Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Do you understand the difference between validity and truth, chek?

    More “Squirrel!”

  2. #2 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Papers can’t tell you anything, Bray.

    They have no vocal chords.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    chameleon, I propose we starve Wow of the attention he craves until and unless he confesses which supposed scientist said that absurdly infrascientific twaddle he quoted yesterday about consensus.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I suppose that’s one way to avoid the questions you can’t answer.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction.

  6. #6 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Wow,
    Seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to answer someone else’s question yet again; please point us to the place where Muller et al agrees with Chek’s assessment.
    And please while you’re finding that, could you also let us know who’s the ‘someone’ you quoted.
    If you can’t/won’t do that could you please just hang out at the Feb 2013 thread and join the commenters there who are discussing this thread?
    That way maybe BBD and others could possibly have half a chance to be noticed.
    At the moment we could legitimately ask Tim to rename this thread the ‘Wowism’ thread.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction.

    Oh, that’s letting me off lightly, Wow. What you should do, Wow, is “starve” this thread for a good 2 months or so. That’s the only way I’ll learn my lesson. Deprive me of the oxygen that is you, Wow. I know it’s cruel, but I have to be disciplined.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    And please while you’re finding that, could you also let us know who’s the ‘someone’ you quoted.

    Yes please—as one last cruelty here, why don’t you embarrass me by revealing to the world that the quotation I mocked as so moronic “no scientist could have come up with it” actually came from a bona fide scientist, just like you’ve been insisting for the last 24 hours.

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Did it work, chameleon? Did the average mental age on this thread just go up 15 years? Oh frabjous day!

  10. #10 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    All you need to do Brad is stop making feeble excuses, stop constantly posting, and read.

    You may be able to address some of the following without references. For instance, the vexed question over the precise nature of your position. It’s never been clear. I’ve noticed you use the term ‘alarmist’ a few times. This would suggest one of three things:

    - You think the atmospheric physics is wrong

    - You don’t, but you think the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 is too high.

    - You agree with the evidence – not the consensus; we can ignore that – but you dispute that a 2.5C – 3C increase in global average temperature will be much of a problem.

    Please clarify your position. Thanks.

    ***

    If you haven’t read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not? You asked for evidence so often I assumed that you were interested in reviewing some. This puzzles me.

    ***

    There’s a couple of things worth reading if you are interested in the scientific consensus. Knutti & Hegerl (2008) reviews the evidence and the uncertainty and is a good place to start. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) demonstrates how the ‘fat tail’ of high sensitivity estimates can be docked. Anti-alarmist science in action ;-)

    I would like to see some *evidence* of good faith as demonstrated by your reviewing some of the *evidence* and giving the forum your considered, detailed views on it. Time to walk the walk.

    One other thing. You recently referred to yourself as a realist. To be a realist one must know the details otherwise reality is not known and one cannot self-describe as a realist. I cannot understand why someone with formal training in logic would describe themselves as a realist while freely admitting to be substantially unaware of the detail. How do you account for this?

  11. #11 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    I have a question.
    How come Wow leaps in and answers questions for other people but refuses to answer a direct and very simple question to Wow?
    Let’s try again:
    WOW!!!!!!
    THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
    From whence and from whom did that quote originate?

  12. #12 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity.

    Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change.

    Hansen & Sato (2012) Climate sensitivity estimated from Earth’s climate history

    Hansen et al (preprint) Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric CO2.

  13. #13 chek
    February 16, 2013

    The unprecedented warming in the 20th century matches very well? Seriously?

    Do feel free to point out the key differences Cammy. Incredulity – especially coming from you – is meaningless.

  14. #14 chek
    February 16, 2013

    BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction

    Agreed.

  15. #15 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    Going back into deep geological time:

    Royer et al. (2004) CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate.

    Royer (2006) CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic.

    Tripati et al. (2009) Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years

    And back to the Cenozoic again:

    An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics

  16. #16 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    Sorry, that last links is to Zachos et al. (2008) An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics.

  17. #17 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    All

    Please feel free to add any useful papers on sensitivity and/or the relationship between CO2 and paleoclimate change to the list for BK. My rather rushed contribution is by no means offered as definitive. I have to go out now but will of course look back in this evening (UK time).

  18. #18 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Here you go Chek,
    http://www.scitechnol.com/ArchiveGIGS/articleinpressGIGS.php
    You will find the paper in question here.
    Let me know when you find that CONFIRMATION of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST.

  19. #19 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    chameleon # 6

    Please stop you amateurish excursion into game theory. TL moderates here, not you.

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    BBD, I just gave up an hour of my life reading Knutti & Hegerl. My brain is not up to giving an intelligent critique of it at this hour. Could you please re-post the Hansen and Rohling links if you have them at your fingertips? I seem to remember downloading them last time you told me about them, but I’m at a different computer this weekend.

