuttle Challenger Report).

    The reality of nature is revealed over millennia, centuries and decades, far to long are these periods for the short-sighted and mediocre bunch of politicians that seem to have found their way to the top in the leading economies of the world. Barely a true statesman amongst all of them. We will have to see how Obama stacks up in a second term and this will come by about half way through as the Repugs resurge. My hopes are not high – after all each incumbent remembers what happened to JFK and his clan.

    We need to find ways of sidestepping politics as we know it, the politics dictated by big interests with ever larger war chests garnered at the expense of the prol’s. What do you think this global financial meltdown was all about. Those with the loot dictate the terms and don’t care about casualties lower down the food chain – at many levels.

    This right wing/left wing thinking is so 20th Century, time to move on.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    I like the formulation of “The Money Party” and “The People Party” to shake up people’s “Left vs Right” thinking.

    The Money Party consists of those people – no matter what their official party affiliation – who prioritise the needs of those individuals and corporations with a lot of money above most other things. The People Party consists of those people – no matter what their official party affiliation – who prioritise the needs of the people of the nation above most other things.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Tom Athanasiou’s ‘Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor’

    Jeff I might just look this one up but the Rowell one is a tad expensive, particularly for someone with at least awareness and other literature. My wife’s groans with each new book in is almost as loud as that of the shelves taking the ever increasing load.

    Thanks for the other pointers too.

    Jeff, this is an area we looked deep into at university in the early 1980s and the scenario was well understood way back then. Perhaps I should dig out the assignments that I scored highly on. Our tutor had first hand knowledge of the effects of the creeping globalisation and its methodology – basically the resource rape of third world lands and of the people who live, suffer and die there.

    Many of our trolls here seem totally oblivious to the effects of resource wars as encapsulated in internecine warfare in Africa. I wonder how many appreciate the true cause of recent troubles in Mali and Algeria and why there is a rise in piracy in the Indian Ocean. When any organism has its back to the wall then it fights dirty.

    Of course there is a large amount of self enrichment of the elites in these blighted lands as the pull foreign aid to their own usage or sell out to vulture capitalists (check out Greg Palast for more here for one and John Pilger too – this message to the obvious ignratti around here who clearly need to get out more). Of course matters are a good deal more complicated than implied above, religious fanaticism for one, but the old hunter gatherer instinct of grabbing everything you can whilst you can is not going to serve humanity well from here on in.

    Chamy talks about politics, Chamy you haven’t a clue!

  70. #70 chek
    January 24, 2013

    There’s also the not-so-minor crimp in our style which our evolution hasn’t yet come to terms with, namely the warrior instinct which must be made redundant following the development of nuclear weapons. Or be indulged at our peril.

    Characterising war as politics by other means as Clausewitz does, dovetails neatly with the points made by Jeff, Lionel and Lotharsson

  71. #71 Marco
    January 24, 2013

    Sorry, Brad, apologies not accepted. I am still waiting for you to prove that Mann does not want to accept an MWP (and I note others already *dis*proving your claim while we wait for an apology from you to Michael Mann for making false claims about him).

  72. #72 chek
    January 24, 2013

    I presume the CEI staffers and their flying monkeys are out in force smearing Dr. Mann wherever possible currently.

    The next court appearance is the 25th January according to the docs on view over at Eli’s, so there probably won’t be any respite in the slander effort until at least then.

  73. #73 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    So you’re a kind of opposite of Michael Mann?

    Another smear from Brad. Are you referring to the data Mann did not release because it was not his to release?

  74. #74 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Remember, to the deniers, their private and privileged data IS SECRET and it is CRIMINAL to expose.

    However, YOUR private and privileged data IS THEIRS BY RIGHT and it is CRIMINAL not to give it to them freely.

  75. #75 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    Hello again Deltoids!

    Just dropped by to let you know of a couple of opportunities to meet some real-life UK sceptics over a few beers and a bit of conviviality

    Central London – Feb 4th
    Oxford – Feb 12th

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2054691

    Everybody welcome – but snarling aggression will not contribute to a good evening.

    Both events strictly PAYG.

    See you there!

  76. #76 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Here he comes.

    As prophesied!

    And, oddly enough, with a Bishop to preach for him…

  77. #77 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @wow

    Just asking you out for a beer. No need to get uppity.

    FYI ‘Bishop Hill’ is named after a geographical feature near Kinross in Central Scotland.

