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 26, 2013

    Ouch. So bilial, 25 minutes later and you haven’t found even one comment of mine at Lewandowsky’s place that matches your colorful memories of my supposed conduct there!

    Would another ten minutes help?

    Otherwise you can admit you’ve got nothing to show for that idea of yours. Whenever’s convenient.

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    By the way, since I know a lot of you here have never admitted your mistakes before, it may be a strange and intimidating process for someone like bill.

    It’s actually dead easy. Allow me to demonstrate. (I wouldn’t ask you to do anything I wouldn’t do myself, bill!)

    @bill, you seem to wallow in “noting that [I] was unable to find examples of [your] saying that [I] had ‘no credentials’ on this site”

    So let me clear up the Enigma Of The Apocryphal Credentialism without delay!

    I may have made what’s called in psychology (perhaps my most favoritest of all academic pursuits) a “mistake.” I may have mentally interchanged you with one of the other, well, interchangeable zomgies who’ve generously done so much to amuse me today without any hope of even a rhetorical micro-triumph in return. I may have forgotten their names, but I’ll never forget the laughs they gave me.

    God bless you, whoever you were, selfless deltoids!

    Anyway, so yeah, I must have been what we call “wrong” about that!

    So sue me, billie. I mean, I assume you’ve got the ball rolling on those lèse Oresqué proceedings you keep hinting at, right? So just get your crack community-college lawyers to add another charge while they’re at it!

    LOL.

    Soooo, you seem to have flown away like a sore loser.

    Cheer up pal—next time we meet I’ll up the ante, give you a chance to really save face.

    I’m willing to hold, just for you, a One Minute Fast Money Round, worth $25.00 (think of all the millet! all the cuttlefish and sunflower seeds!), in which all you have to do is answer one rudimentary, foundational-premise question about a topic you’ve never hesitated to hold forth about on numerous occasions, and in which I therefore assume you know exactly whereof you speak. You’ll either know the answer (surely!!!!) or you won’t, but google will be both needless and useless in the task. (So on the bright side, no research—and no reading!—is required.)

    It’ll be fun, bilial!

    All right, forces of Belial out.

  3. #3 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    “You’re a flagrant hypocrite who still hasn’t apologised to Richard Simons for lying about what he said”
    Is this the comment from Richard that you’re so upset about?
    ‘The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.’
    What have I misrepresented about that?

    This is what I wrote afterwards when you wieghed in:

    ” So Lotharsson,
    Seeing as we were discussing this part of Jeff H’s comment:
    ‘but heck, that’s weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.’

    And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.
    I then commented that the ABC and others claiming that the current heatwave is attributable to AGW was not really doing the climate/weather misconception any favours.
    It is clearly a ‘weather’ event is it not?
    Just the opposite to the weather that David D had commented on.
    I found Simon’s ‘probably’ comment rather incongruous.
    Are you defending the ABC’s comment or Simon’s comment?
    Or are you just wanting to argue with me?

    I did apologise for the misnomer but I’m seriously wondering what else I need to apologise to Richard for?
    Is there something else I missed in this very short ‘probably’ comment?

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    chameleon, you may know exactly what you’re doing, but my 2c would be: why waste time apologising to Lotharsson? You know, I know, we all know it’s a moving goalpost of eternal umbrage whenever a humourless cultist is involved. No matter what we do (short of actually bending the knee to the god Catastrophe) they’ll always consider us, as bill comically whined, “simply outrageous“!

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    (And bill is serious—he’s not intentionally doing an impression of Cleveland’s out-of-town aunt, he’s trying to express, well, outrage!)

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    If Richard Simons is actually offended, and says so, and if that bothers you, it’s probably a different story!

    Anyway, sorry, meddling over ;-)

  7. #7 MikeH
    January 26, 2013

    You are working yourself up to a fair state of excitement there Brad. I can’t say I am interested in wading through 1000+ comments to work out why. I will note though that as far as I can recall you were booted off Lewandowsky’s blog early in the discussion because of your inability to conduct an adult conversation. I can see that you are still waiting for the gonads to drop.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “You are working yourself up to a fair state of excitement there Brad. I can’t say I am interested in wading through 1000+ comments to work out why.”

    Nor can you be bothered asking why, so I’ll take your input for what it’s worth, i.e. somewhat less than the market value of my unsolicited advice to chameleon a few msgs ago.

    “I will note though that as far as I can recall you were booted off Lewandowsky’s blog early in the discussion because of your inability to conduct an adult conversation.”

    You recall slightly wrong Mike.

    Oh sure, I was complained about by the same genre of crybaby who can’t lose an argument without running off to Tim, but that never came to anything as I was careful.

