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 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    No, I said that arguments are either self-evidently valid or self-evidently invalid, …

    That wasn’t what I was referring to. (That claim is not true either, but let’s let that slide.)

    In response to reasons supporting the claim that you lied about Mann abolishing the MWP, you didn’t address those reasons. Later I pointed out that (due to reasons unchallenged) it seems pretty clear that you did lie about it, and that you were now claiming not to have lied. I argued this was a lie about lying about Mann abolishing the MWP.

    At that point you responded, and I quote:

    Nope. Keep grasping.

    Are you really not smart enough to understand that this is an assertion that harks back to your “Mann abolished the MWP” claim, despite you not addressing the counter-arguments to that claim?

    Oh, wait…

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Lotharsson, you seem to think I’m being evasive. I can understand why that would frustrate an honorable (in comparison to other denizens here) disputant like you. But cheer up: you’re wrong. The only reason I no longer bother responding to your “argument” that I lied about Mann is that your “argument” is spectacularly boring, fight-picking and point-missing. I pointed out that his “abolition of the MWP” (a phrase I didn’t expect would evoke any outrage) was the key point of contention around the Hockey Stick, and that the BEST study couldn’t possibly have come to Mann’s aid since it didn’t even cover the Medieval period!

    A self-evidently valid point, one would have thought.

    But you objected to “abolition.” So I graciously offered to say “denial” instead, since Mann doesn’t accept an MWP. You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation.

    Sorry, but you can only be so paranoid before I lose interest.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    January 23, 2013

    One last thing about Chameleon’s profoundly superfifical posts:

    She draws false dichotomies time and time again. For instance, she writes this complete gobbledegook:

    “You seem to forget that humans are amongst the most successful species on the planet and one of the reasons for that is that humans can and will enhance and alter the environment. You also seem to think that mankind is somehow not part of the global environment”

    I have never once denied some of these arguments. What I am saying is that there has been an immense cost to our ecological life support systems as a result of thé ‘success’ she describes. Humans co-opt more than 40% of net primary production and 50% of net freshawater flows, leaving increasingly less for natural systems. We’ve ploughed, paved, dammed, dredged, slashed-andburned, logged, deforested, chemically altered, genetically reduced and biologically homogenized much of the biosphere. In doing so we have greatly simplified natural systems, and in the process have reduced, not increased, their capacity to support man. At present we are continuing with these various assaults at ever increasing rates blind to the fact that we are undermining critical servcies that permit us to persist and thrive.

    Now, given how dense Chammy is to the physical realities of the predicament, I might as well be discussing this with an ameoba. When she has to resort to sandbox-level arguments (e.g that humans are not part of the environment) its hard for me to crack her pachycephalosauran skull in that I never said this at all; I said that our species is not managing the biosphere in ways that are prudent in the medium to long term, given our species’ total dependence on a range of ecological services that freely emerge from natural systems and for which there are few, if any, technological substitutes.

    In the article I linked a week or so ago, which Chammy clealry did not read (she doesn’t appear to read much of the primary literature either), Chris Hedges described contemporary humans as being like cavemen who drive an entire herd of woolly mammoths over a cliff and enjoy a short-term glut on the carcasses, rather than to sustainably manage the herd to ensure a longer term food supply for the population. The metaphor is totally appropriate.

    The incredible recent succss and technological adavnces of human civilization are being made at an immense cost and which are building up an increasing ecological debt that will have to be repaid at some point. One of the main problems is that we are a rapacious bipedal primate who,despite our technological adavnaces, have not adavnced much int erms of our primitive instincts in 40,000 years. In that way we are much like our Cro-Magnon ancestors. We are part of a huge socio-political system which aims to keep wealth concentrated in the north, as well as in the hands of the privileged few, and where short-term greed trumps longer term sustainability. Those with power like to maintain the status quo and will do everything they can to dismiss or downplay clear evidence that humans and the natural world are on a major collision course. It boggles the mind why the average citizens and laypeople spew forth the nonsense that they do, given what the scientific community already knows. I wouldn’t mind if Chammy was capable of putting up even the thinnest empirical argument in favor of her views. Instead, she relies on cranks and wretched books by deniers to spew forth her gospel of doubt.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation.

    Ah, I see – you’re merely having trouble expressing yourself without using terms that have nefarious connotations when applied to scientific work, despite there being plenty of other terms in very widespread use that do not.

    My mistake.

  5. #5 bill
    January 23, 2013

    A self-evidently valid point, one would have thought.

    Yes, you would have.

    You have not yet dealt with the substance of Loth’s original point, which can be easily found, thanks to Nat Geog’s belated but helpful introduction of permalinks, here.

    Not dealing with it is, at least , consistent. Thanks in anticipation of your ongoing – and highly-revealing – evasion.

    And this is also revealing:

    Only 4 more prolix and irrelevant comments to go, Lotharsson and bilious, and you’ll have succeeded in your goal of pushing my proof of Hoegh-Guldberg’s mendacity (comment #71) back to the previous page. A tedious game.

    And there speaks the true sneak!

    I’m not even slightly concerned by your trivial complaint about Guldberg – in fact, I view it as illustrative of the level of ‘debate’ that constitutes Denial. Loth and I have both raised some of the more obvious absurd uses of language in that Quadrant ‘paper’ (and we all know to what use quadrants of paper are usually put… ;-) ): deal with that.

    Or keep on wriggling: I don’t care.

    I mean, here you are, twisting around like a well-oiled eel, and all the while castigating others for their lack of ramrod straightness… motes and beams, little Braddie, motes and beams…

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    You know, bill, we could post a copy of Brad Keyes’ claims and the responses that he has largely ignored on every new page of 100 comments. That would dispense with the martyr gambit and keep the wriggling in full view ;-) Trouble is they’d all be queueing up for special treatment, and in no time at all every new page would be full of 100 comments with unrebutted counterarguments!

