Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    @99 Oh come on. That;s not even weak.

    Night night. Bored.

  2. #2 chek
    February 20, 2013

    Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist. Suck on it, because sure enough whatever crass redefinition.you conconct will be a hoot.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    David, your Wikipedia link seems pretty good, but it does seem to me to confirm my impression that the end of the Permian was a particularly hot and dry period which then extended well into the Triassic.

    Globally, heat and aridity characterise the climate of the Triassic, with the arid belts indicated by evaporites extending up to 50o either side of the Equator, being more widespread and abundant than at any other time in the history of the earth.

    http://austhrutime.com/triassic_australia.htm

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    chek,

    Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist. Suck on it, because sure enough whatever crass redefinition.you conconct will be a hoot.

    You pompous dimwit, chek. I told Wow that by “scientist” I meant “someone practicing one of the physical sciences” and Wow replied, “Then the quote was from a scientist.”

    No it was not.

    It was from John Cook, cartoonist, blogger and paid propagandist.

    I ask again, rhetorically:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

    If you can’t answer, then you can also fuck off (with Wow) as far as I’m concerned.

  5. #5 chek
    February 20, 2013

    John Cook is qualified in physics, solar physics and currently lectures at UQ on science communication. Maybe you should sign up for a course..
    Now take your arbitrary, self-invented crank definitions and your crank groupie elsewhere, scieceblogs isn’t the place for you. The clue is in the name.

  6. #6 David B. Benson
    February 20, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — The basic principles of planetary climate applied even back then. Along the equator there was massive evaporation,k hence precipitation. Being hot the descending phases of the Hadley cells, the deserts, were pushed far poleward. This illustration
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey_220moll.jpg
    from
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic
    has it about right. The claim of ‘dry’ cannot possibly apply globally; see Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate” to understand why, globally averaged, there was far greater precipitation than today.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    chek,

    John Cook’s “science” qualifications are no better than mine. That doesn’t make me a scientist, especially given the definition of “scientist” Wow and I agreed to use for the purpose of our bet.

    I won the bet: the culprit behind Wow’s moronic quote was not a scientist. (As I could tell as soon as I read it.)

    If you want to persist in denial of this, then please go away, take Wow with you, and don’t come back.

    Liars are not welcome here.

  8. #8 chek
    February 20, 2013

    John Cook’s “science” qualifications are no better than mine.

    “Brad”, I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear you’d managed to earn a certificate for consistently being able to colour between the lines. Please don’t try to puff up what you patently haven’t got.

    John Cook’s a working scientist, working with scientists.
    Choke on it.

  9. #9 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    Chek,
    John Cook’s quals and/or work experience does not fit inside that definition.
    BTW, the quote was lifted from an ‘opinion piece’ which further disqualifies it as a ‘scientifically’ sound statement.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    David, I’m not saying anything about precipitation generally, I’m only commenting on the <30% of the surface that had land on it.
    As your latest link includes:

    The global climate during the Triassic was mostly hot and dry

    It became wetter later, but 250 million years ago, land and oceans were hot with a massively reduced biosphere. Coal formation was virtually (if not actually) nil for 6 million years, it was so dry and dead.

    There was no “global thermostat” that kept the average ocean temperature below 27 degrees, let alone below the 20 degrees predicted by the reputable experts to be the result of the doubling of CO2 that we are already 40% of the way towards achieving.

    Brad for some bizarre reason believes in this mythical “global thermostat”.
    Presumably studying Philosphy at Uni has led him to embrace such superstitious beliefs.

    At this point. of course, Brad skips on to the next ridiculous denier talking point – whether it be spurious accusations of fraud, groundless assertions that additional heat won’t harm the economy, or simply bald-faced denial of the facts.

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    Brad says,

    John Cook’s “science” qualifications are no better than mine.

    Not quite up there with “my opinion is just as good as the scientific consensus”, but another cracker from Brad.

    Of course it is entirely possible that it is true: I am very well acquainted with somebody whose science qualifications and publishing record are vastly more extensive and important that John Cook’s (or, evidently, Brad’s), but who nevertheless is in possession of sufficient ideological bias to believe that global warming is a hoax. Science qualifications are rarely possessed by complete idiots, but they are no absolute guarantee of eptitude and/or honesty.

