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 27, 2013

    By god, I think I’ve stumbled on the holy grail of modern cognitive science!

    I’ve figured out what causes climate alarmism.

    Fear of money.

  2. #2 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    Chuckle
    :-)
    Fear of money :-)
    Good one Brad K.
    I’m watching the Oz open and it’s a great match.
    But I have to confess I am enjoying watching this game almost as much.
    Thanks for linking the cooment re Marohasy.

  3. #3 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    Comment!
    Bloody tthypos tippos TYPOS!
    Did you notice that JeffH had a sort of epiphany re the difference between the OPINION of scientists and science not long after he made furthef comments about Ms Marohasy & others?
    Good for him.
    I am still wondering why he linked Media Watch?
    Why would Media Watch be a reliable scientific reference?

  4. #4 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    FURTHER! Dammit!

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @hey chameleon, the TUMBLEWEEDS that greeted my offer of extremely-easy cash to any and all believalists here made me wonder if Tim had done a Komrad Stephan and “disappeared” me! I’m glad you can read me.

    Seriously, though, it’s not even a trick question—it’s one that anyone with half a brain would know (or at least, wouldn’t shoot their mouth off like so many deltoids UNLESS they knew)—so the cowardice they’re displaying gives me a 95% confidence range that stops at less than “half” on the question “how much of a brain do leading deltoid commenters have”!

    Anyway since I’ll probably achieve nothing by flashing easy money (plus an irresistible bonus prize—see the 2013 Open Thread) at these cowards, I’m glad at least you’re getting some amusement out of it!

  6. #6 guthrie
    January 27, 2013

    Certainly, Brad’s disconnection from reality is getting worse.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Brad was nuts to begin with, of that there is no doubt, guthrie.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Why do you keep advancing fallacious arguments via inappropriate analogy?”

    Because there is nothing to Brad.

    Just empty rhetoric. It’s all he learned at philosophy class.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    The scientific evidence is WHY there is a consensus.

    Brad, however, doesn’t like the science, so he trashes the consensus.

  10. #10 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    ” No self-respecting scientist when designing an experiment would take a vote on what “most experts” think about it. That’s ridiculous.”

    And nobody said they did.

    But you don’t know what science does, do you Brat.

    So you pretend.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    January 27, 2013

    Bumptious Keystrokes:

    Climate science has some UTTERLY unique features, just one of which is that its envoloping discourse is saturated with the pre-scientific notion of “consensus.”

    .

    There is your straw-man, right there. You are completely, and deliberately, misrepresenting the nature of ‘consensus’ in this instance.

    One clarification,

    the contents of the IPCC reports has reached a consensus position in that APGW, and other side effects of the commercial-industrial complex, is very real and an existential threat to the continued prosperity (not in the restricted fiscal sense) of human civilization and all the ecological systems, including the fortuitous status of all the other natural processes that support such prosperity.

    I await yet another example of your prolixity in attempting to hand-wave this away.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Lionel A

    “the contents of the IPCC reports has reached a consensus position in that APGW, and other side effects of the commercial-industrial complex, is very real and an existential threat to the continued prosperity (not in the restricted fiscal sense) of human civilization and all the ecological systems, including the fortuitous status of all the other natural processes that support such prosperity.”

    It sounds like you consider anthropogenic global warming to be catastrophic!

    No, that can’t be right. That’s a denialist strawman, right?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    PS, fair warning, Lionel:

    There’s a reason people a bit smarter than you have learned to run away from people a bit less smart than me. You’re about to find it out. But hey, don’t be afraid. Make your move.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    LOL!

  15. #15 Lionel A
    January 27, 2013

    Black Knight declared:

    There’s a reason people a bit smarter than you have learned to run away from people a bit less smart than me. You’re about to find it out. But hey, don’t be afraid. Make your move.

    There’s a reason people somewhat smarter than you have learned to identify the straw-men that you offer with the latest example being:

    It sounds like you consider anthropogenic global warming to be catastrophic!.

    The emphasised being your word, not mine. Also the unnecessary and silly use of an exclamation mark goes against you.

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    So you don’t think AGW is going to be a catastrophe.

    Pleasure to meet a like-minded person in these parts!

    Sorry I was a bit polemical with you, I thought you were, this big disastrist. You know those “it’s an existential threat!” types.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Which was silly of me. I should have picked up that you were a realist when you yawned in relation to Wow’s monologue on the other thread. Again, sorry.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    So you don’t think AGW is going to be a catastrophe.

    So you can’t read.

    Or think.

    Or know when you’ve been stomped flat.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    January 27, 2013

    So you don’t think AGW is going to be a catastrophe.

    Not good on context are you.

    Only if we listen to the do nothing about it brigade, and those who dance around the points muddying the waters. Your sidestepping puts ‘Riverdance’ to shame.

    As for you being silly, nothing new there.

  20. #20 guthrie
    January 27, 2013

    I wonder what the source is for ‘consensus’ being a pre-scientific idea?
    Rather it’s a modern one, in the same way that we have a consensus about general relativity and the properties of elements. Implicit within it in a scientific context is that it can be superseded, like Newtonian dynamics, if you amass enough evidence.

  21. #21 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    As I said, and at least two other commenters have since also noted, you are engaging in strawman arguments about the nature of scientific consensus.