    I was booted off late in the discussion for breaking a single inviolable, if implicit, rule one time:

    never mention a fact that’s embarrassing for the mods.

  9. #9 MikeH
    January 26, 2013

    Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

    Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming cranks.

  10. #11 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    That’s Brad – always willing to offer an opinion based on his personal ignorance of the relevant information.

  11. #12 Jeff Harvey
    January 26, 2013

    Mikes last comment actually made more sense than his usual rants. Thanks Tim!

  12. #13 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    I’m not saying your perception is provably wrong, but if you can link me to any comment of mine at the House of Lew that you consider sub-adult, please do because I’d like to know what you mean by that.

    To give you one example of my superhuman patience and decorum over there, I never even raised Lewandowsky’s hackles despite my famously low, low opinion of him. I even informed him once when he’d demonstrated his incomprehension of the scientific method, but I did it so respectfully that he didn’t even feel the need to censor me.

  13. #14 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    I was booted off late in the discussion for breaking a single inviolable, if implicit, rule one time…

    So that’s what you tell yourself! Whatever it takes to get you through the night, man.

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    So, does anyone think that all this bradding about has successfully erased Latimer’s set of outstanding issues and questions from readers’ minds?

  15. #16 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Jeff H,

    1. your logic about corporate payrolls was ironclad as it went. But I’m not convinced that you’re familiar with the standard model of how a government paycheck might corrupt (if indeed people have been corrupted), which is quite different from the way a corporate obligation achieves that effect. Think about it for a bit, and then I’ll tell you what the usual answer is.

    2. I’m curious as to why you told me all about what “deniers” (and contrarians and so on) do. That is, what was the desired effect? I’m not “contrarians”. I’m me. Even if I were a contrarian—which I’m not in the least—I wouldn’t be “contrarians”, so I wonder what that kind of tribal theorising could ever achieve, even if it was absolutely spot-on?

  16. #17 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Is this the comment from Richard that you’re so upset about?

    You made the comment. People commented on the lie at the time, including Richard Simons himself. Do your own homework.

  17. #18 guthrie
    January 26, 2013

    Lotharsson # 76 page 13, yes, that’s correct. Nice to see someone can read properly!
    A scientific certainty is not the same as a mathematical proof for instance. Although really, once a theory is old enough and tested enough it pretty much is, e.g. Newton’s laws of motion – they were effectively superseded and became a small subset of the larger laws of motion.

    Anyway, once it becomes clear that someone is wilfully avoiding thinking about something, I usually leave them to it.

  18. #19 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @MikeH:

    “Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming cranks.”

    Why bother with audit trails though, when there are common-knowledge emails that reveal the same thing?

    The CRU leak shows global warming “scientists” asking each other what slants would appeal to Esso, meanwhile negotiating with petro giants to fund their labs. The same cranks agree, in these exact words, to offer Shell input into their research agenda.

    For example.

  19. #20 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    Sorry?
    That one is worthy of Wow Lotharsson.
    Which comment and what homework?
    Wasn’t that Richard Simon’s comment?
    Hmmmm?
    I think you’re right Brad.
    Humouless cultist/eternal umbrage :-)

  20. #21 Jeff Harvey
    January 26, 2013

    I see Chameleon still writes veritable nonsense in which my opinions are twisted and distorted. Its not even vaguely clever; directed conclusions is the operative term.

    As for my opinions re: Jennifer Marohasy, I base them on her scientific pedigree. Her publication record is virtually non-existant and her work is rarely cited by other scientists. Now, to become a prominent scientist in any field of endeavor usually takes many years of research, during which time one’s standing in the field gradually increases. I gave my first plenary lecture at a conference in South Africa in 2011, by which time I has over 100 publications and 2000 citations (not 10 and 60 respectively).

    When any scientists – and I am not referring to anybody specifically here – becomes something of a media celebrity and well known on the basis of very thin qualifications then alarm bells start ringing – or should. It should be made clear that many of the so-called scientists down-playing climate change and other anthropogenic threats are, like it or not, on the academic fringe as far as their scientific bonafides are concerned. By contrast, those on the side defending the science behind AGW and other threats generally have long resumes with very many publications, high h-factors, and years of lecturing experience. There are some exceptions to this, but the fact is that this is the rule for the most part. Therefore, in their own field of specific research the fringe academics are often veritable unknowns. With no respect to Dr. Marohasy, she would never in a million years be invited in a million years to present keynote or plenary lectures even in her own field (pest management) because her scientific record is thin. There are thousands more scientists working in this field with better publication records.

