Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    chek:

    You’ve made some good comments before, but this one sounds more like the petulant and dishonest bitching of a loser:

    “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”.”

    A giveaway of the difference between this kind of immature nastiness and a good-faith, intelligent contribution to the dialogue is this:

    Proper criticism tends to quote the person being criticised, and the quote exemplifies or substantiates the alleged flaw in the person being criticised.

    Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Brad, clearly still wallowing in “Climategate” nonsense, says,

    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.”

    quietly conceded

    Oooh, looky-here – some loaded, non-informational language.
    Why do you use the word “concede”? and why do you prepend the (clearly inapt and irrelevant) word “quietly”?

    Jones’ graph was “misleading.”

    Cool, let’s have fun matching that assertion of yours with the words actually used, shall we?

    …?

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Brad’s a liar, and denial is how he rationlises being one.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince:

    You’ve made some good comments before (e.g. the one about the limitations of the Earth’s thermostat), but this one sounds more like the petulant and dishonest bitching of a loser:

    “Brad’s a liar, and denial is how he rationlises being one.”

    A giveaway of the difference between this kind of childish nastiness and a good-faith, intelligent contribution to the dialogue is this:

    Proper criticism tends to quote the person being criticised, and the quote exemplifies or substantiates the alleged flaw in the person being criticised.

    Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince:

    “quietly conceded”

    Oooh, looky-here – some loaded, non-informational language.

    Why do you use the word “concede”? and why do you prepend the (clearly inapt and irrelevant) word “quietly”?

    Jones’ graph was “misleading.”

    Cool, let’s have fun matching that assertion of yours with the words actually used, shall we?

    …?

    Readers of this comment are left to guess what on earth your position is. Are you claiming that:

    1. the inquiry non-quietly, openly, frankly, candidly found that the graph was misleading?

    or that:

    2. the inquiry didn’t say it was misleading?

    I know what the inquiry actually said, of course—it would just be fun if you’d clarify your insinuation before I reveal the facts.

  6. #6 chek
    February 19, 2013

    Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

    “Brad”, I recall telling you way back when, perhaps even before you were confined to your cage thread that professional liars and sophists way, way above your level have already done their worst with this bilge and none of it stuck. Except in crank land where everyday is a crankday..

    The huffery and puffery and your adoption of some piddling mission to change that – and, get this – about a subject of which you clearly know zero – because you rilly, rilly rilly’n’trilly believe it was all real is nothing more than a comic spectacle. Citations? Your circus act doesn’t need citing.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Anyway, really have to run—answers to follow.

    :-)

  8. #8 David B. Benson
    February 19, 2013

    Terra around 250 million years ago was indeed hot and therefore the opposite of arid; it rained one ‘hole heck of a lot. In contrast LGM was rather cold and so arid.
    LGM vegetation map:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ray2001/ray_adams_2001.pdf

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    A Play by Play for New Readers

    1. Chek alleges that James Delingpole “stole” the term Climategate.

    2. Chek (falsely) claims the, ahem, authority of Wikipedia for this charge. (Wikipedia makes no such allegation.)

    3. I say Delingpole credited the first person he saw using the term “Climategate”.

    4. Chek doesn’t believe me, saying “It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing.”

    5. I then quote Delingpole doing what chek considers unimaginable:

    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.

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

    6. Chek’s imagination having been proven faulty, its response is that:

    frothing “Brad”…froth…foaming…all imaginary…unsuccessfully disputing…‘displacement activity’, “Brad”?…“Brad”…cage thread…liars and sophists…done their worst…bilge…crank land…a crankday…huffery…puffery…piddling mission…clearly know zero…rilly, rilly rilly’n’trilly…comic spectacle…Citations?…circus act.

    What a lot of frothing. And yet “chek” can only froth because the cause of its foaming is all imaginary. And that’s before even getting to “chek’s” unsuccessful debating of the science. Have you ever heard of ‘displacement activity, “chek”?

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    That wasn’t my understanding, David – apart some thin green bands around the continental margin, 250mya was very, very dry across the landmass, to the point where no coal was formed for about 6 million years until the recovery started.
    40-degree oceans weren’t terribly condusive to life there, either.

    Basically, Brad’s idea of a “global thermostat” is mindless superstitious nonsense.

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    In context, the warming we consider to be “dangerous” will heat the oceans (surface) up to an average of 20 degrees, 10 degrees cooler than 250 million years ago.