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    Chameleon, hilariously, writes,

    the quote was lifted from an ‘opinion piece’ which further disqualifies it as a ‘scientifically’ sound statement.

    Good to see you throwing Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton under the bus at last!

  13. #13 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    Along with Cook and Lewandowsky and many others Vince?
    Where (for instance) did pick up the opinion that BEST confirms MBH98? and the hockey stick?
    Wasn’t from a blog or an opinion piece by any chance?
    I wasn’t wishing to throw Cook or anyone else under a bus Vince.
    You seem to have missed the point of the questions to Wow?
    You also seem to be evading David B’s point somewhat.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    chek:

    “Brad”, I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear you’d managed to earn a certificate for consistently being able to colour between the lines. Please don’t try to puff up what you patently haven’t got.

    Congratulations—I don’t have a coloring-in degree—how did you know?!

    John Cook’s a working scientist, working with scientists.

    Good grief!! :-) Next you’ll be telling us Chris Mooney is a scientist!

    LOL

    Maybe you should sign up for a course.

    Mate, Cook’s students should sue for their HECS debt back because they’re being lectured by a halfwitted propagandist who says with a straight face that “a consensus of evidence” is

    1. a thing, and

    2. the necessary precondition for a consensus of scientists.

    If they don’t file suit, then they’re paying HECS for the privilege of being lied to.

    Either way, Cook is not a scientist. Miseducating the youth of Queensland in “Science Communication” is not the same as practicing one of the physical sciences, which is why your only response to the following question is to dance spastically around it:

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

    The following answer is correct, and you will therefore never be able to say it:

    “None, because Wow was lying and Brad’s deduction was spot on.”

    Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist.

    No. Now go away.

    Liars may be welcome on the unpopular little side-threads, but this is the House of Brad. And Brad has standards. Liars are not welcome here.

    Do not come back.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2013

    I’m still laughing at the notion that “pathology” is a mediæval Latin word.

    Who knew…

  16. #16 joni
    February 20, 2013

    WRT sceptic and pathology – I guess that BK could always “take it up with a lexicographer” – to use his own words (from Feb 13).

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    joni:

    I guess that BK could always “take it up with a lexicographer”

    *Sigh.* That’s what I did. And the really clever part? I did it before shooting my mouth off.

    ROFL… ;-)

    Bernard J:

    What really bemuses me is how little effort it would have taken you to avoid your current state of public error.

    Using a Mac? Simply right-click on the following word, pathology, and choose the first item in the menu that pops up: Look Up “pathology”.

    Click Dictionary to open Dictionary.app. It will tell you, and I paste:

    “ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from modern or medieval Latin pathologia (see patho-,-logy) .”

    Poor? No worries—even non-Mac users can “take it up with a lexicographer,” thanks to the Internet.

    For example, at dictionary.com:

    Origin:
    1590–1600; earlier pathologia < Latin < Greek pathología. See patho-, -logy

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Moral of the story, trollettes and gentletrolls:

    If it’s of the latin-and-feminine persuasion, I’m the expert in it, so listen more and speak less.

  19. #19 chek
    February 20, 2013

    ‘Pathology’ comes from Latin?

    Who knew?

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Who knew?

    Not you.

  21. #21 chek
    February 20, 2013

    Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    I would say he was a perfectly competent experimenter when he chose to be;

    Indeed he was. However, under Bray’s assinine assertion, since he wasn’t practicing other than theoretical science for huge swathes of time, he wasn’t a scientist.

    Rather indicating that his assertion for definition is bollocks.

    Much like everything he dribbles on about.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

    Solar physics.

  24. #24 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Where (for instance) did pick up the opinion that BEST confirms MBH98? and the hockey stick?

    In the temperature graphs.

    They look like an oblong box with some wiggly lines in the middle.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac.

    Yeah, he gets all excited when he thinks he has a zinger.

    When he’s buttfucked in answering a question, he disappears, then pretends it never happened and gallops on into the next cowpat-laden field like the donkey Bray is.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Vince:

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

    Well fuck me.