    So this begs the question: what common thread runs through the qualifications of the Marohasy’s, Soons, Baliunasas, Balls, Plimers, and many of the other scientists who become well known as spokesman? The fact is that they are those who, in contrast with the vast majority of the scientific community, down-play the human component. Given that many of them IMO have pretty weak scientific records and few publications, it seems to me that two things should be obvious: (1) being a contrarian is a good way to advance one’s scientific visibility, and (2) there clearly aren’t that many really qualified scientists who agree with them.

    The we have to ask the poignant question, how did these scientists become prominent spokespeople in the public sphere? That’s simple. Many of them are linked with right wing think tanks and anti-environmental organizations that in turn receive bucket loads of cash from polluting industries. This is a classic PR trick that I alluded to yesterday – PUT THE WORDS IN SOMEBODY ELSE’S MOUTH. If the president of a tobacco company says that smoking is harmless, then the public would laugh at him/her. But if they can hire an actor to play a doctor, or better still, pay a doctor big bucks to say that smoking is harmless, then the public is much more likely to believe it. Edward Bernays mastered the art of public relations. Its now a multi-billion dollar industry with anti-environmental groups right at the forefront.

    What one finds if they see interviews on television or in the newspapers is that often interviews are conducted with two so-called ‘experts’ on either side of the debate. On the one hand you’ll have a scientist who has a lengthy resume and hundreds of publication son the one side and another person – also called an ‘expert’ but with few relevant qualifications on the other. The so-called expert on the contrarian side may be an actual scientist, but they often have few publications, and may not even be trained in the relevant field (again, indicating how much trouble the contrarian side has in recruiting qualified scientists). Mot importantly, the interviewee will often not say that the contrarian is affiliated with a think tank or an anti-environmental front group that is funded by corporations promoting a de-regulatory agenda. Now, as I said before, if I am a lawyer and my client pays me, I am working for them. Why should it be any different for scientists? You can bet your bottom dollar that scientists appointed in think tanks would not be sitting where they are if their opinions were different from the agendas promoted by the think tanks (and especially its corporate funders). On the other hand, many of the the most prominent contrarians are employed as university lecturers on the government payroll. The last time I heard there wasn’t a witch hunt to expel these people from the public payroll. I personally know several university researchers who are contrarians. But you’ll never ever find a pro-AGW scientist employed by a right wing think tank. Never, ever.

    The other thing the media does is create controversy where there is broad (not absolute of course) consensus. By interviewing two people on opposite sides of the debate – and, as I said above, one, the contrarian, often has thin credentials and is speaking outside their trained field – the media gives the impression to the general public that the debate is split pretty evenly among scientists down the middle. This is patently not the case, especially amongst the statured scientists.

    Finally, one should look up the names of some of the so-called corporate front groups (like the one Marohasy represented in the article in linked earlier). Note that these groups often have environmentally friendly names – e.g. the National Wetlands Coalition was one of my favorites but there are many others – whereas in reality they are lobbying organizations that aim to downplay environmental problems and aim to work at reducing government regulations limiting corporate activity (such as the draining of wetlands or the clear-cutting of forests; a great book to read about this is ‘Secrets and Lies’ (1999) about PR companies and astroturf groups working to lobby the NZ government in the 1990s to permit clear curt logging of NZ wet forests). The use of environmentally friendly names by decidedly anti-environmental groups is called ‘aggressive mimicry’. Again, the aim is to mislead the public, who will think an organization with a nice name is actually working on behalf of environmental protection, not the opposite.

    I am more than happy to write more about this as I have given many lectures on it over the years.

  21. #22 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Jeff H,

    having said this:

    “2. I’m curious as to why you told me all about what “deniers” (and contrarians and so on) do. That is, what was the desired effect? I’m not “contrarians”….”

    … if you were telling me about your own experiences with contrarians for the sake of it, I get that—it helps me sense where you’re coming from. Just so long as you do separate past encounters from your dealings with a previously-un-dealth-with individual, then the conversation won’t be hostage to prejudice (and so futile). :-)

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    January 26, 2013

    Sorry for the typos and grammatical gaffes. I wrote this in a single take.

  23. #24 Jeff Harvey
    January 26, 2013

    Chameleon, I don’t want to argue with you any more. I have my opinions based on years of working in an academic environment. I am critical of scientists who down play various threats to the environment because it is my belief that they are very wrong. Read my last long-winded post and then comment. I think its important that we conduct this debate in a civil manner, I am guilty of becoming too emotional sometimes and I apologize for that.

