Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Some references for # 99:

    Jacoby et al (1995); Briffa et al. (1998); Cook et al. (2004); Briffa (2004); D’Arrigo et al. (2008). The D’Arrigo study reviews the literature on divergence.

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD,

    It would be bizarre to argue (which I hope you’re not suggesting) that there’s nothing wrong with a scientist drawing a half-true graph and presenting it on the international stage, as long as the whole truth is mentioned somewhere else, in some 15-year-old Nature article written by another scientist.

  3. #3 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    I don’t condone it; I dispute that it matters in the fundamental way you imply – which is that there was an intent to *deceive*. Since the divergence problem is fully and openly examined in the literature, this cannot be the case.

    Everything reverts to irrelevance.

    You have shifted from an indefensible estimate of ECS to claiming that the projected warming will be harmless, to insinuations that climate science is ‘corrupt’.

    There’s no coherence to what you argue except its intent: a denial of the validity of scientific knowledge about anthropogenically-forced climate change. This is highly revealing.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Oops, I see the divergence had been mentioned in TWO articles by the time Jones made the decision to conceal it from the audience in his WMO presentation (in 1999, I believe).

  5. #5 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    It’s not ‘some 15 year-old paper written by another scientist’. See references above. This is just another misrepresentation.

  6. #6 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    we crossed.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    I don’t condone it;

    Good

    I dispute that it matters in the fundamental way you imply – which is that there was an intent to *deceive*. Since the divergence problem is fully and openly examined in the literature, this cannot be the case.

    I dispute your reasoning that it “cannot be the case”. If I were to knowingly tell you a falsehood on a certain topic, would you accept the argument that I obviously wasn’t intending to deceive you because the truth of the topic could easily be found on Wikipedia?

  8. #8 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Contrarians have nothing of substance, hence the dishonest framing, the exaggeration, the misrepresentation and tireless resort to *misdirection* that characterises their discourse. This is so very obvious that I’m surprised a clever chap like you hasn’t spotted it.

  9. #9 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    You’d have to do a damned sight more to that graph to make it deceptive Brad. You are still grossly over-stating your case. Because you don’t have one, so you are an obligate misrepresenter.

  10. #10 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    What is interesting are the reasons that compel apparently intelligent people to deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW.

    The how is boring (see above). The *why* is important.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    What is interesting are the reasons that compel apparently intelligent people to deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW.

    The how is boring (see above). The *why* is important.

    So your true interest is psychology?

    I feel that. Psychology is fascinating.

    But if you really want to know why, then you can’t be a polemicist. You have to be an interviewer.

  12. #12 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    My interest is causality. And everyone is allowed the occasional resort to polemic in blog comments. Once again, the valid is greeted with irrelevance.

    Why do you feel motivated to deny the standard position on AGW?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    By the way, nobody I’ve ever met on the other “side” can even approximately explain our reasoning process. Not one “believer”, to my knowledge, has ever grasped why “deniers” “deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW.” The standard explanations pumped out by your “public thinkers” are a cause of great mirth to us because they don’t even come close.

  14. #14 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Then enlighten me. It’s nothing much to ask. Why so coy?

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Why do you feel motivated to deny the standard position on AGW?

    You don’t really expect me to tell you if you ask like that, do you? That’s not a question, that’s an insult with a question mark on the end.

    This is an example of why your “side” has failed to work it out.

    Try it again, but as if you actually want to know.

  16. #16 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Wow, looks like “Brad” still hasn’t understood (despite your sterling efforts to pound the fact into his head) that the graph was about temperature, and used the best suitable proxies available.

    But being determined to remain the scientifically illiterate cospiraloon that he appears to be, “Brad” likely doesn’t understand that thermometers are proxies too.

  17. #17 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Try it again, but as if you actually want to know.

    Of course I want to know. How many times have I asked you now?

    But I will gladly rephrase the question.

    What motivates your rejection of the standard position on AGW?

