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

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

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

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

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

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

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

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

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

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

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

figure05

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

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    The IPCC reports CONTAIN EVIDENCE.

    Your point?

  2. #2 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    The reason for consensus is THE EVIDENCE.

    Your point?

  3. #3 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Now where is your EVIDENCE for any of your claims?

  4. #4 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Yup.

  5. #5 guthrie
    January 27, 2013

    Books contain evidence?
    It’s got to be a good 60 or more years since chemistry textbooks contained evidence for the conservation of matter. It’s taken for granted and implicit in what they say within, but they don’t contain specific worked evidence for it the way textbooks did a century or more ago.

    The IPCC report of course contains summaries of the evidence found in thousands of scientific papers, with references back to them.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Maybe his last reading of a science book was 80 years old…

  7. #7 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    I’m still curious about what you want. Sometimes these discussions move forward when proxy ‘arguments’ about ‘the science’ are set aside.

    What do you think we should do about AGW?

  8. #8 chek
    January 28, 2013

    Brad’s purpose here is done. Ridley’s claims dismemberment are way, way back, and Lati’s nano-thin, not-enuff-data argument is a half dozen pages ago. But Camo was impressed. (Although to be fair, randomly flashing lights would impress that character).

  9. #9 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    Good question BBD,
    I am VERY interested in practical results and outcomes.
    What do you think should be done?
    What are the clear and definable risks that we can and should manage?
    I agree that the argument is bogged down in proxy arguments about the science.
    There are untold numbers of websites and blogs and advocacy groups all arguing about the extent of etcetera.
    There are many differing opinions of how much is attributable to what depending on how we present and what time frames and even which theories we use.
    Strangely, I don’t think anyone argues that humanity has had NO impact on the globe. Obviously the planet would be very different if there were no humans on it. Who knows if it would have been better or worse?
    We have many here who claim that we need to ‘internalise’ the costs.
    That argument sounds compelling but my question is:
    Who/what gets paid for doing what in particular?
    The implication in the rhetoric is that the environment or the climate will be the beneficiary but that isn’t what’s actually happening.
    There is no shortage of Govt funding and/or private/corporate sponsorship.
    But what is it all being spent on?
    How do you think we should invest in mitigating risk from changing climate patterns?
    I don’t think it’s humanly possible to control the climate or stop it from changing.
    So what should we be doing BBD?
    And Chek,
    While ‘impressed’ is an OK way to describe my response to the arrival of Brad K I don’t think it is the best word to use.
    I was however highly, highly amused.
    Brad has a cracking good sense of humour.
    It was very funny to read.

  10. #11 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    So Bill?
    From your link:
    Dr Brulle said: “We really have anonymous giving and unaccountable power being exercised here in the creation of the climate countermovement. There is no attribution, no responsibility for the actions of these foundations to the public.
    Have you by any chance got a defintion for :
    ” the climate countermovement” ?
    I have no idea how one could have a movement counter to the climate.
    Do you?
    However, you have just shown that indeed there is plenty of MONEY available to be spent on this issue in some fashion or other.
    Which I gues does bear some relevance to my question above.
    It appears therefore that in this case, money is being given for political advocacy.
    Well, that’s a huge shock!
    Whodathunkit?
    If we travel to sites like say Getup or perhaps AEF or IPA or perhaps PETA or Animals Australia or perhaps ACF or any of the numerous others, don’t they also have huge access to funding? Some of it anonymous? What does it all get spent on Bill?
    Do you think spending all this money from both Govt funding and private/corporate sponsorship on political advocacy (no matter which side of politics you may see yourself belonging) is actually achieving any worthwhile and/or practical risk mitigation results?
    Or are we just moving or counter moving the climate?

  11. #12 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    And … we have another of the steps in the ladder of denial from chameleon:

    I don’t think it’s humanly possible to control the climate or stop it from changing.

    Anyone got bingo yet?

  12. #13 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Meanwhile, this new jp character accurately sizes up Brad fast. If Brad were half as smart as he believes he is, he might wonder why his game is so transparently obvious to so many people – and why the ones cheering him on are demonstrably not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    jp just got one thing wrong as far as my quick skim went: Brad has already hijacked this thread. It’s what he does. He did it at Lewandowsky’s with the same low, low quality of “argument”.

    And just one response to one of Brad’s fact-free smears:

    Lotharsson thinks NON-EVIDENCE should be used to persuade.

    Lotharsson is anti-science.

    You condescended about Logic being hard for other people and all, but you fail it yourself. You should ask for your university fees back. I bet you STILL can’t allow yourself to admit (a) that the first sentence is insufficient to be used in a logical argument about science communication, but more importantly (b) that the second sentence does not logically follow from the first.

    Wake me up when you figure it out. Ask someone for help if you get stuck. A brighter high school kid should suffice. Maybe even one of the 4th form debating class that Latimer derides.

  13. #14 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    And for anyone still playing at home, remember way way back when luminous beauty (I think) pointed out that “scientific consensus” is essentially shorthand for “accepted scientific theory”? If you want an even bigger laugh from Brad’s “argument”, go back over the last few pages and replace the former term with the latter and consider the results.

    For example, here’s a classic. Brad’s been arguing that in climate science “consensus has replaced scientific evidence” [in the process of determining what is accepted], and he has been determinedly conflating the reliance on consensus opinion of researchers in the appropriate field by those outside of it.

    Why is consensus accepted scientific theory being used AT ALL?

    Why indeed?! Inquiring minds want to know!