    (And what is this strange idea that many readers will only read the last page of comments? Or is that just Brad revealing his own limited reading habits?)

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    January 23, 2013

    Another recent review on changes in the marine environment since the industrial revolution:

    Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2012

    Pressures on the marine environment and the changing climate of ocean biogeochemistry.

    Rees AP.

    Abstract

    The oceans are under pressure from human activities. Following 250 years of industrial activity, effects are being seen at the cellular through to regional and global scales. The change in atmospheric CO(2) from 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 392 ppm in 2011 has contributed to the warming of the upper 700 m of the ocean by approximately 0.1°C between 1961 and 2003, to changes in sea water chemistry, which include a pH decrease of approximately 0.1, and to significant decreases in the sea water oxygen content. In parallel with these changes, the human population has been introducing an ever-increasing level of nutrients into coastal waters, which leads to eutrophication, and by 2008 had resulted in 245,000 km(2) of severely oxygen-depleted waters throughout the world. These changes are set to continue for the foreseeable future, with atmospheric CO(2) predicted to reach 430 ppm by 2030 and 750 ppm by 2100. The cycling of biogeochemical elements has proved sensitive to each of these effects, and it is proposed that synergy between stressors may compound this further. The challenge, within the next few decades, for the marine science community, is to elucidate the scope and extent that biological processes can adapt or acclimatize to a changing chemical and physical marine environment

    There are some 1450 articles on the Web of Science in this area. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single one that does not accept the link between atmospheric C02 and declining marine pH levels (= ocean acidification). There is no debate now in terms of cause; the debate now lies in the possible ecological effects.What deniers do (they do it with climate change in general) is to take the undertainty over the outcome of a process and apply it to the process itself. Its another one of their less than cunning tricks, and they’ve been doing it for years.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “So Wow is back and failing as usual? What a surprise.”

    Ah, yes, nothing like a little humour.

    And that was nothing like it.

    Brat, do you know english? I can teach you if you want.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    And what is it with the paranoia – “you’re writing comments because you want to push my comment off the latest page”, “you’re only talking about the MWP because you want to distract from my other point”.

    Brad, I take it you don’t realise you’re projecting like an IMAX here?

  10. #10 Lionel A
    January 23, 2013

    Chammy dribbled again with:

    It seems like it is now becoming possible to feed more people from less land.

    Yawn. This is not something that we are unaware of, indeed you may be surprised to realise that this has been a trend ever since humans started engaging in agriculture.

    The step change came with the use of oil products to produce fertilisers (As the guano trade died – ever wondered what many of the square riggers were doing battling back and forth around Cape Horn?), pesticides and power the increasing numbers of machines, including aircraft, required to ensure a valid crop once planted. Not to mention the transportation requirements at all stages.

    This understanding, along with that of the associated rolling deforestation over millennia, informs on the long accelerating rise in GHGs, particularly CO2 and CH4, that began way before the industrial revolution. Look up William Ruddiman for more.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “It seems like it is now becoming possible to feed more people from less land.”

    It seems like we’re throwing away 1/3 of our food production.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    January 23, 2013

    Latimer

    Please check my writings, and you will find that I have not passed an opinion about either of the two topics you mention.

    Your lack of specific references is becoming tedious. Which two topics would that be now?

    It seems that they said three things.

    1 Increased CO2 gives extra photsynthesis and calcification
    2. Increased CO2 gives decreased photosynthesis and calcification

    Are you not understanding the differentiation between photosynthetic carbon fixation with rate of calcification as implied by 2?

    You will find more on this in ‘Reduced Calcification of Marine in Response to Atmospheric CO2‘ , Ul Riebesell, Ingrid Zondervan, Björn Rost, Phillipe D. Tortell, Richard E Zeebe, & François M. M. Morel. which can be found within this The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast along with much other valuable stuff for the true sceptic.

    You could also try ‘The Principles of Planetary Climate, pp 514‘ for a detailed look at the complexities of oceanic-atmospheric carbon chemistry.

    That is if you truly wish to get out more. Perhaps you are too busy elsewhere broadcasting how badly treated you have been here.

  13. #13 BBD
    January 23, 2013

    Brad Keys # 2

    But you objected to “abolition.” So I graciously offered to say “denial” instead, since Mann doesn’t accept an MWP. You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation.

    Things have moved on since 1999. Mann and others argue that the MWP is a misnomer. There were a number of regional, asynchronous and relatively brief warm periods ~900CE – ~1400CE, mainly in the NH.

    Regional, asynchronous and brief warm peaks dotted around the NH over ~500y do not constitute a ‘Medieval Warm Period’. Nor even a ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’.

    A better term would be plural: Medieval Climate Anomalies.

  14. #14 Marco
    January 23, 2013

    Brad, can you please provide evidence that Mann “doesn’t accept an MWP”?

    Or are you just creating a strawman by not accepting his MCA concept?

  15. #15 Richard Simons
    January 23, 2013
  16. #16 BBD
    January 23, 2013

    Marco # 14

    I suspect this is the old contrarian lie that climatologists (or at least the millennial-scale paleoclimate reconstruction community) is ‘trying’ to ‘get rid’ of the MWP.

    As opposed to understanding it better and describing it more accurately.

    Tired, mendacious tripe.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    It’s all from the old idea that the scientists are “making things up”.

    It’s not really about the MWP or “getting rid of the MWP”. It was always about how “dem ebil sciemtists wuz all makin fings up to get der muniez.”.

    It isn’t about how it was warmer in the past.

    It isn’t about showing the climate changes widely.

    It’s only to try and demonstrate that scientists are lying. Nothing else.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “It’s only to try and demonstrate that scientists are lying. Nothing else.”