    You’re learning.

    Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise.

    “Successful”, yes, in the best Schneiderian sense of the word.

    Stephen Schneider’s philosophy, which might be called the core “ethic” of an entire clade of younger climatologists, was (to paraphrase): that as scientists, we need to strike a Faustian bargain between being honest and being effective.

    That might sound perfectly reasonable to you and even, perhaps, to most intelligent, educated people, Vince, but only because nobody ever taught you how science works.

    (And if you demand that I explain such a voluminous subject to you on a blog thread, you’ll only be providing further testimony about how little you’ve been taught. Hint: it takes more than a couple of minutes to learn.)

    So again, I advise and implore you—because we’re not actually enemies, as you might think—to find a non-climate-related scientist you trust, fill him / her in on the “trick” to “hide the decline” and ask him / her:

    Why aren’t you allowed to do that in science?

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow,

    keeping it classy:

    “Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac.”

    Yeah, he gets all excited when he thinks he has a zinger.

    When he’s buttfucked in answering a question, he disappears, then pretends it never happened and gallops on into the next cowpat-laden field like the donkey Bray is.

    Show me where I denied the Greek origin of the word pathos, you beefwit.

    Just to save us the ritualistic goddamn Wowist back-and-forth, may I remind you (or at least, the competent reader of this thread) of the wisdom of the ancients. From the timeless classical dialogue of “BBD” and “Brad Keyes” (1 page ago):

    ”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.

    PS:

    Wow, I think I remember you now. Aren’t you the serial liar who pasted a scientifically-abortive quote at this blog and falsely, knowingly and persistently denied the veracity of my prediction that, whoever it was who came up with it, they certainly weren’t a scientist? Where “scientist” = “practicioner of one of the physical sciences”?

    And hasn’t it been pointed out to you that liars are not welcome on this thread?

  28. #28 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Well fuck me.

    No, you’ll have to rely on Pamela Hand for that, kid.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    And hasn’t it been pointed out to you that liars are not welcome on this thread?

    WRONG!

    A liar was confined to this thread.

    You.

    (just in case you didn’t get it, you’re not very smart)

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Ah, homo deltoides, a troglodytic error of evolution, the only known species capable of believing Richard Feynman wasn’t a scientist (he was just a theoretical physicist!), but John Cook is! (Because he lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

    Viable only in the zoo that is the Internet.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    the only known species capable of believing Richard Feynman wasn’t a scientist

    Ah, making shit up again, Bray.

    It’s the only way you can “win” an argument, so I guess that’s what you gotta do, innit.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Show me where I denied the Greek origin of the word pathos, you beefwit.

    So you’re going back to the “I didn’t say not nothing noway” tired old screed, huh?

    I guess you’re finding, as did Joan, that any substantive answers can be used against you if they aren’t grounded in reality.

    And, in a choice between limiting yourself to reality or avoiding any substantive comment, I guess for you, this isn’t a choice: jettison reality. It never did you any favours anyway.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    but John Cook is! (Because he lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

    Hmmm. Any proof of that statement, Bray?

    Oh, that’s right: you don’t do any reality. You just state things and this “proves” them.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Ooh,

    touchy little troglodyte, aren’t ya?

    Very well:

    the only known species capable of arguing that Richard Feynman wasn’t a practicioner of any of the physical sciences (he was just a theoretical physicist!), but John Cook is! (He lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

    Out of primatological curiosity, neanderthal, let me ask: why did you steadfastly run away scared from revealing that the quote was from John Cook (leaving bill to betray the secret several days later)? It wouldn’t have been that even you knew perfectly well that Cook wasn’t a practitioner of a physical science, by any chance? No, what am I saying?—vastly overestimating your cranial capacity!

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    So you’re going back to the “I didn’t say not nothing noway” tired old screed, huh?

    Oh, we all know I said it came from medieval Latin.

    But show me where I said it didn’t come from Greek, you beefwit.