    I’m not alarmed about climate change myself—I anticipate no net disaster befalling the planet as a result of global warming, at least. However if I did, I can’t imagine why I’d hesitate to call myself an ‘alarmist’, and I don’t understand why my use of the word betrays me as an outsider. Aren’t you alarmed? Don’t you think the population, or at least the Solons, should feel alarmed? Can you please tell me, in all honesty, where the protest against terms like “catastrophic AGW” and “alarmism” comes from? Why don’t you people get it over with, embrace and normalise those designations?(And isn’t the umbrage over “warmism” as obviously fake to you as it is to us? Who could believe for a second that “warmism” was a derogation comparable to, say, “denialism”?)

    Failing that, what can people call you without causing offence? Surely there’s something you’re comfortable with?

    (One of my best friends, with whom I’ve got a long-running wager on climate change, is happy for me to call his belief system “CAGWism,” and I encourage him to call me a “CAGW denier”—though he’s usually too polite to go beyond “CAGW skeptic”.)

    I think you’ll find most people who call themselves “realists” are having a laugh and possibly blowing off steam. If they’re speaking non-ironically, though, that’s a little scary! It’s an outrageously loaded and jingoistic word unsuitable for mixed company. This reminds me of a high school friend of mine who was affiliated with a niche religion. I was always getting it mixed up with another small religion also starting with M, so I asked her what the basic difference was. She explained in a deadpan voice that, “We [M____ans] believe in one true god.” Oh, well that clears that up! I’ve never confused M_____ism with M_____ism again!

    The joke being, both sides have been known to call themselves “realists”—it’s just a fancy word for “us.”

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Oops—you have posted them. Cheers.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    No need to post any more links, guys, I’ll be pressed to get through those papers “in the usual abstract / conclusion way” as it is.

  23. #23 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    BK

    I’m not alarmed about climate change myself—I anticipate no net disaster befalling the planet as a result of global warming, at least.

    An astonishing statement. Once again, I sense a yawning knowledge deficit. One cannot be a realist if one doesn’t have a firm grasp of reality.

    Even if we limit ourselves to just two consequences of warming there are ample grounds for very serious concern. The first is widespread impacts on agricultural productivity; the second is sea level rise. The effects of both will be exacerbated by the additional two billion people living on the planet by mid-century (UN figures). This is part of the basis for the claim that CC will cause widespread and sustained human suffering to future generations.

    Can you please tell me, in all honesty, where the protest against terms like “catastrophic AGW” and “alarmism” comes from?

    They are part of the framing used by deniers to make themselves appear reasonable, rational realists at the same time as insinuating that reasonable, rational realists are excitably crying wolf.

    Failing that, what can people call you without causing offence? Surely there’s something you’re comfortable with?

    The mainstream. Thus placing fringe contrarianism in its proper scientific context.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    The mainstream. Thus placing fringe contrarianism in its proper scientific context.

    But here you’re inverting reality. The so-called “mainstream”, i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven’t suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

    Science has only one stream, and its source is the scientific method, not the “we’re in a street-fight” Realpolitik that finds “a balance between between being honest and being effective” as advocated by Stephen Schneider and practiced by climate careerists ever since.

    A sign of how far climate science itself has diverged from the mighty river of true science is the fact that Phil Jones, who concealed the divergence problem from a WMO audience, then boasted about it in an email, still sits in his Professor’s chair on a full salary. Only In Climate™!

    Another measure is the scientific illiteracy (or de-literacy) of climate alarm advocates like Lotharsson, who assert something called “the consensus of evidence” as a fig leaf for the reintroduction of consensus as an argument, which has been outlawed in science for 250 or so years. The phrase is pure category fraud. To assign a “consensus” (majority opinion) to the evidence is a Walt-Disney-like leap of anthropomorphic delirium, but Lotharsson and some others will make it with a straight face. Only In Climate™!

  25. #25 chek
    February 16, 2013

    “Brad”, “Brad”, “Brad”. You’ve been fed shit by an orchestrated campaign whose narrative you’re repeating word for word.

    They cannot argue the science, so they created and framed those stupid stories for numpties based on soundbite quotes and zero study. Which you and those like you have bought hook, line and sinker. But – what the spin doctors can’t force on you is awareness of reality. That’s up to you.

    I am of course speaking to an idealised version of you here, not the footsoldier you actually are.

  26. #26 chek
    February 16, 2013

    And now – back to waiting for an adequate response to BBD’s questions. No further dialogue will be entered into by me.

  27. #27 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    BK

    But here you’re inverting reality. The so-called “mainstream”, i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven’t suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

    ‘Inverting reality’ is a strong claim. Atmospheric physicists predicted CO2-forced warming many decades before there was instrumental confirmation. Some time back I provided this link to a history of climate science. Here it is again. If you choose to read it, you will see that mainstream climate science is not ‘the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method’. This is in fact misinformation.

    Science has only one stream, and its source is the scientific method

    Agreed. Now, let’s consider your previous statement in the light of the links provided at #12 and #15.

    Please explain how any of the linked papers ‘play fast and loose with the scientific method’.

    You aren’t making sense.

  28. #28 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    Also awaiting response to # 23.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    The so-called “mainstream”, i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven’t suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

    Here’s a challenge you might like to accept, Keyes:

    1) list the “small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method”

    2) list the scientists who do not “play fast and loose with the scientific method”

    3) of the scientists listed in point 1, list the errors of science their “loose and fast” playing has produced.