    Denial is a synonym of rejection, as we all know. But thanks for demonstrating the validity of an earlier remark on the hijacking of language.

  18. #18 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Proxies, proxies, proxies, all the way down.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    You’d have to do a damned sight more to that graph to make it deceptive Brad.

    Really?

    The graph presents tree ring data as if it were temperature data except where the contradiction is too obvious (post 1960), at which point it substitutes actual temperature data to maintain the illusion. Seamlessly.

    Forgive me if this is “tiresomely repetitive”, but here is what Paul Dennis—Phil Jones’ own colleague at the UEA—says about it:

    “The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature, and thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’. This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc. This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible, and I agree with him.”

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Denial is a synonym of rejection, as we all know. But thanks for demonstrating the validity of an earlier remark on the hijacking of language.

    I haven’t demonstrated that, because I wasn’t objecting to the word “deny.” There was nothing wrong with your use of it.

    What motivates your rejection of the standard position on AGW?

    No noticeable improvement.

    Think about it a bit.

  21. #21 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    What relevance does this have to the scientific position on AGW? None.

    So why are you fixated on this detail instead of addressing the relevant question, which is why are you rejecting the entire scientific understanding of AGW with such dogged persistence?

  22. #22 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    # 21 responds to your # 19.

    Why so coy? It’s illogical. The only outcome is that others become suspicious of your motives because you refuse to discuss them openly.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should “trust” bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can’t tell the temperature in 1980.

    For a scientist, it is unconscionable to conceal a problem like this.

    “This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. […] The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.” —Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics, Oxford

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    We’re both behaving doggedly, BBD.

    That’s what people do when principles are at stake.

  25. #25 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should “trust” bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can’t tell the temperature in 1980.

    For a scientist, it is unconscionable to conceal a problem like this.

    How big a problem was the divergence? Not very. Read the D’Arrigo paper.

    Does it make any difference to the standard position on AGW? Not at all.

    So why are we still talking about it?

    Why do you feel compelled to reject the standard scientific position on AGW?

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD, think about it: how can you expect someone to tell you their REASONS for believing something when you ask them their MOTIVES for believing it?

  27. #27 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    If you won’t say, people will draw their own, doubtless unkind, conclusions. You can easily prevent this by being open about why you feel as you do.

  28. #28 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Motive and reason are synonymous.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    No, rational reasoning is very different from motivated reasoning. You’e effectively asking me what I hope to achieve by denying the “standard position.” As I said, this is an insult. You probably don’t mean it as such, but it is.

  30. #30 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    My motives for doing something are my reasons for doing it. You are being rhetorically evasive, as ever. It’s tedious. Please answer the question. I would be genuinely grateful if you would explain your reasoning to me now.

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    My motives for doing something are my reasons for doing it.

    That’s only true for actions. It doesn’t work for beliefs.

    It’s irrational (by definition) to have motives for your beliefs and disbeliefs.

    I would be genuinely grateful if you would explain your reasoning to me now.

    With pleasure.

    First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism. We’re all born atheists, and we’re all born climate infidels.

    In fact some of us were well into our adult life before we ever heard of the “standard position” on climate science.

    So the question only really makes sense if you ask: why weren’t you convinced by this piece of evidence? Why didn’t that piece of evidence win you over? Why didn’t “the vast body of accumulated pieces of evidence” convert you? Etc.

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Brad suffers brain-failure and types,

    The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should “trust” bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can’t tell the temperature in 1980.

    So…in 1980, tree ring data diverges from known-good data (thermometers, as confirmed by BEST).

    In 1080 however, tree ring data agrees with ice cores (etc…).

    With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

    – Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we “hide” it.

    – Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

    Of course, you need multiple PhDs and a lifetime study of climate science to follow what’s just happened here, (or, alternatively, a brain), so Brad just won’t get this….

  33. #33 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “If you won’t say, people will draw their own, doubtless unkind, conclusions.”

    They’ll be accurate, though.