    It is based on evidence; it is *not* evidence. Scientific knowledge and scientific consensus are provisional and will change if new evidence changes scientific understanding.

    This is neither new, nor unique to climate science – a further, rather blatant strawman.

    I can feel boredom setting in despite your prose flourishes. Underneath, I sense the same old ‘sceptic’ discourse, founded on nonsense and immune to correction.

  22. #22 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    I still have no idea how he/it managed to come to the conclusion:

    While I envy your faith, that can’t actually be true, because then scientific consensi would have performed far better throughout history and would have been far more responsive to disturbing data.

    Which, as I said before, is simply begging the question.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    January 27, 2013

    Brad,

    Your over-use of the word ‘catastrophe’ is a clever ploy often used by climate change deniers or contrarians. Please grow up. You appear to try and give the impression of being a ‘mature’ contributor here then you resort to this nonsense. I often find that the ant-scientific people who inhabit the think tanks and astroturf groups like to drag the climate change down to the depths of tabloid-level discourse. The ‘C’ affixed to AGW is one such ploy. It really is imbecilic, but its become one of the denier’s main strategies. The problem is that I have yet to meet a climate change denier who really understands what the repercussions of warming may be on complex adaptive systems. They typically expunge ecology from the discussion, on the simple basis that they don’t understand anything about biotic and abiotic stressors and their effects on biodiversity. Therein lies the problem. Our planet’s ecological life support systems (and the populations, species and individuals that make them up) evolve, assemble and function in response to a wide range on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Climate envelopes are one such important abiotic constraint. Rapid local and large-scale shifts in temperatures will challenge biodiversity to adapt, and with it the effects will ripple through communities and ecosystems.

    AGW has the potential to seriously undermine the functioning of many of the planet’s ecosystems, either by pushing local populations beyond thermal envelopes to which they are adapted, or by altering the strength of interaction networks, leading to fraying and unraveling food webs (as is already being documented). Importantly, climate change will almost certainly be exacerbated by other anthropogenic threats, such as habitat fragmentation and loss, invasive organisms, other forms of pollution that impact systems and their biota.

    The climate change denial/down playing lobby has few qualified ecologists in its ranks, particularly systems ecologists who study the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Now I would like some of these brainless luminaries to describe to me what they mean by ‘catastrophic’. The response will be vapid and shallow. They simply don’t understand how the term applies to complex adaptive systems, so in the end, if cornered, they will generally be forced to say warming that has profoundly disastrous economic consequences. But they will not be able to say why, because they are not ecologists.

    So here is some advice. If you want to retain any shred of credibility here, stop using big terms which you have shown that you have culled form one side of the debate but which you do not understand.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Jeff,

    Your over-use of the word ‘catastrophe’ is a clever ploy often used by climate change deniers or contrarians. Please grow up.

    Cut me some slack, even trained athletes have trouble keeping up with a dysphemism treadmill (Google it).

    What, pray tell, is the mature term these days?

    “Existential threat”?

    Do you believe in ETAGW, Jeff?

    Are you an ETAGWist?

    WHAT DOES ONE CALL YOU?

    Seriously, it’s like trying to pin down an able-bodied butterfly on meth. Not when you’re on meth, I mean the bu—you know what I mean!

    ” The problem is that I have yet to meet a climate change denier”

    Me neither. I don’t think anyone has.

    Oh, hang on, that wasn’t the end of the sentence.

    “… who really understands what the repercussions of warming may be on complex adaptive systems.”

    You mean these mythical people don’t accept how catastrophic it is?

    Wow, they sound horrible, if they exist.

    “They typically expunge ecology from the discussion, on the simple basis that they don’t understand anything about biotic and abiotic stressors and their effects on biodiversity.”

    Really? Can you point me to someone arguing that ecology should be expunged because they don’t understand anything about biotic and abiotic stressors and their effects on biodiversity?

    I’ve heard what you’re saying before, it’s just that I’ve never seen the argument that “we should ignore ecology because we don’t understand stressors and their effects on biodiversity.” (or words to that effect—I APPRECIATE that you were just paraphrasing.)

  25. #25 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Well, despite having self admitted they are a denialist weasel,

    I’ll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!

    my prediction based on evidence so far (including the fact of being a denialist idiot) has come to pass:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/01/january-2013-open-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-146034

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @BBD,

    I’m sorry that you think our disagreement is something other than it is.

    I’ve clearly been…. ah, unclear.

    You say:

    “It is based on evidence; it is *not* evidence.”

    1. The first clause there is hardly reliable. It is sometimes based on evidence. It is not, as a rule, based on evidence, and it is virtually never purely based thereon. I’m happy to defend this point—historically, psychologically and sociologically.

    2. RIGHT. It is *not* evidence.

    So here’s the truly bizarre thing.

    Lotharsson is of the view—which I nauseatedly disagree with and would willingly give my life to see dispelled from civilised thought, for reasons I’ll enumerate if you can’t guess them—that it is perfectly legitimate for “the consensus” to be invoked as a fact to convince the public of the seriousness of the climate threat.

    Look at that concept very closely.

    Lotharsson thinks NON-EVIDENCE should be used to persuade.

    Lotharsson is anti-science.

