Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    My comment to chek was rude

    because you’re an arsehole denier on the rampage and chek pricks your pomposity balloon.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Al Gore was a corporate tobacco shill

    Ah, another claim whose “proof” is that you claimed it.

  3. #3 FrankD
    February 20, 2013

    This thread rattles along at such a pace that its hard to maintain any coherence between the yes-you-did-no-I-didn’t free-fire, but in case there is any remaining interest in whether “pathology” has Greek or Medieval Latin roots…

    The term in the current sense was coined by Jean Francois Fernel in 1557. Of course, at that time, scientists conversed in something that was vaguely akin to medieval Latin, but littered with neologisms suitable to their purpose. Fernel Latinised his name for publication to Fernelius, but one can hardly consider Fernelius to be a Medieval Latin word, any more than Linneus (Carl von Linné) is.

    Now, Fernel’s schtick was to drag Greek medical ideas (with a heavy dose of subsequent knowledge from Arab and other scholars) kicking and screaming into the 16th Century. His magnum opus was Universa Medicina, the second part of which is titled “Pathologia“.

    Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than “Fernelius” is. Fernel read Greek, and while the Universa Medica is in that distinctive version of Latin used by scientists of the time, it is littered with Greek marginalia, and derives its neologisms directly from Ancient Greek.

    We now return you to our regularly scheduled bickering.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Is that against policy?

    Nah, I know the answer: no.

    And it’s irrelevant anyway:

    1) this isn’t your thread, it’s your cage. Apparently you can’t read. Get some primary education.

    2) the definition of liar isn’t “someone who says Bray is wrong”.

    3) You’re a serial pathological and congenital liar, yet still you post here

  5. #5 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    This thread rattles along at such a pace that its hard to maintain any coherence

    Bray is incoherent.

    The difficulty in understanding this cage thread has nothing to do with this cage thread but with the psychotic lunatic caged within.

  6. #6 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than “Fernelius” is.

    Or the spells in Harry Potter.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Frank, if nobody posted here and you say this is the correct thing to do because eventually Bray here will piss off somewhere else, then isn’t that effectively the same thing as banning his shit?

    Yet one requires that everyone conspire to get rid of him except the blogroll owner. The other only requires the blogroll owner to do something.

    The result is the same, but the actions are taken by the one giving him air in the latter case.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    FrankD:

    Oh, Brad, how very old-school-tie of you… But I see they start teaching those a little later than when I was there.

    “There”? Where do they start teaching Latin before (what we call in Australia) Year 7?

    Oh, and in case you have the wrong idea about my socioeconomic caste, no, my school didn’t have a proper Classical Greek syllabus; they hired a Greek teacher just for a handful of my friends (“by popular demand,” I guess) when we were in what we call Year 9.

    I’ll decline to remark on your etymological skills,

    Smart decision.

    but let me compliment you on your fine acquisition of their legendary equivocation skills, Brad

    Er… thanks… I think… but whose skills are you talking about?

  9. #9 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    On McKitrick:

    Pat Michaels is a co-author of McKitrick — they wrote a paper which was flawed by the use of degrees when they should have used radians.

    http://sienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/16/moving-goalposts/

  10. #10 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    they hired a Greek teacher just for a handful of my friends (“by popular demand,” I guess)

    Well, I guess we now know why you’ve such an inflated opinion of yourself and your “proofs” seem to all boil down to “I think so”.

    Fucking hellfire.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    Wow:

    Al Gore was a corporate tobacco shill

    Ah, another claim whose “proof” is that you claimed it.

    IDIOT.

    Al Gore devotes several minutes of his carbon-credits infomercial confessing this in lurid detail (all in service to the redemption narrative peculiar to American religion). If you should ever overcome your pathological fear of evidence, here, see the grubby details he left out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html

    By the way, wow, ever since bill exposed your chronic lying about the mongoloid non-scientist responsible for that unscientific quote about “consensus of evidence,” you’ve been unwelcome on this thread. Why haven’t you taken the hint? LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    February 20, 2013

    FrankD:

    This thread rattles along at such a pace that its hard to maintain any coherence between the yes-you-did-no-I-didn’t free-fire,

    Tell me about it. Since the thread was created for me, I feel somewhat responsible for its “quality” and I can only really ask you to bear with us.

    If Wow fucked off as per this thread’s anti-liar policy, I’d like to think the coherence would improve.

    The fact that his intellectual vandalism is turning away potential contributors like you makes it all the more frustrating.

    What would you suggest I do about it?

    I can’t fix Wow, but do you think I should be responding to the problem differently?

    but in case there is any remaining interest in whether “pathology” has Greek or Medieval Latin roots…

    There is.

    Thanks for your insights on medical / medieval / neo-Latin and the distinctions between them, Frank—I’ve actually learnt something tonight!

  13. #13 Lionel A
    February 20, 2013

    BK with more distortion:

    “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.

    BK you may care to reflect on how you keep accusing others of lying here when above you createa barefaced distortion of a courageous and honest scientist.

    The full quote, which you shrank from repeating is this:

    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Which can be found here under the sub-head, The “Double Ethical Bind” Pitfall.

    This scurrilous behaviour of yours deserves a very public warning particularly concerning the courageous presentation Stephen gave in Australia clearly very ill. Note the marked contrast to the bombast of the likes of Monckton and Watts and the shrill tones of Nova and the floppy Curry.

    Dig out a copy of Schneider’s ‘The Patient from Hell: How I Worked with My Doctors to Get the Best of Modern Medicine and How You Can Too’ and be humbled, yoiu will then be in better shape to understand his ‘Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate’ .

    You NEED to read both. Then come back and apologise.

  14. #14 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    FrankD @ 3

    Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than “Fernelius” is. Fernel read Greek, and while the Universa Medica is in that distinctive version of Latin used by scientists of the time, it is littered with Greek marginalia, and derives its neologisms directly from Ancient Greek.

    Thank you. Note how our resident polymath continues to dispute this.

  15. #15 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    BK

    Dyson leans toward libertarianism. McIntyre lends his support to libertarian and conservative ‘think tanks’ and shill organisations like the Heartland ‘Institute’. He co-publishes with a religious fundamentalist.

