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 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Shall we run a sweepstake on this?

    If Tim throws down the gauntlet and demands that either Latte answer BBD’s questions or gets banned, what do we reckon will happen:

    a) He’ll disappear
    b) He’ll complain and disappear
    c) He’ll answer with complete bollocks, then complain, then disappear

    I plump for (b).

  2. #2 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Wow, what erudition!

    So, Latte, you admit that you don’t know anything about OA and that you cannot answer BBD’s questions here:

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

  3. #3 mike
    January 25, 2013

    Jff,

    “Mk, MH, y r nts.”

    Jz, Jff, s gd f y t ffr m th bnft f yr tw-bt, lw-rnt, pt-cllng-th-kttl-blck, ths-Jff-gy-rlly-tks-hmslf-srsly, shrnk-wnnb, dgnstc sklls.

    t th sm tm, Jff, yr rspns rqrs lttl, crtv rdng-btwn-th-lns n my prt n rdr t mk sns f t ll. Hr’s my crrnt stmt f yr rply whch rspctflly ffr p fr grp-srcng pr-rvw hr t Dltd (fl fr t jmp n, Jff):

    Jff’s rply s bst ndrstd s slf-dmrng, slf-cngrtltry dfns f hs grnshrt, crbn-pgg, hypcrt lfstyl tht mplys th typcl slf-srvng ddg tht thr r vn bggr–w cn thnk MCH BGGR–c-phny, C2-glttn hggs t thr (nd, Jff, jst bt y rb-shldrs wth lts f ths srt f spr-szd, dbl-whppr, snctmns, lctrng, d-s–sy-nt-s–d, tw-fcd, mrcnry, GHG-ngrgd, crp-t, wll-cmpnstd, tnrd nvr-flks t ll ths bndggl gb-fsts y s rglrly ttnd (n prsn, tht s, nd nt thrgh lw-cst/lw-crbn vd-cnfrncng)).

    s tht bt th sz f yr rply, Jff? f s, tw pnts:

    -Wht s t bt y pmps-ss, slf-rghts, prchy, tn-pt, dbl-dlng, lfty Svnrls tht prvnts y frm prctcng wht y prch–. . shwng LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL by dptng lfstyl wth crbn-ftprnt tht s ql t r lss thn tht ll f hmnty mst dpt (r s y sy) f th “ngl f GW Ctstrph” s t pss vr s? mn, lk, wht s wrng wth y ppl? mn, lk, y wrds ct lk y dn’t vn blv yr wn flm-flm r smthng.

    -Jff, y ddn’t nswr ll thr f my qstns nd s sk “Tm” t bn y frm th blg. Thgh, gtt dmt, dn’t qt ndrstnd tht Dltd-lnd cstm, bt Ww cn xpln t ll t y, f y r pzzld, yrslf.

    nd, h by th wy, Jff, ntd yr “ctty”, tht-rlly-hrt!, lttl rfrnc t my prch n “hgh hrs”. Wll, Jff, ll cn sy s tht t lst s “qstrns” dn’t trvl bt n nvrnmnt-dstryng, fssl-fl cnvyncs–cn y sy th sm, Jff?

  4. #4 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    So dried your mouth, mike?

    Pity nothing as substantial comes out of it when you ‘pine on a blog.

  5. #5 chek
    January 25, 2013

    I’ll vote ‘C’.
    My take so far is that Lati knows just enough to – as they say – be dangerous, but not enough to kid an oceanographer. The sort of half-baked science the denial blogs love.

  6. #6 BBD
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer

    Still waiting since # 54:

    I said be specific Latimer. Not be evasive. You need to explain your reasoning for DENYING the predictive power of experimentally confirmed theory in chemistry.

    So – explain your reasoning. Come on. Let’s have it.

    This is boring Lattie.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    His “theory” is based off that tired old anti-science of “It can’t be acidifying it it’s still alkaline”.

    And that is REALLY boring.

    I mean, how long has that tired old zombie been pushed out of its grave by yet another numbnut who thinks he’s found the secret to the world?

  8. #8 BBD
    January 25, 2013

    Hello mike

    Glad to hear you are keeping well.

    I don’t own a car. I last flew in 2003 (voluntary cessation; I am not afraid of flying). I don’t live in a hair shirt, nor do I expect anyone else to. That would be what is known as a ‘strawman’.

    All I would like is for the contrarians to do a little less denying and a little more reading. Confusing and misleading people isn’t going to help matters on any time-scale.

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    January 25, 2013
  10. #10 Lionel A
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer

    ‘Eric was not pointing that out to me, I brought it to your attention because you don’t want to recognise the enormity of the problems that can arise from even a small log-scale change of pH’

    Where have I made any remarks whatsoever on this topic? I’ve been familiar with the logarithmic scale of pH for over forty years. I know how it works. Your point is without foundation.

    ‘But your refusal to take the presented evidence for the deleterious effects of pH change in the oceans on creatures sensitive to such is comment in itself. To still claim that there is no measurement of changing pH is therefore mendacious.’

    No. Gamma minus. Circular argument.

    Ah ha! Writes he the master of the circular argument who keeps claiming that there is no data to back up pH changes in oceanic waters.

    The fact that oceanic organisms are being deleteriously affected by the process of OA provides data points.

    The fact that pH levels have been measured This figure shows the relationship between changes in ocean carbon dioxide levels (measured in the left column as a partial pressure—a common way of measuring the amount of a gas) and acidity (measured as pH in the right column). The data come from two observation stations in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canary Islands and Bermuda) and one in the Pacific (Hawaii). The up-and-down pattern shows the influence of seasonal variations. and presented here too Ocean Acidification
    The NOAA Ocean Data Education (NODE) Project
    it is clear that your point is groundless.