    You have made an explicit claim: you should be able to support it with a structured and comprehensive summary.

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    Realted to my previous post, your essential claim seems to be that no matter what the figure for climate sensitivity is, global warming is not harmful.

    Please list the examples of science that you accept that forms the basis of this position.

    For both this task and that in the previous post I don’t expect any dancing around the issue, or semantic wrist-flapping – I just want to know on what scientific evidence you base your claims and opinions.

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    ‘Inverting reality’ is a strong claim. Atmospheric physicists predicted CO2-forced warming many decades before there was instrumental confirmation. Some time back I provided this link to a history of climate science. Here it is again. If you choose to read it, you will see that mainstream climate science is not ‘the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method’.

    We substantially agree, in that the theory of AGW itself is a product of proper science and not ‘the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.’ Like the theory of urban warming, that of CO2-forced atmospheric warming is defensible by the scientific method, and has been pretty convincingly confirmed, according to my reading of the literature.

    If that is acceptable to both of us, do you also accept that we should jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators? That would reassure me that we’re both speaking the language of mainstream science.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not in the business of doing “tasks” for you. In order to save us both a lot of time, tell me: have you read the Climategate emails (1.0 and 2.0)?

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J,

    if you’re so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great harm to human and animal species. So why don’t you want to bet on that? Is it just a matter of our finding an objective measurement to arbitrate the bet? Or do you absolutely refuse to wager on anything beyond the geometrical?

  34. #34 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Like the theory of urban warming, that of CO2-forced atmospheric warming is defensible by the scientific method, and has been pretty convincingly confirmed, according to my reading of the literature.

    The literature also describes the quantification and removal of UHI from global surface temperature reconstructions.

    If that is acceptable to both of us, do you also accept that we should jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators? That would reassure me that we’re both speaking the language of mainstream science.

    One false equvalence after another. Even if Jones and Mann and their ‘intimate collaborators’ have fallen short of the highest ideals of science, what changes? The radiative physics? Paleoclimate behaviour in face of same? What? These few researchers are not a proxy for climate science. Let’s talk about the increase in OHC since the 1970s or summer Arctic sea ice trends.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    chek:

    chek

    February 16, 2013
    And now – back to waiting for an adequate response to BBD’s questions. No further dialogue will be entered into by me.

    You promise? :-)

  36. #36 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not in the business of doing “tasks” for you

    In plainer words Bernard, “Brad” is totally unable to substantiate any of his dearly held myths.

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD, your last message is a little unjust—

    One false equvalence after another.

    What equivalence[s] did I assert? I’m not aware of doing so.

    Even if Jones and Mann and their ‘intimate collaborators’ have fallen short of the highest ideals of science, what changes? The radiative physics? Paleoclimate behaviour in face of same? What? These few researchers are not a proxy for climate science.

    Good point. In theory the excision of the gangrenous science should be an uncomplicated and minor operation. Yet for some reason, most people on your “side” refuse consent for this life-saving surgery. There is a disturbing degree of loyalty and attachment to the pseudoscientists. I don’t want to presume that you’re like them, so I’m giving you a chance to confirm: do you agree that Mann and Jones have violated the professional standards of science, and that we should disregard the work of scientists who’ve violated said standards, as the fruit of poisoned tree?

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    In plainer words Bernard, “Brad” is totally unable to substantiate any of his dearly held myths.

    Wrong. I can substantiate them if absolutely necessary, if you’re genuinely still unaware of the evidence for them (3 years after Climategate 1.0), but I’m not going to give you a “structured and comprehensive summary.” Nor will I rule a red margin on the left or use cursive. You’re still not my bloody governess, Bernard, no matter how many times you try to play the part.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Most importantly though, Bernard:

    if you’re so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great net harm to human and animal species.

    So why don’t you want to bet on the net harm? Is it just a question of figuring out an objective measurement to arbitrate the bet? Or do you absolutely refuse to wager on anything beyond the geometrical?

  40. #40 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

    Nothing changes.

    ‘Fruit of a poisoned tree’ is blatant framing. How do those papers linked above ‘play fast and loose with the scientific method’?

    We both know you can’t back this up, so yawn.

  41. #41 chek
    February 17, 2013

    What you’ll likely see at #38 Bernard is “Brad” blustering that he cpuld substantiate his myths, whilst remaining steadfastly absolutely unable to do so.
    IOW a standard but desperate (if useless) rhetorical suggestion.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

    No, let’s do it for the sake of science. Let’s actually do it.

    I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world. Sorry to insist on this, but I’m not superkeen to spend time arguing with someone only to find out they were never really serious about the distinction between science and not-science. You probably are serious about it, so just confirm the aforementioned items, please.

    ‘Fruit of a poisoned tree’ is blatant framing.

    It’s blatant what now?

    How do those papers linked above ‘play fast and loose with the scientific method’?

    I don’t claim that. Those papers may very well be rigorously scientific.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    We both know you can’t back this up, so yawn.