    But, if Brad thinks the economy will take a 6-metre sea level rise in its stride, thanks to this magical “thermostat”, I hope he’s prepared to be disappointed…

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Readers of this comment are left to guess what on earth your position is. Are you claiming that:

    1. the inquiry non-quietly, openly, frankly, candidly found that the graph was misleading?

    or that:

    2. the inquiry didn’t say it was misleading?

    I know what the inquiry actually said, of course—it would just be fun if you’d clarify your insinuation before I reveal the facts.

    I guess it’s a shame your choice of Uni study – the study of talking unproductive bullshit – didn’t include any instruction as to the importance of agreed meaning.

    An inquiry doesn’t “concede”, it “finds”.

    A person being questioned “concedes”.

    Do you concede you deliberately used misleading words in order to imply a certain meaning?

    Will you quietly (ie, with embarrassment) concede that no inquiry found Jones “was misleading”? Or can you back that assertion up with a proper reference?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    READER POLL

    Well, well, well! It seems that, over at the immensely-popular February 2013 Open Thread, resident drawcard “Lotharsson” has not only noticed the existence of our modest little “side thread,” but is a regular reader! How flattering. He’s even honored us with the old “denialist treadmill” cliché:

    “After a while [Brad's] travelled all the way around the loop and starts reasserting previously rebutted claims – this is most clearly seen with his obsession with M & J, but if you watch long enough you’ll see it on other topics too.”

    This accusation seems to enjoy general assent (or at least silence).

    Very well. Let’s choose a reference-point: the claim I made a while ago that Naomi Oreskes is a science bimbo because she thinks beryllium (with the tiny atomic number of 4!) is a “heavy metal.”

    How long will it be, dear readers, before I cycle back to using this comprehensively-rebutted zombie talking-point all over again?

    1. Before the end of this page.
    2. Sometime in the next 200 comments.
    3. Sometime in the next 500 comments.
    4. Sometime in the next 1,000 comments.
    5. Before this thread has doubled in length (~4,600 comments).
    6. Never. Brad argues in good faith and learns from his errors like a real scientist.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2013

    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.”

    A tipping point is simply a point at which a meta-stable system shifts from one state to another. There is no need for anything remotely resembling a “runaway” in the system’s equilibrium. Just a shift, step-wise or otherwise, and likely not of more than a few degrees Celsius (if even that) in the case of global warming.

    Once again, you played loose with the terminologies included in your claims.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Bernard J:

    A tipping point is simply a point at which a meta-stable system shifts from one state to another. There is no need for anything remotely resembling a “runaway” in the system’s equilibrium. Just a shift, step-wise or otherwise, and likely not of more than a few degrees Celsius (if even that) in the case of global warming.

    Good explanation. Thanks.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2013

    And Keyes, if you’re going to play the “confusion”card you’re as good as admitting that you don’t understand the basics of the science

    Of course that’s no surprise, as you seem to side-step any request that you demonstrate your competence with evidence of scientific understanding. Except on those occasions when you admit that you don’t understand the science.

    Which reminds me, there are some questions hanging

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2013

    That’d be right. Pre-empt my last comment with a thank-you.

    Makes me look churlish.

    ;-)

  18. #18 peterd
    February 19, 2013

    Hmmm….*only* 91 posts since my own yesterday? Some of you (Brad included) must be slacking off. Oh well, my copy of Archer and Pierrehumbert’s “The Warming Papers” arrived last week and it’s time for me to get stuck into that. This seems to me preferable to reading Brad’s posts: at least, I might become a little more educated about climate.

  19. #19 peterd
    February 19, 2013

    Bernard J.@14 and Brad@15, yes, and it seems to me that glaciations and deglaciations are examples of “tipping points” that do not lead to runaway (as a new steady state is attained).

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince,

    thanks for clarifying your position.

    Rather than an either / or, you’re asserting both of these things:

    1. An inquiry doesn’t “concede”, it “finds”.

    2. No inquiry found the “hide the decline” graph “misleading.”

    So I was wrong: you’re wrong about two things, not one. ;-)

    The truths are, Vince:

    1. Inquiries are human endeavours, and “show” inquiries (like the CRU-associated ones) are, how can I put this, all too human. They have axes to grind and ideologies to protect and so, when the discover something they didn’t want to discover, they give these discoveries minimal publicity. In common parlance, they “bury” them.

