Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

    And if it HAS?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    More wilful / witless incomprehension in the peanut gallery:

    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.

    oh, FFS! Phil Jones sent an email to 5 climate scientists. In the email, he claims he’s just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization, not in front of the 5 climate scientists he sent the email to. The troglodyte consensus seems to be that he was lying about this: he hadn’t, in fact, concealed anything in the graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization.

    So he was only deceiving 5 scientists, not hundreds! Hooray!

    You trolls have rather high shame thresholds, you know.

  3. #3 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    The climate is stable to external CO2 forcing

    This statement is contradicted by all available evidence. A selection is linked at Page 21, comments # 10,# 12 and # 15.

    Clive Best is mistaken.

    one objection to it that has always seemed pretty insurmountable to me is articulated here: [Clive Best comment]

    ***

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    BBD:

    cool, talk to you then.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    No, idiot, he didn’t.

  6. #6 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    @ 4 Am edging towards bed but couldn’t let CBs nonsense pass for a whole 24 hours ;-)

  7. #7 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Nothing was hidden, doofus.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    BBD:

    PS

    Sorry, I was referring to my comments, not Clive Best’s. The permalink doesn’t seem to work.

    Brad Keyes says:
    January 24, 2013 at 12:49 pm
    “If positive H2O feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.”

    You mean we’ll finally be able to turn off the cli-sci funding spigot (or clamp off the haemorrhage, if you prefer) and redirect our money, effort and attention to, you know, non-imaginary problems?

    Then the collapse is a moral imperative. As soon as possible. Wouldn’t you agree, Clive?

    (For technical considerations I’d amend it to: if positive feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.)

    FWIW, it collapsed for me as soon as the following thought occurred to me, which Lindzen puts more eloquently than I could (though it doesn’t by any means depend on his formidable authority):

    If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

    It makes nil difference whether or not Lindzen himself has successfully isolated and characterised the mechanism of the thermostat. The point is, it exists and it’s as dependable as the sunrise. The climate is not going to tip.

    Or have I missed some subtlety?
    Reply
    Brad Keyes says:
    January 24, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    My formatting was unclear, but this:

    If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

    was a quote from the Professor. Though, as I suggested, it might as well have come from a junior-school geology teacher. It’d be just as self-evident.

    Again, unless I’ve missed some subtlety, it seems to me that every able-bodied person in climate science is morally obliged to bring about the collapse of “the whole lot” now, if not sooner.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “was a quote from the Professor. Though, as I suggested, it might as well have come from a junior-school geology teacher. It’d be just as self-evidently wrong

    FTFY.

    This dude isn’t fit to teach geography at kindergarden…

  10. #10 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “Or have I missed some subtlety?”

    Yes.

    If

    It’s a short word and you don’t appear to know what it means.

    it’s a conditional statement and the rest of the proclamation of yours depends on that conditional statement to be correct.

    It isn’t, as BBD and my two links above show.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization

    Yet if it were concealed, why did he include a reference to the paper that shows that information?

    The answer is that it wasn’t concealed.

    Nothing was hidden.

  12. #12 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    BK

    The old feedback misrepresentation…

    (For technical considerations I’d amend it to: if positive feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.)

    Explain deglaciation under orbital forcing *without* net positive feedbacks. How does a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of high NH latitude TSI flip climate from a glacial to an interglacial unless by engaging powerful positive feedbacks?

    If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

    Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain <1 don't saturate the sytsem*. No boiling oceans. This has no bearing on the efficacy of CO2 forcing, something strongly supported by paleoclimate evidence.

    *Although we may have had several Snowball Earths, culminating in the Neoproterozic SE.

  13. #13 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Hell, it doesn’t all fall over if there are NO positive feedbacks. Doubling will STILL cause 1.2C per doubling of CO2 and we have enough to change the world 6-10C by that measure in commercially accessible reserves.

    However, you cannot get the earth the temperature it is without positive feedbacks being in place, so feedbacks are positive.

    Indeed the current temperature indicates that there is a positive trend since with half a doubling of CO2 we have 0.9C or more warming, meaning a 1/3 positive feedback at MINIMUM.

  14. #14 chek
    February 18, 2013

    Yet if it were concealed, why did he include a reference to the paper that shows that information? The answer is that it wasn’t concealed. Nothing was hidden.

    “Brad’s” entire premise rests on the denier spin of the incomplete information he’s been fed.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    And denial of any data that doesn’t push his predetermined agenda.