    Since I didn’t make the claim in the first place, yawn indeed.

  44. #44 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world.

    Sure. I just said so:

    For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

    Nothing changes.

    These people are not proxy for climate science. Those papers linked above (and all the rest of them out there) aren’t ‘playing fast and loose with the scientific method’.

    It’s all conspiracy-tinged nonsense, correctly described as denial.

    Who could believe for a second that “warmism” was a derogation comparable to, say, “denialism”?

    As an aside – not to distract from the substantive discussion – the success of the contrarian hijack of language is troubling. Contrarian framing has de-defined ‘sceptic’ to the point of parody, the point where denial misnomered as scepticism is standard usage.

    At the same time, ‘denial’ and its derivatives have been vociferously misrepresented as pejorative by association. But they are accurate descriptions; standard usage. Nothing more and nothing less.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    chek,

    I thought you swore not to say anything until I’d answered BBD to his satisfaction. Why are you commenting again? When you threaten the silent treatment, it’s critically important that you follow through on it.

    Please. :-)

  46. #46 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    What equivalence[s] did I assert? I’m not aware of doing so.

    (If) CO2 forcing (and) UHI exist (then) we should ‘jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators’.

    See it now?

    ;-)

  47. #47 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Brad

    You are venturing into game theory. Don’t. I’m not satisfied with your answers.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not in the business of doing “tasks” for you.

    I’m not asking you to “do a task” for me. I’m asking you to validate in a scientific manner the claims that you make of non-scientific work by well-known climatologists.

    In order to save us both a lot of time, tell me: have you read the Climategate emails (1.0 and 2.0)?

    Absolutely not.

    I do not read people’s private emails unless given permission to do so. I have steadfastly refused to participate inthe crime that is referred to by the propagandists as “Climategate” – a similar minimum level of moral decorum would behove you to also resist reading or mis-using those emails.

    And it matters not what the victims of the email theft said to each other – we are asessing their published work (you know, the material the is made public). If you cannot make your case based on the published scientific literature you have no case.

    if you’re so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great harm to human and animal species. So why don’t you want to bet on that?

    The loss of summer sea ice will be immediately serious for Arctic mammals such as polar bears and walrus. They will not suffer immediate exinction, but the effects will be clear on their population trajectories and age structures.

    However if, having being backed into a physical reality corner, you want to modify the terms of the wager to reflect ecological sequelæ, I propose this:

    If, between today and the time that minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume drops below 500 (five hundred) cubic kilometres in volume:

    1) there has not been a report in the public media or in the scientific literature that walrus and/or polar bear populations have suffered declines sufficiently serious that experts are concerned for their ongoing viabilities as species, and

    2) there has not been a report in the public media or in the scientific literature that there has been a repeat of the crushing of (a minimum of 100) newborn and/or older walrus calves on an Arctic beach due to lack of sea ice cover

    you win.

    If there has been such a report as described in either (1) or (2), between today and the time that minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume drops below 500 (five hundred) cubic kilometres in volume, I win.

    Note that the boolean conditions are structured to reflect your opinion that there is no harm to global warming, and to reflect my scientific understanding that there is.

    The others terms are as previously proposed.

    To be fair, and in the interest of transparency, I estimate that my chances of winning are greater than 99%.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard:

    I’m not asking you to “do a task” for me. I’m asking you to validate in a scientific manner the claims that you make of non-scientific work by well-known climatologists.

    You referred to each of your requests as “tasks.”

    Thanks for clarifying that you didn’t mean that.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    As an aside – not to distract from the substantive discussion – the success of the contrarian hijack of language is troubling. Contrarian framing has de-defined ‘sceptic’ to the point of parody, the point where denial misnomered as scepticism is standard usage.

    Trust me, BBD, any “hijacking” was accidental. The “contrarian” side, as you call us, has no power whatsoever over the language, which is why this is the only case of the climatogenic brutalisation of English working to our advantage. I agree that it’s an unfair advantage, because disagreeing with a scientific hypothesis does not qualify a person as skeptical. Most of us do happen to be skeptics, but skepticism is far from an exclusive or universal property of climate “contrarians.”

    At the same time, ‘denial’ and its derivatives have been vociferously misrepresented as pejorative by association. But they are accurate descriptions; standard usage. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Hmm—you’re going a bit too far here, I think.

    Sure, it’s perfectly possible to use a derivative of “deny” accurately and objectively—as in, “I’m a CAGW denier.” There’s nothing wrong with this, because “deny” is an antonym of “espouse / believe / affirm.”

    Similarly, “You’re an AGW denier” or “You deny AGW” would be unobjectionable statements if your interlocutor held that AGW was make-believe (which I don’t).

    (It’s only fair, of course, to describe you guys as “believers” in the things of which we’re “deniers.” Right?)

    Unfortunately, in real-world climate discourse these terms are very prone to being used maliciously. For example:

    1. “Climate change denial” is invariably a misnomer, a pejorative and a strawman.

    2. The form “[climate …] denial” was adopted by some alarmists such as Ellen Goodman with the expressed aim of evoking “Holocaust denial.”