  34. #34 Bernard J.
    February 17, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    You have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but that you think there is no need to be concerned about this warming. You also admit – and conspicuously demonstrate – that you do not understand basic ecological concepts. On this basis alone your opposition to the mainstream science is untenable.

    Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the “hockey stick”. This is an illogical stance to maintain.

    Even more egregious is the fact that you argue against the hockey stick on the basis of your (claimed) perception of scientific malfeasance, but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

    Seriously, what actually are you arguing and on what basis are you making this argument?

  35. #35 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    So, why didn’t the vast body of accumulated evidence (some small part of which has been linked on this thread) influence your reasoning?

    Objectively, it should have done, so the question is why didn’t this happen? You would have to have a *reason* for this.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    The mind boggles that Brad is still stuck on the basics, despite the reams and reams of crap he has had the time to type on the subject.

    And many are the times where Brad has admitted, “I haven’t read that”, as part of his standard argument for his “atheistic” position.

    It’s not even infantile.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

    – Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we don’t use it.

    – Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

    FTFY, Vincent.

  38. #38 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism. We’re all born atheists, and we’re all born climate infidels.

    We are all born knowing nothing. Most of us develop the capacity for reason by adulthood.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “You would have to have a *reason* for this.”

    The reason for it is that he’s in ideological denial and has nothing else to prattle on about.

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    I’m sorry, that could have been ever so confusing for the poor dear Arts-graduate, couldn’t it?

  41. #41 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism.”

    Anti-scientific bollocks. Atheism is not negative, it’s lack. Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive, you fuckwit.

    “We’re all born atheists, and we’re all born climate infidels.”

    Yet more complete shite from your diseased mind.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    # 37 Perhaps ‘de-emphasise’?

  43. #43 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Yeah, Vince.

    Remember, when everyone is saying “Those who can or will read the evidence, is given the consensus. Those who cannot or will not, you get the consensus”. Which then turns into “CONSENSUS isn’t evidence!!!!!” in his psychopathy.

    It isn’t the evidence that the scientific consensus is based on, it is the consensus that the science is based on.

    Indeed he gets it completely wrong twice more on the subject:

    a) does not realise that replication and multiple lines of evidence is a consensus to anyone not able to replicate the study.
    b) does not deign to notice that what McIntyre demanded (the code) would merely allow him to repeat NOT REPLICATE the study, thereby ensuring that absolutely NO NEW DATA (the reason to require replication of a paper) and therefore a complete and utter waste of time. But to him, it’s a travesty that M&M, incompetent to do the work, were not allowed to merely repeat the study, gaining absolutely nothing scientifically from it.

    So, yes, even putting “hide” in quotes to demonstrate you don’t mean hide, but are aping his alarmist rhetoric, would be entirely confusing to this mental midget.

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Vince:

    – Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we “hide” it.

    Why the scare quotes around the verb, Vince? He didn’t “hide” it, he hid it. Actually. Literally.

    Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you’re a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

    But science has higher ethical standards than certain other vocations, so we shouldn’t expect Vince to grasp this.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Well, BBD, the data was referred to along with the three other papers that went into the graph and, in the interests of keeping the graph clear and easy to understand (the entire reason for USING a graph is to make it easy to digest, and a spaghetti of lines is not easy to digest), the source was not repeated in full, only in essence, with a link to the original paper for that line.

    Apparently, trying to help is, to Brad, a heinous crime.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow, I thought you were boycotting my thread until I’d complied with someone-or-other’s demands?

    Can’t we go back to that?

    Everyone wins.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it”

    Yes you do, on a graph that

    a) is meant to show the temperature
    b) refers to the graph where the 1980 tree ring data is absolutely shown

    you have every right to leave out misleading data and let the interested person view the original which is entirely clearly referred to.

  48. #48 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    You’re having trouble with the bollocks you spew being shown up, Brad?

    Hey, you were going to answer BBD’s questions.

    But you refuse to.