  24. #25 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Humourless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humourless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humourless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humourless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humourless cultist
    Eternal umbrage

    This is a Pantera track I think, chameleon :-)

  25. #26 Lionel A
    January 26, 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.

    Indeed, I pointed our latest ‘Black Knight’ at that ‘OA is not OK‘ series way up thread, and that was before he decided to point me in the direction of O-Level chemistry – one of the boorish jocks he being. I guess he will use Burn’s Night, ‘Neeps & tatties’ and all that as an excuse for current absence. Has he flounced off again, I wonder?

  26. #27 Lionel A
    January 26, 2013

    Ian Forrester,

    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.

    Oh, come on. Give the guy a break. It’s all to do with GCRs and the sun. Och, Aye, and away the noo!

  27. #28 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    Well done JeffH,
    It’s your OPINIONS!
    I’m reasonably confident if Ms Marohasy (congrats on finally spelling the name correctly) read you comment above, she would probably form an OPINION of your OPINION.
    Neither of them would be scientific however, despite the fact that you’re both scientists.
    BTW JeffH I’m still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything? They at least conceded that Ms Marohasy is a scientist.

  28. #29 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    And JeffH,
    I am not your enemy nor anti the environment.
    So if you are apologising for the ‘name calling’ then I accept your apology.

  29. #30 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I think you’re right Brad.
    Humouless cultist/eternal umbrage

    And your and Brat’s opinion of anyone matters how?

  30. #31 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I am not your enemy nor anti the environment.

    Hmmm. Ring a bell?

    I think you’re right Brad.
    Humouless cultist/eternal umbrage

    Or are you unable to remember more than 10 minutes at a time?

    Talking out both sides of your arse-crack again, chubby?

  31. #32 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    After this bit of inconvenient (to Brat) truth from bill:

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

    My goodness, didn’t Brat go apeshit.

    Really hurt his ego.

    But chubby stroked it for him and he calmed down.

  32. #33 Lionel A
    January 26, 2013

    chammy:

    Well done JeffH,
    It’s your OPINIONS!

    Dolt, track records on contrarianism, lack of scientific credibility and being just plain wrong are matters of fact.

    Here you are start with these:

    Plimer exposed as a fraud

    Plimer busted by Media Watch

    Plimer suffers from crank magnetism.

    and that is just a few of the take downs of just one of those faux-sceptics. You really are wet behind the ears in this aren’t you.

  33. #34 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    BTW JeffH I’m still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything?

    Citation needed.

    Humouless cultist/eternal umbrage

    …says the commenter who fails to grok 90% of what she reads, humour included.

    And ironically, that’s blackly amusing.

  34. #35 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    But chubby stroked it for him and he calmed down.

    Does that mean he can now stroke it forward by returning to his earlier function of fluffing Latimer?

  35. #36 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    Speaking of faux-skeptic Plimer, one hopes that even chameleon should be able to comprehend some of the contradictions in Plimer vs Plimer.

  36. #37 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “BTW JeffH I’m still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything?

    Citation needed.”

    LOL. You expect chameleon to dig you up a peer-reviewed study that asked whether she, chameleon, was clear yet on what Media Watch had to do with anything, and that got a negative result and was then published in a Lotharsson-approved journal?

    Why? Why would anyone go out of their way to fulfil your bizarre quests? Is there any XP or gold involved?

  37. #38 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “My goodness, didn’t [Brad] go apeshit.”

    Nup.

  38. #39 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    Ummm Lotharsson?
    JeffH linked Media Watch.
    I’m rather tempted to write ‘do your homework’ :-)

  39. #40 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    no Wow,
    that accolade belongs unquestionably to you.
    No doubt about that.

  40. #41 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Does that mean he can now stroke it forward by returning to his earlier function of fluffing Latimer?

    Oh, definitely. That’s why the travel in packs, so they can circle-jerk each other into appearing (to people they bother to read’s written opinion) to be absolutely correct and of deific-level genius.

    For deniers, what comes around, goes around.

  41. #42 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “(to people they bother to read’s written opinion)”

    I’ve seen some funky syntax in my day but… Wow.

    That’s, like, deific bro. *Inhales.* No, I’m being serious. It’s not just godlike, it’s pertaining to the very manufacture of gods!

  42. #43 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    You expect chameleon to dig you up a peer-reviewed study that asked whether she, chameleon, was clear yet on what Media Watch had to do with anything, and that got a negative result and was then published in a Lotharsson-approved journal?

    I take it that you are aware of all Internet traditions?

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    JeffH linked Media Watch.

    Ah, thanks. I had a quick look when you mentioned it and couldn’t see him talk about “Media Watch”, so I thought it was another of your inventions. My mistake this time!