    (Tell me if I you’d like me to tease out the structure of that deductive conclusion a bit more explicitly.)

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Let me try that last paragraph again:

    (Tell me if you don’t follow the syllogism I just laid out.)

  28. #28 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Lying scumbag denier weasel.

  29. #29 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Do you only go to a doctor who has PERSONALLY VERIFIED everything they have read in their medical books?

    Because if not, then that doctor is not using evidence, but consensus to treat you.

    Obviously, to your mind, any doctor who hasn’t actually PROVEN penicillin production, nerve trauma or run their own tests on all drugs they prescribe is a quack and unreliable.

  30. #30 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    I’m afraid I must again reject your misrepresentation of the way in which scientific consensus arises. This is both argument from assertion and contradictory nonsense:

    1. The first clause there is hardly reliable. It is sometimes based on evidence. It is not, as a rule, based on evidence, and it is virtually never purely based thereon.

    Dearie me.

    The scientific consensus is evidence-based. It’s the things scientists are forced to agree on because (despite their constant efforts) they have not been able to falsify.

    If you view science as a fundamentally combative rather than collaborative endeavour, you might find that your view on scientific consensus is altered.

  31. #31 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Maybe this arsehole is a solicitor.

    Everything there is combat and winner/loser, and truth be damned if it gets in the way.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Tell you what, Brat, why not just wash your hands of us all, hmm?

    After all, if we’re not going to answer your oh so important question in the manner you require it to be answered, then you really don’t have anything to stay for, do you.

  33. #33 Stu
    January 27, 2013

    Brad, even as pure sophistry your performance here is abysmal. Did you just take a few philosophy classes to pick up a few choice words in your corner pub discussions or did you actually finish something?

  34. #34 luminous beauty
    January 27, 2013

    “(Tell me if I you’d like me to tease out the structure of that deductive conclusion a bit more explicitly.)”

    Not really. It is an exercise in bogosity. It is, again, your go to fallacies, that of false equivalence and begging the question.

    1. The scientific consensus is entirely based on evidence. That is, it is expert agreement on what data and data analysis reveal. If there wasn’t consilience between multiple lines of evidence, there would be no consensus of expert opinion. If there is some other rule governing the process of scientific consensus, then you have failed utterly at explaining it. (begging the question.) Happy as you may be to defend it, you have repeatedly made the false equivalency of conflating scientific consensus with political consensus building. They are two different things.

    2. The fact that there is a scientific consensus on climate change lies in the category of expert testimonial evidence, which is a valid form of evidence, but it is not scientific evidence. (again, false equivalency)

    3. Your conclusion does not follow.

    Yes, it is a bizarre thing alright. But it is in your faulty cognitive processes where the bizarre resides.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Lets make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR for the denial idiot weasel Brat:

    1. The scientific consensus for AGW’s factual existence is entirely based on the evidence for and against it.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @luminous beauty.

    You didn’t study Logic at university.

    (That’s not a question, that’s something I know from witnessing your difficulties following my logic, which difficulties are not to your huge discredit, because logic can be hard.)

    Scientific consensus is not evidence.

    If you have a problem with that fact, you’ll need to take your quarrel up with BBD, who said of consensus that, I quote:

    “it is *not* evidence.”

    Now we’re going to need to bring in some set theory, which—though you’ve studied no Logic and probably little Philosophy of any kind—you will hopefully have encountered in Mathematics.

    Consensus, which is NOT EVIDENCE, therefore belongs to the set {avocado, gunpoint, Schadenfreude, consensus, halibut, hake, Tartare Sauce, dissensus, hallucination, rainbow, sunbow, Cupid’ Bow…}—and I’m sure I don’t need to type out the rest of the set.

    Lotharsson thinks it is morally and intellectually defensible to induce billions of people to assent to a proposition ABOUT NATURE by means of something in that set.

    No scientist thinks it is morally or intellectually defensible to induce billions of people to assent to a proposition ABOUT NATURE by means of something in that set.

    Have I lost you at any point so far?

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Hey Wow, you’ve been exchanging views with me (within the limits of your humorous mental condition) for days now.

    Let’s see if you’ve picked up ANYTHING AT ALL.

    Here’s a question so easy it should be tractable by anyone in the pre-cretin (or sub-retard) state of cognitive maturation/collapse in which you find yourself:

    Do I believe in AGW?

  38. #38 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    That’s not a question, that’s something I know from witnessing your difficulties following my logic

    Sorry, your “logic” doesn’t actually exist outside your own RDF.

    Scientific consensus is not evidence.

    Who cares? NOBODY other than you has claimed it to be.

    Lotharsson thinks it is morally and intellectually defensible to induce billions of people to assent to a proposition ABOUT NATURE by means of something in that set.

    Nope, he’s is CORRECT in saying that it is morally and intellectually and absolutely defensible for people to use the consensus of experts to accept a stated position about nature to be true.

    YOU, meanwhile, claim that unless every single person for themselves recreate ALL scientific knowledge leading up to that conclusion, then they must REJECT that conclusion.

    That is morally reprehensible and a complete waste of everyone’s time.

    Well, not yours, since you have no valuable time to waste.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Sorry BBD, when I wrote “logic can be hard”, I meant logic can be hard.

    I didn’t mean “you’re stupid.”

    I was not being snarkastic.