  16. #16 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    We might also wonder why the average surface temperature is ~33K. Why not much lower? Answer: positive feedbacks. Try explaining it without them.

  17. #17 chameleon
    February 18, 2013

    That’s a good question BBD but it is missing something obvious.
    If the ONLY answer is positive feedback, how come it’s not much hotter than -33K?

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013
    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.

    Erm, you seem to be popping a valve or two, Keyes.

    As to what is logical, the warming described by science has been shown to describe a “hockey stick” trajectory by multiple proxies independent of the tree ring data – as has been drawn to your attention many times on this thread. This is the basic thrust of the whole global warming issue.

    The hockey stick is also implicit in the empirical sequelæ of warming, especially with respect to ice loss in the Arctic and from the termini of glaciers – many of the empirical sequelæ do not recover on the scale of centuries. If warming had occurred in the past millennium to the extent seen since the industrial revolution, the cryosphere and indeed the biosphere would not look as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This puts an upper limit on the integral of previous warming events over the last few thousand years, and evinces a… hockey stick.

    If you want to dispute the fact that it is warming more – and at an unprecendented rate – in the last century or so than it has in the previous millennium or two (that is, in hockey stick fashion) you have to address and refute more than the dendrochronological data. The wide body of empirical evidence does not imply a U-shaped curve warming phenomenon, which is really the only plausible alternative to a hockey stick for the last several millennia, so you are very much backed into a corner with what you are trying to deny.

    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.

    Then what are you disputing? That the current rate and magnitude of warming is not unprecedented in the Holocene? On what would you be basing such a claim? Are you trying to claim that the regional “Mediæval Warm Period” was in fact consistent across the planet and for the whole of the preceding Holocene temperature record? This would be the most parsimonious way to avoid a hockey stick. That would be curious though, because you would be relying on the very same proxies to make a case for the Mediæval Warm Period and prior temperatures, that you have to refute in order to avoid acknowledging a hockey stick trajectory.

    And if you are trying to mould the Mediæval Warm Period into a typicality for Earth’s climate, you have to also account for the warming mechanism that led to it, and for the warming mechanism responsible for the current change in climate. Are they the same in ætiology? Are they comparable in extent? Are they of equivalent effect and of equivalent persistence?

    Parsimony wants to know. And the security of future generations of people and non-human species is dependent on the answers.

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

    For a laugh, provide references to all papers that you think are “malfeasant”, and give page, paragraph, and figure references to the specific instances of malfeasance.

    Please.

    […]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?

    So what? Well, if you cherry-pick your targets for criticism, as you are wont to do, you are open to charges of the logical fallacy variously know as “suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, [and] one-sidedness”.

    The rational and moral duty is to argue a case with complete consideration of all evidence, and in a complete context of that evidence. You do not do this.

    And yes, I know how science works. I’ve spent decades conducting scientific research and publishing scientifically.

    And it’s curious to see that you’re as afflicted with a similar case of the metaphorical gnathostomiasis that afflicts the hyperdysphemic troll mike.

    Livin’ in your head rent-free, Keyes, livin’ in your head rent-free…

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013
    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.

    Erm, you seem to be popping a valve or two, Keyes.

    As to what is logical, the warming described by science has been shown to describe a “hockey stick” trajectory by multiple proxies independent of the tree ring data – as has been drawn to your attention many times on this thread. This is the basic thrust of the whole global warming issue.

    The hockey stick is also implicit in the empirical sequelæ of warming, especially with respect to ice loss in the Arctic and from the termini of glaciers – many of the empirical sequelæ do not recover on the scale of centuries. If warming had occurred in the past millennium to the extent seen since the industrial revolution, the cryosphere and indeed the biosphere would not look as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This puts an upper limit on the integral of previous warming events over the last few thousand years, and evinces a… hockey stick.

    If you want to dispute the fact that it is warming more – and at an unprecendented rate – in the last century or so than it has in the previous millennium or two (that is, in hockey stick fashion) you have to address and refute more than the dendrochronological data. The wide body of empirical evidence does not imply a U-shaped curve warming phenomenon, which is really the only plausible alternative to a hockey stick for the last several millennia, so you are very much backed into a corner with what you are trying to deny.

    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.

    Then what are you disputing? That the current rate and magnitude of warming is not unprecedented in the Holocene? On what would you be basing such a claim? Are you trying to claim that the regional “Mediæval Warm Period” was in fact consistent across the planet and for the whole of the preceding Holocene temperature record? This would be the most parsimonious way to avoid a hockey stick. That would be curious though, because you would be relying on the very same proxies to make a case for the Mediæval Warm Period and prior temperatures, that you have to refute in order to avoid acknowledging a hockey stick trajectory.

