Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    Brad says,

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

    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.

    So you don’t even read the information you are provided with.

    I guess that explains your continued ignorance.

    Maybe stop posting and start reading, eh?

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 21, 2013

    Lionel A:

    ”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.

    New rule, everybody! For the first time in history, you’re not allowed to quote someone unless you’re “of the same measure” as them. Why, that’s just …hypocrisy!

    LOL… You’re making this up as you go, aren’t you Lionel?

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

    Good. Why on Earth would I want to whitewash the fact that Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy has mangled and betrayed the scientific method with his back-door efforts to rehabilitate the argument from consensus, which has been forbidden for 250 years?

    As for Schneider, you misrepresented his message by taking bits out of context.

    You remind me of Ned Flanders, who says he believes everything in the Bible, “even the bits that contradict the other bits!”

    Face it: if Schneider’s “overall message” were “that you have to honestly tell people about the risks,” then he would’ve simply said so.

    A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?

    It’s not as if Schneider is alone in selling out the absolute integrity Feynman demanded of scientists. Richard Muller sounds uncannily simpatico:

    Al Gore flies around in a jet plane—absolutely fine with me. … What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If he reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion—which he does, but he’s very effective at it—then let him fly any plane he wants.

    When leaders in climate science have given their moral imprimatur to the ever-present temptation to sacrifice absolute honesty for “effectiveness,” how could anyone be surprised if a whole clade of younger climate scientists took up this Mephistophelean offer?

    Is anyone even shocked any more when atmospheric physicist Monica Kopacz admits the following shocking truth:

    It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

    As an elder statesman of climate science, Schneider bears some responsibility for this morally-decadent culture.

  3. #3 David B. Benson
    February 22, 2013

    Brad Keyes — I assure you that Terra has no ‘thermostat’ tending to return temperatures to some nominal value after a perturbation. There is only a response to various changes.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    New rule, everybody!

    This isn’t your thread to demand rules on, Bray.

    This is your cage.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    So you don’t even read the information you are provided with.

    ‘course he hasn’t. he’s snuck off for a bit then ignored everything handed to him he demanded, and come back with another galloping trots of BS.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Vince:

    Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise. His graph presented information in a meaningful way to impart correct information.
    Contrast this with the various fraudulent graphs concocted by the likes of Pat Michaels and Anthony Watts.

    Really? Tell me about these “fraudulent graphs concocted by” Watts or Michaels. I (honestly) hadn’t heard of this. If you can prove this allegation, I’ll have no choice but to repudiate them as writers / scientists.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Tell me about these “fraudulent graphs concocted by” Watts or Michaels.

    Really? You can’t find them? They’re easy to find. Type in Watts graph fakeinto google.

    And will you even bother looking? Past actions indicate “No”. You’ve been given Christy’s fake graphs already. Ignored them.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    And do the same for pat michaels graph fake.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Tick, tick, tick…

  10. #10 chek
    February 22, 2013

    “Brad’s” confected outrage based on opinion pieces of varying timing and validity, doesn’t stretch as far as say, the convicted criminal holding a senior post at Heartland planning to lie to children on a national scale. Oh no.

    But it’s no real surprise by now that “Brad’s” judgement would be highly selective when moral decadence is actually proven and convicted rather than alleged.

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Brad, on the off-chance you intend to read this information, here is the one I think is Pat Michael’s most egregious bit of fraud, (although the one he concocted for the November 2010 congresional science and technology comittee was worse, I don’t think he ever published it anywhere)(I wonder why Pat Michaels doesn’t publish the rubbish he tries to bamboozle politicians with?):
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/10/mann_go_ape/

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Gosh, I didn’t realise Pat Michaels was such a deep barrel of stupidity and lies.

    Pat Michaels:

    A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

    Nordhaus:

    The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillions of dollars of present value. […] I have advocated a carbon tax for many years as the best way to attack the issue.

    Must be great to have the likes of Pat Michaels on your siede, eh Brad?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    “Brad’s” confected outrage based on opinion pieces of varying timing and validity, doesn’t stretch as far as say, the convicted criminal holding a senior post at Heartland planning to lie to children on a national scale. Oh no.