    2. “Buried” on page 60, paragraph 26 of the report of the Muir Russell “Inquiry”—which, unlike certain other CRU “inquiries”, actually examined the ethics of the WMO graph—is the following statement, which is made quietly enough to have escaped your attention until now:

    “In relation to ‘hide the decline’ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.”

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Oops, buggered up the tags.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince,

    thanks for clarifying your position.

    Rather than an either / or, you’re asserting both of these:

    1. An inquiry doesn’t “concede”, it “finds”.

    2. No inquiry found the “hide the decline” graph “misleading.”

    So I was wrong: you’re wrong about two things, not one.

    The truths are, Vince:

    1. Inquiries are human endeavours, and “show” inquiries (like the CRU-associated ones) are, how can I put this, all too human. They have axes to grind and ideologies to protect and so, when the discover things they didn’t want to discover, they give these discoveries minimal publicity. In common parlance, they “bury” them.

    2. “Buried” on page 60, paragraph 26 of the report of the Muir Russell “Inquiry”—which, unlike certain other CRU “inquiries”, actually examined the ethics of the WMO graph—is the following statement, which is made quietly enough to have escaped your attention until now:

    “In relation to ‘hide the decline’ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.”

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    As I’ve mentioned before, scientists tend to take an even dimmer view on misleading graphs than bureaucrats do.

    “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

    “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.” — Paul Dennis

    “The justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I’m willing to publish in […] 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 and they say, “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.”” — Richard Muller

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince W,

    The immediate mystery for you should be: how can the scientific community possibly consider Phil Jones’ trick misleading when it merely replaces bad data (that didn’t reflect temperature trends) with good data (accurate instrumental temperature trends)?

    Surely this “trick” improves the truthfulness of the graph, right?

    You must think that scientists who condemn it have got it ass backwards.

    I wouldn’t blame you. But unless you’ve been taught the scientific method, which you haven’t, you can’t know how scientists think (because it’s very far from obvious—remember, it took tens of thousands of years to develop the modern scientific way of thinking).

    And since you’re unlikely to trust any attempt I make at explaining it, I urge you do the following:

    1. Find one of the 3% of the population who understands the scientific method. (Most scientists and former scientists should do nicely. Try to find someone outside the climate debate, unless you’re more interested in an emotionally heated argument than in learning something new.)

    2. Since most scientists don’t follow the climate debate in detail, you’ll probably need to describe the “trick” (explaining the difference between the dendro proxies and the thermometric data, etc.).

    3. Show them the resulting graph.

    4. Tell them that, as you see it, Jones has merely used a statistical technique to throw out bad data (which contradicts the thermometers) and replace it with good data (from the thermometers).

    5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Bernard J:

    “That’d be right. Pre-empt my last comment with a thank-you.

    Hehe, nothing tactical about it! ;-) I’m always grateful to people who reduce my ignorance instead of milking it in a fallacious bid to vindicate their own belief systems!

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Vince W:

    A Scott is doing it here, too.
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract

    He’s displaying some seriously obsessive behaviour.

    And how’s that thread working out for your side, Vince? :-) Why do you think that is?

  27. #27 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Basically, Brad’s idea of a “global thermostat” is mindless superstitious nonsense.

    Hell, it’s no different from the Gaia theory that he’s likely to decide is rubbish.

    And anywhere there is or was a coal seam? That used to be under water. THAT is how “stable” the world’s climate is.

    And still he’s ignoring the absolute evidence visible today that proves him wrong.

    Denying.

    Hence he’s called (correctly) a denier.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 19, 2013
    alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller”

    Yep. I use epithets like “scientist.”

    Yup, deep deep deeep denial, Bray.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    You are a literate man.

    No, he’s a loon.

  30. #30 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

    Hell, you can’t answer that and you’re the one making it up!

  31. #31 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    You must think that scientists who condemn it have got it ass backwards.

    Yup, they have it ass-backwards.

    Nothing was hidden.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Hey Wow,

    You told us this was a quote from a scientist:

    “There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion…. yadda yadda yadda”

    I called BS on that. No scientist would say something like that. All scientists are acutely aware of how wrong it is.

    You were lying. You’re a liar. Liars are not welcome here. Go away.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    “You were lying.”

    Nope.

    “You’re a liar”

    Wrong.

    “Liars are not welcome here.”

    Which is why you’re caged in this thread.