    Logic—which I should have capitalised, because I’m talking about a discipline, not just basic intelligence—can be hard.

    Intelligent, small-l logical, educated people like you generally can’t, and shouldn’t be expected, to know big-L Logic.

    There’s nothing wrong with you if you can’t follow it.

    For example, I’m the only person in my family who can really follow Logic, because the rest (except my father, many years ago) have never studied it.

    I’m not having a go at you any more than I would my own mother.

    Unlike Wow, however, you are capable of getting it when you’re talked through it, I’m very sure.

    Hence I am investing the time to talk you through it.

  40. #40 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    No scientist thinks it is morally or intellectually defensible to induce billions of people to assent to a proposition ABOUT NATURE by means of [accepting the consensus of the experts in the field].

    Absolutely false. The not only accept it for others, they do it themselves.

    NOT ONE OF THEM will go through set theory to recreate from first principles the mathematics that underpin PCA formulae.

    NOT ONE OF THEM will go through the Schroedinger equation to see if they can prove it works.

    They will accept the opinion of area experts.

    Just like sane people (not you idiot deniers, obviously) will accept the consensus of builders who give a quote for work to be done on the house extension, or the car mechanics when taking the car to be looked at.

    INSANE people, like you, will refuse to accept these assertions unless the builder has investigated their time in testing the evidence for tensile strength and failure modes of an RSJ, or the car mechanic has involved themselves in the operation of semiconductors that are used in electronic emission controls of modern cars.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    There’s nothing wrong with you if you can’t follow it.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

    There’s nothing wrong with you if you can’t follow it…

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow:

    “Scientific consensus is not evidence.

    Who cares? NOBODY other than you has claimed it to be.”

    ROFLOLAYR.

    I’m sorry… LOL… you think… LOL you think that I, Brad… LOL… Brad…. LOL… Keyes claimed that … LOL… scientific cons…. LOL… consensus was… was ev…. LOL… evi… LOL… vidence!!!!

    LOL.

    Wow, you NEED to get Tropic Thunder on DVD and you NEED to follow the very wise advice about acting that is given therein.

    *Laughing out loud at your cognitive travails.*

  43. #43 Wow
    January 27, 2013
    Bedevere: “So, logically…”
    Peasant: “If… she… weighs… the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.”
    Bedevere: “And therefore…?”
    (Beat)
    Another Peasant: “… a witch!”
    Crowd: “A witch! A witch! A witch!!”
    — Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    Insane Troll Logic is the kind of logic that just can’t be argued with because it’s so demented, so lost in its own insanity, that any attempts to correct it would be met with more gibberish. Logic failure that crosses over into parody or Poe’s Law. A character says something so blatantly illogical that it has to be deliberate on the part of the writer.

    For examples of Insane Troll Logic by video game developers, see You Can’t Get Ye Flask, Chewbacca Defense, Moon Logic Puzzle, and [extreme examples of] Guide Dang It.

    For examples of characters who engage in this, see The Ditz, Cloud Cuckoolander, Strawmen, Moral Guardians, and of course trolls of both internet and mythological origin. For when the Insane Troll Logic actually leads to a true conclusion, see Bat Deduction and Right For The Wrong Reasons. If this trope is exaggerated beyond the point that it even makes grammatical sense, it can become a Word Salad Philosophy. Irrational Hatred may have this as its basis.

    Of course, sometimes it’s just Obfuscating Stupidity or Obfuscating Insanity in action.

  44. #44 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Who cares? NOBODY other than you has claimed it to be.”

    ROFLOLAYR.

    Troll logic indeed.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Of course, you, Brat, are Full Retard.

    And you know what that means.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Oopsie daisy—this comment:

    “Sorry BBD, when I wrote “logic can be hard”, I meant logic can be hard.”…etc.

    may have been for luminous instead, but it doesn’t really matter, it largely applied to both of you.

  47. #47 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    I am not clear where I have misconstrued your argument so you will have to be more specific. It’s probably going to be helpful if you use # 30 above as the basis for your response.

    I agree with Jeff Harvey’s # 34, with particular emphasis on your apparent conflation of political consensus with scientific consensus. My sense is that this is where much of the disagreement lies.

  48. #48 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    I’m sorry… LOL… you think… LOL you think that I, Brad… LOL… Brad…. LOL… Keyes claimed that … LOL… scientific cons…. LOL… consensus was… was ev…. LOL… evi… LOL… vidence!!!!

    You are the only one who’s said that scientific consensus was evidence.

    Here, for example:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-17/#comment-146098

    And every time you whine about scientific consensus not being evidence, you are creating the inferred statement “Scientific consensus is evidence”.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanFallacy

    We realise that being a huge proponent and purveyor of insane troll logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic), you are incapable of admitting anything other than “Chewbacca lives on Endor!”.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow, that you would even think that I’d claim scientific consensus was evidence is pathognomonic of learning difficulties so fucking profound, it’s a miracle you ever worked out what keyboards do.

  50. #50 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    @ # 47

    Well, I’ve started misattributing comments now, so never mind.

    # 34 was of course Luminous Beauty not Jeff Harvey.

  51. #51 luminous beauty
    January 27, 2013

    “If you have a problem with that fact, you’ll need to take your quarrel up with BBD, who said of consensus that, I quote:”

    argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy and begging the question. You’re selective quotation does not address the possibility that BBD was speaking of scientific evidence.