    And Moore is a corporate shill. As you can easily see from the Sourcewatch bio.

    As I said, you picked terrible examples in support of an indefensible argument. More fool you. Denial does this to the mind though…

  16. #16 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Let me repeat:

    Not afraid of AGW = does not understand the topic and/or is in denial

    Main source of denial = conservative/libertarian politics (to which AGW represents a destructive challenge) and/or religious fundamentalism.

  17. #17 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    You are the author of your own misfortunes beyond this point Brad. I asked you again, and again, and again to clarify your position and explain your motivations. You ducked and you weaved and you dissembled instead of being frank and open and *honest*.

    After many days of this, I reluctantly concluded that you could only be concealing something which you believed would be to your discredit here. Or why else keep on dissembling and evading as you did – day after day after day.

    You’ve dug your own pit. If you don’t see that you are even further gone than I thought.

    And Brad, I gave you every chance, every consideration. I am not by nature this patient or forgiving or indeed civil in the face of disingenuous nonsense on the scale demonstrated by you here.

  18. #18 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Lionel A @ 13

    You NEED to read both. Then come back and apologise.

    Brad doesn’t ‘do’ reading. Nor is he very good at humility.

  19. #19 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    Many here will be familiar with Deep Climate’s informative and frequently surprising two-part article on McIntyre and McKitrick.

    Part I

    Part II

    Scholars of recent history will remember how the Wegman plagiarism debacle played out. Corruption of science and all that.

    Something else for Brad not to read because it will challenge his belief systems.

    It’s because I know the background and you don’t that you do such colossally stupid things as holding M&M up as exemplars.

    Save yourself the pain of a re-run of the climate sensitivity implosion: don’t attempt to defend the indefensible from a position of complete ignorance.

  20. #20 chek
    February 20, 2013

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head BBD. For many here all these alleged ‘controversies’ were played out and done to death years ago with every strand of denier spin either deconstructed or dynamited.

    But if.”Brad’s” a new convert who doesn’t yet fully appreciate he should’ve checked more thoroughly what was in the package he’s bought into, and crucially that all the smokescreens are to mask no challenge to the science itself, just the usual tales about whut bad mens teh scientetists are.

    Or he’s just another Johnny-come-lately, ten-a-penny denier.

  21. #21 Stu
    February 20, 2013

    Oh FFS, now Brad is reverting to snobbery about his primary education?

    Do elaborate.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    No, please don’t. You piffle on about the most erroneous shit as it is without delving into your fantasy personal life, Bray.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Remember, chek, brad doesn’t read the denier blogs ‘cos there’s nothing to learn there (well, apart from how crooked they are, but Bray doesn’t want to know about that, so doesn’t look).

  24. #24 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    IDIOT.

    That you are, Bray.

    Al Gore devotes several minutes of his carbon-credits infomercial confessing this in lurid detail

    Which you never read, did you.

    He grew tobacco and got money from tobacco companies.

    Neither are proof of being a shill.

    The only mongoloid is your own self, Bray.

    My god, you’re complete and utter scum of the earth, aren’t you. Sooner you FOAD the happier this world will be, you fuckwitted moronic troll.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    Tell me about it. Since the thread was created for me, I feel somewhat responsible for its “quality”

    Ironic: with a meaning other than the literal interpretation.

    Indeed, this thread was created to cage you. And you are entirely responsible for its quality. Which is why this blog has gone to shit: you’re filling it up with complete and utter shite.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.

    THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE????

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    Wow says,

    Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than “Fernelius” is.

    Or the spells in Harry Potter.

    This is serious, I’ve been working on my repello muggletum for days now, and if it’s not Latin, it might not work!

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    Chameleon asks,

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

    It’s not so much an opinion, as a formal result.

    BEST was the Koch-funded attempt led by fake-sceptic Richard Muller and cheered-on by cranks such as Anthony Watts to prove the hockey stick wrong.

    It didn’t just fail in that objective, it went so far as to provide a second-rate confirmation that the hockey-stick is correct.

    As you would know, were you capable of even the most elementary comprehension and analysis.

  29. #29 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    But Vince?
    In the actual BEST work, which would be the ‘formal result’, there is NO confirmation of either MBH98 or the hockey stick.
    You may, however, have picked that notion up by reading something else?
    BTW Vince,
    how often do I need to say that I am NOT a regular reader of WUWT?
    In fact the only blog I visit regularly is this one.

  30. #30 chek
    February 20, 2013

    I see you’ve identified the vital components that are always, but always missing from the ‘B’ listers.

    Cammy, PantieZ, Olap, Karen, Griselda, Sunspot – the list is too familiar to go on – and you know the et al. etc., but all meetiing the basic specification: lacking even the most elementary comprehension and analysis.

    I’ve heard of human engineering, but this present collection are just grotesque mannikins of what thinking, reasoning human beings could be like.

  31. #31 chek
    February 20, 2013

    Yes Cammy, we know you’re too dumb to read graphs. We don’t need your wittering reminders every few hours.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    February 20, 2013

    This practice of trying to ‘contain’ real discussions, and worthwile debates with better informed people, but in specific and seperate threads ..

    .. must have a reason. I wonder what Occam would have thought the simplest possible explanation would be …

    .:-

  33. #33 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    In the actual BEST work, which would be the ‘formal result’

    The graph of temperatures.

    You know, that oblong thingy with the squiggly lines on them.

  34. #34 BBD
    February 20, 2013

    chameleon

    Modern data shows unusual warming. The millennial-scale reconstructions do not show that *global average temperature* during the misnomered ‘MWP’ exceeded the mid-C20th average.

    This is where we are now. The detail of MBH98/99 is irrelevant. If you wish to disagree, you need to back it up with a widely supported result.

  35. #35 BBD
    February 21, 2013

    chameleon, cont:

    Even if, despite all the evidence we have, it somehow turns out that GAT at some point during the ‘MWP’ matched modern levels, we would be left pondering two related questions:

    – Why is CO2 forcing less efficacious than expected?

    – What so far undetected mystery forcing is responsible for energy accumulating in the climate system, predominantly in the oceans?