    “Go away.”

    Boo hoo, little crybaby.

    It isn’t your site. You’re hanging round here whining and being a dick and not leaving so anything you receive is something you have gone out of your way to get.

    Suck it up, junior.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    I know you read this thread, so please tell us:

    you know the source of Wow’s quote—which Wow insists is a scientist—don’t you?

    Was I wrong to think no scientist could possibly have come up with that turgid word-salad?

    Or is Wow lying?

    It would be both dishonorable and dishonest to keep the answer to yourself, Lotharsson.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Oh, and please note you’re YET AGAIN progressing your retarded fantasies as fact with ZERO evidence behind them.

    Gives the lie to your bullshit statement about how you obey only evidence and data.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow:

    “You were lying.”

    Nope.

    “You’re a liar”

    Wrong.

    Then name the “scientist,” coward.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Ickle boy run to daddy….

    Awww.

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Name the “scientist,” coward.

  39. #39 bill
    February 19, 2013

    Funny old world when you can’t google, isn’t it?

    Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ. That makes him a good deal more of a ‘scientist’ – though he makes no claim to be a ‘climate scientist’ – than many of your ‘Climategate conspiracy-mongers!’

    So, you are talking out of your arse again, Mr Philosophy Graduate. Shocked we are, shocked!

  40. #40 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Bray, you’re a coward who refuses to look reality in the face when it comes into conflict with your comfort.

    You are entirely without merit and the entire world will be notably better off when you’ve fucked off and died.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    So, you are talking out of your arse again, Mr Philosophy Graduate.

    Bill, he never completed.

    It was too hard for him.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    bill:

    Funny old world when you can’t google, isn’t it?

    What, and spoil the game?

    Cook

    D’oh! That should have been obvious. My main suspect was Lewandowsky, until Wow said it was someone with a BSc; why didn’t I think of Lewandowsky’s understudy, the cartoonist?

    You know what you are, bill?

    A spoiler.

    That makes him a good deal more of a ‘scientist’

    You’re quite right to use the scare-quotes there, bill.

    As Wow and I explicitly agreed (and as you’d know if you’d followed our thread), we were using the definition “scientist = someone working in the physical sciences.”

    Wow was wrong (and Wow knew it), but kept on insisting I was wrong, which I wasn’t (and Wow knew it).

    Wow has been lying for several hundred comments now. Shocked we are, shocked!

  43. #43 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    why didn’t I think of Lewandowsky’s understudy, the cartoonist?

    More lunacy.

    And note, it doesn’t matter to Bray WHO said it, he’s going to deny any evidence they are wrong.

    What a pathetic streak of piss you are, Bray.

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow,

    now that bill has exposed your lie, go away and do not come back.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    “Wow was wrong”

    Only because you insist it.

    In reality, you’re absolutely faking it.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow,

    now that bill has exposed your lie, go away and do not come back.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    McIntyre isn’t a scientist, then.

  48. #48 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    “now that bill has exposed your lie”

    Tell me, has reality EVER entered into your life?

    Oh, McKitrick won’t be a scientist either.

  49. #49 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    See, Bill, this is entirely why it wasn’t worth saying.

    All it’s done is make this braindead moron cum in his pants.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    McIntyre isn’t a scientist, then.

    Oh, McKitrick won’t be a scientist either.

    Correct.

    Neither is Cook.

    I knew as soon as I read your absurd and turgid word-salad of a quote that no scientist came up with it.

    You said I was wrong.

    Bill has now exposed your lie.

    Go away and do not come back.

  51. #51 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Oh, McKitrick won’t be a scientist either.
    Correct.

    So why do you keep harping on about him when he’s complaining about a real scientist?

  52. #52 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Neither is Cook.

    WRONG

    Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ.

    You have nothing, but you’re excited over it, like one of those little yappy dogs.

    Pathetic waste of your daddy’s sperm.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    You said I was wrong.

    You are.

    Bill has now exposed your lie.

    Nope, he hasn’t. See above.

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    “Neither is Cook.”

    WRONG

    Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ.

    Those qualifications are no better than mine, Wow, and I’m not a scientist.

    We both agreed on the terms.

    “Scientist” meant someone practicing in the physical sciences.

    Deny, deny, deny all you want, Wow.

    Rant about jism, semen and their various synonyms all you want, Wow. (That’s where you always go when caught out, isn’t it?)