    Ah, let me guess, this “plan” was revealed in the forged Strategy Document? LOL…

    But it’s no real surprise by now that “Brad’s” judgement would be highly selective when moral decadence is actually proven and convicted rather than alleged.

    Rather than confessed, you mean. In case you didn’t notice, I quoted climate “scientists” who approve of exaggeration, in their own words.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    By the way, Wow, ever since bill exposed your chronic lying about the stupid 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.




  15. #15 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Tick.

    Tick.

    Tick…

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Here you go, Brad, Comment #36 in this very thread:

    Of course, we didn’t need BEST to tell us that Mann was correct, we already had
    Wahl & Ammann: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

    Huang, Pollack and SHen from borehole data:
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf

    Smith, Baker, etc… using stalactites:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html

    Oerlemans from Glaciers:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

    Gosh, eh Brad? All the temperature reconstructions agree, even the Koch-funded one.

    Almost like reality just isn’t on your side?

    Hockey sticks.

    No tree rings.

    Time for your next “trick”, eh, Brad?

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Lionel A,

    “APGW?”

    DACC, MMCC, CAGW, MCCD, oh my!

    A classic sign of pseudoscience: they keep changing the sciencey name of their undefined sciencey hypothesis.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Hockey sticks.

    No tree rings.

    And not a Tiljander proxy in sight?

    Great!

    Time for your next “trick”, eh, Brad?

    Yeah, it’s the archetypal denier deception: asking a question!

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    …a question to which you already had the answer.

    The tactic is disruption and misdirection.

    The aim is to confuse the likes of Chameleon, who, despite a complete inability to think is nevertheless allowed a vote, a vote easily stolen by those who lie to her.

  20. #20 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

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

    Thankyou for dealing with the actual issue rather than throwing vague, unsubstantiated insults.
    I would disagree slightly with your comment by pointing out that the BEST graphs bear some similarity to ONE PART of the MBH98 hockey stick.
    It can’t really be a ‘short handled’ MBH98 hockey stick because there is NO DATA and NO CONCLUSIONS in BEST to either conclusively prove or disprove the entire MBH98 hockey stick.
    The ‘unprecedented’ does indeed reside elsewhere.
    Thankyou also for pointing out that there are other non CO2 matters re H2O feedbacks and doing so by discussing evidence and research rather than by using rhetoric and vague insults.
    Good for you David B.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    So, Brad Keyes, is the confrontation by multiple non-dendrochronological hockey stick so galling that you can’t comment rationally on the fact of contemporary warming that is following the trajectory suggested by the consensus climate sensitivity of around 3° C?

    Yeah, it’s the archetypal denier deception: asking a question!

    The problem is that you didn’t ask any of the correct scientific questions when you embarked on your journey of denial.

    Had you done so, you’d have known that sensitivity was greater than the 1.5° C figure you guessed earlier in this thread, and you’d have known that many independent lines of evidence corroborate the obvious 20th century warming, and you might even have known known that humans and many, many other fauna and flora species have ecophysiologies that are tied to a Holocene climate regime. And note – when considering ecophysiology, the food sources of a species are as important as the physiological responses of the species itself.

    If you ‘possess’ this thread in any way, it is through the demonstration of your glaring lack of knowledge of the science that you imagined you might refute.

    The rest of us are happy to let you own that humiliation.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Further to the multiple non-dendrochronological hockey sticks, what does this say about the methodology of MBH98?

    I’m curious about what the various Denialati on this thread think is the import of the consilience…

  23. #23 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Chameleon, let me spell it out to you:

    MBH98: A hockey stick

    BEST: A hockey stick.

    They agree. The 2nd one confirms the first. MBH98 is supported by BEST.
    Anthony Watts’ crank pastime of weather-station-spotting’s purpose is proven groundless.

    Welcome to 2013, where the wider world outside the crankosphere hasn’t worried about “the hockey stick” being wrong for more than 5 years.