    No, the vast majority of scientists *aren’t* lying. Scientists don’t do that.

    BTW it’s amusing how, to you people, *nothing* we say is ever about what we’re actually, you know, saying.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    No, the vast majority of scientists *aren’t* lying. Scientists don’t do that.

    So you retract the claims that the MWP is being removed falsely.

  20. #20 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2013

    Brad,

    “But you objected to “abolition.” So I graciously offered to say “denial” instead, since Mann doesn’t accept an MWP. You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation.”

    Since MBH99 clearly shows medieval temperatures higher than pre-industrial temperatures, the claim that Michael Mann denies, abolishes or does not accept an MWP is not valid.

    Neither necessarily insinuation nor nefarious. Just a bald-faced lie.

  21. #21 luminous beauty
    January 23, 2013

    Though I appreciate everyone’s efforts to deepen Latimer Adler’s thinking from insisting a single line of evidence is the only possible way of deriving a scientific conclusion by helping him look at the consilience of multiple orthogonal and corroborative lines of evidence, someone might have directed him to collections of data such as here and here.

    That’s 235832 profiles of pH ocean measurements since 1910, just from NOAA.

  22. #22 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    BTW it’s amusing how, to you people, *nothing* we say is ever about what we’re actually, you know, saying.

    Hogwash. What you say, what you claim to have said and what you say what you said means changes by the minute. You mount your goalposts on a rocket sled and hope nobody goes back and verifies your comments against what came before.

    Do you really think we haven’t seen this tripe before?

  23. #23 Ian Forrester
    January 23, 2013

    Keyes admits that neither he nor Alder are scientists:

    No, the vast majority of scientists *aren’t* lying. Scientists don’t do that

    Since it is obvious that both lie through their teeth then they can’t be scientists, which is of course obvious from the junk that they post.

  24. #24 Latimer Alder
    January 23, 2013

    Folks

    Apologies for the temporary break in transmission. Real-world problems have rather overtaken my blogging.

    To those of you who attempted to have a civilised debate – thanks for your time.

    For the rest – I thought you’d appreciate this little clip of how the best professionals achieve the same goals as you

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk

    And to those (thankfully few) who’ll have no truck with such lily-livered mealy-mouthed copouts, here’s a nice video of the life and times of your moral and intellectual guru

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4N46jLdhCU

    And if I ever meet anyone who’s in need of a Witchfinder-General or the services of Dial-A-Lynch Mob, I’ll make sure to bring this blog to their attention.

    A bientot – bis gleich!

    Latimer

  25. #25 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Oh dear.

    Flouncing already, Latte?

  26. #26 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    The McCarthy witchhunts are almost identical to the GOP witchhunts against prominent climate scientists.

    It is COMPLETELY EXPECTED that the knuckle-dragger would get it arse about face, mind, and think that Mann is persecuting Inholfe for “unamerican activities”.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/25/205560/sen-inhofe-inquisition-seeking-ways-to-criminalize-and-prosecute-17-leading-climate-scientists/

  27. #27 Lionel A
    January 23, 2013

    And that is the best you can come up with is it Latimer when you realise that you have gone off-piste and made yourself look not only ignorant but stupid too?

    Just like that room full of cockroaches that I walked across (i wondered what the heck I was walking on in the dark) before getting to the light switch at the far end, as I hit the switch for lights the carpet moved to the walls – to hide away.

    Here is a clip for you Latimer ‘Cleese’ Alder

  28. #28 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    Seriously? Aside from the irony-meter-exploding Orwell reference… accusations of McCarthyism? Mr. Alder, you can take your persecution complex and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Pathetic.

    0/5 for content. 5/5 for whining. Need better trolls.

  29. #29 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Stu, due to recent terrorist activities, irony meters are now classed as munitions and cannot be had for civilian use.

  30. #30 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    Lionel, you missed the tale of brave Sir Latimer.

  31. #31 BBD
    January 23, 2013

    Latimer

    You never answered my questions, although I repeated them three times. Duly noted. I will ask again next time this comes up.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    BBD, I agree not to ask or respond to any questions of/to Latte until that one is answered.

    Does everyone else here agree to do so?

    Until BBD’s query is answered, we refuse to answer any queries from Latte.

    After all, after the flounce, there’s always the bounce.

    The idiot will be back:

    Proverbs 26:11.

    As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Wow prophesies:

    “The idiot will be back:

    Proverbs 26:11….”

    So this is a faith-based site. Noted.

  34. #34 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Really? Where do you get that idea from, Brat?

    No mention of God there.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Brat, are you saying that anything a Christian says is automatically wrong?

  36. #36 bill
    January 23, 2013

    A faith-based site, you say?

    Gee, Brad, you’ve got us there: I mean, just the other day I quoted Ecclesiastes 9:11 (spooky eh!) -

    The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong

    Albeit the Damon Runyon version that ends -

    but that’s the way to bet

    You ever heard of this thing we call ‘education’? The King James version is one of the truly great works of rhetoric, and, as a confirmed Atheist – someone who literally never believed, despite a Methodist upbringing that taught me a lot of values I still admire – who loves cathedral architecture and a bit of Gospel music (the real problem is that it’s Jesus that has all the best tunes!) I’m more-than-happy to make use of it…

    Also: yep, we can disallow everything, say, John Cook says because he’s a Christian!