    Your foray into set theory is, I’m sorry, not helpful.

    How hard is it to understand the difference between scientific evidence and testimonial evidence? Scientific consensus is at the intersection of the two subsets contained in the larger set, called evidence. It is a consequent of the former, and precedent to the latter.

    In logic, it doesn’t really matter if your syllogism is sound, if your premises are hopelessly flawed.

  52. #52 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    When Brat writes, does it remind you of this exchange?

    Batman: One: What has yellow skin and writes?
    Robin: A ballpoint banana!
    Batman: Right. Two: What people are always in a hurry?
    Robin: Rushing… People… Russians!
    Batman: Right again. Now, what would you say they mean?
    Robin: Banana… Russian… I’ve got it! Someone Russian is gonna slip on a banana peel and break their neck!
    Batman: Precisely Robin! The only possible meaning. ?

  53. #53 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    that you would even think that I’d claim scientific consensus was evidence

    Then where are you getting the idea that someone here is saying that scientific consensus is evidence, if not from inside your own head? I.e. YOU saying it.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    More of Brat’s inspiration for “intelligence”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2dMnJ9Ov4

  55. #55 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    luminous beauty

    Yes, well, I was going to say something just like that, only not as succinctly or clearly… ;-)

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “And every time you whine about scientific consensus not being evidence, you are creating the inferred statement “Scientific consensus is evidence”.

    Whoa. Seriously? Creating—an—inferred—statement.

    Of the opposite of my ACTUAL statements.

    Every single time.

    You’re blowing my mind, man!

    I seriously had no idea. Fuck me. I’m so sorry. I’ve been saying THE OPPOSITE of everything I’ve been saying?

    Thank you SO MUCH for telling me.

    How long have I been performing this logic-defying demiurgy, this verbal fucking alchemy, without even realising it?

    And hey, Wow, while you’re at it, could you do me a favor and whine a bit about deniers not being right about the climate, you not being the intellectual freak-show everyone says you are, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions not being a net-good for the ecosphere, and my not humiliating you every bit as sadistically as I think I did on the other thread?

    Why?

    Oh, no reason. No reason at all. I just like watching magic shows, that’s all.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @LB

    I’d like to withdraw my investment in your education.

    Oh, and I really admired this “selective quotation” from you:

    “You’re selective quotation”

    Yeah, your rite, I am sulective quotashun.

    I absolutely am.

    Hey, as an amusing aside, could you point me to a real-world example of non-selective quotation?

    Cue tumbleweeds.

  58. #58 luminous beauty
    January 27, 2013

    Brad,

    What I think WOW is saying is that your obsession with your self-defined argument vis~a~vis evidence/not evidence is pure intellectual masturbation.

    If you were to actually address criticisms of your arguments, rather than gliding over them with non-sequiturs and rhetorical misdirection, you would be much more in the dialectic mode than the crank mode.

    But then you’d have to admit you have nothing cogent to say.

    Sorry about that.

  59. #59 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Whoa. Seriously? Creating—an—inferred—statement.

    Of the opposite of my ACTUAL statements.

    seriously, yes.

    But I realise that insane troll logic is your superpower and that you can and will ignore anything you like and spout whatever crap you need to.

    Just let it be said:

    You have in your own words proven yourself a lying denier weasel for the entire internet to see.

    As predicted, though, you don’t care.

    Insane trolls don’t, as a rule. Because rhubarb is not stuck to the car radiator, probably.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Brat denies radiative properties of gasses.

    Brat denies the second and first law of thermodynamics.

    Brat denies the photon theory of light.

    There you go, are they all science theories enough for you?

  61. #61 luminous beauty
    January 27, 2013

    Brad,

    For someone who claims to be a superior student of Logic™, it beggars the imagination that you’ve never run into the use of ‘selective quotation’ as a synonym for a contextual fallacy, sometimes called a contextomy. Believe me, it is a serious matter for genuine scholars.

  62. #62 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    The widespread and mistaken conflation of scientific consensus with political consensus by contrarians is unfortunate. How many times have we seen accusations that ‘the science’ is politicised?

    It seems more likely that it is the contrarian framing that is politicised.

  63. #63 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    No, in this case, it’s all pure insane troll logic.

  64. #64 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    And didn’t I call it precisely?

    Question answered.

    Troll still here.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @BBD

    “Yes, well, I was going to say something just like that, only not as succinctly or clearly… ”

    Thank Christ you didn’t. It sounds like a train-wreck.

  66. #66 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Brad, is there ANY intelligence in any of your posts?

    I’ve looked and looked and looked, but there’s no sign of any sentient lifeform having produced them.

    Insanity, nonsequiturs, meaningless typing, and frothing are in abundant evidence, but no actual intelligence.

    Boys and girls, when you go to university, study, don’t do drugs, or you’ll end up like brad here.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @BBD laments:

    How many times have we seen accusations that ‘the science’ is politicised?

    Most of what you write is a bit misguided, BBD, but you’re definitely right to use scare quotes around what passes for science.

  68. #68 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #83 _ “Fascinating, isn’t it, how people of a certain character literally cannot evaluate the merits of a proposition independently from their own bilious grudges against the proponent.”