    You may also care to immerse yourself in literature available through this portal .

    Oh! And how are models constructed and run? What is the basis of these?

    I could go on but you are becoming excruciatingly tedious with your self imposed narrow focusing blinkers.

    If you are so bothered by the environmental fall out from increasing A-CO2 why are you trying to undermine the status of the current sate of research?

  11. #11 mike
    January 25, 2013

    BBD,

    Yr: “Hello mike.”

    Thank you, BBD, for your courteous, thoughtful, eminently-reasonable, and thought-provoking reply.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer,

    Whilst you are in the mood to delve into Woods Hole here is another entry point for data that can get where needed:

    Global Surface pCO2 (LDEO) Database. As you are a chemist you should be able to make something of that. Now stop jerking us around.

    Oh! BTW. Here is a way you can earn yourself some beer money by tilting at windmills.

  13. #13 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    d) He’ll complain, disappear, then come back in a week pretending nothing happened and demand that people show him at least 50,000 stations measuring ocean pH since the fall of Rome, or it never happened.

  14. #14 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    IF you are a chemist you should be able to make something of that. Now stop jerking us around.

    FTFY, Lionel.

    However, he’s not and he’s here solely to jerk people around.

    This is why Jeff is being hounded by that pustule mike. So that he wastes his time and energy on that carbuncle on society.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    d) He’ll complain, disappear, then come back in a week

    The issue, Stu, is that Tim gives him his orders if he doesn’t answer. He can’t come back if he doesn’t answer. That’s why Tim needs to be involved.

    Otherwise, (d) is no different from every other flouncing denialist and is a sucker bet!.

    I take it then that in the event of Tim doing so, you’d pick (b), right?

  16. #16 Lionel A
    January 25, 2013

    Latimer,

    And here is more:

    First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification

    Article available from here:

    Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean.

    I’ll bet your beers going flat right now – if typical heavy – takes ten minutes to draw a pint which goes flat in one. I was heartily glad to get back south for a civilized pint. Have a tale to tell about the Salutation Arms Hotel in Perth on that score.

  17. #17 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    Gosh, another link for Latimer to not read so he can deny the information it makes available exists.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Wow:

    ““Night all.”

    Given it is only mid-afternoon in SE England (being on GMT), I see you need your nap.

    5 years old or 95?”

    ROFLMAOAYI. How many times have I revealed, on this very thread, that I live in Australia?

    No, don’t try to answer, I’m guessing you’re innumerate as well.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    I feel almost Loth to request this, but:

    better billy-goats, please.

  20. #20 bill
    January 25, 2013

    The comments of a distasteful fanatic who makes spittle-flecked claims (Merchants of Doubt is an ‘anti-Semitic pamphlet’ is a new low, even by the standards of Denial) don’t amount to much, though, do they, ‘Brad’?

    I recall know that you were one of the chief plonkers who turned up to whine about Prof Lewandowsky’s findings that you’re all unable to avoid the lure of crank magnets across the spectrum. No! no! no! you shrieked – and yet you make lunatic claims like the above.

    What a hoot! What a crank!

    (Sure, you were just cribbing trying to pretend you’d read something you hadn’t, but look what comes out when you’re in a corner, little man!)

    As for mike; man, you have problems.

    Lati. You know nothing, You have nothing. Your claim to authority is a sham. Either put up or shut up.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    Hey again Jeff,

    1. thanks for your insights about what I’d guess is the base and bulk of the planet’s food chain.

    (Notice the way I’m not demanding a scanned and notarised copy of the documents qualifying you to offer said entomological info. I gratefully take it in because it’s interesting an sich.)

    2. At the risk of going OT, how do you like the Netherlands? Since you evidently grew up speaking English, what was the appeal of that specific destination?

  22. #22 bill
    January 25, 2013

    I’m informed that SkS will be running more material on OA in the next few months.

    Meanwhile, since our resident ‘expert’ appears to be badly in need of a refresher course, let’s not forget their OA is not OK series – written, I might add, by 3 practising ocean chemists; not the IT guy – and the FAQs.

    The photo on the last mentioned page should be enough to concern anyone with a functioning intellect. Shortly we’ll find out who’s excluded from that set…

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @Jeff…

    And props for speaking your mind.

    (A short glance above these comments shows the lesser h. deltoides engaged in its one and only known behaviour, speaking its bile duct.)

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @bill trills:

    “Merchants of Doubt is an ‘anti-Semitic pamphlet’ is a new low, even by the standards of Denial”

    Is that the sum total of what you grasped of my book review?

    *Hurt feelings.*

    Perhaps if I scrape off and return the rest of your cranium to you (which is fermenting into a tangy passerine conserve on the end of my clue bat as we speak) you’ll remember some of the positives. For instance, I’m pretty sure I said it was a rip-roaring time-travel-slash-conspiracy jaunt that makes Dan Brown look dry and fact-obsessed, didn’t I?

  25. #25 bill
    January 25, 2013

    ‘Bile duct’? This coming from the man who made the absolutely outrageous claim I referred to?

    Yes, Jeff’s a real scientist. You should try listening to them – it might change your life.

  26. #26 bill
    January 25, 2013

    OK, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson.

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “OK, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson.”

    Um, why? Did you skip that part of the CD set?

  28. #28 bill
    January 25, 2013

    No, Sunshine, I simply do not believe that you have read the book, and I wish you to demonstrate some basic familiarity with its contents.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @bill gets boring:

    “Yes, Jeff’s a real scientist. ”

    Oh! Unlike, say (just at random)…. me?