    (Try the rest – they’re comedy gold!)

  14. #15 chek
    January 28, 2013

    I was however highly, highly amused.
    Brad has a cracking good sense of humour.
    It was very funny to read.

    Cammy, the wind blowing through your head must reach gale force sometimes. Your ‘friend’ Brad just blew thousands of words in a vain attempt to attack the scientic consensus, from Chapter 1, Paragraph 1, Line 1 of the denier handbook dating back to Frank Lutz’s times.

    Beelieve me, only you and Brad were the least bit impressed.

  15. #16 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    Attack the scentic consensus?
    Chek, you just blew up Lotharsson’s ‘nuancing ‘ of the word ‘consensus’!
    I’ll forgive you the typo as we all make those errors from time to time?
    Lotharsson,
    Please forgive me for once again stating the bleeding obvious but:
    IF they had wanted to say ‘accepted scientific theory’ why are they using the word ‘consensus’?
    Because Lotharsson, those 2 terms are NOT the same by definition, no matter how much you would like to ‘nuance’ them.
    Just because Lotarsson misquotes Luminous and claims that it is essentially shorthand for ‘accepted scientific theory’ is just, well, as JeffH would say, UTTER TOSH!
    If you’re claiming that there is a special definition for ‘consensus’ when scientists use it, then please supply the scientific dictionary definition that says so.
    As in where is your evidence that ‘consensus’ means ‘accepted scientific theory’ when scientists use the word consensus?
    Those pots and kettles are back again.
    Luminous accused Brad of splitting semantic hairs.
    Did you finally work out what that little idiom/epigram actually means?
    I guess another easier one is :
    Remember when you point your finger there are 3 others pointing straight back at you.
    But anyway,
    I’m much more interested in BBD’s question, aren’t you?
    The game of playing academic semantics is really a complete waste of time and energy which the comments at this thread is amply indicating.
    And it would be sooooo nice if you could perhaps develop just a litle bit of a sense of humour Lotharsson (particularly about yourself :-) )
    That little comment about controlling the climate was just an attempt to be ironic with a little bit of amusing hyperbole.
    What do you think all that money should be spent on Lotharsson?
    There is quite a bit of it available you know.
    Are you seeing any wise, practical and/or sensible investments re mitigating definable risks?

  16. #17 bill
    January 28, 2013

    Judging by the amount of scrolling I’m doing I can only assume Chebbie’s still type type typing away.

    I can assure you I’m not read read reading. You lost anyone who wasn’t just looking for a laugh back at that ‘Here’s James Delingpole making the same claim about Flannery I did’ thing.

    Can you honestly say that you have ever made a good-faith attempt to re-read that (as usual, toxic and hysterical) post and ‘found’ your evidence again?

    Don’t answer for my sake, of course…

  17. #18 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Yes, Chameleon, a consensus means an accepted scientific theory. If it’s not accepted, it means there is no consensus. If there is no consensus, it isn’t an accepted scientific theory.

    How hard is that? Everybody else understands it.

    And the idiomatic expression, “the pot calling the kettle black” doesn’t appear even remotely relevant here.

    Maybe you can explain why you think it is?
    I’ll help you get started:
    – what did Lotharsson do which, in your opinion, is hypocritical?

    Use simple words, short sentences, punctuation, and complete each thought without ricocheting from unformed idea to random thought, which confuses your audience.

  18. #19 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    IF they had wanted to say ‘accepted scientific theory’ why are they using the word ‘consensus’?

    If you’re gonna try and “split semantic hairs” (BTW: Pot. Kettle. Black – yet again.), one reason they used the term consensus was because denialist PR was attempting to promote unjustified levels of doubt amongst non-scientists by claiming to non-scientists “there’s no consensus on these issues”. Don’t worry, Brad wasn’t smart enough to figure this out either, even though some pointed questions directed him towards this concept.

    But even without that the hair splitting fails – what Vince said. In this context they mean the same thing. Which you will deny, of course, having difficult with what words actually mean, let alone tricky concepts like context.

  19. #20 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    The game of playing academic semantics is really a complete waste of time and energy which the comments at this thread is amply indicating.

    Bollocks. Your “academic semantics” schtick from the first time you tried it on here has been a transparent attempt to assert discussion you don’t like to be irrelevant.

    I’ll consider believing otherwise when you point this out to Brad, who is the master of Gish Galloping semantics dodgeball, and to Latimer who spent an entire week arguing a complete strawman that rested on very finely parsing “scientific certainty” and then pretending the term had been applied to something it hadn’t been applied to.

    That little comment about controlling the climate was just an attempt to be ironic with a little bit of amusing hyperbole.

    I don’t believe you because both your immediate and your wider context suggest otherwise.

    Most readers here get context. You should try it sometime.

  20. #21 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    If there’s been a crime, and some DNA splashed into the book that was lying open on the bedside table, then yes, that book contains evidence.

    Or, if there’s an obscenity trial the prosecution might use the contents of a book as evidence to prosecute their case.

    Otherwise, Brad the monkey-boy just typed another 30 lines that purveyed precisely zero factual information. Again.

    What is it with deniers and their unceasing keen-ness to exhibit their stupidity for all the world to see?

  21. #22 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    What do you think all that money should be spent on Lotharsson?

    There are many things that could be done, and the consensus – apparently even in radical greenie organisations like the World Bank –
    is converging to the position that over the long term doing them would be cheaper than not doing lots of them – as well as far wiser from a risk management front…

    …but it certainly is a pointless waste of time and energy to discuss that with people who deny many of the relevant scientific conclusions and/or deny the confidence with which they are concluded. We have to be reading the same book (or at least books with similar information) before we can discuss what the implications are of the information on p137.