  24. #24 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Hey! Bernard! I like your cherry-blosson proxy:http://s20.postimage.org/m66du6ekd/i4qql3.jpg

    I see a gentle cooling trend disrupted by unprecedented modern warming.

    Now, what does that remind me of…?

  25. #25 David B. Benson
    February 22, 2013

    chameleon — You are welcome. I point out that given the limitations of the BEST data, it tends to confirm the latter portion of the various northern hemisphere ‘hockey sticks'; a small matter.

  26. #26 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    EXCUSE ME VINCE??????
    “The aim is to confuse the likes of Chameleon, who, despite a complete inability to think is nevertheless allowed a vote, a vote easily stolen by those who lie to her.”
    You are correct that I am very seriously THINKING long and hard about MY vote and let me assure you that a comment like the one you just made will do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help your political cause.
    and Vince:
    Speaking of statements that are not based on fact and therefore could be called a lie:
    MBH98 and the hockey stick is NOT confirmed by BEST.
    Where on earth did you pick that idea up?
    And also Vince,
    What could you possibly know about my ability to think?
    The fact that I don’t accept your statements without question doesn’t mean I am unable to think…in my world that would actually indicate I am perfectly capable of THINKING for myself!
    I would once again recommend Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow” to you.
    I especially recommend parts 3 and 4.
    You are lucky that I prefer David B’s style of comment far better than yours and I will refrain from saying any more about your comment about my ability to THINK and what I now THINK of you because of that comment!

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Hey! Bernard! I like your cherry-blosson proxy:http://s20.postimage.org/m66du6ekd/i4qql3.jpg

    I see a gentle cooling trend disrupted by unprecedented modern warming.

    Now, what does that remind me of…?

    I can’t imagine Vince…

    Sarcasm aside, I’ve been waiting for someone to complain about the (not so?) obvious qualitative difference between the cherry blossom trajectory and the other trajectories. I should probably have used the later graph I made at the time I originally raised the cherry blossom festivals, bbecause it also includes MBH98, but it makes no difference to the fact of a hockey stick in the CBF data.

    It amuses me greatly that not a one of the Denialists to whom I have referred Aono’s CBF data have tried to discount or otherwise dismiss it.

    I wonder why?

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Following on from my previous comment about none of the denialists here or elsewhere remarking on the CBF hockey stick, I thought that I’d have been asked years before now why the pre-1900 portion is below the other constructions, and why it has so much more fluctuation overall.

    For the record, the downward displacement arises because I placed the CBF data to match the instrumental record where the records overlapped. I did this mostly because it separated the different trajectories for easier visualisation. However, as I note on the Temperatures and Projections post where I originally raised this subject, local Kyoto March temperature anomalies fluctuate more over time than do the annual global anomalies. As a result, tying the 1900 data point in the CBF data to the same point in the instrumental record shifts the entire CBF trajectory downward, because the local (that is, Kyoto) 20th century warm extremes over global means are not accounted for.

    If I can be shagged I might one day spend more than the original 20-30 minutes that I gave to the exercise three years ago, and work out the where the anomaly coincidence is for the CBF vs the MBH98 baselines, but it won’t change the fact of the hockey stick.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    BBD:

    ”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

    No he isn’t. Just because you haven’t found something, doesn’t mean it’s hidden.

    McIntyre has a no-politics policy (so to speak) on his blog because he doesn’t want the science getting drowned out. The way I was raised, separating politics from science is considered a good thing—and you’re turning it into something nefarious. ;-)

    But these things aren’t secret: read any proper journalistic profile of McIntyre, of the type found in newspapers and magazines everywhere (as opposed to professional character-assassination blogs), and you’ll see exactly where he stands politically. Macleans, for example, will tell you:

    McIntyre’s association with ‘Red Ed’ (now the CEO of the Toronto-Dominion Bank) will surprise those who assume that a climate skeptic must be a rabid Republican, but as he puts it, “I live in downtown Toronto, and I have the politics of downtown Toronto.”

    Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/2/

    but we can see where his sympathies really lie from the affiliations he has made,

    No you can’t. He’s already told you where his sympathies lie. You could interrogate the politics of his circle of friends, but all that’s going to tell you is that McIntyre is tolerant of human beings from a whole spectrum of political backgrounds. The bastard!