    It won’t help. You’re caught out in a lie.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away and do not come back.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Liars are not welcome here.

    That’s why you’re banned to this thread, idiot-boy.

    We both agreed on the terms.

    Liar. I asserted that you refused to state what makes a scientist. And you did. It was all “usually”, or “often” or “sometimes”.

    “Scientist” meant someone practicing in the physical sciences

    Which Cook does. He lectures in the UQ science department.

    But you don’t do reality, do you, denier-butt-monkey.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Hey, what about Feynman, was he a scientist?

    He practiced the theoretical science.

    You really are a grossly over-opinionated retard, aren’t you.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow,

    You’re not only a liar, you’re a bungling and inept liar.

    Remember this little conversation we had? I do.

    I said:

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.

    You said:

    “Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.”
    

Then the quote was from a scientist.



    … thus sodomizing your credibility with a chainsaw.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Bill has now exposed your lie.

    Go away and do not come back.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Readers with the stomach to see Wow’s self-sodomy with a chainsaw for themselves may click here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-19/#comment-149445

  60. #60 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    You’re not only a liar, you’re a bungling and inept liar.

    You’re projecting again, little boy.

    You’ve said many contradictory things. So that you can then mine out a quote of yours that says whatever the hell you need to pretend you said at any moment in time.

    You’re a psychological nightmare and have absolutely no value as a human being whatsoever.

    You are immune to reality.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Thank you for linking to the truth there in post 59. It was from a scientist.

    Of course, YOU insist he isn’t, but you have absolutely no evidence other than you say it.

    However, for the idiot you are, this is entirely enough.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Tim, the only one who can fix this stupid shithead is you.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    Wow,

    this really happened:

    “Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.”

    

Then the quote was from a scientist.



    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

    Thought so.

    Bill exposed your lie.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away and do not come back.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Still living in your fantasy world.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    “Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

    Which one of them does Richard Feynman practice?

    Lying your arse out again.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Cook is a scientist.

    Mann is a scientist.

    You are not.

    You are a nutcase.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    “Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

    None.

    (Which is why Wow was unwilling to reveal that the quote came from Cook. He refused to tell us for 3 whole days, until bill let slip the answer.)

    “Which of the physical sciences did Richard Feynman practice?”

    Physics.

    Bill exposed your lie.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away and do not come back.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    ““Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

    None. ”

    See, this is entirely the reason why you think beyond all doubt you are right.

    You just asked that question and then answered it to make you right.

    Evidence content: ZERO.

    You’re absolutely wrong.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    ““Which of the physical sciences did Richard Feynman practice?”

    Physics.”

    WRONG.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Richard Phillips Feynman (pron.: /ˈfaɪnmən/; May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988)[2] was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams.

    Theoretical, not physical.

  71. #71 chek
    February 19, 2013

    The reason “Brad” can’t accept John Cook (aka the cartoonist in crank land) is a scientist is largely because Cook and latterly in partnership with Lewandowsy, has “Brad’s” number.
    “What I’ve learnt is that people’s views which are not based on evidence and facts can’t be swayed by evidence and facts.”

    Just like “Brad” can’t accept Delingpole stole the climategate riff off some crank on Watts’ crank blog and let everyone (such as fellow crank Chris Booker) believe it was his (piss-poor and derivative) invention for over a week before owning up to it. (JD couldn’t upset Watts whose links to Heartland are important to JD).

    Just like “Brad” thinks his rewarming of climategate will have a different outcome if only he can just keep doing it enough.

    Just like “Brad” thought he knew more about psychology more than a Professor of pschology, “Brad’s” expertise knows no bounds.

    The harsher truth is of course that delusion knows no bounds, and “Brad’s” thousands of posts here and elsewhere raging against it have zero effect on AGW.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Cook is a scientist.

    Your only “proof” against it is that you say he isn’t.

    That, from an obvious nutcase, is worth less than nothing.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    Your only “proof” ECS is 1.5 is that you say it is.

    Your only “proof” that Jones hid something is that you say he did.

    Your only “proof” that the Hockey Stick is wrong is that you say he did.

    Your only “proof” that Mann didn’t give his method out is that you say so.

    Your only “proof” that consensus is anti-science is that you claim it is.

    Your only “proofs” are your own idiotic conjectures.

    You’ve never once managed to give any actual data.