    And you and I are not. Wake me up when you do.

  22. #23 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    What is it with deniers and their unceasing keen-ness to exhibit their stupidity for all the world to see?

    Some of them genuinely think they are once in a generation intellectual luminaries who are only prevented from worldwide adulation by a conspiracy of lesser mortals dedicated to preventing them from receiving the formal recognition they so richly deserve…or something.

    No doubt there are other reasons ;-)

    And some of them crave any form of attent… … er, aren’t here for the hunting, if you know what I mean. And you know what I mean.

  23. #24 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon:

    “I have no idea how one could have a movement counter to the climate.”

    It’s a simple recipe.

    Take $89 billion worth of climate agitators.

    Put agitators in cauldron and, well, agita bene, as they say.

    10 years later, out pops a “movement” to “stop climate change!”

    How’s that shit for clinical-grade anti-climate oppositional disorder?

    Lol!

  24. #25 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Someone quite reasonably asked me somewhere upthread something like this:

    “Brad, what do you think we should do about AGW?”

    First of all

    1. Thank you for noticing the elephant that’s managed to slip by all of your peers, ninja-like in the night: that’s right, assembled believalist mora, I know AGW is a phenomenon.

    2. As far as I can see, AND I’VE LOOKED, there is little in the way of evidence capable of persuading anyone (or at least, anyone who doesn’t have an a priori craving or clinamen to believe) that the probabilistic ramifications of AGW are so net-negative as to be worth doing anything other than what doctors with completely asymptomatic patients call “watchful waiting.”

    Quite frankly, continental drift is just as likely to ruin your life as global warming ever will!

    Oh, sure, the consensus among scientists unequivocally points—or so it’s alleged by people who have never done a convincing opinion survey to substantiate this—to a major, game-changing, existentially-threatening worldwide climatic clusterfuck out of Revelations….

    unless we Act Now!** (Which, the more perceptive among you will have noticed, we’re not doing.)

    It’s a pity the evidence doesn’t also point there.

    Or there might actually be some justification for the existence of this delightful little Amish millenarian sect!

    The only thing propping up such an alarm is the supposed, never-formally-measured “consensus” in favor of alarm.

    However, as BBD and luminous will happily tell you, consensus is not evidence, and is therefore unworthy of any consideration by scientifically-literate citizens.

    **Please note, however: there’s nothing catastrophic about this doomsday scenario!

    Sure, it’s easy to mistake it for a catastrophe, but if you’re one of the millions of people who were thinking it sounded catastrophic in some way, shape or form, let me stop you right there, buster:

    “CATASTROPHE” IS NOTHING BUT A DENIALIST STRAWMAN! :-)

    No majority of serious scientists has EVER suggested AGW is going to rise to the level of an actual CATASTROPHE.

    Stop reading so many denialist tracts!

    They’re just playing down the urgent seriousness of the situations with immature joke-words like “catastrophe”!

  25. #26 MikeH
    January 28, 2013

    Campbell Newman on flooding in Bundaberg.

    Homes are at risk of being swept away in the Queensland city of Bundaberg, Premier Campbell Newman says.
    He said the situation in the city was extremely serious because of a record flood.
    He said the velocity of the water flowing through north Bundaberg meant houses could be swept from their stumps.
    “Some estimates have put it at 40 knots,” he said.
    “The velocity of the water, and the rises in the water levels, means that literally houses, particularly in north Bundaberg, and maybe other locations, could be swept away.”

    40 knots? That is seriously fast.

    Third major flood in Queensland since March 2010. Gee – what could be causing that?

    In 1989, at a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Science Council, Dr Graeme Pearman of CSIRO summarised a scenario of climate change for Australia in 2030. He said there would be:
    * higher summer rainfall over northern Australia and extending further south.
    * possibly drier winters in southern Australia
    * more intense rainfall.

    CSIRO warned the NSW government in 1997-98 of “extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency increases in many regions, particularly in summer and autumn.

    CSIRO-BoM set of projections in 2007
    Models show an increase in daily precipitation intensity but also in the number of dry days. Extreme daily precipitation tends to increase in many areas but not in the south in winter and spring when there is a strong decrease in mean precipitation

  26. #27 MikeH
    January 28, 2013

    Keyes. Why comment here where you are easily spotted as a fraud? Why not piss off to WUWT where your brand of pseudointellectualism would be a hit among the undead.

  27. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Why not piss off to WUWT where your brand of pseudointellectualism would be a hit among the undead.”

    Ever heard of “multitasking,” analfabeta?

  28. #29 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “If there’s been a crime, and some DNA splashed into the book that was lying open on the bedside table, then yes, that book contains evidence.

    Or, if there’s an obscenity trial the prosecution might use the contents of a book as evidence to prosecute their case.”

    And those are the only ways you can think whereby a few mLs of evidence would find their way into a book?

    LOL.

    Are you IN DENIAL of the fact that documentary evidence (as found in many books—seriously, this isn’t a trick, go open one) is a form of EVIDENCE?

    If you are in said condition of denial, then I take it you’ll agree with the claim that any books (or spiral-bound reports) published by the IPCC can’t contain evidence (except of a crime or a published obscenity).

    What side of the climate debate are you on, just out of interest?

  29. #30 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    The Open Thread is broken (it’s permanently slanted—take a look).