    All told, there’s a lot to get through.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    In the actual BEST work, which would be the ‘formal result’, there is NO confirmation of either MBH98 or the hockey stick.
    You may, however, have picked that notion up by reading something else?

    What an odd thing to say – what do *you* think BEST achieved?

    Regardles of that, if you wanted to know what BEST’s result was without reading their results, all you need to witness is the backtracking and recanting by cranks such as Watts, who were all set to applaud fellow-sceptic Richard Muller’s work, when it was predicted to prove Mann wrong.
    As it turned out, it confirmed Mann’s work as correct, hence the cranks abandonment of their promised support for Muller’s results.

  37. #37 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    I’m not wishing to disagree BBD!
    I agree there is much to learn.
    My point was that BEST neither proves or disproves MBH98.
    You appear to understand that but chek, Vince & Wow seem to be voicing an opinion that they have pucked up from somewhere else NOT in the methodology used by BEST or the conclusions in BEST.
    It is NOT incumbent upon me to supply evidence that BEST disproves MBH98. It doesn’t.
    BUT IT DOESN’T CONFIRM IT EITHER!
    I’m not interested in what people WANTED it to say.
    It seems that Vince has decided because it didn’t say what Watt’s wanted it to say it therefore means it CONFIRMS the hockey stick and MBH98.
    I do not agree with that assertion at all.

  38. #38 chek
    February 21, 2013

    Yes, you keep repeating your ‘Who me?[ defence, but you’ve been asked to detail the differences that nullify the hockey stick blade. But you don’t.

    You just keep bleating ‘Who me?’ Maybe your hairdresser might have a clue why such a ditz is cluttering up scienceblogs.

  39. #39 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — It was certainly hot everywhere during the Triassic but it was most assuredly not dry everywhere. It was wet near the equator and it was wet in the ‘temperate’ and polar regions; see the graphic once again. It was certainly dry in the extensive deserts from maybe 20–50 degrees both north and south. Even the equatorial rains might not have extended all the way across the wide continent, being wetter on the east side than the west.

    The trouble with most accounts by geologists is to use far too few rock samples from far too few regions and then extrapolate far too widely. However, the map I linked actually appears to take climatology into account.

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    David, I would prefer cartography that is based on people looking at rocks than one based on an interpretation of those rocks fed through a couple more layers of intepretation before resulting in a climatological model based on sparse data but apparently providing too much detail.

    One important point is that coal forming was not occurring during this period. That should tell us one thing. It wasn’t “wet at the equator”, or we would have early Triassic coal beds in those rocks. The biosphere 250 million years ago lost over 90% of its carrying capacity for animal and vegetable organisms, land and sea.

    More importantly, though, let’s devise a gaming exercise where we try to feed 8 billion people using those narrow coastal strips that were receiving rain at that time and see whether Brad’s “no worries” belief in some kind of “global thermostat” is going to be much help to us.

    Let’s not forget, Brad is denying that a 3-degree rise in temperature will occur, because of some magical property of the planet that will apparently prevent it from happening.
    Such a shame that magic didn’t work 250 million years ago when the ocean surface reached 40 degrees and killed virtually everything in it.

  41. #41 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Chek,
    The assertion by Vince was that MBH98 and the hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST.
    When questioned further he also asserted it was the SAME hockey stick.
    I did not say and have not said that the hockey stick is NULLIFIED by the Muller et al study.
    It isn’t.
    Therefore your question and your demand makes no sense.
    Why would I have to show how MBH98 is NULLIFIED by BEST when I clearly don’t think it is?
    BEST neither proves or disproves the hockey stick.
    Why are you having trouble with that concept?
    It no more says what Watts et al apparently (according to Vince) wanted it to say than it says what Vince seems to want it to say.
    Where does the notion and the assertion that MBH98 and the hockey stick was CONFIRMED by BEST come from?

  42. #42 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — High temperatures imply considerable evaporation from the equatorial ocean. Prevailing winds are always toward the west; some substantial precipitation surely falls along the equatorial east coast and some distance inland.

    Lack of coal beds means either the strata did not survive intact to this day or the conditions for coal formation were not there. For example, perhaps fungi consumed the plant materials before adequate burial.
    http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm

  43. #43 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    chameleon — BEST indeed largely is yet another hockey stick.

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013

    Chameleon.

    MBH98 and other tree ring reconstructions are corroborated by proxies other than tree rings. And these latter proxies also describe a “hockey stick”.

    Is this so difficult for you to understand?

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    David B. Benson

    February 21, 2013
    chameleon — BEST indeed largely is yet another hockey stick.

    David, how can the adverb “largely” be justified? We’re talking about a 250-year study.

    It’s a quarter the length of the canonical Hockey Stick.

    (And given certain commenters’ predilection for choosing their HS to suit the argument, I’d better pre-empt that game of grabass by saying that, yes, if we’re talking about the very first HS, the HS of MBH98, then it’s less than half the length of that.)

    BEST starts when the Little Ice Age has already bottomed out and begins to thaw.

    This adds nothing to the credibility of the claim that modern temperatures are “unprecedented” in any meaningful sense.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Bernard J:

    MBH98 and other tree ring reconstructions are corroborated by proxies other than tree rings. And these latter proxies also describe a “hockey stick”.

    I’m not trying to induce a cerebral aneurysm, I’m just sincerely interested in your answer to this:

    can you get a non-tree-ring-based “hockey stick” without using the Tiljander varve proxies (upside-down or otherwise)?

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    Brad, 5 examples of exactly that were previously provided to you.

    Stop going around in circles.

  48. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    David says,

    Lack of coal beds means either the strata did not survive intact to this day or the conditions for coal formation were not there. For example, perhaps fungi consumed the plant materials before adequate burial.

    For your 3nd option: exactly – it was too dry for coal formation.

    Some assumptions about past climates are very questionable because they are largely based on oceanic and atmospheric conditions that pertain to the modern configuration of continental mass.
    Things were very different 250 million years ago. A hotter atmosphere will carry more moisture, but it doesn’t follow that it will carry that moisture and release it over any significant part of Pangaea. To my mind, the lack of coal is a hint to that effect.