  74. #74 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    What’s this rubbish about M&J engaging in scientific misconduct to get $90bn dollars in grants? What planet are you on now? You just say stuff, you do. As repeatedly pointed out, M&J aren’t actually relevant to anything at all except your conspiracy fantasies.

    Since you are being obtuse (or possibly a dishonest fuckwit), some repetition will (again) be necessary:

    (1) M&J are not proxies for climate science.

    (2) M&J are irrelevant; their work changes nothing about the scientific understanding of AGW

    (3) ‘Climate science’ is not and has never been ‘corrupt’. This is dishonest framing which requires that we are *misdirected into ignoring (1) and (2) by clamorous repetition.

    (4) This has all been pointed out to you already, several times.

    (5) The ‘sceptics’ have no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW and so are *forced* to rely on smear tactics (3), misrepresentation (1), (2) and repetition (4).

    Christ it’s boring.

    As for those afflicted with the pathology of denial typically denying being in denial – that’s well-established. ‘Sub-Freudian gobbledegook’ is is not. It serves as a redundant demonstration of the fact that you are in denial.

    We’ve all had enough of the rhetorical tricksiness, the misrepresentations, the goldfish memory, the non-reading of evidence, the unsupported assertions and the general slipperiness. That’s why everybody keeps telling you to fuck off. I really do sympathise with the regulars here. They have put up with a hell of a lot of nonsense from you.

  75. #75 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    One more thing. The point about ‘climategate’ is that it is contrarian framing. It is yet another hijack of the language like the de-definition of ‘sceptic’ until it became synonymous with ‘denier’ and the attempts to delegitimise the term ‘denial’ and its derivatives by playing the victim.

  76. #76 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    Missed this earlier:

    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.

    This refers to the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2. We’ve been over that in considerable detail and my understanding is that you now accept the range ~2.5C – ~3C. This is more clumsy rhetorical evasion by you. You do it constantly and it is part of the reason you are not highly thought of.

    The interesting part is that presumably you know that you are heavily reliant on crude spoilers and evasions. What puzzles me (and doubtless others) is how *you* must feel about your own argument. How you square that circle with yourself is a real mystery to me.

    I’m reminded about your definition of ‘corruption’ on the previous page:

    It [corruption] means hocking your box.

    It means prostituting your principles.

    It means being willing to compromise the scientific method

    Projecting like a fire-hose, as contrarians invariably do, in their ‘battle for the soul of science’…

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “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.”

    This refers to the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2.”

    Good. Thanks for specifying.

    Your original claim is now more meaningful:

    You claimed I was “constantly implying the field [of climate science] is in error [about the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2] because it is corrupt.”

    But it’s not true; I’m not constantly implying the field of climate science is in error about about the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 because it is corrupt.

    In fact I don’t think I have ever implied so.

    We’ve been over that in considerable detail and my understanding is that you now accept the range ~2.5C – ~3C.

    Why do you “understand” this? I’ve never said so. What I said was that I was now less confident in my original, lower estimate ever since you (unlike anyone else on the entire blog) cited some prima-facie good scientific evidence in support of the higher estimate. Since I’ve been too busy to critically evaluate that evidence (the various papers you linked me to) either on its own merits or in relation to the evidence I’ve read for a lower ECS, having had time only to read the new evidence superficially, the best I can possibly do in all good conscience as a true skeptic is to say I may well have been wrong to estimate ECS at 1.5C or lower. If you expected me to confidently adopt your estimate, however, you were expecting too much too quickly.

    What puzzles me (and doubtless others) is how *you* must feel about your own argument.

    It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents. (“My opponents” being those who intrude on my thread with dishonesty, illogic and false interpretations of the scientific method—not those who make sensible scientific arguments to the effect that I’m mistaken or ignorant about some aspect of the natural world, which is undoubtedly true in countless cases.)

    I’m reminded about your definition of ‘corruption’ on the previous page:

    “It [corruption] means hocking your box.

    “It means prostituting your principles.

    “It means being willing to compromise the scientific method”

    Projecting like a fire-hose, as contrarians invariably do, in their ‘battle for the soul of science’…

    Now you sound as cretinous and obnoxious as the average deltoid, BBD.

    Kindly either quote me

    —hocking my box,
    —prostituting my principles,
    —and being willing to compromise the scientific method

    or, as you once put it, “you can fuck off.”

  78. #78 chek
    February 19, 2013

    BBD, “Brad’s” tactics can be found a lot elsewhere. The general cheese-paring, hair-splitting and salami-slicing then the wheedling for ‘concessions’, the specious logic, and the greater crusade.