    I’d like to remind our more intelligent spectators of a comment I made only a page ago (with added emphasis):

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

  36. #36 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    let me ask: why did you steadfastly run away scared

    Oh dear, projecting again? You’re the only one who runs away (and only metaphorically speaking) from answering questions.

    As to why I didn’t say, that has been explained five or more times already and proven by your recent screaming ab-dabs.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Oh, we all know I said it came from medieval Latin.

    Yup, back to irrelevant.

    Latin wasn’t the question.

    Greek.

    They use different letters to spell their name, indicating that they are different. That’s a hint.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Can you explain why you made your post #17 if you now pretend you knew it was Greek too? Otherwise your assertion would come under the adage “teaching your grandmother to suck eggs” and your implication that you are learned whilst everyone else a bufoon that you try so very hard to project falls extremely hard.

    You see, you have to pretend that your words mean nothing.

    This means, ironically enough, that they don’t mean anything.

  39. #39 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BK

    Remember what I said about you *knowing* that you are heavily dependent on spoilers and rhetorical trickery?

    I went on to wonder how that must make you feel about your argument and indeed, about yourself. Being forced to resort to near-permanent bad faith to defend the indefensible can’t make you feel good deep inside.

    The funny thing is, almost every single so-called ‘sceptic’ I’ve debated with over the years is just like you. Dependent on misrepresentation, dishonesty and misdirection.

    The common thread is of course denial. That and unpleasant politics.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Being forced to resort to near-permanent bad faith to defend the indefensible can’t make you feel good deep inside.

    That’s why he’s almost orgasmic when he thinks he has a zinger.

    It’s also why he demands bringing others down rather than try to lift himself up.

    It’s also why he hates the idea of paying for the damage, since he can’t buy as many distractions from life as he lives it.

  41. #41 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BK

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

    Yes Brad, and unlike you (who apparently googled it and got all confused), I know that the root derivation of ‘pathology’ is from ancient Greek.

    As I said last page, what followed from you wasn’t even weak.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Wow

    I do wonder about the deniers. The smarter ones *must* know in their heart of hearts what they are really doing. Unfortunately, I have come to suspect that such inklings serve only to drive them deeper into denial. Denial really is a nasty pathology.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow,

    you accuse me of retrospectively pretending to have known something I didn’t know:

    Can you explain why you made your post #17 if you now pretend you knew it was Greek too?

    You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14, and that I haven’t forgotten the difference between them… but we can’t blame you for not knowing all this.

    What we can and do blame you for is missing my comment ONE PAGE AGO, which I have already REPEATED ON THIS PAGE, and which reads:

    ”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.

    Oh, and Wow:

    ever since bill exposed your lie about the mongoloid who came up with that scientifically-illiterate quote about “consensus of evidence,” you’ve been living on borrowed time at this thread.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away and do not come back.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    “Unfortunately, I have come to suspect that such inklings serve only to drive them deeper into denial.”

    J Michael iStraczynski put it like this when talking about the bad guys’ motivation in the commentary to an episode of B5:

    The bad guys don’t think they are the bad guys, they think they are the heroes.

    So when the deniers are shown precisely why they are wrong, it’s a PERSONAL attack on their integrity, and they MUST ignore it and go on the offensive (literally in most cases).

  45. #45 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Liars are not welcome here.

    You were forced here because you’re a liar.

    Laars are NOT WELCOME on the other threads. This thread is so that your lies won’t waste the time of genuine people trying to find information rather than bollocks on this site.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14

    Yeah, and you know more science than Michael Mann, have data for all your claims and never ever make things up.

    In your la-la land, this is all true.

    In reality, you’re an over-opinionated and uneducated troll with delusions of adequacy.

    Your post #17 indicates that you had NO CLUE about the greek etymology of the word, otherwise you would have had no purpose in posting it.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    BBD:

    Correct my memory if possible, but I believe you were “pre-emtively” beating yourself up over the juxtaposition of a Latin- and a Greek-derived word.

    In a jocular, friendly and now deeply-regretted gesture to make you feel better about it, I diplomatically offered up the fact that the groom’s sordid pedigree could be considered, in effect, laundered by way of medieval Latin. Sex scandal averted.