    You could say that self-awareness is a mark of intelligence. On this measure this denier piece of shit is not doing very well; unless of course we’re talking about a totally dishonest denier piece of shit. One can read throughout this thread the “bilious” references to Oreske, someone he seems to have a particular problem with. Something Oreske has said must have hit a raw nerve with our turd of the day.

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    January 27, 2013

    I want to ask Brad one thing: do you sit in front of your computer logged into Deltoid for many hours at a stretch? It seems to me like you haven’t been doing much else these past few weeks, Your comments are one endless stream that go for hour after hour.

    Look man, here’s some advice… get a life. Move on. I have no idea what you hope to achieve here, but whatever it is, it is not working.

  70. #70 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #84 _ (Sorry to be so scientific about the whole thing. ;p)

    What? I don’t know how deniers can manage to be so annoying but unwittingly hilarious at the same time.

  71. #71 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #15 _” So my point, luminous and BBD, was that ‘consensus’ is an irrelevant and (in my opinion) toxic import into scientific discourse. _ Suddenly we get climate science, the first spectacularly expensive but utterly unproductive science, and (simultaneously) climate metascience, with its tedious fetish for ‘consensus’. ”

    More vacuous blather: “spectacularly expensive”, “utterly unproductive”, “climate metascience”, “fetish for consensus”. What a cogent and convincing argument, brimming with substance and intelligence. I should try that. Next time I debate a topic, I won’t bother with such things as logic, facts or any sort of reasoning; all I’ll need is a list of colourful, choice adjectives and the debate is as good as won. According to our fuckwit du jour, “consensus” has been imported into the climate science discourse. There’s no evidence and no science in climate science; they just discuss the consensus. We know that he knows that because he told us he knows a lot about science. I guess that’s why he hasn’t bothered to say anything scientific. There’s no science to discuss. Now I know why deniers have so much trouble producing scientific papers: there’s no science to produce.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “Boys and girls, when you go to university, study, don’t do drugs, or you’ll end up like brad here.”

    Wow, if you go to university, you’ll learn about a number of substances ending in -eine that help you stay awake through, and learn from, your lectures.

    Oh, but hang on—then you’d be like me.

  73. #73 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #16 _” …or chameleon have made a new contribution. ”

    Considering that poor chameleon hasn’t said anything that could be considered even half intelligent since he/she started posting here, it says a lot about our turd’s level of discourse.

  74. #74 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #23 _ “Climate science has some UTTERLY unique features, just one of which is that its envoloping discourse is saturated with the pre-scientific notion of ‘consensus’.
    _ Have you noticed any of the other idiosyncrasies of climate science?”

    We’re all ears for the turd to tell us what they are. I hope he makes sure to substantiate his claims, if he knows the meaning of the word.

  75. #75 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #26 _ “But the point is that whether or not a consensus arises wouldn’t have even interested any previous (pre-Oreskean, pre-Post-Normal) cohort of scientists!

    Again, the turd is making the assertion that the SCIENTISTS are interested in this consensus that he’s so obsessed about. Again no evidence and too stupid to know that this “consensus” is part of the political discussion and not the scientific debate.

  76. #76 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    If for whatever reason there’s any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there’s no reason why there should be if you know what you’re talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.

    So argue off the clock.

    For which I choose: nowhere.

    Now shut up, lying weasel denier.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow relieves himself on propositional calculus and English spelling, as usual:

    “Brat denies radiative properties of gasses.
    Brat denies the second and first law of thermodynamics.
    Brat denies the photon theory of light.”

    Why, because I accept AGW?

  78. #78 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #27 _ ” a Post-Normal, Oreskes-virus-infected post-scientist, that’s who.
    _ Any scientifically-literate citizen truly interested in identifying “what is true” would look first, second, last and only at the scientific …..”

    Fuckwit is asserting that in climate science consensus is replacing evidence. For someone who puts so much importance on evidence, it’s ironic that the cock-head doesn’t believe in backing his opinions with anything resembling evidence.

  79. #79 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    jp, this may help understand how brad works:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic

    Especially the cartoon with it.

  80. #80 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Proof that you spout copious lies:

    If for whatever reason there’s any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there’s no reason why there should be if you know what you’re talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.

    Now shut up, lying weasel denier.

  81. #81 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #48 _ “That is why I’m stressing: consensus isn’t evidence.
    Except, if we’re to believe skeevers like Oreskes, in climate science.
    Finally, here’s a hypothesis for your consideration/ delectation/provocation:
    The above explains why medicine saves lives and climate science just wastes money.”