    It would seem a dangerous assumption to make, that more moisture over the oceans necessarily results in increased precipitation overall over land.

    My understanding is that the precipitation in the early Triassic was less likely widespread and more likely constrained to narrow coastal bands. It’s what the rocks seem to tell us, anyway.

  49. #49 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    2nd option. Not wearing my glasses and typing with both thumbs at once….

  50. #50 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Yes, BEST is a short handled hockey stick. The evidence for ‘unprecedented’ comes from elsewhere.

  51. #51 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — The basic atmospheric physics does not depend upon configuration of continental mass. The Triassic arrangement of continental mass
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey_220moll.jpg
    certainly had equatorial rain as well as plenty poleward of the Hadley cells. The link is suggestive of rainfall locations via the green color. Given the just prior species extirpation I have no idea just how green it was under all that rain. There are plenty of potential reasons for lack of coal formation. Anyway, we certainly do not want to come close to repeating those conditions.

  52. #52 David B. Benson
    February 21, 2013

    Here is the early to middle Triassic map:
    http://cpgeosystems.com/240moll.jpg
    Clearly the coloring is merely suggestive.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Vince:

    Let’s not forget, Brad is denying that a 3-degree rise in temperature will occur, because of some magical property of the planet that will apparently prevent it from happening.

    No, I was saying that the climate isn’t going to “tip,” in light of the fact—established over 4 billion years—that the planet has a “thermostat.”

    But Bernard drew to my attention the likelihood that I was getting “tipping points” and “conditions for runaway warming” mixed up—and indeed, the well-established thermal homeostatic behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere throughout the last 4 billion years may have prevented the latter, but it hasn’t prevented the former.

    You seem to be arguing recently that the “thermostat” doesn’t work a damn because every few hundred million years, if fails to keep things below a pleasantly balmy 27 degrees. (This is just a paraphrase, so forgive any traducement of your meaning—I’m a bit time-poor right now.)

    But what I had in mind was the kind of homeostasis enforced and enjoyed by the human body: it can’t maintain a fixed value for any given parameter, and it doesn’t even pretend to, but it maintains—by a system of net-negative feedbacks to perturbations—a target range which keeps you alive. You’ve suffered the occasional fever, which wasn’t all that much fun, but you’re still alive to tell the tale, aren’t you?

    A major complication missing from the above story, of course, is that—in disanalogy to human thermoregulatory physiology—the Earth doesn’t have a unique “target state” but a number of discrete ones, which alternate over time. (“Deglaciation” and “glaciation” being examples of processes that “tip” from one stability to another, and back again.)

    Such a shame that magic didn’t work 250 million years ago when the ocean surface reached 40 degrees and killed virtually everything in it.

    Hey, I never said the thermostat was perfect. It is, after all, nature, not “magic.”

    Perhaps more to the point: what would have worked back then, Vince—what do you think could have prevented the Permian-Triassic extinction event?

    A carbon tax?

    I’m not trying to be flippant, I would just like to know: when nature does have one of her floridly psychotic episodes every few hundred million years, what can we possibly do about it?

    The next time it happens, do you realistically believe that even the crackest of crack batallions of hovercar-chauffeured carbon accountants, risk-management consultants and climate psychologists will have the brains and charisma to manipulate the composition of the atmosphere just right so that the kind of piscine Armageddon (or should I say ichthyo-holocaust, BBD?) that took place 250 mya isn’t permitted to happen again?

    If so, then let us build a memorial museum for those asphyxiated fishies, with a marble monument as its elegiac centrepiece, and let us inscribe upon the pedestal, in 500-pt Trajan:

    NEVER AGAIN

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    chek:

    Yes, you keep repeating your ‘Who me?[ defence, but you’ve been asked to detail the differences that nullify the hockey stick blade. But you don’t.

    As far as I can tell, that would most likely be because SHE NEVER SAID BEST NULLIFIED IT.

    Did she, chek?

    You do comprehend the difference between drawing attention to Vince Whirlwind’s false doctrine that BEST confirmed the Hockey Stick and brandishing BEST as a Hockey-Stick-breaking study, don’t you?

    I mean, you went to university, didn’t you?

    So you know something about reasoning, one would hope?

    You just keep bleating ‘Who me?’ Maybe your hairdresser might have a clue why such a ditz is cluttering up scienceblogs.

    Classy stuff, chek.

    Unfortunately for you, this is a thread for adults.

    Misogynist fuckwits who couldn’t debate in good faith if their faith depended on it may be welcome in the low-traffic side threads, but this is the House of Brad. And your kind is not welcome here.

    Go away, take your palindromic pal with you, and do not come back.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Vince:

    Brad, 5 examples of exactly that were previously provided to you.

    If 5 examples of “hockey sticks” that don’t use tree-ring proxies or Tiljander proxies have been provided, I missed it.

    And I use “hockey sticks” in the obvious sense: scientific analyses (with nice little graphs at the end) showing that there was relatively little climate change for hundreds of years, since 1000AD or earlier, until a sudden onset of global warming c. 1900 that culminated in millennially-unprecedented high temperatures in the 1990s.

    Perhaps you could re-post them, or bear with me as I scan back through the hundreds of comments I haven’t yet had time to read.

  56. #56 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    How amusing :-)
    Lotharsson is doing his best to create a discussion about this thread at the Feb thread.
    Looks like a classic case of backstabbing to me.
    He is correct that he CAN do it but I’m spectacularly unimpressed with the behaviour.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Vince,

    you’re asking the wrong people the wrong question over at the wrong thread:

    Brad’s an idiot. He’s now asking for Hockey Sticks not made with tree rings. *Precisely* something I’ve posted in response to his nonsense before.

    What’s your damage, Vince?

    Illiteracy?

    Surely not. More likely a simple case of “not wearing [your] glasses and typing with both thumbs at once” again, right?

    So, to repeat, THIS is what I asked:

    can you get a non-tree-ring-based “hockey stick” without using the Tiljander varve proxies (upside-down or otherwise)?