    Rather than taking it in the spirit in which it was proffered, it seems you’ve elected to be a bitch about it.

    Why? Who knows. But it’s disappointing. I actually thought we’d made some progress towards civilised conversation.

  48. #48 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    The smarter ones *must* know in their heart of hearts what they are really doing

    They assume everyone else is just as bad, therefore they aren’t wrong, it’s just human nature, nothing to do with them.

    Hence the prevalence of projection.

  49. #49 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    I actually thought we’d made some progress towards civilised conversation.

    By your own “ideosyncratic” definition of the word civilised?

    As long as people agree with you, or you think you can make it out that they do, you think this is civilised.

    Any contrary opinion is uncivilised. Unless it’s done by yourself or a fellow denier.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    “The spirit in which it was offered” being typified by your response to chek in post #20, right?

    I.e. condescending, ignorant bigot.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    BBD,

    you complain about your interactions with people on my “side” and conclude:

    The common thread is of course denial.

    Yes, one would hope so—given that we’re disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you’re a believer.

    BTW in my experience, the common thread with people on your side is belief. Constant fucking belief. It’s unbelievable how deep in belief you are.

    ;-)

    That and unpleasant politics.

    That’s interesting. I struggle to imagine what you find unpleasant in, say, Freeman Dyson’s politics. Or Steven McIntyre’s. Or Patrick Moore’s. Or mine. Have I offended you politically at some point? I’d be interested to know when.

  52. #52 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BK

    I wasn’t pre-emptively “beating myself up” about anything. That is another misrepresentation (do you even realise you are doing it?). I was trying to pre-empt any nit-picking.

    *If* I misinterpreted your comment *that* is because of the general tenor of your discourse. You only have yourself to blame for being treated with reflexive distrust after a sustained exhibition of bad faith lasting thousands of comments.

  53. #53 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Yes, one would hope so—given that we’re disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you’re a believer.

    That would be the scientific basis for AGW and our scientific understanding of its likely consequences.

    You offend me by your dissembling and evasiveness whenever I have tried to get you to explain your *motivation* for denial.

    You are obviously hiding something shameful, which with deniers is invariably libertarian/conservative politics and/or religious fundamentalism.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    That is another misrepresentation (do you even realise you are doing it?).

    Almost definitely.

    It’s their tactic.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Yes, one would hope so—given that we’re disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you’re a believer.

    I don’t think he understood how revealing this is.

    Nothing about evidence here. Not a thing.

    Just belief or disbelief.

    This is aided by his insistence never to read the evidence against him. As long as he can pretend that there’s no evidence and it’s all just “I believe X/I believe Y”, then there’s no need for Bray ever to change.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    BBD, something to remember is that Bray has said that christians are gullible idiots, so his problem can’t be from his christian faith.

  57. #57 FrankD
    February 20, 2013

    You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14, and that I haven’t forgotten the difference between them…

    Oh, Brad, how very old-school-tie of you… But I see they start teaching those a little later than when I was there. I’ll decline to remark on your etymological skills, but let me compliment you on your fine acquisition of their legendary equivocation skills, Brad ;-)

  58. #58 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BTW in my experience, the common thread with people on your side is belief. Constant fucking belief. It’s unbelievable how deep in belief you are.

    Wow is correct at # 55. We read and understand the evidence. We think objectively. We have no political axe to grind. That’s just yet moreframing by the contrarians, who deny AGW because it represents a fundamental, destructive challenge to libertarian/conservative political *beliefs*.

    Your framing is very strongly suggestive of projection. Like a fire-hose… ;-)

  59. #59 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    @ 56

    I know. I didn’t say that fundamentalism was BK’s problem. Just that it is one of the Big Three. It does help narrow things down by elimination though ;-)

  60. #60 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Of course, the simplest answer is he’s paid to do this.

  61. #61 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    @ 57

    Whatever the case, BK provides salutary evidence that even a privileged education can fail to take. Imagine how his tutors would feel if they were able to see what he has been doing here. Sickened and saddened, if not downright furious.