    If you’re:

    … still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything…

    you should probably re-read the context for Jeff’s reference. We will all cross our fingers and hope that will do the trick this time.

  44. #45 mike
    January 26, 2013

    Th qstn hs bn skd: “Ds nyn thnk ll ths brddng bt hs rsd th mmrs f Ltmr…frm th rdr’s mnd?” (Lthrsn)

    Th nswr: N! Mst dfntly nt! Ltmr’s , pc, hrc rn-fst hmmrng (mdstly bttd by fw bt-prt xlrs, lk m) nd cmplt, skppng rt f y gtlss, mtnt-pygmy, Dltd crp-ts, n th crs f whch Ltmr, lk sm mghty, frkng Grk Gd, dscndd frm th clds f lymps nd mprsly bnt n lttl gd-fn, nrd-btng sprt, ffrtlssly nd fr ll t s, brshd sd th whl md-httr, jbbrng-gk, nkl-nppng, brzrkr-drk, pck-ttck bst y fcklss, cntmptbl, pstrng-phny, hv-bz, Dltd trgh-hggrs cld mstr n yr wn fbl, frccl, lghng-stck dfns ( lvd Jff’s lttl “thnk-y” msh-nt t “Tm” fr Tm’s ltst vwl-cll f n rlr cmmnt f mn–wht wn kss-p, crybby y r, Jff!) hs md f Ltmr n nstnt, blgsphrc lgnd nd hs nsrd hs ndyng fm mng nrml, mntlly-hlthy, prdctv, p-stndng, thnkng rl-mn nd th slf-rspctng, lscs, strng wmn, wh lgh t y mmm’s by c-wrds, ths lph-ml, h-mn dt

    Hp tht nswrs yr qstn, Lthrsn. nd f nt…yh, tht’s rght, y knw th rst, Lthrsn.

  45. #46 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    And this, boys and girls, is what happens when you decide school is boring and skip school.

    Don’t make like mike moaner here makes out.

    Go to school.

    Learn.

    Or end up like mike.

  46. #47 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Brat, when you’ve displayed as poor a record of cogent thought as you have, what makes you think that insults from you have any meaning?

  47. #48 Lionel A
    January 26, 2013

    Chamy:

    I’m rather tempted to write ‘do your homework’

    I would be surprised if you knew what homework was. You clearly have done very little if any at all before and since appearing here.

    And quit with the false smilies, this combined with a nasty comment, being a trick used by the perennially deceptive and dishonest.

    Have you checked up on Plimer yet? Come on do YOUR homework.

  48. #49 Stu
    January 26, 2013

    Holy crap, mike. When did you stop taking your meds?

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    January 26, 2013

    So bilial, 25 minutes later and you haven’t found even one comment of mine at Lewandowsky’s place that matches your colorful memories of my supposed conduct there!

    It may have slipped Brad’s memory – he seems to think he was banned for something other than repeated violations of the commenting code, complete with multiple pre-ban moderator warnings – but his comments at Lewandowsky’s blog were removed. Can’t say I’ve checked every page, but Google doesn’t find any.

    So this request is either mendacious, or Brad’s memory ain’t that great.

    I thought it was a shame that they were removed – they were a great record of how deeply he was pushing denialist memes, how ill-informed (or mis-informed) he was and how poorly his arguments were supported.

  50. #51 Stu
    January 26, 2013

    And quit with the false smilies

    It’s a denialist prerequisite.

    1) Ignore arguments
    2) False smilies
    3) Poor spelling
    4) Grandiose pronouncements of victory
    5) Projection
    6) Mutual fluffing
    7) Overuse of scare quotes
    8) Tone trolling
    9) False concern trolling
    10) Repeated failed flouncing
    11) Oblivious use of discredited sources
    12) Redefinition of terms
    13) Dismissal of questions as irrelevant
    14) Dismissal of science as not real
    15) False equivalence (e.g. funding)
    16) Implications of conspiracies
    17) Did I mention projection?

  51. #52 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    It’s actually a passive-aggressive ploy.

    If you don’t say nice things to them, then you’re a meanie.

    If you say nasty things to them, then you’re a meanie.

    If you ignore it, then you’re a meanie.

    If you ask them “where’s the joke?” you’re a meanie.

    Indeed the entire point is merely to pretend that it is YOU being unpleasant and that therefore is why you’re wrong and they are right.

    It’s purely part of the ad hom issue that all deniers indulge in as a pavolvian action.

  52. #53 Lionel A
    January 26, 2013

    13) Dismissal of questions as irrelevant

    13a) Totally ignoring direct questions

    18) Claims that there is no funding for environmental science denial.