    I’m not going to Godwin this thread, but I’m sure you’ll know what I’m talking about. Denial is denial and operates the same way regardless of the field, it would seem to me.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 19, 2013

    BBD:

    “It is yet another hijack of the language like the de-definition of ‘sceptic’ until it became synonymous with ‘denier’”

    Yep, as I’ve agreed, the word has been bastardised—but if you think we orchestrated this, you give us way too much credit as a group. We’re literally disorganized and so have very little cultural power.

    By the way, “sceptic” is a misspelling. In English, a “c” before an “e” or an “i” is pronounced soft, like “s.” (Imagine the words “sceleton” or “scillful.”) The correct spelling is “skeptic.”

    “(1) M&J are not proxies for climate science.”

    Of course they’re not.

    On the other hand, the impunity with which they broke the rules of science—by manoeuvres which would have been, and have been, severely punished in other fields of science—is a stigma of the unique corruption of contemporary climate science as an institution.

    “(2) M&J are irrelevant; their work changes nothing about the scientific understanding of AGW”

    So we agree they’ve added nothing to human knowledge.

    All the more reason why you should have figured out by now that something has gone seriously wrong with climate science as an institution. It has rewarded these non-productive academics with very high salaries and elevated them to celebrity.

    (Any other field science would have expelled and/or prosecuted them for their misconduct.)

    “(3) ‘Climate science’ is not and has never been ‘corrupt’.”
    Name another field of science in which someone has “hidden the decline” and gotten away with it.

    “(4) This has all been pointed out to you already, several times.”
    Yes, by the type of people who vainly do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome, as the saying goes.

    “(5) The ‘sceptics’ have no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW”
    Science has only one stream, and the ‘sceptical’ understanding of AGW belongs firmly to it, as far as I can tell. Why one earth do you expect ‘sceptics’ to make a counter-argument to their own position?

  80. #80 chek
    February 19, 2013

    It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

    Yes “Brad”, true to form and like every other uncapped deniertrash spigot that ends up in their own box, you are of course far, far smarter than everyone here including all the professional scientists and PhDs.

    Happens all the time to you Galileos. You transparently know fuck all but no matter, that only shows the überlevel of your genius. We’re really not worthy of your presence. Cretin.

  81. #81 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Yep, as I’ve agreed, the word has been bastardised—but if you think we orchestrated this, you give us way too much credit as a group. We’re literally disorganized and so have very little cultural power.

    You helped me trace the etymology yourself. This is a contrarian neology, amplified and re-broadcast by the contrarian element of the blogosphere. It is part of the contrarian framing. Come on, this isn’t worth arguing about.

    By the way, “sceptic” is a misspelling. In English, a “c” before an “e” or an “i” is pronounced soft, like “s.” (Imagine the words “sceleton” or “scillful.”) The correct spelling is “skeptic.”/blockquote>

    Bollocks, as per. See OED. In addition to all your other over-reach, you are now lecturing me – incorrectly – on my own language.

  82. #82 BBD
    February 19, 2013

    Science has only one stream, and the ‘sceptical’ understanding of AGW belongs firmly to it, as far as I can tell. Why one earth do you expect ‘sceptics’ to make a counter-argument to their own position?

    A new high in intellectual incoherence. I expect ‘sceptics’ of a scientific position to advance a robust scientific counter-argument to that position or, failing that, accept it. They have so far done neither.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Brad says,

    4. Tell them that, as you see it, Jones has merely used a statistical technique to throw out bad data (which contradicts the thermometers) and replace it with good data (from the thermometers).

    5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

    Jones’ wasn’t an exercise in the scientific method.

    The science itself is sound, replicated by many, many others using different sources of data, different proxies, different methods, and including by BEST.

    Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise. His graph presented information in a meaningful way to impart correct information.

    Contrast this with the various fraudulent graphs concocted by the likes of Pat Michaels and Anthony Watts.

  84. #84 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2013

    What I said was that I was now less confident in my original, lower estimate ever since you (unlike anyone else on the entire blog) cited some prima-facie good scientific evidence in support of the higher estimate. Since I’ve been too busy to critically evaluate that evidence (the various papers you linked me to) either on its own merits or in relation to the evidence I’ve read for a lower ECS, having had time only to read the new evidence superficially…

    Brad Keyes.