    Fuckwit repeating the same strawman, over and over again, blissfully unaware that he’s just contradicted himself: he cites an example where a consensus in medicine wasn’t based on evidence only to proclaim that ” the above explains why medicine saves lives and climate science just wastes money”. That ‘s the sort of evidence free opinion that you would expect a low IQ moron like chameleon to hold, so obviously this scumbag can’t be all that bright _ or possibly he’s a dishonest shill, another piece of shit _ paid or unpaid _ who has nothing to say about the science but is here to sow doubt amongst the gullible denier crowd, sad imbeciles like the chameleons, karens and penties, GSW’s etc. who will all think he’s a genius. With the big words and the semantics and the sophistry, he’ll have them well and truly sucked-in. Never mind that there isn’t a shred of substance to support his vacuous waffling. There’ll be a consensus of imbeciles nodding in agreement that he’s the new superhero to demolish this “post-modernist” or “post-scientific” or “post whatever” climate science or whatever meaningless adjectives he’s using. We’ve all heard it before, cock-head _ “it’s a scam, a waste of money, carbon tax is a money making scam, consensus means nothing, climategate, IPCC, Al Gore…blah, blah, blah.” Oh, there’s a new one too _ from the last idiot denier: acidification of the oceans hasn’t been measured everywhere ( he’s read one paper and formed his conclusion on his basis) so therefore the evidence can’t be accepted that it’s happening, and like all denier idiots he can’t be specific with any aspect of the science, e.g. tell us where and under what conditions that process wont apply.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Ah @Wow, giving us the benefit of his usual lucidity:

    “So argue off the clock.
    For which I choose: nowhere.
    Now shut up, lying weasel denier.”

    If I might summarize (though no summary could ever TRULY do you justice):

    You want me to shut up and argue. And you don’t want me to do this anywhere. Because I deny the existence of weasels.

    Ookaaaaay….

  83. #83 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #52 _ “Just like pointing out the strength of the consensus in climate science indicates that the evidence must be dodgy, right?!”
    Absolutely not. You’re right, that’s a silly argument, which I’m not making.”

    He spent dozens of posts directly or indirectly saying just that (only 4 posts above _ at #48 _ he STRESSES that ” consensus isn’t evidence. Except…..in climate science”, and now he’s shamelessly denying it. The smelly stuff that my dog left on the verge has more integrity that this fuckwit. I’ve read a lot dishonest denier crap, but this piece of shit takes the cake.

  84. #84 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    There’s one good thing to come from this.

    Next time someone claims that the only correct answer to terrible ideas spoken out in public is “more ideas spoken in public” and I’ll point them to this idiot pile of denier dogshit.

    It should be interesting to see how they manage to keep the idea that this sort of insane troll is going to be countered by better discourse.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow, how much does Heartland pay you for your proselytising work?

    Peter Gleick forgot to include this detail in the Strategy Document, but I’ve always been curious.

  86. #86 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #58 _ “If you think I’ve overlooked the distinction, then say so like a normal fucking human being. What kind of paranoid polemicist avidly converts every perceived mistake by an interlocutor into a Grand Jury indictment for deception with malice aforethought?
    Seriously dude, even a highly unusually civilised exchange by your standards is fucking exhausting.”

    Oooh, our fuckwit du jour is getting a bit touchy _ Lotharson must have touched a sensitive nerve. MISTAKE? The fuckwit repeating the same strawman and refusing to substantiate that assertion despite being asked is a MISTAKE? I don’t think so. The turd couldn’t even be trusted with the milk money _ IMHO, it’s only a small step between intellectual dishonesty and general dishonesty.

  87. #87 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    jp, the idiot troll doesn’t read anyone else’s points, why the hell should it bother reading its own?

    An epic example of how Gish Gallop allied to a complete lack of intelligence or morality are why deniers still abound and think that there’s still “debate”.

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Anyway Jeff, since you’re the first local who’s shown the slightest ability to ask politely, yes, of course I’ll bugger off.

    Night all.

    Better billy-goats next time, please.

  89. #89 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #61 _ “What about a whole set of reviews, some collaborative and some single-institution, all based on the evidence, at least one of them wide-ranging and heavily peer-reviewed, that all come to more or less the same conclusions? You’d have no problem with that, right?”
    Not if what you were long-windedly describing was a proper meta-analysis.
    Instead you’re talking about the IPCC, …”

    Here we go again: mendacious or stupid? I’d say some of both. But since there is so much dishonesty in the denier crowd, then most likely more dishonesty. Why should LB be talking about the IPCC? The peer-review process is being conducted everyday, all around the world, in every science faculty _ that’s how science is conducted, I presume _ so if our denier turd has evidence otherwise, that climate science is conducted differently, that it’s not evidence based, the onus is on him to prove his assertion.

  90. #90 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #69 _ @chameleon, nice to know that someone is getting something (even if just entertainment) out of my enervating ordeal of attempting to reason with the son of Lothar.

    hahaha….in denier- land, prevarication amounts to “reasoning”.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Because I deny the existence of weasels.

    Apparently so, now.

    Remember, you said it.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/01/january-2013-open-thread/#comment-146030

  92. #92 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    It’s pretty easy to see why that twat gets banned everywhere.

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    January 27, 2013

    “The problem is that I have yet to meet a climate change denier”

    “Me neither. I don’t think anyone has”

    Pretty cute there, Brad. Any more than you’ve ever met a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change promoter. Let’s call it even there. But I am sure you have met a helluva lot of anthropogenic climate change deniers. And I will bet most, if not all of them have no expertise in the field of climate
    science (or any science?) much like you. Am I correct? If so, on what do these laypeople base their opinions? Lemme guess. A few contrarian blogs. Easy to access. Soothing messages. Comforting conclusions, etc. etc. etc.