    So I repeat:

    @chameleon….

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

    Without further ado, I present:

    An Anatomy of Denier Fail.

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

    1. The affirmer @Lotharsson

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

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

    —types/echoes some string. (Usually long, and occasionally idiotic enough almost to make Wow look like he’s only going Part Retard, as he always insists.)

    2. You read said string.

    [Denier brain fail 1.]

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

    Completely naive of you, of course. Learning difficulties much?

    [Denier brain fail 2.]

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

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

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

    * Admittedly, Wow’s string isn’t as long as Lotharsson’s.

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

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

    Give it up, girlfriend.

    You are teh failing to achieve anythink.

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

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

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

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

    Not to mismanage your expectations, but try to imagine a cross between Hitchens and someone who’s learnt the scientific method. I hope Dr Matarese quits his day job. What happened to Hitch left a gaping ulcer in the world of letters.

    So, go away. :-)

    You’re only killing

    — zomgies
    and
    — time

    here.

  30. #31 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    And to clarify, despite their differences, Wow has proven himself Lotharsson’s exact equivalent in being unequal to the dead simple request that he
    *****************************************
    NAME JUST THREE (3) DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES A MEAN OL’ ARCH-DENIALIST LIKE ME REFUSES TO BELIEVE IN
    ****************************************

    That challenge ended in embarrassing rout of the very few believalists who thought it was easy enough for them.

    Oh well, I’m off to spent the $25-75 someone could have won if only they’d had the nads to back up their obnoxious mantra that people who aren’t climate-capnophobes are “serial deniers.”

    It’s a pathetic lie by pathetic liars who don’t even know WHAT THEIR OWN PATHETIC LIES MEAN….

    LOL!

    :-)

    … as I expected. (And predicted—like a good scientist.)

    Always nice to have scientific confirmation though.

  31. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Brad Keyes says,

    They’re just playing down the urgent seriousness of the situations with immature joke-words like “catastrophe”

    Here’s a test for you, Brad:
    – How many times did the word “Catastrophe” appear in the last IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”?

    Go on, have a *wild* stab at it…..

  32. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Ooh, Brad wants us to bet on the contents of his head, as self-reported by himself.

    Should it take a genius to figure out why you’ll get no takers for that one, Brad?

  33. #34 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Should it take a genius to figure out why you’ll get no takers for that one, Brad?

    It’s even worse than that. He’s already explicitly been given that implied reason. What kind of genius can’t figure it out after he’s been told?

    And how come almost all of the denialist trolls seem to have read-only brains? They just can’t take on new facts, especially if they contradict the “facts” they already subscribe to.

  34. #35 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Jeff,

    Thanks for clarifying that you meant ACC deniers when you said climate change deniers.

    I’m drawing attention to your mistake not to have a go at you (hey, let him who is without sin cast the first stone) but simply to make the following point:

    Everyone makes the mistake from time to time of using words that mean something they themselves (personally) don’t mean.

    The vast majority of the time—as in the example of your mischoice of words—it is 100% innocent and has no basis in mendacity or a desire to manipulate or anything like that.

    Now I have run into the occasional—much rarer than you may believe—person who says “man-made climate change is a hoax.”

    The vast majority of the time, they themselves don’t mean what the words they’re using mean.

    If you’re interested in proving this for yourself, I’d be willing to share with you the magical technique whereby I have managed to convert 90% of self-styled “ACC is a hoaxers” into ACC acceptors before my very eyes.

    (Yes, I’m about 10,000-100,000 more successful at “converting” people that today’s leading yellers, like Lotharsson.)

    Would you be interested in my revealing this uniquely effective conversion/persuasion/proselytization/consent-obtaining/recruiting technique, Jeff?

    Just say politely “yes” and I will.

    But say:

    “sure, Brad, but on your past form I don’t have high hopes that it’ll actually be anything like you claim, because you’re constantly lying to me about things”

    and I won’t tell you it. I’ll let you wallow in dog-fighting pits like this, CHANGING NOBODY’S MIND about anything (because you have no idea of the key to doing so).

    And in five years time I’ll check back just to laugh at how small and inbred this little church has become.

  35. #36 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2013

    “Ever heard of “multitasking,” analfabeta?”

    Seriously, Brad, you appear to spend all of your waking hours on Deltoid. I do hope you have time for other things…

  36. #37 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Oh, and when I boasted that my technique is “magic”, that was HYPERBOLE.

    It’s not magic, it’s common-sense psychology when you understand why people say “ACC IS A HOAX!!”

    The only reason you haven’t discovered the correct technique is because you don’t know what they’re thinking. (Not that you’re dumb or anything—you’re simply missing some key premises, because nobody seems to explain them properly. In other words, I DON’T BLAME YOU for not knowing anything about how to “persuade” “deniers.” It’s not to your discredit. Am I making this crystal clear?)

  37. #38 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Seriously, Brad, you appear to spend all of your waking hours on Deltoid. I do hope you have time for other things…”

    Yeah, I get up to all sorts of other, more productive things…. WHILE I’m here “wasting” time. ;-)

    It has a lot to do with the beauty of modern multitasking operating systems and the CPUs that make them possible.

  38. #39 chek
    January 28, 2013

    Yeah, I get up to all sorts of other, more productive things…. WHILE I’m here “wasting” time.

    Translation: call centre.