    (Friendly clue, bill: as transparent as you no doubt consider my question, the thing you’re about to fly into is a window.)

  30. #30 Ian Forrester
    January 25, 2013

    Alder makes the ridiculous claim that adding (or removing) CO2 will not effect the pH of seawater since it is buffered and cannot be made more acidic by adding CO2.

    I would like to hear his response as to what causes the large diurnal variation in pH seen in many places in the ocean and even observed in the laboratory setting.

    If CO2 cannot and will not change pH then what is causing the large diurnal change (up to 0.6 pH units)? I will give him a hint, pH rises after sunrise and drops after the sun has set.

  31. #31 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Brad, you’re a pseudonym, remember? If you have qualifications – and I don’t doubt you may – you’re wasting them here.

    You really are very evasive in this matter, Brad. Much like your mentor. Here’s a rephrase of the question, then – is there a discussion of Rachel Carson in this book you have read?

  32. #32 bill
    January 25, 2013

    It’s alright, poppet: plenty of time – you just google around and see what you can find…

  33. #33 chek
    January 25, 2013

    But Bill – lying is an essential part of denialism.
    It’s the only thing that keeps it afloat.

  34. #34 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Brad, I’m beginning to think you’re not here for the hunting, either…

  35. #35 chameleon
    January 25, 2013

    So Bill and Chek,
    What would you call JeffH’s statement/s re Ms Marohasy?
    That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “It’s alright, poppet: plenty of time – you just google around and see what you can find…”

    You won’t believe this, but my life doesn’t centre around your childish dares. I was having breakfast. It’s breakfast time in Australia.

    What the hey, I can’t resist a “challenge”…

    I read Merchants of Venice when it first came out, 3 years ago I think—when did they record the non-reader’s edition, by the way, bill?—and just in case you misunderstood my sophisticated and multiplex use of irony, the experience was boring as… well, that precious white ambrosia from your cloaca, billy boy. If you’ll excuse the Australianism.

    Therefore you’ll have to forgive me (or go rut with yourself) if I haven’t retained the Rachel Carson “discussion” in excruciating fidelity. So this is likely going to be a generic reconstruction/extrofabulation from the kind of dross Oreskes and her ilk usually write.

    Thus, going out on a bit of a limb (it’s not taken is it, bill?):

    I believe Oreskes spent several pages stretching out the silly “argument” about how Rachel Carson personally can’t possibly be blamed for the negro holocaust wrought in the name of her hemi-scientific book, because she’d died of cancer/shell thinning by the time dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was Not Banned in 1972[?].

    Therefore, I reckon Oreskes “argued”, right-wing white-male denialists like that ol’ meanie Thomas Sowell are like, totally lying to you when they impute that no criminal electrocuted in the entire 20th century has half as much blood on his hands as the sainted Rachel Carson. (Sowell is being poetic, of course, but you wouldn’t expect a half-failed-geologist, half-failed-historian to get the nuance.)

    And therefore, I dimly recall Oreskes “arguing,” since Rachel Carson had breast cancer, millions of innocent men women and children in the developing world definitely haven’t died needless and miserable deaths in their own watery melaena as a result of the chemophobia movement, if that makes sense.

    Which it doesn’t.

    How’s my recollection so far, little bird?

  37. #37 BBD
    January 25, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    What do you want?

  38. #38 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Thanks for that, Brad.

    ‘Several pages’? Not an entire chapter, then, pet? And then you just wing it based on standard fanatical drivel…

    Tim, can I draw your attention to this vile specimen’s claims?

    Everybody else – repulsive, isn’t it? Here we see the brownshirt at the heart of so much Denial.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    @bill failes even at psittacism:

    “Brad, you’re a pseudonym, remember?”

    Yep, Mr D. Byrd. You got me.

    Tit.

    “If you have qualifications – and I don’t doubt you may –”

    Aw, backflapping already!

    Don’t, bill! How could a man-made surface you can’t even see possibly cause you any skull injury, let alone a fatality, spreading your two or three functioning neurons over the patio? Don’t slow down now, you’ll spoil the fun! Fly fly fly, fly fly fly, Agent Starling.

  40. #40 BBD
    January 25, 2013

    Yes, but what do you want?

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 25, 2013

    “‘Several pages’? Not an entire chapter, then, pet?”

    What an important question!

    But I guess you’ll never know, unless the non-reader’s edition featured loud beeps to alert you to chapter boundaries.

  42. #42 bill
    January 25, 2013

    Brad, you’re locked in a spittle-flecked tailspin at this point.

    Everyone here can clearly see what you are – and it is truly repellent.

  43. #43 bill
    January 26, 2013

    Chapter 7: Denial Rides again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson begins on page 216, pet.

    Thanks for playing.

  44. #44 chek
    January 26, 2013

    Brad Keyes What do you want?

    Brad wants nothing. He’s merely Lati’s fluffer. Every travelling new blogscience purveyor is provided with a fluffer or two these days.

    It was de rigueur on the Jonarse thread, and the same here. Intertoob entities never heard from before (and when it’s all over) since.

    Perhaps a lesson learned from previous Curtin visitations.

  45. #45 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    To be honest, I never really believe that you’d read MOD in four hours. But be that as it may, what is this scrap all about?

    What do you want?

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Chapter 7: Denial Rides again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson begins on page 216, pet.”

    Oh, so we are allowed to play the game with a copy open in front of us / loaded in the stereo?

    Hmm. I can’t help but feel you’re making it a bit… easy. Well, use whatever mnemonic crutches you feel you need.

    bill warbles on:

    Everyone here can clearly see what you are – and it is truly repellent.