    Since you obviously only read a few words of the question, presumably your previous “answer”:

    Brad, 5 examples of exactly that were previously provided to you.

    can be losslessly disregarded.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Hi chameleon,

    If the Loather is cowardly enough—or as I prefer to think of it, has the rat cunning and self-preservation—to confine his illogical and duplicitous outbursts to the side threads, what’s the problem? Everyone—the readers, our contributors—wins!

    :-)

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013

    I’m not trying to induce a cerebral aneurysm, I’m just sincerely interested in your answer to this:

    can you get a non-tree-ring-based “hockey stick” without using the Tiljander varve proxies (upside-down or otherwise)?

    Yes.

    Coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers – for starters.

    Three years ago I knocked one up from Aono’s cherry blossom festival data.

    And not a tree ring in sight – but in each case the rapid 20th century warming is very apparent…

  60. #60 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Brad,
    I guess you’re right.
    It still looks like childish and petulant behaviour to me.
    Actually, it looks like a classic case of backstabbing.
    If he wants to comment about this thread then this thread is the relevant place to do so.

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Lionel A,

    Unless I’ve misread Schneider in some way (which you genericly allege, but make no effort to demonstrate or even specify), he got it wrong. His ethics were wrong.

    Paraphrasing his statements, which I didn’t have on hand, was more than sufficient for me to say why I thought this.

    However, in case you seriously believe I “shrank from repeating” the Compleat and Unabridged Schneider, then let me now summon the strength to overcome the terrifying challenge of pasting the following (with apologies to patient readers):

    ”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    I reject this. It is wrong.

    When you’re a scientist there is no balance to be struck “between being effective and being honest”; there is no such ethical bind; no such tradeoff is either possible or permissible.

    When you’re a scientist, the question of whether and to what extent to tell the truth is not a dilemma that “cannot be solved by any formula.” The formula exists, it’s well known, it’s simple, and it’s been stated time and time again by true scientists since the dawn of science—scientists like Feynman, who said: bend over backwards to be honest.

    Schneider’s great error—or failing, if you like—was to forget that when you’re a scientist, your “effectiveness” comes from one and only one source: your honesty. The idea of a balance between them is therefore incoherent. You cannot possibly be effective at the expense of being honest; if you give up 1% of your honesty, you give up much more than 1% of your credibility. And without credibility, you can’t effect jack.

    Climate scientists of the dangerous-AGW camp often whinge about how they’re “losing the debate” and blame their “communication skills.” Whole careers have been made in devising more effective “communication strategies” for them.

    What these baboons fail to understand is that the public doesn’t take well, and will never take well, to being “communicated” with by scientists who declare and display a willingness to sacrifice honest communication for effective communication.

    You say Schneider acquitted himself with integrity and dignity, despite personal illness, in a speech he gave in Australia. My response is fivefold:

    1. I didn’t know about that circumstance—all I’d heard was that Schneider died unexpectedly of an acute myocardial infarct while boarding or on board one of his frequent-flyer, fossil-fuel-propelled international commutes. I supposed that he was previously healthy, but otherwise gave no thought to the matter.

    2. You’ll notice that I have not said Schneider’s heart attack was “cheering news, in an odd way,” as the repellent believer Phil Jones said of the sudden cardiac death of John Daly, an amiable denier, in 2004.

    3. You’ll notice, if I ever get round to reading / listening to Schneider’s speech, that I do not make fun of his frailty and proximity to death. That kind of self-degrading ad hominem I leave to people like BBD, who apparently ignores everything I’ve said about Freeman Dyson on the pretext that the titan of physics is now in his 90s: “Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.” Let me assure you that this is not an “argument” I’d be caught dead making.

    4. Thanks for the rec of ‘The Patient from Hell: How I Worked with My Doctors to Get the Best of Modern Medicine and How You Can Too’; the idea of patients as their own advocates, and of patient-doctor collaboration, are both topics that interest me (rather more than climate change, I must say). I have no doubt that a highly intelligent and well-spoken figure like Schneider—for all his misguidedness as a climate advocate—would have a lot of thought-provoking things to say on this, not least due to his personal ordeal. So I’ve added it to my to-read list.

    5. No matter how brilliantly he spoke in Australia, or how noble, moving and informative are his reflections on the patient journey, I don’t see what reason any of this would give me to “apologise” for my absolute rejection of Schneider’s ethical philosophy as a scientist. He got the ethics wrong. It doesn’t follow that he wasn’t a smart bloke, a brilliant debater even in the poorest health, or a great medical thinker. Profound flaws and glorious virtues are often known to cohabit the same cranium. So?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    David, how can the adverb “largely” be justified? We’re talking about a 250-year study.

    Which covers the most recent past where AGW has had an effect.

    Plainly, the reality is too much for your tiny brain.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    No, I was saying that the climate isn’t going to “tip,” in light of the fact—established over 4 billion years—that the planet has a “thermostat.”

    There is no fact demonstrating that, you credulous buffooon.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    Perhaps more to the point: what would have worked back then, Vince—what do you think could have prevented the Permian-Triassic extinction event?

    A carbon tax?

    Since we humans are extracting stored carbon and burning it thereby putting it into the atmosphere, a carbon tax is one way of slowing or stopping this event.

    Apparently you’d prefer a complete ban.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    As far as I can tell, that would most likely be because SHE NEVER SAID BEST NULLIFIED IT.

    So neither of you disagree with the assertion that the hockey stick has never been falsified.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    Brad, are you too cowardly to read the IPCC reports?
    Scared that if you read something about science that you’d find you cannot maintain your contrary denialism?

    CHICKEN!!!!

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Bernard,

    thank you.

    In which “coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers” in particular should I seek further stick?

  68. #68 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    His ethics were wrong.

    Proof (other than “I say so”) required.

  69. #69 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013

    In which “coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers” in particular should I seek further stick?

    What, you can’t find it for yourself?

    I gave you the cherry blossom burst because it’s not as well known, but the other proxies are easy to find. Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?

    It says so much…

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    It’s lolz time, people!

    A Deltoid reader called Lotharsson has been “skimming our thread every day or two”, he says… for the humor! But maybe not for much longer! Now he “thinks” our recent contributions have skidded into the realm of tragicomedy. Or maybe just tragedy!