    To which latter is the answer, lookee here:

    ALEC Exposed: “Warming Up to Climate Change”, Energy companies, corporate polluters, factory farms and their politician allies voted to change environmental rules, One of the lesser publicized ventures of Koch Industries was its large-scale confined animal feed operations (CAFOs), etc., etc..

    Chamy – more homework for YOU..

  53. #54 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    You guys should lay off piling on Chad Brad.
    He is obviously a genius of kripkensteinian proportions whose scientific understanding is simply beyond that of any expert in any field upon which he deigns to direct his attention, no matter how fleetingly.

    Chad, are you in Queensland? Are you a native Ozzie?

  54. #55 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “It may have slipped Brad’s memory – he seems to think he was banned for something other than repeated violations of the commenting code, complete with multiple pre-ban moderator warnings”

    Show me such an offending comment from me, chum.

    ” – but his comments at Lewandowsky’s blog were removed.”

    Are you serious? C’mon, their arbitrary pettiness may be an open secret (moderation was done by the SS kiddies, if I recall, with all the attendant bias) but removing existing comments? Are you really accusing them of such Orwellian past-control as to deny the existence of comments already in place? That would be a step too cowardly even for the kiddies, surely.

  55. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Chad, are you in Queensland?”

    Er…. Lotharsson’s “do your own homework” clause is classically invoked as a cowardly manoeuvre, but in this case, surely I would be not only justified but doing you a favor by asking you to look it up for yourself. Then you’ll see for yourself my exact location in relation to Lyibia, Niger, Nigeria, etc. (in counterclockwise order).

    “Are you a native Ozzie?”

    Well I thought so, until Wow advanced his now-famous theory that the Internet only exists in his personal timezone, which includes the South of England if I recall correctly.

  56. #57 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Re your Page 13 # 79:

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

    I thought so, but thanks for the confirmation. I will leave you to your fun.

  57. #58 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

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

    Actually I simplify there—you’ll remember that I originally listed another desideratum as well, which you may very well be able to help me with.

  58. #59 chek
    January 26, 2013

    such Orwellian past-control

    There’s nothing ‘Orwellian’ (nor any other self-aggrandising epithet) about it. It’s purely that you’re all noise and no signal, Brad.

    Removal of your serial inanities would make no difference to the sense of any thread, but would drastically reduce the garbage to be negotiated between the beginning and the end.

  59. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “There’s nothing ‘Orwellian’ (nor any other self-aggrandising epithet) about it. It’s purely that you’re all noise and no signal, Brad.”

    There’s a great book called 1984 that does a good job of explaining what “Orwellian” means. I commend it to your study. The relevant upshot of which would be that the past-purging manoeuvre makes it trivially easy for the most craven ninny, such as yourself, to retrospectively say anyone they don’t like was “all noise and no signal,” and there’s no evidence left to prove that you’re full of crap. That’s the deplorable “beauty” of the technique. Which, I’m fairly sure, finally went out of fashion around the time Ceacescu was lined up against a wall. And not a moment too soon.

  60. #61 chek
    January 26, 2013

    But Brad – you are all noise and froth. There’s nothing there to be ‘censored’. No substance whatsoever. Of course your ego would be censured, but that’s entirely different.

  61. #62 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Brad – you are all noise and froth. There’s nothing there to be ‘censored’.”

    If you’re telling the truth, then nobody censored me.

  62. #63 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @chek (CONT’D)

    That’s why they’ve presumably left my original comments in place—so that idiots like you can easily substantiate your taunts with a links to original comments of mine (not worthless and unreliable paraphrases thereof by the Affirmative team). Go ahead, we’re waiting. The URL you’re looking for will start with http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org.

  63. #64 chek
    January 26, 2013

    I don’t care about your adventures elsewhere, and I care vless to research them. But it’s nevertheless a good illustration of why going all orwellian on your ass would improve this thread.

    You’re still creaing nothing but noise. Off-topic thread-choking noise of no value.

  64. #65 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Off-topic thread-choking noise of no value”

    You’re right, I’m sooooo sorry for detracting from the heated discussion of Matt Ridley’s “sleight of hand.”

    ,/sarc

  65. #66 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    Chad, though your comments are gone (so sad), traces remain:

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=8&n=167#2367

    I’m thrilled that others have noticed your kripkensteinian genius.

    Are you really living in Chad, Chad? That’s so cool.

  66. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @luminous beauty

    Seriously? Is it impossible to find my original comments? Are the SS boys really as cowardly as Lotharsson claimed? Are they really doing what chek calls ‘orwellian’?