    Are you tacitly declaring that you refuse to associate with Republicans (or the local equivalent), BBD?

    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.

    Fine. I will. But don’t change the subject. The point is: McIntyre is a denier even though he isn’t hiding some unspeakable rightward political inclination or Christian cult membership.

    Which breaks your theory.

    I have now said *twice* that Dyson has libertarian leanings.

    We all have libertarian leanings, don’t we? I’d like to think so. If you don’t, it will only confirm that old caricature of climate believalists as paternalistic cryptofascists!

    You can diagnose Dyson with libertarian leanings *thrice* if you want. Go ahead, do it four times. Dyson will still be, in New York Times language, “an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources.”

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

    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.

    No, I’m saving energy. What difference will it make to my “assertions” if it turns out Patrick Moore is a business advocate? That wouldn’t make him right-wing (or left, for that matter). If you honestly think industry mouthpieces are right-wing, then where do you place Al Gore, the nicotine-and-carbon shillionaire? Somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney, I suppose?

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

    What, you can’t find it for yourself?

    The evidence is easy to find. Are you so googlistically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?

    It says so much… as Bernard J might put it. ;-)


    ”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,

    No, I haven’t ignored one bit of evidence. Just because nothing you’ve shown me so far has managed to convert me to a climate worrier on the spot, doesn’t mean I didn’t look at it. And just because I’ve been too busy (and had better things to do than) to follow up every link I’ve been given so far, doesn’t mean you get to accuse me of “rejecting” them. If you’re really committed to this whole “good faith” image you’re cultivating, you’ll have to give me time to read the papers.

    What’s more telling, I think, is your silence on what you know is the dishonest misrepresentation of the scientific method by someone entrusted with educating people. Why do you have nothing to say about John Cook’s claims when you know very well they’re propagandistic fibs:

    ”There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.”

    Is it that you don’t want to hurt The Cause?

    refuse to carry out even trivial fact-finding for yourself

    I’ve found plenty of trivial facts in the course of our exchanges.

    and your discourse is an exercise in self-serving and evasive dishonesty.

    Dishonesty? Still waiting for an example.

    You morph your denial to avoid direct exposure

    Watch as the deniomorph camouflages his belief system, dazzling and confusing the believoraptor flock! With brains no bigger than that of their descendant, the domestic chicken, it’s only a matter of minutes before they’re turning their scythe-like dew claws on each other! The enraged calls of the disembowelled raptorlings fails to rouse their brood-father, Tim, from his nidal napping. The cunning male deniomorph takes advantage of the noise and dust of the fratricidal fracas to slip away!

    What’s the imputation here, BBD? Come out with it.

    If you’ve convinced yourself that I’m masking my true beliefs, I can’t possibly convince you otherwise and I have no intention of wasting my time trying. A precondition for civilised dialogue is that both parties take each other’s professed opinions seriously. If that courtesy is beyond you, this is futile.

    while continuously broadcasting contrarian bollocks. The above quote perfectly exemplifies the degree of intellectual dishonesty you bring to the table.

    But “the above quote” was 100% true. If the truth is “contrarian,” then what’s “majoritarian”? *Grin.*

    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.

    What irritates me is that I keep explaining what I’m doing but you refuse to understand me.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Vince:

    MBH98: A hockey stick

    BEST: A hockey stick.

    You refuse to correct your errors even when they are *repeatedly* pointed out to you, Vince: the very essence of being in denial!

    Vince, the BEST study starts when the Little Ice Age has already bottomed out! It’s only two hundred and fifty years long! I don’t know if you follow North American blood sports, but let me assure you: even Little Leaguers would be laughed off the rink if they tried to use an implement whose handle was barely longer than its blade as a “hockey stick”!

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    That’s not a hockey stick!

    That’s a knife.

    This is a hockey stick…

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Bernard J:

    It amuses me greatly that not a one of the Denialists to whom I have referred Aono’s CBF data have tried to discount or otherwise dismiss it.