  49. #49 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you’re a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

    No it doesn’t. See D’Arrigo (2008). The modern divergence appears to be atypical. And millennial temperature reconstructions do not solely rely on dendro proxies.

    None of which challenges the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW. So why are we talking about it?

    And more to the point, why do you doubt the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW?

  50. #50 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Go on, Bray, if you answer BBD to his satisfaction, then I’ll stop posting.

  51. #51 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you’re a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

    Ah, it seems the mental midget doesn’t understand the concept of calibration, and that what was once demonstrated to be reliable, can become unreliable over time. I would normally leave it to somone far more competent like Bernard for instance to explain the additional post- c.960 stressors, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he decided not to waste his time.

    After all, mental midgets cannot learn, they’ll merely repeat the stories they chose to believe, long ago.

  52. #52 chek
    February 17, 2013

    #51 should read “post- c.1960 stressors”, in case the midget gets too excited.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow:

    b) does not deign to notice that what McIntyre demanded (the code) would merely allow him to repeat NOT REPLICATE the study, thereby ensuring that absolutely NO NEW DATA (the reason to require replication of a paper) and therefore a complete and utter waste of time.

    Seriously, dude? Are you fucking blind?

    Here is me, three pages ago, “not deigning to notice” your revelation that M&M were working with NO NEW DATA:
    ______________________________________________
    Right. Very good point.

    What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!” He merely wanted to audit it (which is sometimes called “internal replication”).

    Why?

    Because McIntyre couldn’t tell—and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say—exactly how they’d got from their own data to their own conclusion.

    The question for McIntyre, therefore, was whether the paper was even valid (not whether its finding was empirically robust). That is, did its conclusions even follow from its own data?

    To validate the paper, it was only necessary to know what Mann’s own raw data were and how he’d analysed and transformed them to get the final graph. If these two factors had been self-explanatory to readers of the paper itself—as they should have been, since the paper was generally presented as a work of science—then history would have been very different. There would have been no Climate Audit, no Hockey Stick Wars, no Jerry Sandusky references and no libel suits. Remember what one of your quoted passages says:

    “Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists…”

    But if any other scientists had “scrutinised” MBH98’s methodology, they didn’t say so publicly.

    A paper’s peer reviewers are supposed to vouch for its validity, at least prima facie, so they should have sent MBH98 back as soon as they noticed it was impossible to guess how to trace the steps from raw data to conclusion. But as Richard Muller points out, there was a strong desire in the climate community to “believe” in the Hockey Stick; and because it was such an “attractive conclusion,” there was also a strong temptation to rush it into print without due diligence.

    When these problems started coming to light, the climate science community suddenly adopted a code of omertà. To their eternal discredit, they protected the bad scientists in their ranks and disparaged McIntyre instead.

    Fortunately we know a bit about what they were saying behind closed doors—thanks to the Climategate emails.

    4241.txt: Rob Wilson:
“The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel …   The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. ”

    Tom Wigley:
I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith [Briffa] is better? – or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike [Mann] is too deep into this to be helpful.

    3994.txt: John Mitchell:
“Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me  that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

    Tom Wigley:
“Mike,
———-
Re WSJ. They say …
“Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.”
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn’t mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.”
—————–
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M — but it seems that you do too.”

    Tim Barnett:
“Not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as I remember. For instance, I seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference.

    My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures.”

    Myles Allen:
“I completely agree with Tim, but the question is whether we have either the energy or thick enough hides. My recollection of the experience of asking (I thought quite politely) Mike [Mann] about this kind of thing is rather unpleasant.”

    Hans von Storch:
“Simon, I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre’s in GRL. I would assign the following significance to these articles (just among us, please):

    
—ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be “true”. (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbility.)
[…]

    
—McIntyre &McKitrick: As far as I can say (we did not redo the analysis, but Francis Zwiers did) the identfied glitch is real. One should not do it this way.”

    1527.txt: Rob Wilson:
”There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”

    4369.txt: Tim Osborn:
“This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ” 

    4369.txt: Ed Cook:
“I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

    1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA):
“How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
The media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness.”