    But I’m wasting my time talking to you – see Matthew 7:6

  37. #37 chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    Wow,
    If you want to lay semantic traps and ask pointless tactical questions, you need to take some lessons from Lotharsson.
    He at least has a bit of class.
    JeffH,
    You continue to sneer and huff and puff and labour under the theory that there is a ‘massive anti environmental movement out there’ or that there is some type of evil group funded by mysteriously tainted money called ‘climate change deniers’.
    You are talking about POLITICS JeffH
    You are basically claiming that ‘science’ supports a particular political theory.
    That’s rubbish JeffH.
    You further claim that anyone who disagrees with your political theorising is automatically a ‘denier’ or an ‘anti environmentalist’
    Even people like Bjorn L who has no issue with any of the ‘science’ gets sneered at by you because his policy platform is different to yours.
    That is ‘utter tosh’ whichever way you attempt to claim that.
    Let me try to explain this to you again JeffH
    Just because people have a different political or policy platform to you does NOT automatically mean that they don’t care about the environment OR that they ‘DENY’ the science.
    Neither does it automatically mean that they are a member of some massive and/or highly organised anti science and/or anti environment movement ‘out there’.
    BTW JeffH, where do you think ‘out there’ is?
    Apparently JeffH, after all those papers and all those years of lecturing etc, ‘out there’ (wherever that is) is not paying attention to you.
    Maybe you actually need to get ‘out there’ as Latimer has suggested?
    Perhaps ‘out there’ can learn something from you and you can learn something from being ‘out there’?

  38. #38 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    If you want to lay semantic traps and ask pointless tactical questions

    Thereby demonstrating that Chubby here can’t understand English.

    “Until BBD’s query is answered, we refuse to answer any queries from Latte.”

    Doesn’t translate even by Babelfish into “ask pointless tactical questions”.

  39. #39 bill
    January 23, 2013

    How many flounces is that for Lati now?

    And he chooses to go out with that interesting projection of persecution which was his motif throughout.

    1 / projection – please demonstrate your criticism of the blatant hatespeech of Monckton, Delingpole, Morano, or, even, say, Tucci 78. You even warmly accepted the admiration of the most genuinely scary nutter we’ve had turn up here.

    2 / yep, you can come here and say whatever you like, including admitting you’re trolling – deliberately stirring people up – without restriction, but if anyone’s impolite to you you immediately switch to playing the victim and start squealing à la ‘being rude is how the Nazis started’! Manipulative, hysterical, and more than a little dishonest.

    Certainly, if there is indeed substance to his claimed academic pedigree I can see that his experience here must have been quite genuinely traumatically humiliating.

    Particularly if drawing attention to his mean persecution at the hands of the nasty Deltoids meant that any lurking cheersquad got to see just how much clay his feet were made of… (that’s a reference to Daniel 2:41 – 43, by the way, Brad)

    But biting off far more than you can chew is always your own problem.

    I see Chebbie’s still typing.

  40. #40 chek
    January 23, 2013

    Camo, try informing yourself first before spluttering your vapid imaginings based on ten minutes interest in the subject as mediated by a twelve year old’s logic. And understand that some have a view based on a career’s worth of direct experience of which they speak, not idle chit-chat with their hairdresser..

    This may start to give you some idea by way of introduction to what you either don’t or profess not to know about. Or likely will be way above your pay grade and over your head.

  41. #41 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Aw, c’mon Chek , that’s hardly fair: Chebbie can’t even parse the likes of troglodyte brutalist James Delingpole, and you’re sending her off to sort out the complex mind-mapping of John M? ;-)

    Merchants of Doubt. Anyone who claims there isn’t an anti-environmental industry needs to either read it or shut their mouths.

  42. #42 chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    Chek,
    “And understand that some have a view based on a career’s worth of direct experience of which they speak, not idle chit-chat with their hairdresser..

    This may start to give you some idea by way of introduction to what you either don’t or profess not to know about. Or likely will be way above your pay grade and over your head.”

    This is more of the same sneering and POLITICAL rubbish.
    And what on earth would you know about my pay grade?
    Maybe I don’t have a pay grade Chek?
    Maybe I run my own business or maybe I decide what I pay others?
    Maybe I’m independantly wealthy or maybe I’m on social security or too young to work or too old to work or on compensation or many, many other possibilities?
    It is an incredibly stupid and irrelevant comment!
    No matter what I do or what my pay grade is or isn’t I have just as much right to comment on an issue of public policy as anyone else, including you!
    I have no issue with JeffH’s position and/or experience.
    He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera.
    You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.
    That is ‘utter tosh’ Chek.
    While I don’t disagree that economic theory and/or political theories are important I completely disagree that ‘science’ and/or ‘scientists’ support only one view.
    In fact scientists like to argue. I believe it was Walter Starck (marine biologist) who said that the behaviour we are witnessing is like an ‘academic pissing contest’.
    As I have commented several times, the surrounding politics and media (from whichever side you care to name) have misused and abused the projective modelling.
    This particular post is an excellent example.
    People are focusing on protecting their predictions and protecting their political theories.
    That has precious little to do with ‘science and the environment’.

  43. #43 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Chubby, nothing you’ve ever said has been about “science and the environment”.

    Since you keep bringing in politics and conspiracy theories (and just plain old idiocy), it’s rather ham of you to complain about the conversation going that way.

    Don’t like it?

    Stick to the science.

    (though you can’t: not only do you know nothing about it, limiting yourself to merely the truth and scientifically tested claims would be devastating to your cause)

  44. #44 Gaz
    January 23, 2013

    “You are basically claiming that ‘science’ supports a
    particular political theory.”

    That comment from Chameleon pretty much says it all.

    So what if science tells us something that has poltical implications?

    Climate science says we have some important decisions to make. Rejection of science because of that is childish.

    What I’d like is for even one of these science deniers to just have the grit to admit that they know AGW is real and will have serious consequences but that they simply don’t care.

    Their cowardice when faced by reality is utterly pathetic.

    From now one I’m going to refer to than as climate change cowards.

  45. #45 Gaz
    January 23, 2013

    *on

  46. #46 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    And does ANYONE know where chubby gets their “apparently” from to make this statement?