    And if you are trying to mould the Mediæval Warm Period into a typicality for Earth’s climate, you have to also account for the warming mechanism that led to it, and for the warming mechanism responsible for the current change in climate. Are they the same in ætiology? Are they comparable in extent? Are they of equivalent effect and of equivalent persistence?

    Parsimony wants to know. And the security of future generations of people and non-human species is dependent on the answers.

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

    For a laugh, provide references to all papers that you think are “malfeasant”, and give page, paragraph, and figure references to the specific instances of malfeasance.

    Please.

    […]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?

    So what? Well, if you cherry-pick your targets for criticism, as you are wont to do, you are open to charges of the logical fallacy variously know as “suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, [and] one-sidedness”.

    The rational and moral duty is to argue a case with complete consideration of all evidence, and in a complete context of that evidence. You do not do this.

    And yes, I know how science works. I’ve spent decades conducting scientific research and publishing scientifically.

    And it’s curious to see that you’re as afflicted with a similar case of the metaphorical gnathostomiasis that afflicts the hyperdysphemic troll mike.

    Livin’ in your head rent-free, Keyes, livin’ in your head rent-free…

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    Phil Jones sent an email to 5 climate scientists. In the email, he claims he’s just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization

    I’m curious Keyes.

    Did you attend and listen to this presentation? Do you know what Phil Jones said during the presentation, and in particular what he said whilst he was discussing the figures related to the trajectories that you regard as “malfeasant”?

    As I noted in my previous post, to exclude some of the data and context from your case is to be cherry-picking, and I’m sure that you wouldn’t want to employ logical fallacy in order to make your case, would you?

  21. #21 peterd
    February 18, 2013

    Unbelievable. Another 1,000 posts on this thread since the last time I looked (late last week). Don’t some of you people have better things to do with your time? Well, I do, but I cannot resist a tilt at Brad. You talk, Brad, about “Earth’s natural thermostat”, but without providing any real evidence of such. Did Venus have a “natural thermostat”? If so, why did its climate appear to have run away? If not, why not? And if Earth has a “natural thermostat”, why does its climate change at all? What’s the mechanism, Brad? You assert that there’s been no “tipping point” in 4 billion years, but what about glaciations, Brad? Surely they are “tipping points”? You appeal to the “formidable authority” of Lindzen at the same time as your denialist-contrarian kith and kin rail against “authority” in science. Bah, enough of your rubbish……

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

    No tipping?

    Really?

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    Peterd.

    Yeah, I swore off a while back, but there have since been a number of opportunities for palpable hits, and Keyes’ case is looking more tattered for the skewering, so it’s worth it.

    At least ’til now. I doubt that he has many bolt holes left to which to run.

  24. #24 David B. Benson
    February 18, 2013

    chameleon — The positive feedback is water vapor. Water vapor precipitates rather rapidly providing an upper limit on the positive feedback.

  25. #25 David B. Benson
    February 18, 2013

    Brad — Planetary climates have no natural thermostat, Terra, Venus, Mars and Europa:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29
    More interesting is
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
    and it has no thermostat either.

    In every case the physics and chemistry is quite fully developed for the equilibrium case and less well developed for the non-equilibrium condition Terra currently suffers from.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    I think Brad’s referring to the “natural thermostat” that allowed the ocean to heat up to 40 degrees at the surface 250 million years ago, with consequent anoxia and eliminating 96% of all marine species, causing such damage to the biosphere that it took 6 million years for land vegetation to recover sufficiently for coal formation to resume, and 30 million years for recovery of all habitats.

    I, for one, am glad to give away any sort of risk management in favour of such an effective “natural thermostat”.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    Brad says,

    In the email, he claims he’s just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization,

    Er, the “inconvenient truth” being that temperatures were spiking downwards in the late 20th Century
    no, er, that tree ring growth does not provide a good proxy for temperatures prior to the late 20th Century
    no, er…..ah!
    that Jones hid nothing and that his statement of intent referenced a statistical method of presenting good information despite the presence of bad data

    Of course, a very inconvenient truth when you’re obsessed with bathing in a sea of fact-free denial.

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    What a complete joke you are, Brad.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Vince,

    Yes, I get why this sounds reasonable to you:

    that Jones hid nothing and that his statement of intent referenced a statistical method of presenting good information despite the presence of bad data

    I’d predict that the large majority of educated people would be hard pressed (not to mention disinclined) to fault your logic here.