  39. #40 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    The other thing I find interesting about most denialists is – like a particular subset of rap music – they spend a lot of time telling people how astonishingly fantastic they are in various ways. After a while it’s difficult not to view it as an expression of a wish fulfillment fantasy – or attempting to drown out personal insecurities.

  40. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “The other thing I find interesting about most denialists is – like a particular subset of rap music – they spend a lot of time telling people how astonishingly fantastic they are in various ways.”

    I feel ya man.

    Like that time when I pretended I was some kind of genius, a new Jack Kennedy, because I’d suppozibly read a pulp conspiracy thriller in LESS THAN FOUR HOURS.

    Which was obviously an empty and self-deluding boast, since (as we’ve all been told) it took Wow 13 hours to read that identical same shizzle.

    Call me MC MegaloManiak, with self-aggrandizing phat phantasies and ttall tales about superhuman feats and implausibly hot honeys wanting to get down wit my speed-freakin’ ass!

  41. #42 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    And another interesting thing after all the “consensus” strawmen on this thread. This is the 2nd thread about Ridley’s 1993 claims. The first one quotes him citing “scientific consensus” (falsely, as it turns out). However (rather oddly, wouldn’t you think?) Brad has not been sighted complaining about Ridley citing it. Perhaps it’s not “anti-scientific” when you misrepresent the scientific consensus?

    C’est la troll, as they say.

  42. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Brad,

    – How many times did the word “Catastrophe” appear in the last IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”?

  43. #44 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Lotharssion reads something maleficent into my failure to denounce or disavow an alleged dishonesty by (Matt) Ridley.

    “Brad has not been sighted complaining about Ridley citing it.”

    I denounce all liars. Did Ridley lie?

    I didn’t pay enough attention to the article to form an opinion—it seemed a bit boring—so I’ll have to trust your honest assessment, Lotharsson. You’re not going to take malicious advantage of my trust, it goes without saying.

    The only thing that comes to my mind about Ridley right now is a really good address about pseudoscience and its relation to climate science, which made some devastating points, weakened only by some questionable opening remarks. (This is my impression of it.) For instance he opened with a few somewhat lazy and incorrect claims like, “crop circles are pseudoscience; telekinesis is pseudoscience; this is obvious!”

    Anyway Lotharsson, since we’ve always felt free to speak the truth between us, please confirm:

    did this Ridley guy actually lie (about something important like a scientific article, a piece of evidence, or anything of that nature—not something of zero evidentiary value, of course)?

    If so, if he really lied about something material, then he sounds like a kind of denialist Mike Mann, and who needs to be associated with that shezizzat?

    Not me, that’s who not.

  44. #45 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    D’oh, misspelling:

    “@Lotharssion”

    Nothing malicious.

  45. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    did this Ridley guy actually lie )?

    I didn’t pay enough attention to the article to form an opinion

    Yes, Ridley made an assertion that was contrary to reality.

    Who on earth would you deliberately avoid digesting the facts of this topic and choose to inflict your uninformed and half-baked opinions about it on us?

    And again, you made an assertion which you now appear to be avoiding taking responsibility for, responsibility in the form of answering this simple question:
    – How many times did the word “Catastrophe” appear in the last IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”?

    If all you’ve got is,
    “I don’t know, I haven’t read it”
    “despite this, I assert this non-fact”
    and
    “I’ll avoid responding to any mention of the non-factualness of my assertions”
    The you are nothing but a waste of space.

  46. #47 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Johnny Drama asks in, hmm, “good faith”:

    “Brad,
    – How many times did the word “Catastrophe” appear in the last IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”?”

    What am I, Rain Man?

    Listen, Drama, here’s an equally important question, which I feel will do just as much as, if not more than, whatever trick you’re playing one me with your own question, to hopefully neutralise in some small way the toxic mutual incomprehension that’s so regrettably come to characterise the entire contemporary Climate Shitfight, and is paralysing any hope of an amicable cross-societal approach to the very real scientific and environmental challenges that confront us as this nascent century develops:

    what’s the first word of the 2nd (body-text) paragraph on page 100 of the SPM?

    Fair warning: conveniently pleading “amnesia” will not impress anyone.

    If you can’t answer that simple question without cheesy cheating (like LOOKING IT UP) or spinning like your oh-so-apposite namesake, then I guess we’ll all know how much weight to put on any future opinions you “share” with us about ANYTHING scientific.

    C’mon, tick tock. That’s the sound of your PERSONAL CREDIBILITY being tested.

    We all want to know if there’s any substance to the implied claims of authority you make every time you hold forth on science or, to be honest, anything else that should be left to university-educated adults to discuss.

    Are you a fraud as a human being?

    Hey, I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no.

    The answer is in your hands.

    Tick tock.

    Oh, on an unrelated issue:

    it’s been suggested that I’ve been spending an unhealthy amount of time here. Why? What possible harm could this blog do to my development as a human being?

  47. #48 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Ah, the Brad Troll, ever willing to engage in histrionic false equivalence in order to evade an inconvenient point.

  48. #49 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon,

    My apologies, but I’m afraid you aren’t eligible to claim the Dead Easy Money Where Your Mouth Is prize.

    My information indicates that you’re a climate realist.

    The Dead Easy Climate Crazeeness Fast Money Challenge was, as you probably know, quintessentially a reality-based task, so it was felt that people in your credal group have an unfair headstart—and so, with regret, the Challenge could only be made open to believalists (specifically, persons sufficiently reality-challenged to bandy about epithets like “serial science denialist!!!”)

    Neverthless I thank you for your valued submission.