    Lol. I guess it would explain their own triumphant blog statistics.

    Thanks though—you did find “traces of” a good one.

    “So far I’ve corrected your misunderstanding of one or two words (consensus and possibly conspiracy), I think.”

    To put that into context, I think I’d just finished helping a “Sou” to understand that consensus refers to a type of majority opinion—or at least helping passersby to understand that; Sou herself resolutely continued to talk about conceptual teratomas like “a consensus of evidence” ! She also thought that anyone—even a single person—playing a trick on anyone else—even a single person—was grounds for using the word “conspiracy” until my little lecture on the meanings of “con” and “spirare”.

    See, I taught people things.

    Can’t have that.

  67. #68 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Anyway @chad and @luminous beauty, while it’s fun to relive past amusements and triumphs—just to save you a tap on the shoulder by a friendly moderator, you might want to stick to the actual thread topic.

  68. #69 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    Chad breathing with Chad is so breathlessly kripkensteinian. Chad has taught us all with such honest charm and alacrity the deeper meaning of colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

    We owe Chad a great debt of gratitude.

  69. #70 BBD
    January 26, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    you’ll remember that I originally listed another desideratum as well, which you may very well be able to help me with.

    It’s a rather long thread and much has been asked. What is it that you had in mind?

  70. #71 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    moderation was done by the SS kiddies, if I recall, with all the attendant bias) but removing existing comments?

    So you don’t believe in private property, Brat?

  71. #72 chameleon
    January 26, 2013

    No wow @ # 52.
    You’re quite clearly and most definitely and undeniably unpleasant.

  72. #73 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    That means nothing, chubby.

    If you’d been something even remotely reliable to listen to, them maybe you’d have a very VERY minor point.

    But you don’t.

  73. #74 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @BBD, thanks for asking—I mentioned that it would be good to find more deltoids like Jeff H with the ability and disposition to actually exchange views.

  74. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Wow writes and doesn’t proof-read:

    “It’s purely part of the ad hom issue that all deniers indulge in as a pavolvian action.”

    Teh reflexive repugnance, it burns!

  75. #76 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    Chad,

    Again, I have to thank you for teaching us that scientific consensus has nothing to do with wide recognition within a scientific domain that there is consilience of evidence sufficient to establish robust theoretical underpinnings to some particular empirical phenomena, but is merely the majority opinion of some non-specific crowd of yahoos, pulled from their collective nether regions.

    I and all the cranks and crackpots on the interwebs are eternally grateful.

  76. #77 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Yes, brat, “it burns”…

    From someone who thinks that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong.

  77. #78 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @luminous beauty:

    “Chad,”

    An African country. I take it you think that’s an insult?

    “Again, I have to thank you for teaching us that scientific consensus has nothing to do with wide recognition within a scientific domain that there is consilience of evidence sufficient to establish robust theoretical underpinnings to some particular empirical phenomena, but is merely the majority opinion of some non-specific crowd of yahoos, pulled from their collective nether regions.”

    Are you high? I didn’t write anything like that. I merely disabused Sou of the false belief that “consensus” was some kind of unit of evidence, as in her abortive concept of “a consensus of evidence that points to…”, and that it actually measures opinion. But hey, look it up yourself.

  78. #79 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I take it you think that’s an insult?

    funny that you should think a cavalier misspelling of your name to show how little consequence you are is supposed to be an insult because it’s an African country!!!

    I guess your casual racism doesn’t bother you.

    Note also that you’ve been asked by LB if you were an aussie. Not african.

    So the entire connection is one made in YOUR head.

    Rather racist.

  79. #80 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Are you high? I didn’t write anything like that.

    Are you high?

    Words have meaning and if you so continually say things that mean something you didn’t mean, THAT IS YOUR FAULT.

    Maybe you should try saying something instead of weaselling all the time

    PS: Note that you did the same to LB in the very same post. But, as with all idiot deniers, you demand of others what you don’t deign worthy to do yourself.

  80. #81 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Wow sends me a comment “from someone who thinks that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong.”

    You’re grossly overgeneralising from the specific delusion that defines someone as a Christian to some kind of global mental debility, which is far from empirically the case with Christians. There are millions of very smart and credible people who just happen to be wrong about one particular thing (i.e. they believe God committed suicide for their offenses against a Kafkaesque system of Iron Age taboos). Some of my smartest friends are Christians (and/or CAGW believers!), so your generalisation is idiotic.

  81. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @The great thinker about the Internet Wow rants:

    “…you so continually say things that mean something you didn’t mean”

    Like?