    *@brad idly wishes them smart kemistry perfessers would hurry up and market a bird repellent.*

    No, in all seriousness, you’re totally right. Someone should sic Tim on me so as to free the thread up for more of Wow’s outbursts about how his superiors are fellating their own family members. You know, get a bit of class back into the place.

  47. #47 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Yes, but why are you fulminating?

    What do you want?

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @BBD:

    “To be honest, I never really believe that you’d read MOD in four hours.”

    Less, but close enough.

    Are you really so skeptical about it? I can’t be the only person who has a higher WPM for fiction than non-fiction, right?

    “But be that as it may, what is this scrap all about?”

    Don’t tell our antic avian, but I have no idea anymore! If I had to guess: I humiliated him/her about something or other a couple of days ago and s/he’s still trying to get through the invisible barrier that keeps stymying his/her revenge.

    “What do you want?”

    If that’s a hint for me to go away, don’t worry, I’m just waiting for bill to stop being so amusing.

    And in case it matters BBD, something alleged that you’d asked me a question which I’m now “dodging”? If so, I’ve sincerely forgotten what it was, so feel free to ask again and I’ll do my best. (Mind you, I must away to get a coffee this instant.)

  49. #49 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I can’t be the only person who has a higher WPM for fiction than non-fiction, right?

    You are lying about it, though.

    You do that.

    Lots.

  50. #50 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    If so, I’ve sincerely forgotten what it was, so feel free to ask again and I’ll do my best.

    Evidence so far suggests this is bunkum.

  51. #51 adelady
    January 26, 2013

    But you’d need to absorb an enormous amount of CO2 to overcome the natural alkalinity and make the whole thing ‘acidic’.

    This nonsense about acidification not being possible unless you get to a pH less than 7 gets really tedious.

    Do none of these people know a gardener or a farmer or a family keen on aquariums?

    Acidifying soils and fresh or seawater aquariums is ordinary language when testing and selecting appropriate chemicals and procedures in these activities. Used all the time for adjusting the growing (or survival) conditions for plants and fish.

    Get over it.

  52. #52 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    BBD,
    Has it not occured to you that your questions are rather idiotic?
    If the answer to question 1 is not the answer you were looking for then the remaining questions are redundant.
    Latimer made it quite clear what he was arguing and it was not what you imply in your first question.
    You along with Wow need to take lessons from Lotharsson if you want to lay semantic traps. He at least has some skills at this game.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    chek,

    Who was this jJonas/Joan/Joanne/Jean figure whose name keeps being dropped with such reverence (if not literacy) around here? What was his/her life? Why is he/she remembered when so many other educators must also have toiled vainly and valiantly here over the years, only to fade in posterity?

  54. #54 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    f that’s a hint for me to go away,

    Not at all, hence the question. Let’s talk about what you want.

    Let’s just do the time-honoured thing and step back and *define our terms*.

    What do you want?

  55. #55 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Ah, I see Brat is going for the “Amnesiac defence”.

  56. #56 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Let’s keep quiet and let the man speak.

  57. #57 bill
    January 26, 2013

    Most people have a higher WPM for reading: 250-300, as opposed to spoken: 150-160 (standard for audio).

    Do the maths: even on the most generous assumption to you, your claim to have read a book in less than 4 hours (with time off to throw it across the room, and all) that comes in at over 13 hours spoken is implausible.

    Well, perhaps you’re the superman you imagine yourself to be, after all. If you are indeed a graduate of the Evelyn Woodhead sped-redding course it has clearly had a grotesque affect on your comprehension.

    Because you didn’t exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject.

    But then, because you really are a fanatic, you had to go one further, and claim that the book is ‘an anti-Semitic pamphlet’. Because, what, her targets are ‘all Jewish’? I’d already conveniently mentioned Seitz, Jastrow, Nierenberg, and Singer so you still need not be familiar with the contents to take a run at this toxic absurdity.

    Is Dixy Lee Ray Jewish, Brad?

    For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes?

    Funny that the Hannah Arendt Centre didn’t call her to task for it when they interviewed her, isn’t it? I even gave you that link as a hint, but on a truly obtuse intellect, that’s not likely to penetrate, is it?

    As it turns out I did manage to find one other ‘skeptic’ who refers to this ‘racial’ angle. He also, by amazing coincidence, refers to the book as ‘Merchants of Venice’. Great minds, eh?

    But, seriously, any claims about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the book are a wholly invented and ludicrous poison that speak only of the most fantastical, fanatical zealotry.

    Now, the true fanatic ain’t going to be able to see the name Rachel Carson without brimming with, and dying to spit out, similar bile. ‘So let’s see what happens if…’ I thought…

    Result: QED

    Here’s a working hypothesis for you, Brad:

    A great many climate change deniers are conspiracy theorists and/or extremist zealots who routinely play fast and loose with the facts.

    Let’s see now: your behaviour here has tended to prove / disprove this hypothesis?

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    The statement that ‘ ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact’ is a 100% statement.

    OK, so now we have your definition of the term “scientific fact”.

    Leaving aside the quibble that nothing in science is 100% because all scientific knowledge is inductive, provisional, and subject to further refinement and even the kinds of measurements you deign to notice are the results of layers and layers of inference

    …and leaving aside that in all this time you haven’t provided an operational definition of “ocean acidification” that is precise enough to test…

    ….and that you STILL refuse to be a scientist and give your confidence level for the claim…

    …have you bothered to verify that the person(s) making the statement that you object to actually meant the same operational definition of the term “ocean acidification” and actually meant “100% certain”?

    Or have you merely been pissing in the wind all this time?

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    So you’re never going to go back and prove that the effect you’re so scared of actually exists?