  49. #50 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon:

    Nevertheless, let’s keep it interesting!

    ;-)

    Would you care to hold a little wager/”office pool” on how long it will take for one of the resident believalists to understand (and, obviously, to give some verbal evidence of understanding) my Comment #47?

  50. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Brad now says,

    “Brad,
    – How many times did the word “Catastrophe” appear in the last IPCC report’s “Summary for Policymakers”?”

    What am I, Rain Man?

    What Brad said before,

    They’re just playing down the urgent seriousness of the situations with immature joke-words like “catastrophe”!

    So, I take it anything you say is a throwaway line that you are not prepared to defend with – I dunno – *evidence*, maybe?

    So the question stands – Brad thinks somebody is throwing around

    immature joke-words like “catastrophe”

    and yet, the IPCC, which collects and summarises the global pool of intelligent and expert opinion on climate change may, or may not, use the word “catastrophe” – Brad doesn’t know – his opinions are not formed by the facts.

    Reality was not invited to Brad’s monkey-party.

    In other words, Brad just makes this shit up as he goes along, shit he then flings in all directions.

    That’s what I call dishonest and fraudulent.

  51. #52 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Drama, the designated dullard for tonight, asks probably his most penetrating question yet!

    “So, I take it anything you say is a throwaway line that you are not prepared to defend with – I dunno – *evidence*, maybe?”

    Drama, think about it for a nanosecond.

    Or about ANYTHING, really. Baby steps. Just THINK, is all I ask.

    Why would I—why would any mentally-viable person—BACK UP A SARCASTIC COMMENT WITH “EVIDENCE” THAT SAID COMMENT WAS TRUE FOR REALZ?

    Excuse the Lotharssonism but fuck me.

  52. #53 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    For anyone still wondering what Brat is doing here, he’s graciously consented to proving that he’s a denier, liar and idiot.

    As he proclaimed when he offered his “deal”:

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

    He’d agreed if he posted here afterwards, he was proving his denialism.

  53. #54 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Ah, the Brad Troll, ever willing to engage in histrionic false equivalence in order to evade an inconvenient point.”

    Uh, any reader who’s shallow, tone-blind and unskeptical enough to be “persuaded” by my histrionics that the questions really were (for realz!—not sarcastically!) comparable really has themselves to blame, don’t you think, @Loth?

    Or do you really need me to spell it out in bold type in full and everlasting view of the Unforgetting Web Itself that yes, any imagined “equivalence” is false?

    Is that the audience you assume when composing your comments, Lotharsson? Retards? Do you write for retards?

  54. #55 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    See, he’s doing it again.

    Take note, people, deniers don’t care if they look insane. Being insane, they don’t think anyone will notice.

    You know, like that old-time piss-up artist walking down the street ranting and raging at his imaginary friend.

    Both are to an extend to be pitied.

    Both to be avoided. They’re unstable.

  55. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Both to be avoided.”

    So why are you hanging around?

  56. #57 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Mind you, it’s not very scary, is it.

    Really it’s a cry for attention.

    Failed at everything, wants to be known and admired. Even if to do so it must pretend the past never happened and that what it said was never once said, that everyone “missed” the little coda that means they can stay and stamp their tiny little feet and shout for mommy.

    Shall we leave it, boys and girls?

    Leave this conflicted little insane troll to its devices. That won’t shut it up, because it knows in its heart that it can’t be ignored.

  57. #58 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Wow, follow your own advice. Keep your own counsel. Practice what you preach.

    Please.

    Avoid me!

  58. #59 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    See me approaching? Cross the street.

    Win-win. Everybody wins.

    Avoid me, Wow.

  59. #60 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    I’m begging you.

  60. #61 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon

    It’s Hour One, and no verbal sign of comprehension yet.

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Ah, that Brad, he reliably misses the point by focusing on the false equivalence and (ahem) avoiding his avoidance. Which furthers said avoidance. Which was presumably the point of missing the point.

  62. #63 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    http://www.lyricsmania.com/alcohol_lyrics_suggs.html

    On and for the fifth time tonite
    You are sliding down
    But you won’t stop there
    You start falling through the ground

    Will he make it, ha

    But he’s up, hey hey, he’s Cassius Clay
    Throwing rights and lefts
    They’re coming everyway
    Mistaking lamposts for boys and girls
    Yeah, single handedly, taking on the world

  63. #64 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Hope you like that earworm, boys and girls!

  64. #65 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Wait, Wow, I know I asked you to bugger off, but if you’re still here, one very quick question before you bugger!!!!

    The question is:

    In your opinion/imagination, why is it that you’re the only person on this or any other thread intelligent enough to realise that you answered a question I didn’t even realise I’d asked and don’t remember asking?

    Why are none of your coreligionists backing you up? Why are they so slow-witted, they haven’t even figured out that you actually have a point?

    What does it feel like to be an Angel among Men, a titan amongst halflings, Gauss in an age of Gishes, Dick Lindzen in an age of Joelle Gergises, Einstein in an age of I Am Sams, a Half Retard when all around you have gone Full Retard?

    It can’t be easy.

  65. #66 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Lotharson, any idea why he’s running after everyone here going “So avoid me, then. Go on, avoid me! Why don’t you avoid me, huh?”

    It’s not like this is a street he’s standing on and we’re walking down it.

    He has to come in here and type to this.

    Weird stalker psycho.

  66. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “and yet, the IPCC, which collects and summarises the global pool of intelligent and expert opinion on climate change may, or may not, use the word “catastrophe” – Brad doesn’t know – his opinions are not formed by the facts.”