    You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.

  47. #47 chek
    January 24, 2013

    You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.

    Which I’m not, but as Gaz points out the simple scientific solution – stop making things worse – has political implications that impinge on the most riches producing industry on the planet.

    Note that ‘riches’ are entirely different concept to ‘wealth, and there you have everything. The campaign, the bought and paid for politicians, and the fake grass-roots outreach group motivators who reach all the way down to your own uninformed blatherings with your hairdresser

    The proof? You judge a washed up ex-chemistry student failure like Lati to have expertise commensurate with the world’s leading published researchers Because you wish that were true, regardless of the asymmetry of the facts.

    Give it up Camo, you’re transparent and worse, you’re boring..

  48. #48 Stu
    January 24, 2013

    Christ on a crutch, this is a dumb one.

    This is more of the same sneering and POLITICAL rubbish.

    This was in direct response to someone making fun of basing one’s opinions on the perception of their hairdresser’s.

    That is political now?

    And what on earth would you know about my pay grade?

    From your inability to parse even basic information, it seems fair and safe to infer that nobody is paying you a significant amount of money, since you’d be unable to perform anything but the most rudimentary of tasks.

    Maybe I don’t have a pay grade Chek?

    Ah! A clue, Sherlock!

    Maybe I run my own business or maybe I decide what I pay others?

    Maybe. Sometimes it’s easier for the completely inept to use connections to find money to start a business. Usually, the business is niche, without competition, and the money is usually a government grant specifically designed to fill said niche.

    Oddly, the owners of businesses like these without fail quickly amass sufficient cognitive dissonance to become full-on Rand fans, and to rag on government assistance of any kind. Personally, I think it isn’t necessarily the full-on Austrian I-got-mine-screw-you school of thought.

    Maybe I’m independantly wealthy

    No, I’m pretty damned sure you’re not. But hey, if you are, could you please hire a spell-checker?

    or maybe I’m on social security or too young to work or too old to work or on compensation or many, many other possibilities?

    Again, I think you are the owner, co-owner or manager of a small business that was started with money that was not your own. Please feel free to correct me.

    No matter what I do or what my pay grade is or isn’t I have just as much right to comment on an issue of public policy as anyone else, including you!

    Ah, yes… now we’re getting to the Don’t Tread On Me, I Pay Taxes nitty-gritty. You have the right to your opinion, but not the right to your own facts.

    I have no issue with JeffH’s position and/or experience.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You have no end of issues with his position, and you very much resent him using his qualifications to back up positions that should not be, but are in the political realm.

    He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera.

    Stop shouting, you infant. And if you are going to be pretentious and spell out Latin abbreviations, please use the magical google-machine and do it right. It’s “et cetera”.

    All you’ve done so far is bob, weave, not provide credentials and fail spectacularly and pathetically when you’ve tried to be pretentious. I’m sorry, but there’s a rule on the Internet — especially when coming to a science site –: odds are that on any specific topic, there is someone out there, and quite possible a person you are talking to, that knows more about the topic than you do. Any topic. Any topic at all. You can pick math, physics, environmental science, Latin or German folk songs of the 70s. Someone here knows more than you.

    Learn some humility, Napoleon.

    You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.

    Science has a well-known liberal bias. I’m sorry you don’t like it. Just because you’re still swooning from your recent re-read of Atlas Shrugged does not mean any of your opinions have any merit whatsoever. That’s the entire point of science, and it’s the entire thing you don’t like about it.

    While I don’t disagree that economic theory

    Economic theory will only get you so far. In a sense, economic theory is trying to be Hari Seldon. Economics, in the end, is subject to human vagaries and as such inherently unpredictable, since it is inherently irrational. If economics was rational, there would be no bubbles.

    I completely disagree that ‘science’ and/or ‘scientists’ support only one view.

    Pathetic. You cling to a small cadre of bought-and-paid-for loons to tell you what you want to hear. In actual climate science, there is no controversy. The sad attempts at the Galileo gambit fail on one simple yardstick: Galileo had proof.

    <blockquote.In fact scientists like to argue.

    Yes, that’s kind of the point of science. But if one scientist comes up with proof, the arguing stops. That is even more to the point.

    Do you have proof? No? Didn’t think so.

    I believe it was Walter Starck (marine biologist) who said that the behaviour we are witnessing is like an ‘academic pissing contest’.

    Oh hi, clown. You cannot dismiss scientists as having no authority and in the next paragraph attempt an argument from authority just because you found one scientist that says something you like. You pathetic hypocrite.

    Another hint: science does not depend on who says what. If you have a devastating argument, publish it. If it holds water, you are up for a Nobel.

    As I have commented several times, the surrounding politics and media (from whichever side you care to name) have misused and abused the projective modelling.

    You’re a transparent and obvious liar. You don’t like the political consequences of climate change, so you are circling back and are trying to find anything to discredit the underlying science. It is all POLITICS for you. It’s all you care about. It’s all you talk about. Who do you think you are fooling?

    People are focusing on protecting their predictions and protecting their political theories.

    Oh dearie me, the projection is strong in this one.

    That has precious little to do with ‘science and the environment’.

    How would you know? What is your background in science?

  49. #49 Stu
    January 24, 2013

    I biffed two block quotes in that one, but I think it should be obvious where.

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    Chameleon, it must be obvious to you that you aren’t very clever.

    Using crank blogs like Anthony Watts’ WUWT is a big mistake on your part – there, you will experience people who are much cleverer than you who will lie to you, and your lack of intelligence means you will fail to spot their lies for what they are.

    The net result is that you become even less well informed than you were when you were merely ignorant.

    You’ve now become ignorant AND you’re repeating others’ non-sensical lies.