    Among the many claims (real and imagined) which Lotharsson says make Lotharsson cry are:

    [Brad’s] delusional comparison of his scientific expertise being on a par with that of John Cook,

    Unfortunately for Lotharsson, I remember what I said. I made no representations about my “scientific expertise.”

    My qualifications as a “scientist” are just as good as John Cook’s, I said.

    Our respective competencies are a different matter.

    Alas, it’s hard to compare them when I understand the scientific method and Cook doesn’t.

    (This might be said to suggest that Cook couldn’t work as a scientist even if he wanted to, whereas I could.)

    his bigoted slur against John Cook,

    Hmm. Fascinating if true! But what “slur” could possibly be bigoted enough to jerk a tear from the very eye of the Loather? Was it the part where I pointed out that the false propaganda about “a consensus of evidence” could never have come from a scientist, even before bill had revealed that it that it didn’t come from one?

    Or when I described Cook as a cartoonist? As Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy?

    Have I said anything about John Cook that the facts themselves don’t support? We’ll never know; the spawn of Lothar doesn’t deign to say!

    his slanderous misrepresentation of Schneider,

    By paraphrasing him, apparently.

    and even his sad belief that Brad gets to decide who is “welcome” to comment on his jail thread –

    Ah, no, let me stop you there: I don’t make up the rules. I only cite them.

    Some subspecies of homo just aren’t welcome here. Liars are NOT “welcome” in the House of Brad. Misogynistic fuckwits who couldn’t argue in good faith if their faith depended on it are NOT “welcome” in the House of Brad.

    Live with it. Move on. Make the most of your self-exile in that untrafficked little side-thread, Lotharsson.

    :-)

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    There are multiple “hockey sticks” not based on dendrochronology, but reflecting the same temperature trajectory over the last millenium as do tree rings.

    Why are you avoiding acknowledgement of this simple fact?

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Bernard J,

    This is a perfect microcosm of your side’s failure in this debate.

    I thanked you for the one, acontextual piece of information you provided and asked if you could be more specific about the “coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers” whose histories describe a hockey-bacilliform shape—a reasonable question when, after all, we both know how many candidate proxies describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like, don’t we?

    But like a petty fuckwit, you saw my question as nothing but an opportunity for you to score points off the mere fact that I’d asked it, and graced us all with this brilliant comeback:

    Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?

    Well, that sure learned me, didn’t it, you supercilious twat?

    LOL!

    Ever wonder why the public increasingly thinks you and your “science” are Chaucerian frauds?

  73. #73 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    Why are you avoiding acknowledgement of this simple fact?

    Because he’s a denier.

    Duh.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    A Deltoid reader called Lotharsson has been “skimming our thread every day or two”

    You think that’s odd.

    Theres a deltoid denier troll called Brad Keyes who has been skimming the other threads he’s been banned from for being a lying arsehole every day or so.

    Worse, this retard thinks this is his thread to control!

  75. #75 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    a reasonable question

    No, it wasn’t.

    You were given cherry blossoms. You ignored it and, rather than do your own homework, demanded someone else do work you demand of them.

    Pay us and maybe we’ll think about it.

  76. #76 chek
    February 21, 2013

    Ever wonder why the public increasingly thinks you and your “science” are Chaucerian frauds?

    Ever wonder why half-wits like you are reduced to recycling again the same old denier crap that failed first, second and third times around, “Brad”?

  77. #77 Lionel A
    February 21, 2013

    Keyes, you dishonest sophist, breaking down Schneider’s statement into bits fails to portray his overall thinking which is that one should honest and honestly lay out the dangers humanity faces (as do all other creatures with the misfortune to share this planet) from the consequences of our own actions.

    But then such word-play is all a part of the dishonest denier-delayer play book, another example on this specific theme we have seen before WRT the words of John Houghton. If you know not to what I refer then do some homework for it is clear that you need to do much on this. Give up your diet of dictionaries and turn to science.

    …(which you genericly allege, but make no effort to demonstrate or even specify)…

    Now if you were up to speed on this topic having had a history of reading the science, the denial of the science etc., etc., you would have not needed any further amplification. The fact that you write such is telling in itself. With every post you make you reveal more of your state of ignorance.

    Forecasting the future can be difficult enough given the unknown unknowns at any point in the history of the science (this is one aspect that you would do well to study as your knowledge in this respect appears rather thin) and hence caveats are made and error ranges given in any scientific papers worth their weight. The fact that the scientifically naive general populace fail to understand the mechanisms and reasoning behind this methodology makes it difficult to alert them to the dangers without portraying some of the possible, and as we see now most probable, extreme events.

    As I said before, you need to apologise for casting such an ignorant and despicable slur on the late Stephen Schneider. Any further tarrying on this will see you as for ever portrayed as a disgusting propagandist.

    But wait. You go on, now casting aspersions at John Cook, labelling him as ‘Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy.

    You are beyond reproach and I will not dirty myself by engaging with you further. You have become an ‘untouchable’ in my books by quoting Feynman in the way that you have. That is now three scientists to whom you should apologise but I doubt that your ego will allow.

    BTW this thread is only this long because you keep digging your hole, that is the true measure of your worth as any casual visitor will gather. ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’ could be your epitaph.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    ~Hell, John Stuart Mill, being a Utilitarian libertarian, would agree ENTIRELY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Schneider.

    Bray has said he’s a libertarian of the JSM school.

    Seems he flunked out of that school too.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    BBD:

    I asked you again, and again, and again to clarify your position

    And I’ve stated my position. Maybe not again, and again, and again—but more than once. And clearly.

    What aspect of my position is still mysterious to you?

    and explain your motivations.

    I don’t have motivations for my position on climate. I’m a rational, not a motivated, reasoner. My beliefs have reasons. Not motivations.

    But then: I’ve explained all this, haven’t I? Why are you still asking the same, wrong question?

    Just because you had an emotional agenda when you were a ‘lukewarmer’ (as you’ve candidly recounted), it doesn’t follow that the rest of us do. In fact, until you told your story, I didn’t know of anyone who’d rejected the idea of dangerous AGW on less-than-rational grounds.