  82. #83 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    You’re grossly overgeneralising from the specific delusion that defines someone as a Christian to some kind of global mental debility

    Lots of words.

    No sense to them.

    Brat, you said it, not me.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-9/#comment-144953

    remember?

  83. #84 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “…you so continually say things that mean something you didn’t mean”

    Like?

    Like when you claim science isn’t consensus therefore the IPCC is wrong.

  84. #85 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Like when you claim science isn’t consensus therefore the IPCC is wrong.”

    Wrong about what? (Nuance isn’t your thing, is it?)

    Let me help you. If the IPCC says science is consensus, then yes, the fact that science is not consensus does tend to entail that the IPCC is wrong.

    About that.

  85. #86 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “[Brad] you said it, not me?”

    I said “that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong”?

    No I didn’t.

    But then your comment is no more hallucinatory than we’ve come to expect from you, Wow.

  86. #87 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I said that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong?

    Yup, gave you the link too.

  87. #88 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Wrong about what? (Nuance isn’t your thing, is it?)

    So you admit you have no clue what you’re talking about.

    Thinking isn’t your thing, is it?

  88. #89 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    And, talking of saying nothing then whining when someone tries to interpret what you might mean:

    What the hell was “Nuance isn’t your thing, is it?” about?

  89. #90 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Wow tries to sound adult and gets “deign” and “deem” as mixed up as everything else:

    But, as with all idiot deniers, you demand of others what you don’t deign worthy to do yourself.

    I’m no “idiot denier.” How could anyone in my situation possibly be? The very real (and problematic) existence of idiots is being graphically proven to me by your very comments, right now, as we speak.

  90. #91 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    No, Wow, you linked me to a throw-away joke which I invite interested readers to click on lest they think Wow’s absurd interpretation of said joke might be anywhere close to being honest.

  91. #92 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Of course, leaving open the possibility that his interpretation is anywhere close to being honest was his whole purpose in merely linking to the joke, not quoting it so that you could see it for yourself, dear reader.

  92. #93 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    ….and see what an inveterate confabulist our Wow is.

  93. #94 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “So you admit you have no clue what you’re talking about.”

    Christ drying on a stick. :-)

    You are high-maintenance, aren’t you?

    Listen. I ASSERTED that I had no clue what YOU were talking about when you accused me of having said, in the unspecified past, that “the IPCC is wrong.”

    What ABOUT?

    What do you think I said the IPCC was wrong ABOUT, cretin?

    ABOUT WHAT?

    This is fun, when I’m in a patient mood.

    lol

  94. #95 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I’m no “idiot denier.”

    Yup, the idiot is always the last to know.

    A tip for you, Brat: yes, you are. No charge.

    Oh, and like many enlgish words, the words can be used alternately.

    As indeed alternate/alternative do.

    But your attempt to be erudite are false, since you only attempt them to preen your own ego and fluff up your empty thoughts and vacant meanings behind a facade of intelligence that, frankly, is nonexistent.

  95. #96 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Listen. I ASSERTED that I had no clue what YOU were talking about when you accused me of having said, in the unspecified past, that “the IPCC is wrong.”

    Yes, you’ve displayed this problem many times before.

    Common among idiot deniers such as yourself.

    You can’t just go ASSERTING (not even in capitals).

    And your meaning is entirely transparent because you use dogwhistle terms (go google it and learn what that means). Such as “CAGW” and “alarmist”.

    You’re even more weaksauce than those lukewarmers who pretend to be “moderate” but are in actual fact, empty.

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    So, not content with lying about a joke I told, libellously accusing me of calling all Christians who speak “wrong by default”, our favorite palindromic imbecile now perseverates in calling me an “idiot denier.”

    Listen, idiot, for the last time (and with apologies to readers who, you know, got it the first time):

    I accept the existence of idiots.

    I am an idiot believer, so to speak, though that’s hardly a strong enough term.

    I don’t just believe in idiots, I know idiots exist, by unmediated perception as it were: I’m reading the comments of an idiot right now. You, Wow.

    Give that assertion a rest, for your own appearance’s sake if nothing else! You really shouldn’t go on ASSERTING (not even in capitals) in the face of explicit and humiliating refutation as you’re now doing.

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    *cue stirring music*

    You are the idiot I believe in, Wow!

  98. #99 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Some of my smartest friends are Christians

    Yup, you’re a casual racist.

    How many times have you heard some racist arsehole defend themselve from the complaint by saying something like “Some of my best friends are black people!”?

    Frankly, you sicken me.

  99. #100 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    you linked me to a throw-away joke

    “I was only kidding!”.

    Yeah, the cry of the arsehole uncovered.

Current ye@r *