    What is ‘Wow’ named from? ‘Walks on Water’?

  78. #78 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    No, you’re asking me to take my personal time and go to somewhere where if someone talks a load of crap, I have to grin and bear it, AND pay for the beer I drink.

    And not once will El Bish castigate someone for claiming “fraud” or “liar” if they are pointing those screaming epithets at the legitimate working climate scientists.

    You know, exactly as he did on his blog.

    Before he banned all posting on it, because having to sustain his nonsense in the face of people able to point it out was NOT the sort of “free and easy speech” he was looking for.

    He (not a scientist, heck, not even a bishop) was looking for adulation.

    And now he wants an audience???

  79. #79 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    PS He calls himself the bishop, to hide his real identity.

  80. #80 Marco
    January 24, 2013

    Richard, that was Briffa. You know, the data McIntyre already had for years (without telling his audience), upon he had to come with the lame excuse that “I could not be sure it was the same data”. Well, he could have asked Briffa if that was the same data, rather than tell him he wanted the data and then complain about “stonewalling” when Briffa had already sent the request onwards (where Hantemirov probably thought: “what? He already has the data!”).

  81. #81 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @wow

    ‘He calls himself the bishop, to hide his real identity’

    Sure. So well hidden that Google comes up with this a third hit on ‘Bishop Hill’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford

  82. #82 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Yup.

    You DO know that he kept his real identity on that blog secret for years.

    And, like any secret in public, it was revealed.

    Seems like you think things never change. Cnut like.

  83. #83 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Bishop Hill aka Andrew Montford aka Cardinal Puff (Magic Dragon and all that). ‘There are lies, lies and Andrew Montford’, no matter all the silly 5 star reviews on Amazon from the ignoratti.

    Well we suspected the kinda company Latimer kept when he came swanning in here dripping condescension right and left along with shovelfuls of displayed ignorance laced with arrogance and that has not changed.

    Then he gets taken down, with a number of outstanding questions to answer, and flounces off throwing accusations of witch hunts around. Well I guess anybody who can believe in Cardinal Puffery will believe anything even when evidence is shoved under his nose.

    In five words ‘A right piece of work’.

  84. #84 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @wow

    Your capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me. Let’s just clarify a couple of things

    1. The invitation to the pub in Iffley is from blogger ‘Rhoda’, and the suggestion that we meet after the IoP do in London is from me.

    Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) has simply provided the mechanism by which that message has been promulgated. By analogy if you were to suggest a pubmeet on here, it wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with Tim Lambert, despite this being ‘his’ blog and the invite appearing under the ‘deltoid’ logo. Since Andrew lives about 400 miles away and is rarely down south it is unlikely he will be there.

    2. ‘if someone talks a load of crap, I have to grin and bear it,’
    Not at all, You’ll be very welcome to argue your points vigorously and forcefully. But what I termed ‘snarling aggression’ (a mode of discourse which seems to come naturally to you) will be discouraged. It adds nothing and detracts from the discussion.

    3. ‘And not once will El Bish castigate someone for claiming “fraud” or “liar” if they are pointing those screaming epithets at the legitimate working climate scientists’

    All the more reason for you to be there to defend their interests should anyone dare to suggest that being a ‘legitimate working climate scientist’ is not necessarily a guarantee of a place in heaven only one step down from St Peter himself. .

    Still, if you choose not to come – as is your prerogative – don’t say you haven’t been politely asked.

  85. #85 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    I guess that your busy schedule means that you’ll not be able to come?

  86. #86 Stu
    January 24, 2013

    I wonder what Freud would make of Brad’s infantile gonad fixation?

  87. #87 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Still, if you choose not to come – as is your prerogative – don’t say you haven’t been politely asked.

    Politely‘ be buggered, such condescension is never polite.

    What about answering those questions then, see up thread for details there are a number.?Skipping over those isn’t polite either.

  88. #88 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @’wow’

    I’ll be sure to recommend that if Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) ever needs any advice about his blog identities, he turns to you for it.

    Your fine example will no doubt act as a shining beacon to guide him in the Paths of Righteousness.

  89. #89 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    @lionel a

    The last unanswered question I recall has been outstanding for quite a while.

    ‘How do you propose to establish that ocean pH is decreasing without going out and measuring it?’

    So far just a lot of hand-waving waffle about ‘inferences and expectations’. But no description of an experimental method.