    1104.txt: Wanner:
“I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report… I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.”

    4101.txt: “Dr Dendro”:
“Hi Phil,…
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
 so.”

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Vincent, don’t forget that Wow is in denial that anything was hidden—so he feels compelled to rewrite your comment:

    With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

    – Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we don’t use it.

    – Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

    FTFY, Vincent.

  55. #55 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Fortunately we know [an incomplete] bit about what they were saying behind closed doors [and we can make up anything we like to fill the gaps].

    Fixed that for the gullible moron.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD:

    And more to the point, why do you doubt the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW?

    As you may have noticed, I was starting to explain the many reasons when we were interrupted by the chatter of the troletariat. Now, I can either clean up their shit or answer your question. If you want me to do the latter, perhaps you could gently suggest to them that they fuck off.

  57. #57 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    And BK now resumes his misdirection tactics, as he must, lacking any substantive scientific case. Since BK is being boring, I will cut and paste previous comments with apologies to others here.

    Why are you doing this Brad?

    Why didn’t the vast body of accumulated evidence (some small part of which has been linked on this thread) influence your reasoning?

    Objectively, it should have done, so the question is why didn’t this happen? You would have to have a *reason* for this.

    You have shifted from an indefensible estimate of ECS to claiming that the projected warming will be harmless, to insinuations that climate science is ‘corrupt’.

    There’s no coherence to what you argue except its intent: a denial of the validity of scientific knowledge about anthropogenically-forced climate change. Why are you doing this? What are your reasons? And why won’t you discuss them?

  58. #58 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Translation: “Brad’s” er… ‘position’ doesn’t withstand too much examination.

  59. #59 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    @ 56 Just ignore them and explain your reasoning.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “Seriously, dude? Are you fucking blind?”

    No.

    YOU, however, are nuts.

    “What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!””

    Two problems:

    1) he’s incompetent (much like yourself)
    2) it’s not basic, it’s a waste of time

    But you go ahead and cling to your crank conspiracy theories and your lying sacks of shite authorities.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “Vincent, don’t forget that Wow is in denial that anything was hidden”

    There was nothing hidden.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say”

    As you’ve been shown before, this is a complete fabrication.

  63. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Brad, “to hide the decline” doesn’t mean anything was “hidden”.

    Obviously, this is terribly confusing to you, as you refuse to read anything that reveals the context that everybody else understands, sticking instead, as you do, with crank misinterpretations.

  64. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Vince:

    – Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we “hide” it.

    Why the scare quotes around the verb, Vince? He didn’t “hide” it, he hid it.

    No, he didn’t hide it. Nothing was hidden.

    Classic case of denial in action there, Brad. Your understanding is completely at odds with reality.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Bernard J:

    Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the “hockey stick”. This is an illogical stance to maintain.

    Your criticism demonstrates a thoroughgoing incapacity for logic, mongoloid.

    There would be absolutely nothing inconsistent about accepting that the planet is warming but disputing that it is warming in the manner indicated by the hockey stick graph.

    As it is, I have never said the warming segment of the hockey stick was incorrect, so this is your private delusion and none of my responsibility.

    Even more egregious is the fact that you argue against the hockey stick on the basis of your (claimed) perception of scientific malfeasance,

    It’s not egregious to argue against papers that you perceive as malfeasant.

    It’s rational.

    but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

    So the fuck what, you retard? The rational and moral duty to argue against a scientifically-malfeasant paper is completely unaffected by supposed vindications of its conclusion. You really don’t know how science works, do you?

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Lest we forget, Brad’s classic claim that his personal opinion (largely based on his admitted neglect of actually reading any primary material) is of equal value to the scientific consensus.

    The mental incompetence revealed by that claim really underlines the complete pointlessness of all of his drivel.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Retard whines loudly.

    Refuses to answer BBD.