    That would be an idiotic misinterpretation of what I wrote. Do you wish to advance an idiotic misinterpretation to go with all of your pile of earlier fallacies and false claims?

    That could be equally bad news since you’ll never know if you beat it or not – or where to spend your money.

    Wait, wait, I know this one! Under your “logic” we can’t tell if it’s bad news until bad news has happened and we’ve measured it happening so until then we just assume it’s good news and keep going!

    ;-)

    When you write quotes like that you look like you are applying a non-scientific mode of thinking where scientific knowledge is binary – either we know something or we know nothing. That’s not scientific. Scientific knowledge varies across almost the entire confidence range from “we really don’t know much” to “we’re pretty damn confident”.

    And your (apparently) pathological reasoning is worse than that. The kind of knowledge that must be used to make decisions – about today’s weather, about the economy, about the preferences of individuals and of societies, about future risks and rewards, about allocation of resources and best courses of actions – is ALL less than 100% confident, but decisions still must be made.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @chameleon

    So Bill and Chek,
    
What would you call JeffH’s statement/s re Ms Marohasy?
That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.

    Sorry bout the delay, chameleon…

    I may be unable to do your question justice because:

    1. I’m not really familiar with Jeff’s point. I’ve used my browser’s Find function but I see nothing from Mr Harvey on the subject “marohasy.” Could you jog my memory? ;-)

    2. For some (fascinating—I find psych fascinating!) reason, Jeff is being scrupulously decent, pro-social and high-functioning in his interactions with me—certainly by local standards, at least. His dull nastiness when he’s arguing at you is a cause of a bit of disappointment to me (and fascination, of course, but I’m repeating myself). Just to give him the benefit of the doubt, which he’s more than earned with me, is it possible that maybe your screen name triggers some kind of old entomologists’ reflex? Could your totem animal, deep in Jeff’s childhood, have cheated him of a specimen he’d set his heart on, nonchalantly swallowing it before his upwelling eyes? In which case I cut him a bit of slack.

    Oh, and this place does things to people, obviously.

    Jeff, if you accidentally come across this comment, let me once more re-reiterate again that entomologists are not some kind of figure of contempt in my system. Chameleon will back me up, I’m sure. Do I need to spell it out? Vladimir F***ing Nabokov, a young Charles Darwin, some other unspeakably awesome person I’ve momentarily forgottten, an admired friend of chameleon’s, that sardonic cat that spent a weekend of love with Starling—the list goes on.

    IT’S NOT AN INSULT and it won’t be one the next time someone accidentally applies it to you.

    3. All I remember is he said something about a Dr Maharaji and her “piss poor” “scientific pedigree”, right?

    It struck me as blending in pretty well with ambient levels of petty, credentialist garbage. I’m unfamiliar with Dr Maharaji but I’d venture, if I were a betting man, that the insult was also wrong factually.

    Par for the course around here, in other words…. but just picture the s***storm that would break if one of us on the Negative team said something like that!

    “Tiiiiim, Tiiiim, heelp! Those outrageous, repellent forces of Denial have started BLATANTLY comparing female scientists to dogs! Maybe not blatantly-blatantly as such, but they’re, you know… dog-whistling! Using language!

    “Don’t you agree that it’s, like, really repellent Tim? Please intervene as soon as you can, they’re using their misogynist/misocynist argument rays to score cheap rhetorical pseudo-wins all over us! Please O Tim, all we ask is you block the forces of Belial long enough for us to finish our high-minded fellatio discussion started by Wow!”

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    But the purpose of my little gedanken experiment was simply to show that sea water and tap water are different things.

    Interesting. You are quite happy to predict the outcome of your gedankenexperiment (and really, if you’re gonna try for high-falutin’ fancy foreign terms instead of the plain English understood by many more readers, at least take the effort to spell them correctly), and apparently willing to predict with very high certainty.

    So…you have theory that you’re willing to use for prediction, but you appear to be vehemently rejecting research scientists’ uses of theory even though they clearly have far more knowledge than you of those particular areas of science – and far more data to back it up than you are apparently aware of.

    Hmmmm, what is wrong with this picture?

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Sorry folks, blockquote fail. Try again.

    So you’re never going to go back and prove that the effect you’re so scared of actually exists?

    That would be an idiotic misinterpretation of what I wrote. Do you wish to advance an idiotic misinterpretation to go with all of your pile of earlier fallacies and false claims?

    That could be equally bad news since you’ll never know if you beat it or not – or where to spend your money.

    Wait, wait, I know this one! Under your “logic” we can’t tell if it’s bad news until bad news has happened and we’ve measured it happening so until then we just assume it’s good news and keep going!

    ;-)

    When you write quotes like that you look like you are applying a non-scientific mode of thinking where scientific knowledge is binary – either we know something or we know nothing. That’s not scientific. Scientific knowledge varies across almost the entire confidence range from “we really don’t know much” to “we’re pretty damn confident”.

    And your (apparently) pathological reasoning is worse than that. The kind of knowledge that must be used to make decisions – about today’s weather, about the economy, about the preferences of individuals and of societies, about future risks and rewards, about allocation of resources and best courses of actions – is ALL less than 100% confident, but decisions still must be made.

  63. #63 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Brad

    Channelling mike is amusing but not the answer.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.

    Yes, it does. Because it applies to you in spades.

    You’re a flagrant hypocrite who still hasn’t apologised to Richard Simons for lying about what he said, even though you appear to have implicitly acknowledged the lie by discussing the “M.O.” of Deltoid with respect to lies. And you still haven’t corrected a large number of incorrect statements, up to and including the infamous “Delingpole quoted Flannery saying ‘fleeting fancy’” about an article that did not include the word ‘fleeting’ or the word ‘fancy’. But you get on your verbal high horse and demand a correction from someone else.