    But there’s a small subset of educated people who’ve been conditioned by a long process of indoctrination to reject arguments of this form on sight.

    I’m not talking about the set “deniers,” “denialists” or “denialati,” in case that’s what you were thinking.

    I’m talking about the set “scientists.”

    There’s a flaw in your thinking. It’s offensively salient to scientists but it’s mostly invisible to the other 97% of the population, no matter how intelligent and well-educated.

    Even when I tell you what it is, you’ll probably think I’m lying. (And I won’t really blame you.)

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Let me quote the impeccably pro-consensus, alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller’s reaction to what Phil Jones did (my emphasis):

    “Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say, “Well, you know, it’s a human field. You make mistakes.” And then I show them this [WMO graph] and they say, “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.”

    Why is an apparently harmless trick—which merely “simplified” and “uncluttered” the “message” of the graph, right?—so unconscionable in science?

    Because science has a strange and unique epistemology.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “Let me quote the impeccably pro-consensus, alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller’”

    Who only became so when he looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion as the rest of the climate science scientists.

    You assert every time that you will look at data, but you don’t. You assert every time that looking at the data will prove or disprove a conclusion, except if anyone does that and proves the conclusion of AGW, you do as you’ve done to Muller.

    Your only criteria for “scientist” is “agrees with me”.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “I’d predict that the large majority of educated people would be hard pressed (not to mention disinclined) to fault your logic here.”

    Nope, I find his logic sound.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    BBD’s papers had absolutely no effect on this idiot denier.

    It’s as if there were no contrary evidence presented whatsoever. Like he’s denying its existence.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    You assert every time that looking at the data will prove or disprove a conclusion, except if anyone does that and proves the conclusion of AGW, you do as you’ve done to Muller.

    What art thou playing at today, jester? I accept the reality of AGW.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Wow,

    what part of the concept of a boycott are you having trouble with? Let me put “boycott” into words that should be suitable to your level of education—because you wrote them:

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

    Can’t you carry out a basic threat?

  36. #36 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “I accept the reality of AGW.”

    You don’t.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Can’t you answer BBD’s questions?

    PS weren’t you and chubby going to ignore me? “Can’t you carry out a basic threat?”

    PS apologies for responding to two more lightning shifts of goalpost there from our resident donkey Bray.

  38. #38 chameleon
    February 18, 2013

    Hey Wow?
    When are you going to let us all know whose quote you copy/pasted?
    Who is this mysterious ‘someone’ whom you infer is a scientist?

  39. #39 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Chubby, are you going to say why?

  40. #40 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    Hey, let’s keep on talking about Phil’s graph!! The graph!! The very loudly insinuated insinuations of misconduct!! The CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE!!!!

    FFS.

    Reason and evidence apparently have no effect on BK. That is because BK is in denial and so rejects reason and evidence that challenge the constructed pseudo-reality he *wishes* to inhabit.

    The very nature of denial makes is near-impossible for the sufferer to admit that he or she is symptomatic.

    This is a colossal waste of time.

  41. #41 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    chameleon @ 17

    That’s a good question BBD but it is missing something obvious.
    If the ONLY answer is positive feedback, how come it’s not much hotter than -33K?

    Read what is written instead of posting redundant questions:

    Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain less than 1 don’t saturate the sytsem*. No boiling oceans. This has no bearing on the efficacy of CO2 forcing, something strongly supported by paleoclimate evidence.

    You haven’t got enough of a clue to participate in discussion like this. It needs saying.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    I accept the reality of AGW

    .

    But *deny* that it will have much noticeable effect. Which is how you have deceived yourself into believing two incompatible things (assuming that you aren’t lying about accepting the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range).

  43. #43 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    The reality of AGW is that there are positive feedbacks to CO2’s effects and that it really is occurring, both contested by our most annoying donkey galloping over the fields like a nutter.

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Wow:

    “Your only criteria [sic] for “scientist” is “agrees with me”.”

    If that were my criterion, I wouldn’t call Richard Muller—who reckons that carbon dioxide is going to be the worst pollutant in human history—a scientist, would I, idiot?

    ““I accept the reality of AGW.”

    You don’t.”

    Oh, please tell me more about what I do and don’t believe, idiot.

    “[Chameleon], are you going to say why?”

    As is obvious to everyone but you, you idiot, Chameleon wants to know who originated your quote in order to settle the question:

    was Brad right to insist no scientist would ever say something so scientifically absurd, or are Wow and Lotharsson right in pretending it was a perfectly science-literate thing to say?