    Because they can’t: it would show them up for the drooling moron right-wing ideologue they are.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Vince:

    No, he didn’t hide it. Nothing was hidden.

    OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it. Fair enough.

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Just checking, is this “malfeasance” the malfeasance alleged by a group of lobby-group-funded incompetents including Steve McIntyre and found to be entirely without merit by about 9 seperate audits by genuine authorities?

    As this “malfeasance” clearly has been demonstrated to have been a false claim, why are you still trying to flog it?

  70. #70 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Oh, what a “crime”, appearing to “lie” to his friends in a personal and private email.

    Oh, society will crumble, crumble….

    You really are a crybaby alarmist.

  71. #71 chek
    February 17, 2013

    But Vince, denial is all about clinging to unreality. It’s the very definition of all that deniers can do. Well, that and inventing baseless stories about how scientists are denying reality.

  72. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it. Fair enough.

    Nope. Keep trying. You might get it one day: He didn’t hide anything. The divergence problem is well-documented.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD:

    @ 56 Just ignore them and explain your reasoning.

    I’d happily ignore them if I didn’t feel some personal responsibility for keeping this thread relatively clean of troll shit.

    So I either clean up after them, or they fuck off and I concentrate on your (non-trivial) question.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    On August 1st 2012, John Christy once again testified before the US Congress in a Senate hearing on climate issues. His written testimony is here and his verbal testimony is here. Christy’s latest testimony consisted entirely of five climate myths, four of which we debunked in a previous post. In this post we will examine Christy’s comments regarding the link between climate change and extreme weather.

    Soon after Christy’s testimony, Roger Pielke Jr. and Steve McIntyre weighed in by attacking the largely correct testimony from Christopher Field, while turning blind eye to Christy’s grossly misleading testimony that contained myths regarding extreme weather events. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Pielke Jr. is not uncommon and several climate scientists have been the victim of similar efforts (for example, Coumou and Rahmstorf, James Hansen and others). To this end, Pielke Jr. uses an oft-repeated strategy that involves misdirection, bait and switch and knocking down strawmen arguments that he has constructed.

    See http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1566&p=3

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Vince:

    You might get it one day: He didn’t hide anything.

    OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it. Fair enough.

  76. #76 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Steve McIntyre was in communication with the Wegman panel, at least concerning technical questions around replication of his work. The full extent of McIntyre’s communications or meetings with Spencer or other staffers, as well as Wegman panelists, is still unknown. However, the record shows there were at least two intriguing opportunities for face-to-face meetings in Washington during the Wegman panel’s mandate.

    See: http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

    the wegman scandal can be read about here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/19/the-wegman-plagiarism-scandal/

  77. #77 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    As to why McIntyre does all this bullshitting, his bio is:

    Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. “I’ve spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals,” he said in 2009

    Follow the money.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it

    Oooh, the “crime” of appearing to “lie” to his friend on a personal and private email…

  79. #79 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    “So I either clean up after them”

    Oh dear. You steal even ideas off other people.

    Can’t manage your own material, little boy?

  80. #80 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    I’ve already told you, you knucle-dragging buffoon, that if you were to answer BBD’s questions to his satisfaction that I’d stop posting.

    Either you WANT me posting here, or you DAREN’T answer BBD.

  81. #81 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Perhaps you will be interested to know that I was once a ‘lukewarmer’. Never witless enough to deny the radiative physics, but motivated by an understandable desire to find the scientific consensus on ECS in error.

    Proceeding from this sceptical (but emotionally motivated) position, I tried to find evidence that the efficacy of CO2 (and other GHGs) was over-stated. Hence the keen interest in paleoclimate.

    This led to greater insight into the sheer scale of evidence informing the standard scientific position on AGW.

    As an aspirant rationalist I was compelled to confront the motivation behind my illogical conviction that ECS to 2 x CO2 was very low. This doesn’t fit with *any* paleoclimate evidence.

    So, reluctantly, I was forced to abandon my lukewarmer position.