  62. #62 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    # 60 One does begin to wonder after this volume of comments. Alternatively, he may simply be defending his own constructed reality because denial makes people do that. They *cannot* tolerate a challenge to their belief system, not least because a tiny little core bit of them knows they are in denial. Hence the desperate need to shore up the facade by any means at their disposal, however patently dishonest.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Problem is, even if its salutary evidence of how an education doesn’t mean educated, it’s wasted.

    Chubby will still lean out from behind bray occasionally and go “Yeah..!”. Bray will still avoid, lie, project, slander and whine incessantly. And nobody looking for information will be able to find it because of all this crap being dumped on this thread by the pair of them.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    “They *cannot* tolerate a challenge to their belief system,”

    This then begs the question: why do they keep hanging around like the smell of stale vomit?

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    You offend me by your dissembling and evasiveness whenever I have tried to get you to explain your *motivation* for denial.

    You’ll find that I’m one of the very few deniers who’s even willing to keep talking to you when you request that. The question itself is offensive. (I’ve explained this, haven’t I?) The only reason we were getting somewhere (which so outraged the troletariat that they interrupted us and haven’t shut up since) is that you finally asked an honest question: what are my REASONS for denial? And of course, you were civilised enough to specify of what you wanted me to justify my denial. I don’t deny the scientific basis for AGW, for example.

    You are obviously hiding something shameful, which with deniers is invariably libertarian/conservative politics and/or religious fundamentalism.

    If that false prediction is obvious to you, BBD, then your mental model of the climate debate requires major revision.

    I’m hiding none of those things.

    I don’t subscribe to any of those things except “libertarianism” in the original John-Stuart-Mill sense which all modern, free people take for granted. And I don’t apologise for, make any secret of, or feel one scintilla of shame for that! If I remember the findings of Mill’s book by that name (and I admittedly can’t do so photographically), then I dare say anyone who doesn’t support them is something of an embarrassment to modern society. Of course, I’m also aware that there’s a peculiarly American politics of libertarianism associated with names like Ron Paul, but as I don’t even know what their platform is, I won’t say anything more about them.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    You’ll find that I’m one of the very few deniers who’s even willing to keep talking to you when you request that

    We have very much found otherwise.

    Indeed, one of the problems of the voluble deniers is the opposite: getting them to shut the fuck up. No evidence is enough to stop them prattling the same old debunked bullshit.

    If that false prediction is obvious to you,

    Nothing false about it.

    I don’t subscribe to any of those things except “libertarianism” in the original John-Stuart-Mill sense which all modern, free people take for granted

    Bullshit.

    But then the bigoted minority keeps on projecting THEIR desires onto everyone else.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    BBD, the answer to “why” in #64 is either

    a) money
    or
    b) as I said, not to bring themselves up, but to drag everyone else down.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Bray’s self-assessment is entirely identical with the neo-con conservative/libertarian American Right Wing.

    They consider themselves part of the Silent Moral Majority.

    They aren’t the majority.
    They aren’t moral.
    They are DEFINITELY not silent.

    Bray is entirely identical with them (though swapping a libertarian’s version of JSM for the Christian Right’s version of the founding fathers).

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    We read and understand the evidence. We think objectively. We have no political axe to grind. That’s just yet moreframing by the contrarians, who deny AGW

    Interesting. By your characterisation of “contrarians”, I’m not one.

    because it represents a fundamental, destructive challenge to libertarian/conservative political *beliefs*.

    That may or may not be their agenda—I’m not a “contrarian” and I don’t have a single “contrarian” acquaintance, so I really can’t say for sure—but there is another group of deniers who believe in AGW but don’t fear it.

    This includes people like Steve McIntyre, Freeman Dyson, Patrick Moore and myself, among millions of others, who do not fit your explanatory template about the priority of politics in “denial.”

    If you insist on ignoring countless falsifications of that political theory, BBD, and keep trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, then I’m afraid it becomes increasingly hard to believe your own denial:

    We have no political axe to grind.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    “You’ll find that I’m one of the very few deniers who’s even willing to keep talking to you when you request that”

    We have very much found otherwise.

    FFS, you hyperactive monkey, I wasn’t talking to you! Your irruptions into other people’s conversations were the first thing that made me dislike you, even before I knew you were a pathological liar.