    Only you know the answer, Wow, but you have been dodging the question for hundreds of comments now.

    Your dodgery gives the strong impression of a guilty conscience.

    “The reality of AGW is that there are positive feedbacks to CO2′s effects and that it really is occurring, both contested by [Brad]…”

    Readers can tell that you’re a liar, idiot, as soon as they realize that I explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of AGW.

  45. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    …the other reality being that starting 250 million years ago, and lasting millions of years, the entire Earth was a hot, arid wasteland with virtually lifeless oceans.

    It’s happened before and it could happen again, *especially* if we continue irresponsibly creating the necessary conditions for a major heat build-up on Earth.

    Brad belongs to that minority of the population whose selfishness and ego collectively outweigh their intelligence and commonsense.

  46. #46 chameleon
    February 18, 2013

    Why?
    No Wow,
    The question was WHO!

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    BBD:

    “Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain less than 1 don’t saturate the system. No boiling oceans.”

    Thanks, that’s a good point—I forgot that positive feedback alone doesn’t inevitably saturate a system; positive loop gain has to be positive AND above a certain threshold in order to predispose the system to runaway, uncontrolled, catastrophic instability. (I’ll have to revise my cybernetics / feedback theory, in case I’ve misused some of those descriptors.)

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    Keyes might be interested to see that Eli is currently hosting discussions on both sensitivity and the consequences of warming.

    Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Vince:

    “It’s happened before and it could happen again, *especially* if we continue irresponsibly creating the necessary conditions for a major heat build-up on Earth.”

    OK. so what are “the necessary conditions”? Is there a certain CO2 concentration at which you think major heating (with 40C ocean-surface temperatures, etc.) becomes probable?

    And more interestingly (to some of us, anyway), have you come to a view on this question yet:

    are Richard Muller (and Jonathan Jones and Paul Dennis and Eduardo Zorita and Andrew Montford …etc.) and Brad Keyes lying when they tell you you’re not allowed to do that [what Phil Jones did] in science?

  50. #50 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    I forgot that positive feedback alone doesn’t inevitably saturate a system; positive loop gain has to be positive AND above a certain threshold in order to predispose the system to runaway, uncontrolled, catastrophic instability.

    Keyes.

    Very, very in the mainstream are concerns about runaway warming. This is another of your straw men.

    What is of concern is that there is an effective asymptote that is above the thresholds for coherent civilisation and for non-damageing ecosystem intregrity.

    And “uncontrolled”? Really, you love the torture of meaning, don’t you? We are not currently in control (in the restraint sense) of the increase in CO2, and therefore we are not in control (in the restraint sense) of warming. This does not mean, however, that a lack of control is only characterised by a (relatively) wild trajectory that leads to boiling oceans.

    Oh, and 2° C will be catastrophic for many people and species. No ifs, no buts.

    There. I said it. Wotchya gonna do about it?

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    “Very, very few

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Bernard J:

    Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

    What’s with this “Keyes”? Wouldn’t the polite form be “Brad”, Bernard? (This isn’t just because I called you a retarded fucking mongoloid, is it? Sheesh, talk about overreaction.)

  53. #53 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    And Brad Keyes, there are a few questions at #19 and #20 awaiting your attention.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2013

    What’s with this “Keyes”? Wouldn’t the polite form be “Brad”, Bernard?

    It would be, if I could muster any respect for you and your approach to logical thinking.

    However, you continue to bastardise science and that makes it increasingly difficult to exhibit any such respect.

    If you showed some good faith it might be different, but you seem impervious to that concept.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Bernard J:

    “Very, very in the mainstream are concerns about runaway warming. This is another of your straw men.”

    I thought “runaway warming” was implicit in the idea of a “tipping point [for warming]”? If I was wrong about that, then this is more a question of terminological confusion than “straw men.”

    “What is of concern is that there is an effective asymptote that is above the thresholds for coherent civilisation and for non-damageing ecosystem intregrity.”

    OK. Good to hear about asymptotes. Finally some language I can relate to.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Bernard J:

    “And Brad Keyes, there are a few questions at #19 and #20 awaiting your attention.”

    There’s a queue, I’m afraid.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Bernard J:

    “However, you continue to bastardise science and that makes it increasingly difficult to exhibit any such respect.”

    I continue to bastardise science? Really? This is a perverse accusation to throw around when I’m the first and loudest voice raised on this thread in condemnation of pseudoscience (decline hiding, algorithm hiding, data hiding, peer-review-literature redefining, consensus redefining, peer-review-system gaming, science politicising, lying, and other practices newly and deplorably associated with science).