    But most cowards who use it with this intent are less open about it, so any protest against it tends to come across as paranoid on our part. The smartest response by my side would have been to ‘reappropriate / own’ the word “denial” and thereby extinguish any nasty connotation. I like the approach taken by Richard Lindzen (a Holocaust descendant), who says something like: “Hey, stop calling me a skeptic of CAGW; I deny it.”

    3. The word “denialism” and its derivatives falsely imply that disbelief itself has been elevated to a philosophy. Only believalists use this term.

    4. Non-specific uses of “denier” and “denial” on their own are generally dubious. For example, what did you mean by “It’s all conspiracy-tinged nonsense, correctly described as denial.” Disbelief is correctly described as denial; conspiracy-tinged nonsense is correctly described as conspiracy-tinged nonsense. So what were you getting at?

    5. The slide from “they deny P(x)” to “they’re in denial of P(x)” is of course vicious and illicit.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    (If) CO2 forcing (and) UHI exist (then) we should ‘jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators’.

    See it now?

    Sure. I didn’t seriously mean that one was conditional on the other, though. I forgot how important it is to be literally precise in climate debates (what with the powerful mutual-incomprehension instincts at play). It was only a poetic “if”, as in the form: “if Augustus left Rome ‘a city of marble,’ then Nero left it a city of ashes.”

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD,

    “I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world.”

    Sure.

    Excellent. I’m very glad that you repudiate the pseudoscientists Jones and Mann not solo ad argumentum but for really and truly.

    It won’t make you very popular with your fellow deltoids, but it does open up the possibility of a good-faith discussion of “science” as a mutually-understood entity.

    Let’s talk about the increase in OHC since the 1970s or summer Arctic sea ice trends.

    Sure, let’s.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J,

    Thanks for refining the terms of the bet. I still see some problems with it:

    1. the timeframe was previously 5 years but is now undefined—it might (or might not) take decades for minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume to drop below any given threshold

    2. a hypothetical decrease in polar bear or walrus numbers (which is all it would take for experts to profess “serious concerns” for their viability as species) would not entail a serious net problem for the world, would it? For starters, it would likely be great news for the species they prey on.

    3. My understanding was that walruses, like the overweight whore in 1 Kings 3:16, are prone to accidentally smothering their young at the best of times—so how would we know if 100 smotherings was an unusual death toll, or that it was caused by real-estate shrinkage? (For instance, couldn’t it result from a boom in walrus numbers, theoretically?)

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Note that the boolean conditions are structured to reflect your opinion that there is no harm to global warming, and to reflect my scientific understanding that there is.

    That’s a strawman. I’ve never believed that global warming couldn’t cause some problem for some species somewhere, only that it wouldn’t turn out to be a major net detriment to the world.

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    I see that you re engaging in your trademark semantics and dissembling yet again.

    Tell us, for the record, how much loss of ecosystem function and how much extinction do you think needs to occur before human-caused global warming is “serious”, or “critical”, or “catastrophic”?

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    “Semantics”? Guilty as charged. Words have meanings.

    “Dissembling”? How so?

    “Tell us, for the record, how much loss of ecosystem function and how much extinction do you think needs to occur before human-caused global warming is “serious”, or “critical”, or “catastrophic”?”

    Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could stop functioning. Do you think that will happen in the Arctic as a result of AGW?

    All things being equal (which I realise they aren’t in practice), warming is associated with increased biodiversity, so any “extinctions” that somehow occurred would have to be weighed up against their opposite.

    BTW did the Roman Warming Period extinguish any species, that we know of? (It’s not a rhetorical question—I haven’t investigated this personally.)

  57. #57 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Rather than answer BBD’s question, you prefer to rant about your crank conspiracy theories instead.

    You are clinically insane.

    NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow:

    1. you said you were going to starve my thread of your presence. I was kinda hoping you meant it. Why are you back?

    2. “NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.”

    OK, so Phil Jones was just lying to his fellow scientists when he claimed he’d hidden the decline. Fair enough.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    And Wow: you still owe us the name of the supposed “scientist” who said your quote about how “there are two aspects to scientific consensus: first, and most importantly, a consensus of evidence… yadda yadda.”

    I don’t believe you.

    It was scientifically-incoherent.

  60. #60 chameleon
    February 17, 2013

    I would just like to know who this ‘someone’ is?
    Why so coy Wow?
    You put it up as a quote by ‘someone’.
    You must have liked the quote as you copy/pasted it here.
    Who is this mysterious ‘someone’ Wow?

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    LOL… who should appear on the other thread in defence of that turgid word-salad about “the consensus of evidence leads to the consensus of scientists” but Lotharsson! Nailing his colors to the mast of scientific illiteracy. An apt end. Hehehe ;-) :-)

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    And cowardly Wow is there to complete the chorus, saying behind my back what he lacks the spunk to claim in the House of Brad:

    “Indeed it is impossible to prove to Brad he’s wrong.”

    Ah, Wow… just because you’ve never managed it, it doesn’t follow that the feat is difficult.