    The hubris is astonishing.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @BBD…

    What do I want? Is that all? Lol.

    Okaaay, to answer that biggie as expeditiously as humanly possible, two examples:

    1. To meet some denizens capable of exchanging views. Deltoids like Jeff, or, ahh,—hmm.

    Can I get back to you?

    2. To tear myself away and get some study done, but bill and Wow won’t let me! It’s a conspiracy of comedy, I tell you!

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @BBD…

    What do I want? Is that all? Lol.

    Okaaay, to answer that biggie as succinctly as humanly possible, two examples:

    1. To meet some denizens capable of exchanging views. You know, deltoids like Jeff or …—hmm.

    Can I get back to you?

    2. To tear myself away and get some study done, but bill and Wow just won’t let me! It’s a conspiracy of comedy, dammit!

  67. #67 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    That’s not the answer either.

    More tomorrow. Good night all.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “If you are indeed a graduate of the Evelyn Woodhead sped-redding course it has clearly had a grotesque affect on your comprehension.”

    Is tehre aslo an Evelyn Wood school fo sped-tpying, bilial?

    Because you didn’t exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “That’s not the answer either.

    More tomorrow. Good night all.”

    B-b-but it’s 12:58 in the afternoon where I live!

    According to the Wow Theory of the Internet, you must be a geriatric or baby in the Sydney time zone who needs a nap! There’s simply no other possibility.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Because you didn’t exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject.”

    Actually I hate to disagree with you, but considering that I found it a jejune Dan-Brown-lite snoozefest, I’d say I’ve done a pretty fucking commendable job of summarising what Oreskes’ “ideas” 3 years later.

    Why, do your Evelyn Wood Mega-Memory, Mega-Attention-To-Detail Master Course standards find me wanting?

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Is Dixy Lee Ray Jewish, Brad?

    For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes?”

    How and why the hell would I know? What are you reading from, some kind of quick-reference watchlist of powerful Jews? Well come on, don’t leave us in suspense on a question with such nazional security ramifications, mein Lehrer!

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “As it turns out I did manage to find one other ‘skeptic’ who refers to this ‘racial’ angle. He also, by amazing coincidence, refers to the book as ‘Merchants of Venice’. Great minds, eh?”

    You seem unfamiliar even with your own, believalist talking-points, so let me offer a tiny correction:

    These phenomena aren’t an “amazing coincidence” but a “conspi”—er, an “orchestrated right-wing campaign implicating Big Tobacco, Big Oil and all levels of the murdocracy springing into action with suspiciously good timing whenever there’s a big IPCC meeting coming up in the next calendar year”.

    Get with the playbook, dude.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Most people have a higher WPM for reading: 250-300, as opposed to spoken: 150-160 (standard for audio).”

    Encouragement Star for research skillz dude.

    So, the obvious next assignment for you would be:

    what’s the average reading speed of a tertiary graduate like I was, when Oreskes’ conspiracy thriller was published (approximately a degree ago)?

    C’mon, no resting on your laurels.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Lotharsson tries to be helpful:

    “That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.
    Yes, it does. Because it applies to you in spades.”

    Now I know you meant well, Lotharsson, but that’s not quite how the saying about pots and kettles works; what it’s getting at—

    On second thoughts, do your own homework, fool.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “But then, because you really are a fanatic, you had to go one further, and claim that the book is ‘an anti-Semitic pamphlet’. Because, what, her targets are ‘all Jewish’?”

    My god, you’re brilliant.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Since Latimer is apparently the Quibbler King, perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at his stuff.

    Here is the relevant part of Latimer’s first mention of ocean acidification a week ago (#38 on that page). He’s responding to guthrie at #36.

    And it’s said to be a consequence of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere – not of global warming.

    Yes, it’s quibbling – most readers know what guthrie meant, but it’s a fair enough clarification.

    Here’s guthrie’s response (#48) which appears to be the first mention of “certainty” or “proven” with respect to acidification. Note carefully what is actually said:

    Said to be a consequence of increased CO2? No, it’s a scientific certainty that it is a consequence of increased CO2. No if’s but’s or maybe’s, it’s been scientifically proven that the acidification, that is, becoming more acid, of the ocean, is due to CO2.

    Did you catch that? Guthrie is not explicitly asserting that “ocean acidification is scientifically certain”. He’s explicitly asserting that the cause of ocean acidification is “scientifically certain”. Given that Latimer has been heavily quibbling on “scientific certainty”, then quibbling about what was actually claimed is at least as valid – arguably more so. The plain reading is clearly that guthrie’s use of “scientific certainty” was referring to the cause of the instances of ocean acidification that have been observed, not to a claim that the entire ocean has become more acidic (by some undefined amount) over some (undefined) time interval.

    Keen readers will note that guthrie used the term “scientific certainty” rather than the every day “certainty”. People who do that generally don’t mean “100% certain” when you query them in detail. As some branches of denialists are keen on reminding everyone, no scientific knowledge is absolutely certain. It is all provisional pending new evidence, so it never reaches 100%. Latimer appears to be tilting at an unscientific definitional strawman.

    If you read on, Latimer at #86 asks for data:

    Please show the observational data that proves that this theoretical effect is actually occurring. in practice in the oceans.

    Note that he’s does not appear to be asking for data showing the entire ocean has been acidifying. He’s apparently asking for data showing that the causal effect has been observed “in the oceans”. Since he’s fond of being precise, up to and including claiming that “scientific certainty” means 100% and not a smidgin less, one would imagine that if he’d misinterpreted guthrie as claiming that it is scientifically certain that all of each ocean had all acidified, he would have asked for data supporting that claim. But he didn’t.