  82. #82 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    @ BK # 73

    Oh, come on. Stop being a disingenuous, evasive twat.

  83. #83 chek
    February 17, 2013

    OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it.

    Which fellow scientists and who among them wouldn’t have already been aware of ‘the decline’ is of course left hanging in “Brad’s” reconstruction.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Odd how Bray thinks somehow that if he’s responding to one person, he can’t respond to others.

    Or that if there is a message between where he last left off and where you posted, he can’t find it.

    I wonder if he’s aphasic?

  85. #85 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Nah, “Brad’s” just doing a ‘wrist on brow’ theatrical-style pose. Kinda like a Jane Austen or Tennessee Williams heroine when overwhelmed.

    Although in this case the overwhelming is from the sheer amount of nonsense he’s absorbed coming home to roost.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Billy Conolly calls it “Going all ‘Rita Hayworth'”.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    “First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism.”

    Anti-scientific bollocks. Atheism is not negative, it’s lack. Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive, you fuckwit.

    LOL :-) ;-)

    Yeah, you totally got me Wow—I admit it, atheists believe in 0 gods, not -1… whatever was I thinking?

    LOL!!!

    As long as you keep eavesdropping on tertiary-educated people, Wow, this language barrier is going to keep popping up right in front of your face, with the inevitable hilarious misunderstandings.

  88. #88 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    You’ve probably seen it before, but just in case.

  89. #89 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    BK

    Just so you don’t think I’m deliberately missing your earlier point, I freely admit to being logically agnostic and emotionally atheist.

    Note the free admission in blog comments.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 17, 2013
    Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive

    LOL

    This maths came as a surprise to you?

  91. #91 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Note the logical consistency.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Well, go on, answer the man, Bray.

    Oh, that’s right: you cannot and will not.

    You’re the hollow man.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Wow:

    “OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it”

    Oooh, the “crime” of appearing to “lie” to his friend on a personal and private email…

    LOL…

    Seriously, though, this question is a validated predictor of climate-change attitudes: “How do you feel about scientists using their university email accounts to lie to their scientific colleagues?”

    If you condone it, you’re more likely to express grave concern about global warming and to support international efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions.

    If you find it unacceptable, you’re most likely to identify as a “skeptic.”

  94. #94 Wow
    February 17, 2013

    Wrong again.

  95. #95 BBD
    February 17, 2013

    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

  96. #96 chek
    February 17, 2013

    Interesting how “Brad” at #93 studiously ignores #’83 in order to maintain his misleading narrative.

  97. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2013

    Chek:

    Which fellow scientists and who among them wouldn’t have already been aware of ‘the decline’ is of course left hanging in “Brad’s” reconstruction.

    Yeah, because the best way to mislead your colleagues would be to send them an email detailing the precise method with which you plan to mislead them, while also publishing papers documenting said method so everybody can see the method you are using to “mislead” everybody.

    I guess nobody ever accused climate deniers of being either logical or consistent.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    BBD,

    this is very interesting—I appreciate your frank introspection:

    Perhaps you will be interested to know that I was once a ‘lukewarmer’. Never witless enough to deny the radiative physics, but motivated by an understandable desire to find the scientific consensus on ECS in error.

    I myself have no affective dog in the ECS race—but then, I’m sure that’s what I’d say if I did have one! So you’re under no obligation to believe me.

    Never seen Tree Lobsters before—drolly amusing, thanks.

    I can’t remember what I was up to in explaining my failure to convert to the “mainstream” narrative, but one objection to it that has always seemed pretty insurmountable to me is articulated here:

    http://clivebest.com/?page_id=2949#comment-4945

    (Linking to it because I’m pressed for time.)

    Never say never, however! You may know of an answer to my objection, in which case I’d be all ears.

    I’ve gotta run. It’s Monday morning. To be continued, if you’re up for it?

  99. #99 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Anyone else feel dumber for reading clive’s bullshit?

  100. #100 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    Tomorrow then. Toodle pip!

Current ye@r *