    Dude, I know the answer WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING at the report.

    Where does my godlike ESP come from?

    It’s simply a function of the fact that, being so stupid yourself, you couldn’t even think of a hard question.

  67. #68 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    It’s pretty clear his source material doesn’t even remotely resemble any sane human being’s choice of source material.

    He doesn’t care what the IPCC publishes, his drivel is fully informed by a mixture of his own brain-farts and the brain-farts kindly provided by the crank blogs that wind him up.

    Not that any of his posts contain anything interesting or substantive – it’s all idiotic argument-sans-facts and avoidance of any previous sans-facts thus exposed.

  68. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Dude, I know the answer WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING at the report.

    And yet…you throw this word “catastrophe” around, as if it were relevant.

    To make it relevant, you could answer my question.

    I note your admission that
    a. You don’t make the effort to read valid source material
    and
    b. You make up the answers anyway.

  69. #70 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    So avoid me then, Wow.

    Go on, avoid me, Wow!

    Why don’t you avoid me, Wow?

    GO AWAY already.

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    Good grief. Kindergarten is here.

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Drama,

    allow me to blow your mind by answering your question correctly AND following my lifelong anti-intellectual denialist policy of shunning source material and avoiding bookes (which are teh geh) n leaving “equasions” to bespectacled dweebs like you, who I used to, like, flush their heads in the toilets n shit back in Middle School, back when I was really Somebody, y’know? Before my transverse ligament fucked up and I missed the draft and suddenly found myself, the fat, middle-aged quarter back married to the fat-ankled former (VERY former) prom queen, wondering where I went wrong.

    The IPCC SPM does not mention the word “catastrophe” much, IF AT ALL.

    Wow! (Not the retard—the interjection.) How did I guess???

  72. #73 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Wow (not the interjection—the retard) actually buggered off!

    What did I do right?

  73. #74 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    Lotharson, any idea why he’s running after everyone here going “So avoid me, then. Go on, avoid me! Why don’t you avoid me, huh?”

    Because projection is his most successful self-delusion technique, mesuspects.

    (That, and verbal diarrhea.)

  74. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “The IPCC SPM does not mention the word “catastrophe” much, IF AT ALL.”

    Krishna On A Stick For My Sins, were you mora actually WAITING for me to admit this before you felt you could move on to your “point”?

  75. #76 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    SO, is it not much, or not at all?

    If you’re going to criticise the consensus views of the world’s science communities, it would probably be best to actually know what those views are, wouldn’t you think?

  76. #77 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    He doesn’t care what the IPCC publishes, his drivel is fully informed by a mixture of his own brain-farts and the brain-farts kindly provided by the crank blogs that wind him up.

    But insists IN CAPITALS that they believe in the DATA (any data, which kind of explains why he’s so deluded) and thinks that books contain EVIDENCE (and one would suppose, blogrolls like WTFUWT would, to him, count as EVIDENCE that he believes in).

    And, since he hasn’t READ the reports, there’s no EVIDENCE in there that he’s seen, so it can be discarded and the WTFUWT version of it is therefore REAL!!!!

  77. #78 BBD
    January 28, 2013

    BK

    And on and on it goes.Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Incidentally, are you using some kind of stimulant?

  78. #79 FrankD
    January 28, 2013

    Well its nice to see that in this weapons-grade bout of logorrhea, Brad did manage one interesting notion:
    Quite frankly, continental drift is just as likely to ruin your life as global warming ever will!

    The relative probabilities are debateable, but the analogy works, I think, though not as Brad would seem to have intended…:-)

  79. #80 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Mind you, there doesn’t seem to be any data or evidence behind that claim.

  80. #81 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    This is just for chameleon,

    When you look at what the environmental movement spends its money on, it actually tries to spend its money on developing solutions to climate change, such as developing a solar panel industry in China, making sure everybody in India has an appropriate solar oven to reduce CO2 emissions, things like that. And they spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes. The climate change countermovement spends all of its money there.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/

  81. #82 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Brad,

    “As far as I can see, AND I’VE LOOKED, there is little in the way of evidence capable of persuading anyone (or at least, anyone who doesn’t have an a priori craving or clinamen to believe) that the probabilistic ramifications of AGW are so net-negative as to be worth doing anything other than what doctors with completely asymptomatic patients call ‘watchful waiting.’”

    You’ve LOOKED? Give me a break. You really cannot see beyond your own nose, can you?

    Yes, you are in denial. Although you realize you cannot successfully argue against the science of AGW, you are of the irrational opinion apparently gleaned from contrarian blog science, as opposed to real science, that continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is unlikely if at all to lead to massive disruption of human civilization nor the ecological systems upon which that civilization depends, or in a word, catastrophe.

    This is called minimization. You also display other symptoms of denial such as; projection, rationalization, denial of denial and DARVO.

    A warning;

    Every time you double down on the stupid, you progress on an exponential path toward infinite idiocy.

    Is that really where you want to go?

  82. #83 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @mike

    “Deltoid-land! Gaia’s unflushed, public toilet–noisome, shittoir haborage of the famous “sinker”-toid and “floater”-toid group-stink.”

    Thank you for the first adult and veridical comment in a long while here (other than mine, obviously)!

    However, your analysis then proceeds to call qualities of our host/landlord himself into question.

    I’ll be surprised and severely disappointed in Tim if he’s as censorious as people on both “sides” are saying.