    I don’t know what to suggest, really, there doesn’t seem like there’s much hope for you.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Since MBH99 clearly shows medieval temperatures higher than pre-industrial temperatures, the claim that Michael Mann denies, abolishes or does not accept an MWP is not valid.”

    Ah yes, Mike’s Nature trick paper. Is that the one for which he won his Nobel Prize? You’re quite right though, I should have said “reaffirmed” rather than “abolished.”

  52. #52 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.

    The problem is not that the reality of the situation supports one particular position, it is that many politicians, who tend to be concentrated on the right, ignore reality or, as they prefer to put it, ‘create their own reality’. The physics that informs us that Earth is warming and will continue to warm pays no attention to politicians, no matter how well-connected they are and no matter how much you bleat about how unfair it is.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Fuck me! I thought we’d seen the heights of self-delusion, but Orwell and McCarthy as distractions whilst brave Sir Latimer runs away from inconvenient questions and data really takes the cake. And this from the guy that Brad Keyes was cheering on as “heroic”, and who claimed for himself that he was here for fun.

    I ask again, what the heck is it with the paranoia? Brad keeps claiming we have ulterior motives for commenting on his comments on a blog, where, you know, comments are considered part of the purpose of the thing. Chameleon sees “semantic traps” and “tactical questions” everywhere, and comments based on science have by now turned in to POLITICS. And then there’s Latimer’s latest full bore freakout.

    I’ve lost track – is that two or three flounces from Latimer now?

    I agree with Wow – BBD’s question should be the first order of business when Latimer returns. (Second should be why he didn’t find the NOAA data that luminous beauty pointed to…) Not that he’ll actually answer it – he’s left a trail of dodgy claims whose rebuttals have been left unanswered.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    I should have said “reaffirmed” rather than “abolished.”

    Nope. That would be wrong for the same reasons “abolished” was wrong. You really struggle to make true claims, don’t you?

    Keep trying – once you’re almost out of options your chances of getting it right via dumb luck will have increased.

    (And isn’t it interesting that you simply can’t find a way to express any sort of assessment of Mann’s work that doesn’t echo the language and memes of the kinds of distortions that denialism has indulged in with regard to Mann since about, oh, I don’t know, 1999?)

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    And what on earth would you know about my pay grade?

    “Above your pay grade” is an idiomatic expression, chameleon.

    It is not referring to your financial situation.

    Go look it up. However, I fear that the definition and usage of the expression (ahem) might be above your pay grade too. But maybe a little research on that front will garner you a promotion?

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    I believe it was Walter Starck (marine biologist) who said that the behaviour we are witnessing is like an ‘academic pissing contest’.

    Walter Starck reads Deltoid? Who knew?!

    Oh, wait…you’re just co-opting what someone else once said, applying it to a different situation (which you have reliably and thoroughly misinterpreted) and trying to hijack his reputation for an argument by authority. In other words more of your typical sophistry – carry on if you like but we all see through it.

    I completely disagree that ‘science’ and/or ‘scientists’ support only one view.

    Ah, so ‘science’ also supports a view other than the expectation this apple I’m about to drop is going to hit my floor shortly afterwards? Who the fuck knew?! The politicians have clearly been lying to me about this one, the bastards!

    Fortunately you were here to educate us! Now I can drop ALL my food and not worry about it hitting the unhygienic floor! And just think of the savings in cleaning bills! Please, please, help me with one small problem – how do I get this alternative view to become operative against the objective reality in my house? I’m getting very hungry, the ants and cockroaches and rodents seem to grow larger by the day and I’m seriously considering caving in to the consensus view and doing some floor cleaning.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    But hey, if you are, could you please hire a spell-checker?

    I’d suggest a writer. And heck, let’s go the whole hog and solve the other part of the problem – a reader and an interpreter. Between the three of them it might work. If not, a thinker might be necessary to round out the group.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    When Latimer returns, perhaps 3rd order of business after BBD’s questions and luminous beauty’s data might be how the scientists at EPOCA responded when Latimer offered to correct their Ocean Acidification FAQ. I’d love to hear how he got on.

    Brad, confronting the [choose your adjective] scientists who are [choose your adverb] promoting completely unjustified – completely, Latimer says, and he should know, right? – claims about ocean acidification to the chemically uneducated public – now that would be actually heroic, rather than merely engaging in a bit of ducking and weaving and refusing to answer straightforward questions on a blog.

    Wouldn’t you agree?

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    What is “denialism”, Lotharsson? No dictionary I have access to is of any help in the matter.

    And since we’re making up words, I’ll try one last time to pacify you: Dr Mann debolished the MWP. That’s my final offer. Debolished.

  60. #60 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

    This one Wow!
    Pay attention!
    Good grief!
    ‘Brat, are you saying that anything a Christian says is automatically wrong?’
    You seriously need to take some lessons from Lotharsson if you want to play like this Wow.
    At least Lotharsson demonstrates a bit of class .