  58. #58 Vince Whirlwind
    February 18, 2013

    The problem is, Brad, all those Bad Things exist only in the fevered imaginations of science-incompetent bloggers liks Steve McIntyre.

    Various investigations have shown Muller’s opinion on Jones’ work to have been unfounded and wrong.

    Simple as that.

    And yet you keep regurgitating those wrong opinions.

  59. #59 chek
    February 18, 2013

    Readers can tell that you’re I’m a liar idiot, as soon as they realize that I [mouth words to] explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of AGW [while still wittering on about climategate].

    Corrected for the sake of verité.

    Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

    There’s nothing to spread around, BJ. Just another two-bit dunce who thinks the ‘climategate’ tales tell him all he needs to know

  60. #60 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    Here’s a history of climate science that I have linked already. Everything you say doesn’t apply to it. I assert this; you are invited to demonstrate that I am mistaken.

    You are still trying to use exaggerated smear tactics as a substitute for a coherent scientific counter-argument to the standard position.

    It’s still not working.

  61. #61 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    I wonder where ‘climategate’ (the clue is in the name™) came from. The first recorded use. Does anyone know?

    Meanwhile, we can chortle.

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    Vince:

    Various investigations have shown Muller’s opinion on Jones’ work to have been unfounded and wrong.

    I can only think of one “investigation” that actually looked into the hiding of the decline, and it quietly conceded that Jones’ graph was “misleading.” You’re not allowed to do that (mislead*) in science, Vince.

    You describe this as an “opinion,” but it’s no such thing—it’s an axiom of science. The idea that, after 250 years of the triumphs of the modern scientific method, we suddenly need an “investigation” by politicians and university business managers into whether one of the rules of science is correct is nothing short of surreal.

    You (not being a scientist) can hardly be blamed for thinking that an inquiry or investigation is a perfectly sensible response to the “controversies” raised by the CRU revelations.

    Not me. I’m offended by it and I will fight these anti-scientific bastards until they’re beaten, if necessary to the death.

    It’s a pity that so many, apparently well-intentioned, non-scientists like yourself have been so adamant in defending an argument which (unbeknownst to you) is anti-scientific.

    But as long as you fail to see your error, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you’ll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I’m afraid.

    * The question of WHY Jones’ trick was misleading, when—as you’ve rightly pointed out—it improved the accuracy of his graph as a representation of historical temperatures is a whole separate question, which will require us to discuss the difference between scientific epistemology and non-scientific epistemology.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    BBD:

    I wonder where ‘climategate’ (the clue is in the name™) came from. The first recorded use. Does anyone know?

    There’s a James Delingpole article that answers this question. He’s often credited / blamed for the (horrible cliché) name, but in the article, IIRC, he mentions a blogger who anticipated him.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    But as long as you fail to see your error, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you’ll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I’m afraid.

    Very moving stuff, Brad. But # 60.

  65. #65 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    BK @ 63

    I’m intrigued. Can you ferret out a link?

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    February 18, 2013

    BBD:

    I take it you are talking to me here:

    “Here’s a history of climate science that I have linked already. Everything you say doesn’t apply to it. I assert this; you are invited to demonstrate that I am mistaken.”

    Actually most of the history of climate science has NOT been one of corruption, as far as I can tell.

  67. #67 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    BK

    Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?

  68. #68 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    If that were my criterion, I wouldn’t call Richard Muller—who reckons that carbon dioxide is going to be the worst pollutant in human history—a scientist, would I

    Oh, so this is how you talk about scientists???

    alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller

    Yeah, you talk a load of shite, you do.

  69. #69 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    Sorry, can’t resist it:

    But as long as you fail to see your error, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you’ll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I’m afraid.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    Fuck, this retard wouldn’t know corrupt if it raped him sideways with a barn door.

    The jerkwad’s just gotta talk bollocks.

  71. #71 chek
    February 18, 2013

    According to ‘Medea Coverage’ here the ever-straight up Delingpole stole it from an anomymous WTFUWT poster.

    Although the inclination of a lazy, sensationalist press to unthinkingly add the ‘-gate’ suffix to anything that moves has made it a little old after 40 years of the same ol’ formulaic thinking.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    The problem is, Brad, all those Bad Things exist only in the fevered imaginations of science-incompetent bloggers liks Steve McIntyre.

    And their brain-dead acolytes, Vincent.