    It’s because I know the background and you don’t that you do such colossally stupid things as holding M&M up as exemplars.

    What a pointless mustelism, even by deltoid standards. Exemplars of what, BBD? Of what did I wrongly hold them up as exemplars?

    The last time I cited the example of McIntyre (you were the one who insisted on bringing McKitrick into it), I did so because he falsifies your theory that deniers are all concealing some shameful political or religious ideology. The truth and generality of this suspicion were “obvious,” you said! It was “invariably” the case!

    As obvious as this psychological picture may be to you, it’s false, as witness the examples I gave: McIntyre, Freeman Dyson, Patrick Moore. And little old me. Four deniers who aren’t ashamed of their extracurricular views, which don’t include any of the views you think they must.

    You were wrong.

    Your attempts to deny this are the opposite of scientific behaviour.

    Your theory of the world implied a certain prediction; I showed that the prediction is false; but in a Weekend-at-Bernie’s-like ploy to keep up appearances, you threw up every unlovely misdirection you could think of:

    — Sure, McIntyre may be a denier and a leftie, but he’s friends with people who aren’t, you said.

    So what?

    — Moore may be a denier and a leftie, but he’s an industry advocate, you said.

    So what?

    — Dyson may be a denier and a leftie, but he’s over 90, you said.

    So what?

    What you should have done, if you profess to be a scientific person, or simply an honest one, was accept that your hypothesis was wrong, go back to the drawing-board and come up with something better.

    Your goalpost-shifting resort to irrelevantia is NOT how reasoning works, it’s not how good-faith dialogue works, and it’s pretty much the definitional opposite of how science works!

    Forget Feynman at your peril, BBD: “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.”

    No ifs, ands or buts.

    Speaking of corruption in sport, let me remind you of something we discussed 2 nights ago:

    I asked:

    ”When have we EVER rejected science? Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.”

    You said:

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

    I immediately bet you were wrong, because I knew to a mathematical certainty that I’d never disparaged the scientific method, here or anywhere:

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

    Now, if you’d like to start acting like a scientist or at least a scientifically-literate citizen again, a great place to start would be:

    Tell me, how many balls have been kicked through that “open goal” in the last 48 hours?

    Has anyone managed to throw my words back at me, exposing me as having disagreed with, maligned or undermined the scientific method? Ever?

    And if not, what does that say about your “open goal” theory, BBD?

    Finally, you said to FrankD:

    ”Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than “Fernelius” is. Fernel read Greek, and while the Universa Medica is in that distinctive version of Latin used by scientists of the time, it is littered with Greek marginalia, and derives its neologisms directly from Ancient Greek.”

    Thank you. Note how [Brad] continues to dispute this.

    But it turns out that all I said to FrankD, in empirical reality, was:

    Thanks for your insights on medical / medieval / neo-Latin and the distinctions between them, Frank—I’ve actually learnt something tonight!

    This doesn’t sound like a “dispute” by any stretch of the dictionary, does it?

    Another failed prediction.

    What does that tell you about your theory of Brad, BBD?

  80. #80 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    What aspect of my position is still mysterious to you?

    Why you take it.

    Seriously, learn to read.

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013

    Brad keyes sneers:

    … we both know how many candidate proxies describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like, don’t we?

    Two points.

    1) You persist in avoiding comment on the consilience of diverse and independent temperature proxies that span the last millennium or longer.

    2) Please provide references to verified proxies that “describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like”.

    You are full of talk, but never of reasoned, evidenced, testable and robust substance that can refute the mainstream understanding of cliamtology.

    Why do you think it is that you struggle so to make a case against the “consensus”, and why do you think it is that this thread is already a trail of the destruction of your various wispy denialist claims?

  82. #82 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    He doesn’t think, therefore asking “Why do you think” is a waste of time.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Lionel A:

    You have become an ‘untouchable’ in my books by quoting Feynman in the way that you have. That is now three scientists to whom you should apologise but I doubt that your ego will allow.

    Seriously? You think I need to apologise to Feynman for admiring his absolute honesty:

    When you’re a scientist, the question of whether and to what extent to tell the truth is not a dilemma that “cannot be solved by any formula.” The formula exists, it’s well known, it’s simple, and it’s been stated time and time again by true scientists since the dawn of science—scientists like Feynman, who said: bend over backwards to be honest.

    And who are the other two scientists?

    You’ve accused me of slandering Schneider—by pointing out that he advocated a balance between honesty and effectiveness, which you apparently consider to be a misrepresentation of, or to be at odds with, what you consider “his overall thinking”—in effect blaming me for a supposed contradiction between two parts of Schneider’s thinking.

    You’ve accused me of slandering Cook—but he’s not a scientist, so I’m still confused.

    Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote, and I love the scientific method, so it’s not at all clear why I should repay Cook’s attacks on a loved one with kindness.

    Who do you think I am, Gandhi?

    I’m not Gandhi. I’m not even Jesus! (My contempt for the philosophy of suffering injustice with a meek turn of the cheek may, in fact, be one of the reasons I’ve outlived Jesus!)

  84. #84 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    and I love the scientific method

    You never use it, though. Is this because you love it so much that you want to keep it pristine and in its original box???

    Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote

    Your personal opinion and worthless.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    LOL!

    Some illiterate on the minor thread has somehow got it in its head that our friend chameleon endorses the argument from consensus and inadvertently provides an amusing-in-a-junior-high-kind-of-way execration of said argument!

    [Chameleon's] claim is no different from ”EAT SHIT! A BILLION FLIES CAN’T BE WRONG!”.

    LOL. I’ll have to remember that one the next time some teenager tries to pull the argumentum ad consensum. “The overwhelming majority of respectable, active flies are telling us …”

    :-)

  86. #86 chek
    February 21, 2013

    Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote,

    Another Jonarse-type failure wittering on about that of which he knows nothing. What is it with these obviously uneducated dimwits? Jealousy?

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Bernard J:

    2) Please provide references to verified proxies that “describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like”.

    What, you can’t find them for yourself?

    Non-HS-shaped proxies are easy to find. Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?