    Stu, Vince, Richard, Chek et al,
    That is more of the same.
    The issue is policy platforms, legislation and politics.
    Despite all your personal attacks, your personal insults, your semantic traps and your not so brilliant powers of deduction about what I read or what I do; I am neither your sworn enemy nor a sworn card carrying enemy of ‘the environment’.
    You’re all claiming a belief in an organised campaign/organisation ‘out there’ that is something to do with a ‘massive anti environmental movement’ and is peopled by all these ‘right wingers’ who all ‘deny the science’ in the same manner that people denied the holocaust.
    You seem to think they all huddle together in some type of organisation called ‘climate change deniers’ and work from a ‘playbook’ (designed by big tobacco????)
    JeffH then further developed that same theme over 3 comments after complaining that ‘climate change deniers’ believe that the UN, the theory of global governance and government grants are a conspiracy theory.
    You all then turned yourselves inside out to argue with me when I pointed out the very simple fact that all 3 of those could not possibly be a conspiracy because they all have official sanction and all have official websites.
    Australia is definitely a member of the UN and the Australian Govt definitely funds research into deliberative global governance.
    Look it up: is all perfectly googleable deltoids!
    In fact, the only one I can’t find is this organisation known as ‘climate change deniers’ and later ‘the massive anti environmental movement out there’.
    In your comments you reveal a whole morass of political bias that then leads you to make totally unfounded assumptions about the motives and political biases of others when they question your biases.
    It’s largely rubbish but it does make for amusing reading.
    And Richard:
    Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but your lecturer was apparently an expert in crop physiology in the late 60′s.
    Shouldn’t he be listened to from his expertise and qualifications?
    You didn’t appreciate the irony re the Matt Ridley article?
    Your tactical explanation above is entirely redundant and once again just a pointless and irrelevant personal attack.
    You didn’t need to explain Richard, it was fairly obvious what you were attempting to do.
    And Stu?
    I thought I needed to give some more information re Walter Starck so that perhaps Bill could google him and check for the comment.
    It wasn’t an attempt to put him up as a ‘bigger daddy than your daddy’ type of thing :-)

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Chameleon—do you dare suggest there’s no massive anti-environmental movement? Then go read Merchants of Doubt. Not that it contains any evidence of such a movement’s existence, but it is an execrable book and by reading it you’ll be torturing yourself for 4 or so hours, which will serve you right for being such a meanie as to suggest there’s no such thing as a massive anti-environmental movement out there!

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Just remember, when you read it, not to burst out laughing at Naomi Oreskes’ obvious unfamiliarity with science. Sure, she says beryllium is a heavy metal and the pH of a neutral solution is 6.0, but it’s verboten to derive any levity from such oases of non-seriousness. It is a punishment, young man/lady. You are being punished.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Good grief. Brad is playing the “I don’t see nuthin’” game with the definition of “denialism” now. I guess that’s all he’s got left…

  64. #64 bill
    January 24, 2013

    How would you know, Brad? You’re not claiming you’ve read it, surely?

    Tell me about, say, Seitz, Singer, Jastrow and Nierenberg, and all the various things they’ve opposed over the years, pet? Any commonality there, little man?

    Then you can tell us about, oh, I don’t know, the CEI, Marshall, Heritage, SPPI,and Heartland. One could go on.

    Your ignorance of something is not much in the way of a recommendation. It’s such a huge field, where does one even begin.

    Dork.

    Chebbie’s just an inconsequential idiot. Not much point suggesting she be exposed to any source of learning; it’ll simply bounce off

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    You seem to think they all huddle together in some type of organisation called ‘climate change deniers’…

    Sigh.

    Almost the entire comment is a tour de force of rebutting her own miscomprehensions – even ones that have already been explained to her.

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Yes bill, I’m claiming I’ve read it. I was young and naive. I kept thinking it would get better.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Running away from the question, Lotharsson? C’mon, you’re the one alleging there’s some force you call denialism out there. The least you could do is point us to a definition.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Anyone who recommends Merchants of Doubt except as an instrument of ocular torture is clearly a sub-Dan-Brownian conspiracy junkie.

    Nah, just kidding, Oreskes’ and Conway’s exposé is a tour-de-force of truth. (And they’re obviously scientifically literate; all rumors to the contrary are just cruel denialist(tm) black propaganda.) Denial of The Science(tm) really, honest-to-god, is due to the efforts of a crack squad of time-travelling Jewish tobacco scientists.

    *makes circumtemporal gesture with index fingers and whistles*

  69. #69 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but your lecturer was apparently an expert in crop physiology in the late 60′s.

    I mentioned that he was a crop physiologist merely to illustrate that knowledge of the evidence pointing to the expectation of global warming was not restricted to a small clique of evil climatologists secretly in the pay of a James Bond villain. You can drop the subject now – I think you have adequately demonstrated that you have not the slightest inkling of the science behind the concept of global warming.

    You didn’t appreciate the irony re the Matt Ridley article?

    No. You’ll have to explain as, even now that you’ve told me that it was ironic, I fail to see it. Are you sure you are using ‘irony’ correctly?

    Your tactical explanation above is entirely redundant and once again just a pointless and irrelevant personal attack.

    I think it far from pointless or irrelevent to try to impress upon a persistent contributor of nonsense that they are totally ignorant of the topic under discussion.

    You didn’t need to explain Richard, it was fairly obvious what you were attempting to do.

    You have been known to miss the obvious before. And I succeeded in demonstrating that you are completely ignorant on the subject you have been rattling on about, didn’t I?

  70. #70 bill
    January 24, 2013

    I don’t believe you, Brad, you’re just chumming.

    For a start, it’s a 13 frickin ‘ hour audio book – check, you nitwit! – and you just claim to have read it in 4!

    ‘Beryllium’ not being a ‘heavy’ metal is just pointless nitpicking. Or are you denying it’s toxic now?

    And pH 6 – let’s see, in work of 368 pages, how many mistakes would you expect to find?

    Oh, and oh, the irony! You followed someone here who was claiming knowledge of chemistry he clearly does not possess, didn’t you? Must suck to be you!

    I mean you generally can’t even get through a comment without a stuff-up, Braddie! And here you are nitpicking those who actually are achievers.

  71. #71 Richard Simons
    January 24, 2013

    PS: Chameleon – I would have been thrilled if you had been able to give a coherent answer to my question as it would indicate that some progress would be possible.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Running away from the question, Lotharsson?

    Yep, called it – that’s all you’ve got left.

    That and bald assertions.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “I don’t believe you, Brad, you’re just chumming.”
    Hey bilious one, don’t believe my admission if you don’t want to. It’s not like I’m proud of it.