    You admit that you do not have a functioning grasp of the science of climate sensitivity. You have also admitted that you are not knowledgeable in ecological/ecosystem science.

    In spite of these freely-admitted deficiencies, you have found it necessary to claim that human-caused global warming is not a threat to human and non-human biology.

    Do you not see the illogicality of your stance?

    It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

    Really? What mainstream science have you “run… rings around”? I’m not interested in your semantics and thimblerigging, I’m only interested in any point of science that you think you’ve made that successfully refutes the mainstream understanding of climatologists or of ecologists, any point of science that counters the graves fears that I and my scientific colleagues hold for the ongoing security of the world in which humans and non-human species live.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

    Just like Chicken Little ran rings around the farmyard.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 19, 2013

    You transparently know fuck all but no matter, that only shows the überlevel of your genius.

    I believe their “reasoning” goes like this:

    1) I know it’s all a scam.
    2) These others can’t see it.
    3) Therefore I must be smarter than they to spot it

    The problem, as usual with the idiots, is the very first step.

  87. #87 chek
    February 19, 2013

    Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise. His graph presented information in a meaningful way to impart correct information

    Or as Wow puts it, there was nothing fraudulent about Jones temperature graph.

  88. #88 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BK

    By the way, “sceptic” is a misspelling. In English, a “c” before an “e” or an “i” is pronounced soft, like “s.” (Imagine the words “sceleton” or “scillful.”) The correct spelling is “skeptic.”

    This is an interesting comment and deserves one more look. See how you assume that you are the better informed correspondent. See how you are mistaken.

    This is what you do.

  89. #89 David B. Benson
    February 20, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — Basic atmospheric physics shows globally warmer is globally wetter; see Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”. As for end Permian note that the ‘coal forming’ period had long since come and gone. Given that the continental masses were in a single large formation the interior was quite arid; that certainly would not be so along the east coast and not along portions of the west coast::
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian

  90. #90 David B. Benson
    February 20, 2013

    I knew Richard Feynman slightly, having been to his house for dinner once with a group of other undergraduates and otherwise a brief lunchtime conversation. He was a theoretical physicist except when he was taking some time off that to do 24 hour long experiments on phage (when I had lunch with him) and whatever he did the sabbatical year at Thinking Machines. I would say he was a perfectly competent experimenter when he chose to be; as a youth he taught himself radio and built circuits, for example.

  91. #91 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    chek @ 78

    Denial is denial and operates the same way regardless of the field, it would seem to me.

    Yup. Pathology invictus.

  92. #92 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    And to pre-emt any etymological smart-arseing, I know that’s a Greek with a latin on her arm.

  93. #93 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    pre-empt

    Sod it.

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    And to pre-emt any etymological smart-arseing, I know that’s a Greek with a latin on her arm.

    You apologise too much. The problem in this relationship is not that it involves transadriatic miscegenation (“pathology” comes from Medieval Latin), but merely its heterosexuality. The proper, lesbian expression as God intended is pathologia invicta.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    BBD:

    You helped me trace the etymology yourself. This is a contrarian neology, amplified and re-broadcast by the contrarian element of the blogosphere. It is part of the contrarian framing. Come on, this isn’t worth arguing about.

    Great. As long as you don’t think we orchestrated it, we’re not arguing. :-)

  96. #96 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    “pathology” comes from Medieval Latin

    No, it doesn’t. There you go again…

    The rest of what you say is, at best, confusing.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow,

    if there is no answer to this straightforward question, then you’ve knowingly maintained a lie for several hundred comments on this thread and are a proven liar:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

    Liars are not welcome here, Wow.

    Bill exposed your lie.

    Go away and do not come back.

  98. #98 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Orchestrated it or just created it by re-broadcast and repetition? It’s still a contrarian framing.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    ‘“pathology” comes from Medieval Latin’

    No, it doesn’t.

    Why not? Because it came into Medieval Latin from Classical Greek?

    By that logic, it doesn’t come from Classical Greek either, it comes from PIE (Proto Indo-European)!

    BBD, you’ll find that most words come from a series of sources.

    The rest of what you say is, at best, confusing.

    Hopefully it’ll make more sense to you now.

  100. #100 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    Wow!
    Just face it.
    Cook does not reside inside the parameters of your definition.
    Spraying vague insults at others like Feynman will not change that.

Current ye@r *