    No Denialists here, Bernard. I’m a denier. If you can’t be polite, there is little point in continuing our mutual amusement.

    I wonder why?

    Er, because deniers don’t discount or dismiss data, maybe? Just a wild guess.

  33. #33 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Comedy Line Of The Week:

    deniers don’t discount or dismiss data

    We’ll see how long it takes before “Brad” retracts his scurrilous assertions about Mann and Jones in the face of yet more evidence independent of either. I rather think “Brad” will discount or dismiss it somehow or other.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    “LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.


”

    THEN WHY DO YOU STILL POST YOU IRRELEVANT LIAR?

  35. #35 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    And not a Tiljander proxy in sight?

    So denying five proxies exist, are you, you lying denier?

  36. #36 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Just because you haven’t found something, doesn’t mean it’s hidden.

    We’re glad you agree that Jones hasn’t hidden anything.

    I shall be keeping a link to this for future reference.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Bray is now merely trolling.

    Pathetically juvenile.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    No Denialists here, Bernard. I’m a denier.

    Gosh, has ANY denier ever proven their own statement wrong quicker than this?

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    bill:

    Never met a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate yet who[…]

    What the hell is a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate?

    Is that like an Engineering / Muslim graduate? A Mathematics / Belgian graduate? An English / Democrat graduate?

    Who are you railing against? Apples and oranges, bill. Category error, bill.

    This may come as news to you, but philosophy is an intellectual discipline whereas PostModernism is a movement or ideology (some would call it a pathology) that transected (or infected) multiple disciplines in the late 20th Century.

    who didn’t fetishize semantics

    I can only speak for philosophy graduates, not for PostModernists (whose language I gave up trying to decode some years ago), but if it appears to you that we overvalue semantics it’s probably because philosophy non-graduates like yourself treat semantics—meaning—as an afterthought and use your words sloppily, which leads you into all sorts of dark places… such as, oh, I don’t know, blissfully reposing your confidence in a pseudoscientific ideology that utterly lacks a defined hypothesis.

    I’m with Pinker – the words are all riding on our thoughts, and not vice-versa (with some symbiosis, certainly)…

    “With some symbiosis, certainly”? So you believe it goes one way, not the other way, except where it goes both ways, which it “certainly” does sometimes? Damn. That’s a ballsy stance!

    [Brad] appears to be asking us to believe that the Scientific method insists that there somehow cannot be a consensus, even when there clearly is one

    Your contempt for semantics is noted.

    That’s not what I said, and only someone who had no idea what I meant could possibly churn out such a bizarre précis.

    The Scientific Method says nothing at all about whether or not there “can be” a consensus—the word “consensus” isn’t even in its vocabulary—but it would be childish to doubt that there are consensi on all sorts of things in the real, contingent world.

    What I’ve said—leading to your accidental or malicious pseudoparaphrase thereof—is that, as an axiom of science, human opinion about nature is of zero evidentiary value about nature, to as many decimal places as you want. This entails, among other things, that in science:

    1. my opinion is of equal evidentiary value to that of a dead dingo’s donger

    2. the opinion of a dead dingo’s donger is of equal evidentiary value to that of the world’s leading authority

    3. the opinion of a single scientist, that of a negligible minority, that of half the scientific community, that of a dead dingo’s donger, that of the vast majority of the scientific community and that of all scientists in unanimity are all of equal evidentiary weight

    4. an argument from consensus is an argument from non-evidence, which is inane, illegitimate and immoral

    and that it’s illegitimate to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what they’re doing have examined the evidence and concluded this is almost-certainly the situation we find ourselves in

    No. I’m not asking you to believe this either, bill.

    For the record:

    1. It’s perfectly legitimate, albeit redundant, to point out that not just most people but all the people who know what they’re doing have examined the evidence

    2. I agree with them: this almost certainly is the situation we find ourselves in, and the sheer haeccity of this situation only becomes clearer the more evidence one examines

    One wonders how we could ever really know anything, then!

    Why? As long as you have justified true belief, you have knowledge.