    Au contraire, it’s on a silver platter:

    Just tell us all the identity of the “scientist” who said what I insisted was scientifically-abortive category fraud, thus proving before the whole Internet that it’s I, not you and Lotharsson, who have no idea what scientific reasoning looks like!

    “Look at his insistence that Dr Jones hid something despite it being false and the evidence presented to him time and time again.”

    Aaaand just like that, he’s back to the falsehoods so transparent, even Lotharsson won’t back them up.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Nothing was hidden.

    Too bad for you.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    OK, so Phil Jones was just lying to his fellow scientists when he claimed he’d hidden the decline. Fair enough.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    So now you claim the “crime” of “lying to his friends”.

    Oooh. What a scandal….

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow, all you have to do is reveal the identity of the “scientist” who said what I insisted was scientifically-abortive category fraud, thus proving before the All-seeing and Unforgetting Eye that it’s I (not you and Lotharsson) who have no idea what scientific thought sounds like!

    Platters don’t get much silverer than the one on which this opportunity is coming to you!

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could stop functioning.

    And therein lies the problem.

    You don’t understand the subjects about which you are making proclamations.

    Oh, and don’t think that the twisting of the import of my question passed unnoticed. You employed one of your favourite logical fallacies, that of equivocation – of semantic shift to be precise. And in case it’s an unconscious failing of yours, I will note that “loss” is not identical to “stop”.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    And in case it’s an unconscious failing of yours, I will note that “loss” is not identical to “stop”.

    No, the misinterpretation wasn’t on purpose.

    So I’ll rephrase: Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could lose functionality.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    “I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could stop functioning.”

    And therein lies the problem.

    You don’t understand the subjects about which you are making proclamations.

    So, wait… they CAN stop functioning, is what you’re suggesting? (Even though that’s not what you were intimating would happen with respect to the Arctic.)

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow, you meant:

    So now you claim the crime of “lying to his fellow scientists”.

    Oooh. What a scandal….

  71. #71 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    You do?

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Lotharsson is now crying “hyperfine sophistic parsing,” as if he’s merely the innocent victim of anal pedantry.

    Let’s clear up that distortion right now: the turgid crock Wow dumped on us was foetid in both form and meaning. This isn’t just nit-picking.

    Wow’s unnamed “scientist” wanted us to believe that:

    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

    There can never be a consensus of evidence in the same way that there can never be a consensus of cheese, nostalgia, salt water, bacteria, ham, etc.: a consensus is a majority opinion. The “scientist” responsible for Wow’s quote either doesn’t understand this or is banking on the probability that his/her audience doesn’t understand it.

    (We are dealing either with a hapless non-scientist or a liar, in other words.)

    But let’s be charitable and assume he or she meant to say “a consilience of evidence.”

    Then the passage becomes:

    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consilience of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

    But now the untruth of this passage is a little more obvious than it was before, when it was camouflaged by our “scientist’s” category confusion, isn’t it?

    As everybody knows, a scientific consensus is perfectly capable of forming WITHOUT a consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion—and often does. This is not just a theoretical possibility.

    There was no “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” behind the infamous medical consensus on gastric ulcers, was there?

    When the chemical community snickered at Dan Schectman and refused even to examine his supposed quasi-crystals—which really exist, and for which Schectman was recognized with a Nobel Prize decades later—it wasnt because a “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” made them do it, was it?

    No. These consensi were due to fashion and prejudice. Nothing more.

    So Wow’s masked “scientist” is lying—there’s no other word for it, is there?—when he/she tells us that “most importantly, you need a consilience of evidence” in order to have a scientific consensus.

    You don’t.

  73. #73 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Keyes

    Excellent. I’m very glad that you repudiate the pseudoscientists Jones and Mann not solo ad argumentum but for really and truly.

    It won’t make you very popular with your fellow deltoids, but it does open up the possibility of a good-faith discussion of “science” as a mutually-understood entity.

    Don’t twist my words.

    This is what you cut away:

    Sure. I just said so:

    For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

    Nothing changes.

    You misrepresented me by selective quotation and in the same breath you have the gall to talk about good faith. Well you can fuck off. Don’t do this again.

    Let me remind you now that the behaviour of Spencer and Christy is potentially far more questionable than that of Mann and Jones. Yet when I raised this thorny matter – nobody wanted to talk about it. But the irrelevant jabber about M & J continues interminably.

    I repeat, imagine we discount their work – what changes? I *know* nothing does, but I want to hear it from you. Say ‘nothing changes at all’. Say ‘the physics, the paleoclimate behaviour, the projections – all stay exactly the same without M & J’.

    After your appalling behaviour above, you need to redeem yourself through a demonstration of good faith. Let’s see if you are capable of the slightest degree of intellectual honesty.

  74. #74 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    I should have included this above:

    As long as fake sceptics go on about the supposed failings of M & J we need to keep two things in mind.

    First, M & J are irrelevant.

    Second, M & J are not proxies for the entire of climate science.

    The fake sceptics have concocted a fake scandal out of nothing simply in order to distract attention from the fact that there is no scientific sceptical argument.

    False equivalence and misdirection are the staples of fake sceptic discourse.