    Look man, I hate to be harsh, but the rest of your riposte to my post is a bunch of gobbledegook. I admit I was probably speaking way over your head, and I apologize, but that was intentional. I wanted to point out that those downplaying the effects of climate change really don’t have much of a clue how what they perceive as insignificant change can affect nature and biodiversity. If these people – like Watts, McIntyre and co., really had any kind of training in the natural sciences, they wouldn’t write the piffle that they do. But their take is purely on physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere and perceived effects of change on various properties of the material economy through short-term changes in weather. I am sure that the extinction of genetic and species diversity doesn’t rate very highly in their lexicon. Why should it? They probably understand less about this than about climate science (now that IS saying a lot).

    But I come back to my last posting. Since you arrived here, you’ve written a novel’s worth of comments in about 2 weeks. Wouldn’t you be better off putting this effort somewhere else? Aside from one of two others here, most people think you are full of it (I won’t say where I stand, albeit as you aren’t addressing science in any way, shape or form, if there was a vote you’d lose big time).

    I am willing to overwhelm you with studies showing all kinds of biotic indicators of rapid warming, set against a background of a natural world already staggeringly simplified by man. Somehow I think you’d bring the discussion back to square one – the size of the human fingerprint on the warming – but as I have said before, even if the evidence was as low as 10-20% for a very serious outcome, for the sake of future generations do you not think it prudent to take that in itself seriously? Or do you think gambling with nature and its ability to support mankind is worth a continued throw of the dice? Clearly, many people do. They think we have to go a lot farther down the current path before we should take the problem seriously. But if they are wrong, and I truly believe that they are, then the potential consequences might be very serious indeed.

    I think it takes supine arrogance for humans to think that whatever damage we inflict to natural systems, that technology will always keep us one step ahead of the consequences. I admit that our species spends natural capital like there no tomorrow. Based on what I have learned as a scientist, I believe that we have to change course and soon if we are to avoid the consequences of our actions.

  94. #94 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Thank Christ you didn’t. It sounds like a train-wreck.

    This isn’t a substantive response to what LB wrote, which I agree with. Nor have you responded to # 47.

    Most of what you write is a bit misguided, BBD, but you’re definitely right to use scare quotes around what passes for science.

    You haven’t demonstrated that most of what I write is a bit misguided and assertion is weightless. And please, don’t put ‘scare quotes’ in my mouth ;-)

  95. #95 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    I think it takes supine arrogance for humans to think that whatever damage we inflict to natural systems

    Brad has all that.

    Probably rich parents put him to Uni, picked philosophy because he thought it was easy, did badly and then skipped the rest of the three years and now believes themselves intelligent.

  96. #96 jp
    January 27, 2013

    #71 _ “Basic question, Lotharsson. Why is consensus being used AT ALL?”

    The same stupid strawman question. Used by whom? Used where? Our denier turd hasn’t stopped implying that climate science uses consensus instead of evidence, but like all vacuous deniers can’t substantiate any of his opinions. A lot of verbose drivel amounting to nothing. Our poor, substance-free fuckwit is now trying to highjack the thread. This sort of delusion, where some idiot deludes himself about understanding the science better than world’s scientific academies, but is so lacking in self awareness that he doesn’t even realize that he hasn’t touched on a single aspect of the science _ not critiqued a single paper in scientifically competent manner _ must be some sort of mental disorder, a condition that seems quite common in the denier crowd. I don’t think it’ll be too long before they classify DK in Psychiatry manuals.

    BTW Tim, I’m not a regular here, so I’m sure if it’s my place to offer advice about your blog, but if you don’t clamp down on the denier trolls they’ll smother your blog with faecal matter and they’ll kill it _ which is what they’re probably trying to do.

  97. #97 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “they’ll smother your blog with faecal matter and they’ll kill it _ which is what they’re probably trying to do.”

    Definitely.

  98. #98 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Here’s an idea.

    jp, I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to refrain from this, but would some of the lurkers here like to say why the consensus opinion of experts are taken as settled by those who are not experts but who need to know what’s going on in that field.

    This won’t help the hard-core deniers but it may help, coming from a non-expert who reads the information here (which, lets face it, is about the consensus of the scientists and the evidence from which that state arises), assert for those who are reluctant to accept the results in the IPCC reports understand why those reports are read and warranted.

    Thanks in advance.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow, please excuse a Parthian act of kindness. I must shoot you one last clue because I’m a sucker for two things:

    animals and/or actors in distress.

    “Do you only go to a doctor who has PERSONALLY VERIFIED everything they have read in their medical books?

    Because if not, then that doctor is not using evidence, but consensus to treat you.”

    Wow, since you will insist on going Full Retard, here’s a tip you won’t hear in any Robert Downey Jr, Ben Stiller movie:

    Overdoing it RUINS the effect.

    When you say things like the above, the audience can’t suspend its disbelief fast enough to save the scene. The realism is broken. I can’t “believe” anyone—even you, Wow!—is that stupid. So long, verisimilitude!

    My dear, dear, Wow, let me tell you why your stupidity has ceased to be moving and crossed the uncanny valley into crassly overacted Oscar-bait territory.

    EVERYONE ON EARTH, EVEN GENTILES, EVEN COLLEGE NAIVES LIKE YOU, EVEN YOU yourself….

    knows that books CONTAIN evidence.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    No.

Current ye@r *