    They explained this to us in Week 1 of PHIL1001.

    (For American readers: Philosophy 101.)

    My favourite all-time quote from an actual discussion with [a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate] – “the problem with Chomsky is that he assumes that there are facts”.

    Whenever someone tries to pull that “there are no facts” line on me, I nod diagonally and say in my least skeptical voice:

    “Uh-huh. Is that a fact?”

    Your interlocutor was clearly an idiot, because everybody knows the real problem with Chomsky is that he’s a morally- and intellectually-frivolous Khmer Rouge apologist.

    Academeologists should be able to give an approximate date to that conversation from that one sentence alone!

    Any more hints?

    Nobody was really talking about Chomsky until 1955, and that’s about as specific as I can be.

    Unless I’m missing something the rest of the sentence doesn’t exactly give it away, because PostModernists weren’t the first people in history to contract full-blown relativism.

    Remember Pilate’s sophomoric Clintonism: “Well, what is truth, if you know what I mean?”

  40. #40 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    Lotharsson et al are still discussing this thread at the February thread.
    Highly, highly amusing :-)
    When you come back here to skim and search for source material Lotharsson, that word that started with C and ended with D is COWARD!
    Other words also come to mind :-)
    BTW BBD, I was quite interested in some of your questions and comments. I am now quite disappointed.
    You have retreated to character assassinations and political slurs.
    Very disappointing because you do have the ability to ask decent questions.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Wow,

    I notice that you’re still typing stuff here, forcing me to skip over scads of your scatological schtick to get to the comments I want to read.

    Why?

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




  42. #42 chek
    February 22, 2013

    “LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE”

    Then why are you lying about John Cook not being a scientist when he works as one and works with other scientists?

    Could it be because your in denial about your denial as exposed by Cook and Lewandowsy? Or because John Cook is an excellent science communicator, whereas you’re merely a dull and pathetic word mill purveying unsubstantiated denial as you’ve done here the whole of your sorry-arsed visit?

    Otherwise why the continual non-stop lying about John Cook? My guess is because he’s got exactly the measure of chaff like you, and that scares you.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    February 22, 2013

    BK provides yet another ‘Marshmallow’ explosion.

    Face it: if Schneider’s “overall message” were “that you have to honestly tell people about the risks,” then he would’ve simply said so.

    A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?

    Oh! My! What a load of turgid obfuscation. First off Schneider did advocate any such thing. You are either not as good at language as you make out or are a liar. Which is it?

    Did you bother to go study that Brysse et. al. (2013) which included Oreskes?

    If not you need to because it will inform you about the dilemma scientists find themselves in when caught between the rock of scientific assessment with all its caveats that take a while to explain, particularly of the audience turns out to be the lay public and the hard place of modern communication with its sound byte methodology.

    That paper also describes the way Schneider saw it, reiterating my point above,

    from page 4:

    Schneider ‘‘decried sound-bite science journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., ‘being honest’) or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., ‘being effective’)’’ (Schneider, 1996, p. 5). .

    Note the characterisation of Schneider by Julian Simon which you have repeated BK.

    also

    The frequent attacks on Stephen Schneider—as well as attacks on other climate scientists such as Benjamin Santer and Michael Mann—suggests that one possible reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-mongers.

    There we see highlighted the history of despicable behaviour of the contrarians (or rather paid tools of the vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry and their allies) to which you yourself have now subscribed.

    Have you any idea of the acrimony that Santer suffered and from whom? Patrick Michaels being one and who was well slapped down by Santer in the 2010 US Science Committee Climate hearings (Michaels being now reduced to blathering in such organs as the WSJ, Forbes and the WaPo). Have you any idea of how baseless were their accusations?

    Have you any notion of the dreadful behaviour of the likes of Singer, and in association Lindzen, and others over the work of Revelle and Lancaster? Here, I’ll help you out:
    If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.
    .

    The dilemma that all scientists face when communicating to the public I have indicated above and here in Brysse et. al. (2013) we have it further laid out, also on page 4:

    Schneider’s comment also highlights an important but often overlooked fact: that the norms of scientific communication are different from the norms of popular communication (see also Olsen, 2009). In the latter, drama is entirely acceptable; indeed, it may be necessary in order to get on the evening news or to maintain the attention of your undergraduates.