    In other words, the whole thing is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Third, nothing was hidden.

  76. #76 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Wow

    As long as you permit BK to force the discussion onto the supposed misdoings of M & J he wins. He is preventing you from talking about substantive issues (the absence of a ‘sceptical’ scientific case). It also allows the fake sceptics to keep on re-enforcing the dishonest framing of ‘climate science’ as ‘corrupt’ or a ‘poisoned tree’. Another win for the tactics employed by fake sceptics.

    It is arguably more productive to point out that M & J are an irrelevance, that they are not proxies for ‘climate science’ as a whole, (a dishonest framing), that the tree is not poisoned, (more dishonest framing) and that the sceptics have no scientific case.

    Bang that drum. Don’t let the other side call the tune.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    OK BBD,

    I hate it when people twist my words, so if that’s what I did to yours, I don’t blame you for being aburinated.

    However, please bear in mind that I asked you if you agreed with certain propositions; you said “Sure. I just said so:” and then repeated an earlier statement you’d made. I took this as indicating not only that you agreed with the claims, but that you considered your earlier statement to be an anticipation of my expression of the same ideas.

    Wasn’t my misunderstanding … uh, understandable? Isn’t that how most reasonable people would understand the words “Sure. I just said so:”?

    You also say:

    Let me remind you now that the behaviour of Spencer and Christy is potentially far more questionable than that of Mann and Jones. Yet when I raised this thorny matter – nobody wanted to talk about it. But the irrelevant jabber about M & J continues interminably.

    And the comment to which you link does indeed raise some prima-facie damning questions about Spencer and Christy’s ethics. I didn’t have anything to say in response because:

    1. I’ve never come across those allegations before so I’m unable to add anything to your comments

    2. my assessment of the science of climate change is predominantly based on the work of “alarmists” and, to my knowledge, has no dependencies at all on the question of the integrity (or otherwise) of Christy or Spencer. In other words, even if they stood revealed as the most Chaucerian frauds in scientific history, I’d have to ask you the same question you’re asking me: what changes?

    Let me be clear: if they “manipulate[d] satellite data to hide warming,” then they’re crooks who don’t deserve the name scientist.

    The conditional in that sentence was necessary because I know nothing about the circumstances you mentioned.

    But since you do have enough information to answer the following question, and since I apparently misread your answer the first time, please excuse my repetition of this very important request:

    I want to know if you disregard the work of Mann and Jones not just for the sake of this argument, but on principle.

    I’d like you to confirm, please, that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists (including, but not limited to, Jones and Mann) when it comes to questions about the natural world.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    I strongly agree with this, by the way:

    Second, M & J are not proxies for the entire of climate science.

    But they are, in my experience, very good litmus tests of a person’s willingness to repudiate pseudoscience.

  79. #79 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Quite so BBD.

    But you never will see “Brad” here repudiate the pseudoscience that underlies the attacks on Mann and Jones motivated by those who haven’t the ability to discredit their contributions to science. The litmus test is their embracing of crank science as if that has any validity.

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    What pseudoscience “underlies the attacks on Mann and Jones,” chek? It’s an intriguing suggestion; I do hope you’ll condescend to expand on it.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “As long as you permit BK to force the discussion onto the supposed misdoings of M & J he wins”

    There aren’t any misdoings.

    Just making that absolutely plain

    He’s just plain not reading any of the evidence you’ve given him, he’s afraid to answer any questions about his evidence, he’s unwilling to actually reply to your questions.

    And he’s already agreed that the only “crime” he’s now accusing Jones of is “‘lying’ to his friend”.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “It is arguably more productive to point out that M & J are an irrelevance”

    Except he refuses that just as much as he refuses the fact that nothing was hidden.

    To his denier mind, anything against his crank conspiracy theory is entirely ignored.

  83. #83 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Your allegation that M & J are engaged in pseudoscience is too sweeping to be of value.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Mannean Hockey Stick of MBH98/99 was an accurate representation of the period before ~1600. Fortunately, it has long been considered obsolete and so this is irrelevant to any current discussion of future climate impacts.

    As for the splice to instrumental data and the divergence problem – further irrelevance. The instrumental data post ~1950 are good enough and there’s sufficient agreement between reconstructions to provide extremely strong evidence for the rate, spatial extent and amount of modern warming.

    I have nothing further to say on this topic except to repeat that M & J are an irrelevance, that they are not proxies for ‘climate science’ as a whole, (a dishonest framing), that the tree is not poisoned, (more dishonest framing) and that the sceptics have no scientific case.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Wow

    Agreed. So refuse to allow BK to prolong the discussion of the colour of the herring any further.

    Tell him about Spencer and Christy ;-) Or work through Lindzen’s various misdoings. Or Easterbrook’s, or Singer’s or Monckton’s…

    There are so many arses to kick you are spoiled for choice. If he want’t to talk about scientific misconduct, misrepresentation, framing and serial intellectual dishonesty, then go at at with him. On your terms.

  85. #85 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    BK # 80

    Straight back at it, trying to drag chek in to your argument.