    Is seems that all that is necessary to fulfil this request is to point Latimer at any of the data sources that he has subsequently acknowledged on this thread which show CO2 causing acidification in practice in an ocean. Q.E.D.

    But Latimer knows there is data showing that, and one can already see hints that he is working on shifting the goalposts in the very next paragraph:

    For such a complex and varied system. the only way to show that the pH is actually decreasing is to go out and make the measurements over a long period of time. … Can you show me a similar set of observations of ocean pH that will hep to turn a lab based theory into the same ‘scientific proof’ that you claim?

    He’s now worked in the assumption – which wasn’t in the original claim – that this is a “lab based theory” with no observational confirmation. And he gives the appearance of trying to widen the scope to the entire set of oceans.

    Admittedly the goalpost moving effort was fairly successful. At #89 bill is already interpreting Latimer as denying that the oceans are acidifying (which does seem to be jumping the gun a little) and at #95 guthrie reiterates Vince’s chain of evidence for ocean-wide acidification and adds a bit more logic, research and evidence. And then…we’re off to the races with Latimer’s unscientific “It’s Not 100% Proven Until It’s Proven My Way” carnival act.

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Brad apparently doesn’t understand English idiom. And has nothing to say about chameleon’s mendacity.

    Figures.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    To meet some denizens capable of exchanging views.

    You may want to consider eliminating behaviours that undermine your goal.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @BBD:

    “Channelling mike is amusing but not the answer.”

    But given that, as I mentioned, the whole aim is amusement, I’m not quite sure what you mean there.

    In any case BBD, you’ve been nothing but adult in your interactions with me and, without being familiar with any of your other work, I have no reason to doubt that you’re always a good conversationalist.

    So I look forward to future non-hostilities with you! Catch you anon. I’ll slip out too, while the more cluebattable locals appear to be cluebatted into silence.

  80. #80 bill
    January 26, 2013

    Implausible claim + no evidence whatsoever of comprehension = what, Bradley?

    But the targets in the book aren’t all Jewish, are they, wunderkind? Jewishness is completely irrelevant. You certainly won’t learn who is and isn’t from the book, will you, oh king of comprehension?

    What the targets are is anti-environmentalist serial deniers, in whatever flavour. Like you, for instance.

    And aren’t you the first people to rabbit on about correlation not being causality? Teh Irony, it burns!

    Certainly, someone who could ‘read’ the book and come away with that garbled melange of a few insignificant nit-picks and a noxious persecution fantasy manufactured in whole cloth is equally capable of ‘knowing’ what you ‘know’ about Rachel Carson.

    You are a zealot. You are an instructive zealot. The only people who could possibly sympathise with your repulsive swivel-eyed regurgitations are your fellow fanatics. The opinions of such people are irrelevant – after all, anyone who reads what you have said who is not immediately nauseated is one of you already.

    (Isn’t it amazing that with all your advanced degrees and everything a high-school graduate can run rings around you?)

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Just when I was thinking what a nice day it is outside, they pull me back in.

    “What the targets are is anti-environmentalist serial deniers, in whatever flavour. Like you, for instance.”

    I deny anti-environmentalist serials? Well, perhaps if you could explain what they are, we’ll see if I deny them. (Out of interest, does the fact that I’m a lifelong greenie raise, or lower, your confidence that I’m going to deny whatever the hell those things you mention are?)

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “(Isn’t it amazing that with all your advanced degrees and everything a high-school graduate can run rings around you?)”

    Who was it that was betting, with all the bravado they could feign, that I had no “credentials” a couple of hours ago? Was that you, bill? Cmon, billy boy, it was, wasn’t it? LOL. You’re too cute.

  83. #83 bill
    January 26, 2013

    Tell you what, Bradley, you tell me if the Jewishness of the targets of the book is identified in any way, shape, or form as relevant – or is even mentioned in the text – and I’ll tell you if I think your implausible self-identification is of any interest.

  84. #84 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    I might add on a more conciliatory note, @bilial, you did score one here:

    “For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes [a Jewess]?
    Funny that the Hannah Arendt Centre didn’t call her to task for it when they interviewed her, isn’t it?”

    Fair cop. How slow of me, the Hannah Fucking Arendt Centre!

    Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s only, like, the last organisation on earth that’s ever likely to make the mistake of interviewing a prominent figure without performing basic nasal swabs/measurements to double-check the bloodline credentials of the interviewee. I’m not gonna deny it: when you think of Arendt, her lifelong dedication to the principle of ethnoreligious discrimination is only, like, the first thing that comes to mind. D’oh.

    You dropped all the hints any remotely educated child of the 20th century should have needed to twig to the fact that Oreskes obviously must be a fully vetted non-shiksa. And I managed to miss them.

    For one, shining second today, the chronic pwnee became the pwner. Happy?

    Now bilial, to save you a couple days’ agony, I’ll just tell you: yes, I’m being iro—actually, sarcastic.

  85. #85 bill
    January 26, 2013

    This will be fun. Point out where I said you had ‘no credentials’, and then point out the context.

    Then tell us what discipline/s you claim qualifications in?

    Then point out where I’ve made a claim that is clearly outside my competence. This is where we came in…

  86. #86 bill
    January 26, 2013

    I don’t think I’ve ever known someone to continue to defend such a fanatical, distasteful and defamatory claim even when it’s clear that everyone here knows you cannot justify it in any way, shape, or form

    I take it back – mike is not the most disturbed and disturbing individual we’ve had show up here at Deltoid – you are.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “I don’t think I’ve ever known someone to continue to defend such a fanatical, distasteful and defamatory claim”

    Hey, would you like my address for legal correspondence?