    Your deconstruction of Schneider’s statement is a classic case of conceptual vandalism by removal of context.

    And yes WRT to Feynman you are a hypocrite, also WRT Cook a disgusting libeller (and racist at that) and given the conceptual vandalism you conducted on Schneider the same applies in this case.

    BTW WRT

    APGW – anthropogenic global warming

    and your other acronyms

    DACC is not recognised and is likely a denier invention,

    MMCC, MCCD are not a recognisable Roman numerals, or anything else for that matter,

    CAGW, is definitely a denier invention created in order to sneer at the assessments from climate science but it is one that may prove to be prescient.

    You seem to have fallen into the A(P)GW v Climate Change trap, basically because you don’t understand their differences and interactions. A common theme from the true denier/delayer/obfuscater when wishing to derail a discussion from the sensible to the absurd. And you have become most certainly absurd with your continued blatherings.

    Good faith you know not. So, again I ask, which PR organisation(s) do you work for?

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek:

    [W]hy are you lying about John Cook not being a scientist when he works as one and works with other scientists?

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek? (This is the definition Wow and I stipulated.)

    Sorry, I didn’t catch that, chek.

    What did you say?

    Ah.

    And now you see why Wow was so reluctant to tell me who the quote came from, dodging the question for 2 days until our good buddy bill accidentally let the cat out of the bag. (Wow’s none too pleased with bill at the moment, I bet!)

    And please, no more red herrings about who John Cook works with. Chris Mooney, the English graduate who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it ate his face, works with scientists routinely. Unfortunately their mental qualities haven’t rubbed off on him.

    Could it be because your [sic] in denial about your denial as exposed by Cook and Lewandowsy?

    Unlikely, given that I openly acknowledge my denial.

    In case you’ve missed it every single time so far:

    I’m a denier of that in which you’re a believer, chek.

    Of course, I expect you to keep pretending I haven’t acknowledged this. You are, after all, a denial acceptance denier.

    Or because John Cook is an excellent science communicator,

    Yeah, he’s such a good science communicator that as soon as Wow quoted him, anonymously, I knew the quote couldn’t possibly have come from a scientist and I told Wow as much! Great science communication skillz there! Hahahaha….

  45. #45 chek
    February 22, 2013

    I’m a denier of that in which you’re a believer, you accept the evidence for, chek.

    Corrected that for you “Brad”.
    Can you spot the crucial difference?
    That ‘evidence’ thing that “Brad” tries so, so hard to pretend doesn’t underlie the scientific consensus and acceptance of AGW. And coincidentally the commodity that John Cook has acquired an award-winning reputation for promoting.
    Evidence “Brad”. The mortal enemy of the bullshit you peddle here in your shitcan.

  46. #46 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Nobody gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions and aggregated stupidities, “Brad”. It only highlights that you’re in denial of reality.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Lionel A:

    thanks for explaining the semi-literate initials APGW. AnthroPogenic!

    Now at least I can tell what you meant by “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.”

    If there really is such a conspiracy, it’s failed to stop me getting “the message of AnthroPogenic Global Warming.” Not only do I receive it loud and clear, I can see how scientifically cogent it is!

    I’ve read a representative sample of Oreskes’ oeuvre and correctly located it within the conspiracy fiction genre.

    It’s strange that an educated person like you could be impressed by her pseudoscholarship. But perhaps I missed something. Perhaps you could explain: what are some of the “same tactics rolled out” by the Bad Guys in both the climate debate and the tobacco wars?

    No need to tell me to read MOD—I have, and in record time apparently; what I’m asking is for you to describe in your own words some tactical similarities between the two groups of Bad Guys, either from your own observations or from Oreskes’ books.

    Because I’m not aware of any. This is not a rhetorical challenge, I genuinely had no idea what Oreskes was trying to get at in that particular subplot, and would like your help.