    “For a start, it’s a 13 frickin ‘ hour audio book – check, you nitwit! – and you just claim to have read it in 4!”

    Lol. Revealing your level of literacy there, bilious.

    Never mind. Once you learn to read without moving your lips you’ll find that such time-bending feats are indeed possible.

    (It did take me rather less than 4 hours, but I was allowing chameleon extra time to throw it across the room in disgust before picking it up again in charity.)

  74. #74 bill
    January 24, 2013

    You see, little Brad, I don’t think you’re any more committed to veracity than any of your heroes are.

    I put it to you that you have not read the book – you are just regurgitating Denialist chum-nuggets on the subject of it.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “‘Beryllium’ not being a ‘heavy’ metal is just pointless nitpicking.”

    Yeah, you’re right. The kind of attention to detail required to notice that the 4th element in the periodic table isn’t exactly “heavy” is clearly too much to ask of a half-scientist, half-historian, even if Oreskes claims she was a geologist. I shouldn’t be so pedantic on the poor dear.

  76. #76 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

    yes I think a solid defintion of whatever the hell ‘denialism’ means to the people who continue to use the word here would definitely be helpful.
    It is after all a key word that is used over and over and over again at this site.
    ;-)

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Who are my “heroes,” bilious one?

    This ought to be fun.

    (No need to answer quickly, feel free to have someone read the question out to you.)

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “I think a solid defintion of whatever the hell ‘denialism’ means to the people who continue to use the word here would definitely be helpful.”

    Yeah, and I’d even settle for a definition of Denialism, as bill spells it.

  79. #79 chameleon
    January 24, 2013

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

  80. #80 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Gee, a graduate of Evelyn Woodhead, eh! And you just happened, by amazing coincidence, to pick the same points as Fred Singer? Just like the rest of your tribe? Nice level of hive-mind comprehension, there.

    Anyone believe him? Didn’t think so…

  81. #81 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Gee, Chebbie rather lets the side down there because it’s a Well Known Fact that calling you lot Deniers is specifically accusing you of rejecting the Holocaust. Tskk…

    And you reckon she could read a 13 hour spoken tome in 4. I’m sure she’d certainly know as much about it as you do at the end of that time!

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “And you just happened, by amazing coincidence, to pick the same points as Fred Singer?”

    Did I? That would hardly be coincidental. Anyone who read it without noticing that it was a farcical anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet would be “amazing”.

    …ly dense.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Gee, I wonder if we’ll be treated to 3 rants in a row from the bilious one starting with “Gee.”

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    …but it is a term that can be applied to just about anything.

    Why, yes it can! You got one right!

    Now we need to discuss the concept of context which is used by high school students to interpret the meaning of words that can be applied to more than one thing.

  85. #85 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Actually, Brad: since you’ve read the book, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson.

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Now we need to discuss the concept of context which is used by high school students to interpret the meaning of words that can be applied to more than one thing.”

    Not so fast. What you owe us first is a definition. If you have to resort to wikipedia for it, you’ll be confirming that you pulled the concept ex posteriori.

  87. #87 bill
    January 24, 2013

    anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet

    Ha ha ha! That’s really funny! You’re going to have to justify that one, poppet!

    So you’re a victim of a persecution mania as well…

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Actually, bill, since you heard the book… nah, doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. Never mind.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    Riiiiiiiight.

    So…do we add anti-Semitical conspiracy pamphlet to “Orwell’s 2 minutes of hate” and “McCarthy”?

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    If you have to resort to wikipedia for it, you’ll be confirming that you pulled the concept ex posteriori.

    Logic.

    U ain’t doin it.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet

    So you’re a victim of a persecution mania as well…”

    Gee jiminy willickers, if only I were Jewish your comment might have a patina of plausibility, bilious.

  92. #92 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Look, poppet, even the nutter blogs aren’t backing you on that one. You’re all on your own.

    So, how is it an ‘anti-Semitic pamphlet’? Did you make a mistake when you quickly skimmed a google search of something on Jo Nova’s, perhaps?

    Think anybody hasn’t noticed that you’re flailing badly here, little man?

    (Also: what was that word you were bandying about earlier? Defamation? Might be a good idea to piss off about now, pet. Altogether.)

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    33 comments and counting since I asked in vain for a definition of “denialism.” Time to call off the search party methinks.

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    If I were someone who “thought” like Brad, I’d be thinking “Which comment is Brad trying to push off the ‘front page’ by posting so many comments – could it be heroic Latimer’s rapid advance in a rearwards direction?”

    But I’m not, so I don’t.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    “Also: what was that word you were bandying about earlier? Defamation?”

    You’re probably thinking of “denialism, waiting for a definition thereof.”

  96. #96 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Gee jiminy willickers, if only I were Jewish your comment might have a patina of plausibility, bilious.

    Gee, deadhead, let me get this straight: you’re not projecting an entirely imaginary – and highly-inflammatory – persecution, here, simply because you’re not a member of the group you claim is being persecuted?

    But, by all means, do go on! Perhaps we’ll get some professional opinions – lawyers, perhaps? – on all this shortly, eh?

    You read it, after all. Evidence of anti-Semitism, please.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    No, there’s no undertone at all in Oreskes’ use of her historical creativity to choose Nierenberg, Jastrow, Singer and Seitz as her 4 “Merchants” to represent the entire hemisphere of CAGW skepticism. What was I thinking? There’s absolutely no literary tradition I can possibly fit that into.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    Genius.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2013

    I’d also be thinking “Brad’s claiming to have read a whole book about the denialism industry, and he still doesn’t know what the word ‘denialism’ means. That’s pretty poor on the comprehension front, even by our low, low troll standards.”

    ;-)

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    January 24, 2013

    40 comments and counting.

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

    Have some dignity and admit it.