    Here. Look at this. Forget MBH99. Even if you managed to pull every single one of these millennial-scale reconstructions apart it makes no difference. It is irrelevant. The anomalous cluster of localised NH warming events over a period of 400 years misnomered the ‘MWP’ doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant to the consequences of increasing RF from CO2 on C21st climate and beyond.

    Only fake sceptics seem unable to grasp this fact.

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD,

    if Mann and Jones are an “irrelevance,” then surely it ought to cost you nothing to simply acknowledge their proven and confessed misdeeds and to agree that their work doesn’t deserve to be believed.

    Even if it has no bearing on our discussion of the “state of the science,” it would greatly facilitate the “metascientific” conversation that’s also (unavoidably) occurring at the same time if you could just take a moment to confirm that you disapprove of hiding the decline, hiding the data, hiding the code, and the various other shenanigans these shysters have been caught in, and that they’re not scientists as you understand the word.

    That would go a very, very long way to establishing that we both understand words like “scientist” and “science” the same way.

    Without at least that much of a common lexicon it’s futile (as I’ve learned from frustrating experience) for two people to dispute “the science.”

    Perhaps you noticed how I didn’t hesitate to agree that, if Christy and Spencer “manipulate[d] satellite data to hide warming”, they’re frauds. And if they’re frauds I want nothing to do with their poisoned tree, thanks very much.

    (I’m sorry I can’t agree or disagree unconditionally—but, as I’ve explained, I literally know nothing about these allegations beyond what you’ve written, so I can hardly come to any meaningful verdict on them.)

    So I’m not asking you anything unreasonable, am I?

  87. #87 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    No misdeeds were undertaken.

    Nothing was hidden.

  88. #88 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “So I’m not asking you anything unreasonable, am I?”

    Yes you are, you’re demanding that he accept as proven something that has been proven false.

    You’re also claiming falsely that you haven’t taken anything from that “poisoned tree”, yet you continue to fail to give any of the sources of your information, and have absolutely straight-out lied by proclaiming you only visit this blog site to get your ideas.

    The only proven thing here is that you’re certifiably crazy.

  89. #89 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Not a good day for deniers.
    Nothing but confected stories to offer against the science, and smarming would-be, half-wit tricksters like “Brad” on moronic missions.

  90. #90 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    No confidence in the contrarian framing of ‘climategate’. The clue is in the name.

    No evidence that I have seen demonstrates the ‘corruption’ and ‘pseudoscience’ you and others allege. I see dishonest framing, based on tenacious exaggeration and a fair bit of misrepresentation.

    You can stop bothering to try and get me to go along with this contrarian narrative now for reasons stated very clearly and more than once above.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow and chek,

    I wasn’t talking to you.

    Shut up and let BBD speak.

  92. #92 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    BK

    Since you are being tiresomely repetitive I will be tiresomely repetitive:

    The anomalous cluster of localised NH warming events over a period of 400 years misnomered the ‘MWP’ doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant to the consequences of increasing RF from CO2 on C21st climate and beyond.

    Only fake sceptics seem unable to grasp this fact.

    As for the splice to instrumental data and the divergence problem – further irrelevance. The instrumental data post ~1950 are good enough and there’s sufficient agreement between reconstructions to provide extremely strong evidence for the rate, spatial extent and amount of modern warming.

    Fake sceptics have all sorts of problems with this too.

    Fake sceptics have difficulty sorting relevant arguments from irrelevant ones.

  93. #93 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    BK @ 91

    They aren’t preventing me from speaking. You are attempting to silence them. Once again, piss-poor logic seems to be running the BK show.

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow:

    You’re also claiming falsely that you haven’t taken anything from that “poisoned tree”, yet you continue to fail to give any of the sources of your information, and have absolutely straight-out lied by proclaiming you only visit this blog site to get your ideas.

    Are you lying or hallucinating, Wow?

    Actually never mind—the only thing you know that I want to know is this: what “scientist” came up with that farrago of fatuity you quoted 2 days ago?

    If you’re still too much of a coward to answer that, go away.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD, are you OK with scientists hiding inconvenient inflections in their graphs?

    If so, it’s impossible to take anything you say about “science” at face value.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “I wasn’t talking to you.”

    Whatevah.

    It isn’t your thread, it’s your cage. Sit down and listen, you over-opinionated moron.

    “Shut up and let BBD speak.”

    Yeah, right. Like you’ll do anything when he has. You’ll ignore him and continue with your conspiracy rants.

  97. #97 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “Are you lying or hallucinating, Wow?”

    No and no.

    You, however, never stop lying and hallucinating.

    Now, why don’t you shut the fuck up and let BBD speak.

  98. #98 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “BBD, are you OK with scientists hiding inconvenient inflections in their graphs?”

    The only people hiding stuff are the deniers.

  99. #99 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    The divergence problem was examined openly in the literature. You over-state your case.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    The divergence problem was examined openly in the literature. You over-state your case.

    But are you OK with a scientist presenting a graph to the WMO in which that inconvenient inflection—which you agree is a “problem”—is simply vanished without explanation, replaced with data from a completely different modality which trend in exactly the opposite direction?