    When I met him ten years ago, he seemed the kind of guy who was always up for a robust, no-holds-barred, honest exchange of disagreements about anything.

    Has he declined badly? (Due to the effects of chronic climate alarm on the prefrontal cortex, for example?)

    Did I overestimate him?

    Is my recollection faulty?

    None of the above, I hope.

  83. #84 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    How many failed flounces is that for Brad? And now the douchecanoe comes back and demands others leave?

    What an absolute infant. Pathetic.

  84. #85 Lionel A
    January 28, 2013

    luminous beauty:

    Every time you double down on the stupid, you progress on an exponential path toward infinite idiocy.

    Yep. Brad Keyes is an asymptote one where the S/N ratio has gone off the chart. Time to leave him talking to himself I figure.

  85. #86 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    I forgot one of the most potent symptoms of Brad’s denial; obfuscation. Rather than clearly stating an arguable position, he hides behind pointless sarcasm and vague and ambiguous ‘hints’.

  86. #87 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    “Yep. Brad Keyes is an asymptote one where the S/N ratio has gone off the chart. Time to leave him”

    I would be grateful if you did. Post haste. Your presence raises the Stupid/Non-stupid comments ratio, to a point where copious upscrolling is often needed just to find an intelligent person to talk to.

  87. #88 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    Shorter Brad,

    No, you’re stupid!

    Projection, thy name is Brad.

  88. #89 Bob
    January 28, 2013

    Brad Keyes is hilarious. I’d love to see what would happen if he got into an argument with Jonas! I’m not sure if this comment system is designed to cope with million-post threads…

  89. #90 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    That won’t happen, bob, since they both disagree with the IPCC.

  90. #91 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    Oh deary me. Passive-aggressive whining, delusions of grandeur, pitiful attempts at humor… you know, Brad, most people grow out of that tripe by the end of their teens. What went wrong with you?

  91. #92 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Well, it all started when he did a philosophy course and decided that made him a better scientist than all the scientists in the world.

    All he learned there was how to say fuck all and take a bloody age to do it.

    They make well-paid freelance writers (if they’re paid by the word).

  92. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    FrankD
    Brad:
    Quite frankly, continental drift is just as likely to ruin your life as global warming ever will!

    FrankD:
    The relative probabilities are debateable, but the analogy works, I think, though not as Brad would seem to have intended…:-)

    Wow:
    Mind you, there doesn’t seem to be any data or evidence behind that claim.

    Of course, Brad only does throw-away lines, so you can’t expect any evidence.
    I’m happy to get us started, though:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

  93. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    January 28, 2013

    So, Brad, your failure to explain your use of the word “catastrophe” together with your admission you are unfamiliar with the IPCC reports can be taken as an admission that you are nothing but a bullshit artist and a troll intent on wasting everybody’s time here, right?

  94. #95 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2013

    I forgot one of the most potent symptoms of Brad’s denial; obfuscation.

    Indeed. He seems like the kind of bloke who’d have trouble getting a drink at an open bar because he couldn’t state his position on what he would like to drink.

    I’d love to see what would happen if he got into an argument with Jonas!

    Why do you think I’ve been suggesting Tim confine him to that thread ;-) They’re both massively in denial, but I’m sure a creative 3rd party could find a point of difference and off they would go. The ensuing waffle war would last for years

  95. #96 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    The use of the word “catastrophe,” Johnny Drama?

    Seriously? You have no idea where it might have come from?

    I would have thought the basis for it was bleeding obvious. But then, nothing is obvious if you try hard enough, is it, Drama?

    It comes from reams and reams of following shit:

    BBD* strenuously assured me that AGW poses “an existential threat” to human civilisation.

    Ban Ki Moon declared with a straight face, just prior to the last (or second-last? or third-last?) tropical IPCC-fest, that “this is our last chance to save the planet.

    Australian Climate Commissioner Professor W. Steffen said on national radio that the question is not whether climate change is real (der, fred) but “whether or not our children will be left with a climate that is livable.

    Your favorite half-scientist half-historian Naomi Oreskes is on record saying that the dysphemism du jour, “climate disruption”, is inadequate because what we’re looking at is “climate DESTRUCTION.”

    The list goes on and on and on. Please don’t waste my time, and insult your own intelligence, by denying it.

    Now your mileage may vary, but it’s bleeding obvious to me (as are a number of things that you’ve succeded in not understanding) that all these people seem to believe in some kind of upcoming CATASTROPHE.

    * Or luminous beauty? I tend to conflate them.

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    If you don’t see that, Drama, then I have to suppose that Mithras, Krsna, the Easter Bunny and Jebus could be impaled on 4 consecutive sticks in front of your eyes and be telling you, in triplicate, that “AGW is the greatest moral challenge of our generation [Krudd et al.]” and you’d walk right on by whistling:

    “Catastrophe? Who said anything about a catastrophe? No demigod on a stick I’ve ever heard of has ever mentioned a catastrophe. Hmm. It must be some kind of strawman made up by Big Tobacco, Heartland and the New Murdochracy.”

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    Hell, even in quadruplicate! (D’oh.)

  98. #99 BBD
    January 28, 2013

    God this is painful. Brad, it’s a sliding scale – with really bad stuff at the BAU emissions end.

    You are revelling in nonsense of your own creation. Please – stop and be sensible if you are capable of it. Stop being a prat, a troll and a smug buffoon and engage.

    Otherwise I have to agree with others here – you need banning.

  99. #100 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    BBD, did I get that right then—”existential threat” was you?