    You know, like bray here.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    http://climateboy.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/overuse-of-gate-suffix.html

    And it is all utterly asinine. The reporting in the Times (Leake) and Daily Mail (Rose) is undeniably bad and irresponsible. If these news outlets were interested in the credibility and integrity of their reporting, they would sack both of these writers, apologize, and have real science journalists set the record straight. That won’t happen because both are in the business of publishing salacious stories of dubious quality.

  74. #74 chek
    February 18, 2013

    Humphhh… #70 should be ‘Media Coverage’, and definitely nothing to do with ancient Grecian mythological princesses.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    You may have been confusing it for Bray here.

    Certainly a drama queen.

  76. #76 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    @ 71 chek

    Thanks for that. By some extraordinary coincidence, my hunch was correct. The clue is indeed in a name coined by ‘Bulldust’ on WUWT, picked up by Delingpole and now in standard useage. Who says the contrarians don’t hijack the fucking language?

  77. #77 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    The idea that, after 250 years of the triumphs of the modern scientific method, we suddenly need an “investigation” by politicians and university business managers into whether one of the rules of science is correct is nothing short of surreal.

    Yet that is only because crank idiots like yourself with an axe to grind because you’re ideologically opposed to the consequences of AGW have demanded they investigate.

    Then when the answer hasn’t been “GUILTY!!!”, you whine, bitch and complain that it was all a whitewash and cover-up, PROVING it’s all a scam.

    Not me. I’m offended by it and I will fight these anti-scientific bastards until they’re beaten, if necessary to the death.

    Bullshit.

    You’re fighting FOR these anti-scientific bastards AND ARE ONE YOURSELF.

    * The question of WHY Jones’ trick was misleading

    Is yet more made-up bollocks.

    It was only misleading if you wanted to be misled.

    Nothing was hidden.

  78. #78 BBD
    February 18, 2013

    Still, if you haven’t got a scientific argument and you are fighting a war for the soul of science you have to use whatever you can cobble together.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    It’s definitely a load of cobblers…

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    Thanks for that. By some extraordinary coincidence, my hunch was correct. The clue is indeed in a name coined by ‘Bulldust’ on WUWT, picked up by Delingpole and now in standard useage.

    And I think you’ll find Delingpole credited the pseudonymous blogger / commenter.

    What chek means when he / she alleges that Delingpole “stole” the term is anyone’s guess.

    You haven’t suggested he stole it; Wikipedia doesn’t suggest he stole it; I’d hardly say he stole it.

    chek, explain yourself.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow:

    “”* The question of WHY Jones’ trick was misleading”

    Is yet more made-up bollocks.

    It was only misleading if you wanted to be misled.”

    LOL.

    Classic stuff, coming from someone who loves to cite the very inquiry which quietly conceded that the graph was “misleading.”

  82. #82 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    It’s odd that those rejecting science see themselves as fighting a war for its very soul.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow:

    “Yet that is only because crank idiots like yourself with an axe to grind because you’re ideologically opposed to the consequences of AGW have demanded they investigate.”

    But my understanding of the scientific evidence has always been that AGW is real. (Have I mentioned this?)

  84. #84 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    @ 80

    You are visibly running out of steam.

  85. #85 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    Having said that, it’s hard to deny that ‘climategate’ (the clue is in the name™) was a contrarian construct. I feel for you.

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow:

    “Oh, so this is how you talk about scientists???

    alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller”

    Yep. I use epithets like “scientist.”

  87. #87 chek
    February 19, 2013

    “What chek means when he / she alleges that Delingpole “stole” the term is anyone’s guess.”

    A writer – even a so-called one such as Delingpole when using unoriginal material not his own, is said to have ‘stolen’ it.

    Oh noes – Writergate!
    Go call for an investigation you illiterate, prickly little drama queen.And be sure to give the Cammy sock a link so she can be sure it exists!

    p.s. “Brad” got a link to his crediting? It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, but just maybe you aren’t lying this time.

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?”

    That’s an interesting interpretation. The truth is:

    1. I don’t think the field is “in error.”

    2. The field certainly is corrupt, but I’ve never alleged or even “implied” that the corruption is anything but a relatively modern development, have I?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?”

    That’s an interesting interpretation. The truth is:

    1. I don’t think the field is “in error.”

    2. The field certainly is corrupt, but I’ve never alleged or even “implied” that the corruption is anything but a relatively modern development, have I?

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    This is perhaps the most confused thought you’ve had so far:

    It’s odd that those rejecting science see themselves as fighting a war for its very soul.

    I take it you’re referring to us.

    When have we EVER rejected science?

    Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method. (That’s what “rejecting science” would sound like, surely—or did you have something else in mind?)

  91. #91 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    BK

    Let me get this straight. You don’t think the field is in error but it is ‘certainly corrupt’. The supposed ‘corruption’ is recent.

    So why doesn’t the recent ‘corruption’ contradict all that came before it? You are a literate man. What does ‘corruption’ mean?

    You are a funny sort of logician.

  92. #92 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    When have we EVER rejected science?

    Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.

    I’m off to bed. I leave this open goal open.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD

    “BK @ 63

    I’m intrigued. Can you ferret out a link?”

    James Delingpole @

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/

    writes:

    “In his superb summary of the Climategate story so far, Christopher Booker generously credits me with having invented the name. Almost but not quite. The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on the Watts Up With That site. He wrote:

    “Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?”

    ‘Not at all long’ was the answer. I picked up his ball and ran with it. And yes, I totally agree with all those of you who groan that it’s too obvious or insufficiently witty (Mark Steyn’s Warmergate is better).”

    chek, even after I told you Delingpole had credited the original commenter, you thought I was making it up:

    “p.s. “Brad” got a link to his crediting? It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, but just maybe you aren’t lying this time.”

    Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified, I suggest you need to revise your mental model of the world. (That’s a little rule from the world of science.)

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “Let me get this straight.”

    I appreciate and admire your approach to disputation here.

    Yes, let’s make sure we understand each other. Let’s make this our highest priority always.

    “You don’t think the [climate science] field is in error”

    Actually, climate scientists are wrong about most things, as are all scientists. It’s just that scientists are slightly less wrong than non-scientists, and are getting slightly less wrong every generation.

    This is pretty much the eternal condition.

    So it’s a bit of a silly question whether “the field” is “in error.”

    We (that is to say, you) need to get more specific, please, or our argument will only become sillier and sillier. ;-)

    ” but it is ‘certainly corrupt’.”

    Right. It’s the only scientific field in which you can do the kind of things [a small number of] leading climate scientists have, by their own admission, done—and still keep your job.

    So the institutional corruption is certain.

    “The supposed ‘corruption’ is recent.

    So why doesn’t the recent ‘corruption’ contradict all that came before it?”

    “You are a literate man.”

    Thanks BBD.

    “What does ‘corruption’ mean?”

    It means hocking your box.

    It means prostituting your principles.

    It means being willing to compromise the scientific method in return for, oh, $90bn or so in government research funds.

    It means you can do the kind of things [a small number of] leading climate scientists have, by their own admission, done—and still keep your job.

    “You are a funny sort of logician.”

    Again with the flattery. Thanks BBD.

    Yes, wit (or humor) and logic are more intimately linked than most people are aware. Some of the most savagely funny writers have been logicians, literally—e.g. Lewis Carroll.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    I forgot to respond to this:

    “The supposed ‘corruption’ is recent.

    So why doesn’t the recent ‘corruption’ contradict all that came before it?”

    Why would it? I don’t follow you here.

    If (say) pharmacological research had become corrupted in the 1980’s, surely that wouldn’t vitiate the truth of the well-established theories of pharmacology, which go back at least to the 19th century?

  96. #96 chek
    February 19, 2013

    Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified,

    Has it really? Did the derivative cretin credit the derivative cretin or the crank site he stole it from at the time? That link seems to be over a week later.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “The very nature of denial makes is near-impossible for the sufferer to admit that he or she is symptomatic.”

    I’m pretty sure Freudian gobbledygook is not the best you can do. We’ve had some fairly intelligent dialogue at several points.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    chek:

    “p.s. “Brad” got a link to his crediting? It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, “

    Yes, Delingpole credited Bulldust.

    “”Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified,”

    Has it really?”

    Yes.

    “That link seems to be over a week later.”

    Now you’re shifting the goalposts. (Not entirely scientific, chek.)

    Nevertheless, if you can find the original, over-one-week-earlier Delingpole article that constitutes what you think is theft of the term, then link please. I’ll check it out.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “”When have we EVER rejected science?

    Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.

    I’m off to bed. I leave this open goal open.”

    I’m outta here too. When you wake up it will be very interesting to see if a single person has managed to land a ball in this “open goal,” won’t it?

  100. #100 chek
    February 19, 2013

    What a lot of frothing. And yet “Brad” can only froth because the cause of his foaming is all imaginary.

    And that’s before even getting to unsuccessfully disputing any of the science. Have you ever heard of ‘displacement activity, “Brad”.

Current ye@r *