  90. #90 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    guess that your busy schedule means that you’ll not be able to come?

    Just so. I have much science to read with large swathes on ecological issues and don’t have time for a ‘gathering of deluded swine’. Besides there is a small matter of disability.

    Neeps & tatties will it be tomorrow? That is a good idea – stick to poetry your science is thin.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    So far just a lot of hand-waving waffle about ‘inferences and expectations’. But no description of an experimental method.

    Questions to you, from myself and others (inc. BBD). You are displaying an unwillingness to engage, using the cowards way out H/T Stu.

    Evidence for measurement of the falling pH of oceanic waters has been placed under your nose. The fact that you cannot see it is clear evidence of either your ignorance or mendacity.

  92. #92 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Latte,

    BBD has a question for you.

  93. #93 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    But since you can’t answer it, I guess that’s the answer to BBDs question, isn’t it.

  94. #94 Wow
    January 24, 2013

    Just in case you go Jonas Defence on us and pretend you can’t see where you left a question unanswered:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-8/#comment-144742

  95. #95 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Re: unanswered questions

    To avoid any confusion, actual or manufactured, this was what I was referring to:

    1/ Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.

    - Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.

    3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

  96. #96 BBD
    January 24, 2013

    Wow – we crossed.

  97. #97 Lionel A
    January 24, 2013

    Latimer:

    ‘How do you propose to establish that ocean pH is decreasing without going out and measuring it?’

    So far just a lot of hand-waving waffle about ‘inferences and expectations’. But no description of an experimental method.

    You are being extremely disingenuous, I have quoted to you from an RS document with link to source.

    I have also laid clues as to where more can be found. But of course your game is to not look so that you don’t see.

    Here cop this:

    Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem.

    ABSTRACT

    Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.

    and you can easily download the full document.

    and there is more that ilk out there eg. Ocean acidification as well as the SkS series that you avoided.

    And it appears that ocean pH has been measured for some time with techniques going back as far as this:

    Measurement of the apparent pH of seawater
    with a combination microelectrode

    But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do.

    Way past time for you to fess up and answer those questions.

    Who is handwaving now? But keep it up, the more you throw up the more others get to realise that it is just vomit. The result of bad or poorly digested input. Enjoy your Haggis.

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    But no description of an experimental method.

    Yep, argument by assertion against the facts. Same M.O.

    Amusing though, when I’ve been asking Latimer to describe the scientific case for ocean acidification, which would include describing the experimental methods that were used by the scientists. He’s got his hands firmly over his eyes and he’s damn well not going to let any inconvenient knowledge occlude his eyeballs.

    And we know he’s too cowardly to take his accusations of getting it wrong to (say) the European ocean scientists who wrote the FAQ that he so repeatedly disagrees with. (But never mind, Brad can sing praises to his heroism and the cowardice will conveniently float away from his recollection…)

    He’s also too cowardly to answer BBD’s questions, methinks. Go on Latimer, prove me wrong on at least that.

  99. #99 GSW
    January 24, 2013

    @Lionel

    Where you suggesting one should get one’s “Science” from the “Union of Concerned Scientists”?

    Your,

    “But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do.”

    I think it suggests this, but it may be an attempt at humour on your part. The “Union of Concerned Scientists” has nothing to do with science, it’s a loonie advocacy group, they even accept dogs into their membership.

  100. #100 Latimer Alder
    January 24, 2013

    re Ocean Acidification

    What anyone ‘believes’ or ‘predicts’ is completely irrelevant to science. Science is about what the observations tell us of what Mother Nature is actually doing. Not about what you or me or the guy down the street or the prof in his university thinks/predicts/hopes she ought/will/might be doing.

    And as far as I can see – Royal Society claims notwithstanding – there are only five extant datasets that have any records of such an effect. You may recall the little exercise we undertook a few days ago to locate as much published data as we could – and those five were as many as we could collectively find.

    If you’d all like to explain how your version of science works without relying absolutely on observation and experiment, but instead on credentialism and science by learned opinion, then feel free.

    Finally – before you all rush in with your dire accusations of some terrible ‘denialist sins’, do me the favour of reading what I have actually written, not what your stereotype bogeyman sceptic is supposed to say in your fantasies.

    It gets very tedious just having to repeat ‘I have made no such statement’ over and over again. And since I am not married, the wifebeater question does not apply either.

1 8 9 10 11 12 22