    How many times do I have to tell you:

    You lied about that mongoloid quote, and liars are not welcome in the House of Brad.

    Bugger off.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    If you insist on ignoring countless falsifications of that political theory

    Well, since you can’t count zero, I suppose you’re not *technically* wrong here.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    liars are not welcome in the House of Brad.

    Delusion again.

    This isn’t the House of Brad.

    Lying again, Bray.

    Lie lie lie lie lie, all day long, all you do. Lie.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Deniers aren’t welcome on Deltoid.

    Yet still you ape here.

  74. #74 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Stevie Mac teams up with the wrong people Brad. Libertarians, conservatives and religious fundamentalists (McKitrick).

    Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.

    Moore is a corporate shill.

    You have picked terrible examples to support the unsupportable – anyone accepting the standard estimate range for ECS is deeply concerned about the impacts that it will mean later this century. To ‘not be afraid’ is just denial. Either you *don’t really* accept the ECS estimate or you are in denial about the consequences.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 20, 2013

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

    This is your cage.

  76. #76 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Interesting. By your characterisation of “contrarians”, I’m not one.

    Interesting. You even deny reality even when you’re pretending to consider it.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Either you *don’t really* accept the ECS estimate or you are in denial about the consequences.

    Or he’s just making shit up.

    Again.

    Again.

  78. #78 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    The question itself is offensive. (I’ve explained this, haven’t I?)

    No it isn’t and your ‘explanation’ was nothing more than an evasion.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow,

    your addiction to making a fool of yourself is ruining lives:

    Bray’s self-assessment is entirely identical with the neo-con conservative/libertarian American Right Wing.

    LOL.

    Except for the minor detail that, in their self-assessment, they’re:
    — neo-cons
    — conservative/libertarian
    — American
    and
    — right-wing,

    whereas in my self-assessment I’m:

    — not a neo-con
    — not a conservative
    — no more libertarian than anyone else (unless you believe in political censorship, blasphemy laws, apartheid, alcohol prohibition, compulsory religion, compulsory tithing to support religion, …)
    — not American
    and
    — not right-wing.

    Jesus Christ. Your stupidity rivals your mendacity.

    Go away.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Hell, Dyson isn’t practicing any science. Why Bray brings up several non-scientists is a mystery to everyone, including himself…

  81. #81 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Let me simplify this for your Brad:

    Not afraid of AGW = either incomprehension borne of ignorance or active denial or a synergy between the two.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    “Except for the minor detail that, in their self-assessment, they’re:
    — neo-cons”

    Yup, like you.

    “— conservative/libertarian”

    Yup, like you.

    “— American”

    You mean a member of the Genus Homo Sapien? Just like you.

    “and
    — right-wing,”

    Just like you.

  83. #83 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Your “proof” yet again, seems to be “I say so, therefore it’s true and it’s true because I say so”.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    McIntyre isn’t doing science either. Nor is Moore.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    Deniers aren’t welcome on Deltoid.

    Yet still you ape here.

    Really? One HAS to believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to comment on this blog?

    Is this correct, Tim? (And why have you never mentioned it to me or anyone else?)

    Please confirm this, Tim.

    Is my presence here, as a CAGW denier, a violation of blog policy?

    I’ll gladly “recuse myself from further participation” (as the SS say about the victims of their “disappearances”) if that’s the case.

    Please confirm.

  86. #86 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    # 85

    Was that a Godwin do we think, chaps?

  87. #87 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    One HAS to believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to comment on this blog?

    Making shit up again? This time, even after you’ve quoted what proves you wrong?

    Deniers aren’t welcome on Deltoid.

    Where in there does it say you have to believe anything?

  88. #88 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Oh, he won’t bother not posting no matter what anyone says.

    There are people here who don’t think he’s right about stuff. THAT CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!!!

  89. #89 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First, individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has an unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.

    Bray doesn’t abandon his erroneous beliefs, doesn’t engage in an exchange of ideas, doesn’t examine his beliefs, relapses at every point into dogma and never questions his assertions.