    It says so much…

  88. #88 chek
    February 21, 2013

    Bernard, “Brad” – our self-proclaimed lover of teh scientistic method – has quite obviously never read a primary source and wouldn’t know how to find one if his life depended on it.
    Bluster and piss is the best he’ll manage.

    Now if you’d instead asked for some samples of shit from the lowliest of denier sewage beds he’d be right there with it, stuck in his teeth, wagging his tail and expecting a biscuit.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    “What is it with these obviously uneducated dimwits? Jealousy?”

    It’s that they’re too dumb to think that such claims won’t work.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    What, you can’t find them for yourself?

    Non-HS-shaped proxies are easy to find.

    OK, this dickwad has to be being coached on what to do by Joanarse.

    Listen, you fuckwit moron, you claim you can easily find them, yet you haven’t.

    YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.

    So why are you still here when you claim liars aren’t welcome?

    BECAUSE YOU WERE LYING THEN TOO.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    February 21, 2013

    Seriously? You think I need to apologise to Feynman for admiring his absolute honesty:

    No, but for the sheer hypocrisy in quoting him as if you are of the same measure.

    With Cook your insult is plain to see, you may have some trouble whitewashing that one away.

    As for Schneider, you misrepresented his message by taking bits out of context. That is what delayers-deniers and other liars for hire do as exposed by Oresekes [1] and others.

    You slide past direct questions and then dismember the comments of others so as to prop up your twisted logic.

    One is therefore led to ask what PR organisation(s) do you work for?

    ‘Ministry of Magic’ perhaps for starters.

    You are all huff and puff and burst all over the place with prolixity like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man when challenged. The entropy of your thought processes is very high and growing with every post you make.

    [1] ‘Merchants of Doubt‘ and see Proctor ‘Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition for more on big tobacco which, with their PR agents and lawyers, pioneered the same tactics rolled out against the message of APGW with many of the same characters connected to the same think tanks.

    Oreskes has just followed up by being in the et. al. group here:Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Which provides more context for Schneider’s thinking.

    I figure you have only been pestering at this for a mere dog watch where many of us are soon to draw the pension. Either that or you are a paid toll of fossil et. al. or a complete scientific ignoramus, with delusions of ability, despite your way with words.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    “One is therefore led to ask what PR organisation(s) do you work for?”

    The other being “Are you the best they could manage?”

  93. #93 Stu
    February 21, 2013

    Seconded on the Jonas-coaching. Brad is starting to parrot the “but I know REAL science” tripe.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    I have to ask.

    You refuse to give links to verified proxy reconstructions that don’t look like hockey sticks.

    Why so coy?

  95. #95 BBD
    February 21, 2013

    BK

    The last time I cited the example of McIntyre (you were the one who insisted on bringing McKitrick into it), I did so because he falsifies your theory that deniers are all concealing some shameful political or religious ideology.

    No he doesn’t. You are being disingenuous again. He’s very careful to *hide* his politics but we can see where his sympathies really lie from the affiliations he has made, which I have pointed out to you. I advise you to read the two-parter at DC before arguing at Deltoid that Stevie Mac is a simple seeker after truth.

    I have now said *twice* that Dyson has libertarian leanings. Twice that Moore is a corporate shill (read the Sourcewatch bio you lazy tit). You are continuing to ignore information that contradicts and corrects your assertions.

    Where is your evidence that SM, Dyson, Moore are ‘lefties’. Back it up.

    I immediately bet you were wrong, because I knew to a mathematical certainty that I’d never disparaged the scientific method, here or anywhere

    Your entire approach is a mockery of the scientific method. You reject and ignore evidence or simply refuse to examine it, refuse to carry out even trivial fact-finding for yourself and your discourse is an exercise in self-serving and evasive dishonesty. You morph your denial to avoid direct exposure while continuously broadcasting contrarian bollocks.

    The above quote perfectly exemplifies the degree of intellectual dishonesty you bring to the table. What really irritates me is that you seem to think you are cleverer than everyone else here and that we don’t see what you are doing.

    All in all, more disingenuous, time-wasting nonsense from Brad.

  96. #96 BBD
    February 21, 2013

    @ 87

    Classic Brad. Turn your own faults (ignorance, laziness, denial) into a weapon to attack Bernard J.

    He has your number, just as we all do:

    You are full of talk, but never of reasoned, evidenced, testable and robust substance that can refute the mainstream understanding of cliamtology.

    Why do you think it is that you struggle so to make a case against the “consensus”, and why do you think it is that this thread is already a trail of the destruction of your various wispy denialist claims?

  97. #97 chek
    February 21, 2013

    The other being “Are you the best they could manage?”

    The clueless doxie sidekick is a new twist. Usually it’s a clueless, link-spamming psycho moron (or two) riding shotgun with the new act.

    Except for genuine lone cranks like Curtin and Spanky, it’s a well-rehearsed formula.

  98. #98 BBD
    February 21, 2013

    wrt hocky sticks:

    Not all hockey sticks come from temperature reconstructions. There are more fundamental ones than that.

  99. #99 chek
    February 21, 2013

    The denier syllabus is very, very narrow, and like most small dinosaur-type brains they’re already committed to the Serengeti strategy, which is why “Brad” is retreading all the old ground.
    There’s never been an update since the package was sold, which is why your IPCC data will be shrugged off in the hope it goes away and stops complicating the narrative. The deniers’ narrative for simpletons being AGW is all Mann and the climategate crew’s invention.

    Look at Calumny’s insistence that BEST simply doesn’t/can’t reproduce the hockey stick blade. That’s beyond her briefing.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    February 21, 2013
    2) Please provide references to verified proxies that “describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like”.

    What, you can’t find them for yourself?

    Non-HS-shaped proxies are easy to find. Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?

    It says so much…

    Brad Keyes.

    I listed five proxies that non-dendrochronological temperature proxies that demonstrate a hockey stick.

    If you think that non hockey stick proxies (you know, the kind that contradict the existence of contemporary global warming) are easy to find, then why are you struggling to counter my examples?

    Go on, embarrass me by seeing my five proxies and raising me five of your own.

    I dare you.

Current ye@r *