    ” when it’s clear that everyone here knows you cannot justify it in any way, shape, or form”

    Er, I thought you understood the justification. You explained it to me, remember… not much more than 10 comments ago, I believe. Remember, you worked out the meaning of “anti-Semitic” practically from first principles, I said something clever like “nothing gets past you, does it bilial?”, and we all applauded your long-awaited comprehension? Or is all this just a beautiful dream?

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    I’ll happily even give you my real name if you’re planning on manning up and filing suit any time soon.

    Give you a hint:

    1. know the brand “Cadbury’s”?

    2. Know who Reverend Spooner was and the phonetic transform he pioneered?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    An oldie but a goodie from @bill:

    “I recall know that you were one of the chief plonkers who turned up to whine about Prof Lewandowsky’s findings that you’re all unable to avoid the lure of crank magnets across the spectrum. No! no! no! you shrieked…” etc., etc.

    Tell you what, my avian amusement, if you can link me to a single original comment of mine on Lewandowsky’s sad little site in which I shriek that NO! NO! I honestly am able to avoid the lure of any crank magnets across the spectrum (or similar words), then I will cut you a cheque/check here and how that’ll keep you in seeds for a whole winter. Seriously, I’ve got my betting book in front of me. How much do you want? You’ve had a pretty bad day here and I feel mostly responsible, so, being a total softie, how’s about $12.00? (My neighbor has an aviary and I’m ballparking what he pays to feed one bill, so to speak.)

    A link to one original comment physically, actually typed by me, in the form of a URL starting with “http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org” (Loony Lew’s Domain of Madness) that justifies your characterisation of my chief-plonkery over there, bilial.

    I’ll give you 20 minutes to allow for your reading sloth.

    Oh, and you’ll need to fly out from behind the cloak of pseudonymity, because I expect PAYABLE TO bILL would just confuse the average cashier.

    Go!

  90. #90 bill
    January 26, 2013

    My only response to you, Bradley, is as above.

    Tell you what, Bradley, you tell me if the Jewishness of the targets of the book is identified in any way, shape, or form as relevant – or is even mentioned in the text – and I’ll tell you if I think your implausible self-identification is of any interest.

    I will engage in no further discussion with you until that question is answered.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    OK,

    1. are you at your computer? So that when I answer your question in a minute, you’ll be ready to start the 20-minute challenge?

    2. I’ll give you an extra 5 minutes if you like, since if you’re trawling through my comments you’ll unavoidably be slowed down by the sheer truth per word ratio.

    You haven’t cheated by starting already though, right?

    (In case you think I’ve been teasing you for bradylexia, please don’t take it remotely seriously—I read pretty damn slowly myself when it’s fact-rich material and not, say, The Jew Vinci Code.)

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Awaiting your go-ahead.

  93. #93 bill
    January 26, 2013

    My only response to you is as above.

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Oh well, whenever you get back @bill, here’s my answer to…

    Tell you what, Bradley, you tell me if the Jewishness of the targets of the book is identified in any way, shape, or form as relevant – or is even mentioned in the text –

    No, obviously not! Not that I can remember, anyway, and I’m pretty sure I’d have taken serious note had Oreskes ever been quite so ham-fisted as to come out and say it:

    Dear reader, you may already have guessed from the pantomime surnames I chose, but just to remove any doubt (as it were), yeah, this tight-knit cabal of smart scientists who’ve managed, from their positions of power behind the scenes of post-WW2 America, to find a way to literally profit from the cardinal and ineradicable human condition of doubt itself are of the, uh, tribe of David… if I might put it so indelicately.

    Give her some credit, bill.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Happy?

    Ready, set, go.

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    While we await bill’s return from the Quest For The Quote, let’s all read the following clarification.

    “Cadbury’s” should be pronounced in two syllables, not 3, in order to solve the Mystery of the Real Name.

    Thank you for your attention.

  97. #97 bill
    January 26, 2013

    Right.

    Yuck!

    Your implausible self-identification is of no interest to me.

    As for the rest, since I was indeed silly enough to let myself in for more of this thoroughly distasteful correspondence, I will – after noting that you were unable to find examples of me saying you had ‘no credentials’ on this site – say that that my claim that you had shrieked ‘No! No! No! etc.’ at STW was clearly hyperbolic and absurd, and I would, of course, be unable to find any such response from you, nor will I be wasting my time seeking one.

    No doubt, in line with all of your exemplary behaviour above, your conduct at what you refer to as a ‘sad little site’ and ‘Loony Lew’s Domain of Madness ‘ was that of a perfect gentleman.

    I will not be engaging you further on any matter, as I have found the whole experience genuinely disturbing.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “I will – after noting that you were unable to find examples of me saying you had ‘no credentials’ on this site – say that that my claim that you had shrieked ‘No! No! No! etc.’ at STW was clearly hyperbolic and absurd, and I would, of course, be unable to find any such response from you, nor will I be wasting my time seeking one.”

    @bill, I”m no stranger to the uses of hyperbole myself, so I’m more than willing to make allowances—as I said, anything that justifies your (clearly exaggerated) description of my chief-plonkery there will be worth $12. I’m not going to haggle over the wording. ;-)

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Your implausible self-identification is of no interest to me.”

    Oh, so it was a bit too hard.

    Let’s see. Well, the churchman I mentioned was associated with something called [S|s]poonerism[s], a consummately googleable trope.

    I know you can do it. I have faith in you, little bird.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Ten minutes.