    Not really following JSM’s liberty.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Note too how he goes all hysterical but not so much that he’s willing to actually leave a window that means he leaves (which he’s already weaseled out of once already).

    Statement: Deniers aren’t welcome.

    Hysterical Bray: Denying CAGW is against policy here????

    a) CAGW doesn’t exist, only brought up by deniers as a strawman
    b) nothing in the original statement about policy

    Histrionics is a large part of denier M.O. to silence everyone else and make them out to be “Internet Gallileos”.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    BBD:

    Stevie Mac teams up with the wrong people Brad. Libertarians, conservatives and religious fundamentalists (McKitrick).

    Ahhh, the theory has failed but the predictive goalposts conveniently shift.

    “Stevie Mac” is NOT a conservative OR a religious fundamentalist (as far as I know), but [shock! horror!] he co-operates with people who you apparently consider unworthy of collegiality, and may even be, or have been at one time, friends with them [!!!], so he’s guilty by association.

    Classy stuff, BBD.

    Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.

    This bilge is completely non-responsive to, and transparently evasive of, the point I drew to your attention: that Dyson is a denier, and simultaneously as left-wing as you could ask for.

    And this grubby and pathetic sub-argument from someone who’s extremely unlikely ever to achieve a fraction of Dyson’s scientific glory.

    Classy, classy stuff BBD.

    Moore is a corporate shill.

    More ducking and weaving. Face the facts about Moore’s politics, please.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    “Stevie Mac” is NOT a conservative OR a religious fundamentalist (as far as I know)

    A qualifier that would carry less freighting if it weren’t for the demonstrated (and self-averred) fact that you don’t read anything that you might later regret.

    I.e. if you hadn’t shown you are willfully ignorant of any contrary evidence, “as far as I know” would be merely a slight qualifier. As it is, it’s pretty damning to your statement.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    BBD:

    Was that a Godwin do we think, chaps?

    Er, no, it was a climate-debate in-joke.

    Ever noticed what the panicked SS moderators write when they’re forced to block a commenter and erase everything he / she has written there?

    “Memory hole” is an Orwell allusion, and although his great novel deals with fascism in general, and therefore Nazism by necessity, this particular device was one of Orwell’s comments on Stalinism, was it not? It’s been a while since I read it.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Face the facts about Moore’s politics, please.

    Yes: he’s a corporate shill.

    Seems the only one in denial about Moore’s politics is you, Bray.

  95. #95 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    that Dyson is a denier, and simultaneously as left-wing as you could ask for.

    Aye, according to Fox News and the teabaggers, Obama is somewhere to the left of Stalin.

    Dyson isn’t left wing. He’s more libertarian, with a smattering of chasing past glories and the attention they received.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Er, no, it was a climate-debate in-joke.

    Er, no, it wasn’t funny.

    It also had nothing to do with a climate debate.

    For someone who whines “This bilge is completely non-responsive to, and transparently evasive of, the point I drew to your attention”, you certainly employ non-responsive and transparently evasive complete bilge far too frequently.

  97. #97 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Note too the complete erasing of any disproofs of his whining complaints.

    They’re just edited out of his un-reality. Never happened, as far as he knows.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    I don’t think this about many people, but you REALLY need a tertiary education. What you think are your debating skills are, in reality, jester skillz.

    “Face the facts about Moore’s politics, please.”

    Yes: he’s a corporate shill.

    Let’s see then, Wow:

    Al Gore was a corporate tobacco shill before he became a corporate carbon-credits shill.

    So his politics must be: _______________ ?

    PS:
    Wow, you’re a liar and fuck off please.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    “The spirit in which it was offered” being typified by your response to chek in post #20, right?

    No, Wow.

    My comment to chek was rude, because I don’t particularly like chek.

    Chek is essentially you, but less modest.

    Oh, and Wow:

    ever since bill exposed your lie about the mongoloid who came up with that scientifically-illiterate quote about “consensus of evidence,” you’ve been living on borrowed time at this thread.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away and do not come back.

  100. #100 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    but you REALLY need a tertiary education.

    Because you proclaim I haven’t had one???

    Your standard of “proof” remains at it’s piss-poor level.