    Good faith you know not. So, again I ask, which PR organisation(s) do you work for?

    ROFL… I wish. That would be one of those dream jobs where people say, “I can’t believe they pay me to do this!”

    But I can’t seem to break into the industry, for whatever reason. (I wouldn’t even know where to start; do you?)

    Wow refuses to hook me up with an interview at Heartland. He won’t even tell me how much HI pays him, but I’m a bit envious / annoyed when I think of the fact that I’m forced to have a “day job” too, whereas Wow can devote himself to this (making believers look silly on the climate blogs) full-time! I reckon if I stuck at it, I could one day be almost as good as Wow himself.

    Come on Wow, at least give me Joe Bast’s cell phone!

  48. #48 chek
    February 22, 2013

    You manage to look silly (and uninformed and, it has to be said, stupid) all on your own “Brad”.

    Projecting it onto others is just another facet of your greater pathological denial. Y’know, the one that you don’t acknowledge such as why you can’t accept John Cook is a scientist, and Dr. Lewandowsky has cranks like you sewn up and explained down to a tee.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek:

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

    Nobody gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions and aggregated stupidities, “Brad”. It only highlights that you’re in denial of reality.

    So that would be “none”, then?

    Unfortunately for you, chek, on February 16, 2013, I wrote to Wow:

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.

    If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.

    And Wow wrote back, in toto (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-19/#comment-149445):



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

Then the quote was from a scientist.


    So, seeing as Wow and myself both agree on the meaning in which the word “scientist” was being used, I ask again:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Swear-words won’t help, chek! Just answer the question.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    [Oops, sorry for the formatting there.]

    chek:

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

    Nobody gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions and aggregated stupidities, “Brad”. It only highlights that you’re in denial of reality.

    So that would be “none”, then?

    Unfortunately for you, chek, on February 16, 2013, I wrote to Wow:

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.

    If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.

    And Wow wrote back, in toto (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-19/#comment-149445):



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



    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    So, seeing as Wow and myself both agree on the sense in which the word “scientist” was being used, I ask again:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Swear-words won’t help you, chek! Just answer the question.

    :-)

  51. #51 chek
    February 22, 2013

    “Brad”, your deep, persistent denial is noted (and found highly amusing).

    Oh and careful re-examination of what Wow actually said is not as exclusionary as your deep denial desperately interprets it as.

    For a word-parser (at best) you’re actually quite shit at your job, aren’t you “Brad”.

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek:

    You manage to look silly (and uninformed and, it has to be said, stupid) all on your own “Brad”.

    I don’t think you’re quite following the climate debate, chek.

    Heartland is what we call a “denier” group. If I got on their payroll, they’d be paying me to do what Wow does: make “believers” look silly.

    Geddit?

    (I’m not pretending I could do quite as good a job as Wow, but remember, he’s got a lot more experience.)

  53. #53 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Oh and “Brad” given your Gradgrindian urge to redefine science to meet with the demands your bankrupt denial, just for a laugh mind, explain which of the ‘physical sciences’ the Manhattan Project depended on to be successful.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Tell us about temperature ‘hockey sticks’ Brad…

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek,

    let me remind you of Wow’s message of February 16:

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



    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    As all our readers can see for themselves (whether you like it or not, chek), Wow and I were using the word “scientist” in the same sense for the purposes of this argument.

    So I ask again:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Just answer the question. Without swearing, if that’s possible.

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Tick.

    Tick.

    Tick.

  57. #57 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Your denial about who is and who isn’t a scientist is actually becoming quite obsessional now isn’t it “Brad”.

    It was already irrational, but I think you’re crossing the line into a personality disorder now. Maybe you should get yourself checked out “Brad”.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Dear Vince,

    Brad, on the off-chance you intend to read this information,

    Always.

    here is the one I think is Pat Michael’s most egregious bit of fraud, (although the one he concocted for the November 2010 congresional science and technology comittee was worse, I don’t think he ever published it anywhere)(I wonder why Pat Michaels doesn’t publish the rubbish he tries to bamboozle politicians with?):

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/10/mann_go_ape/

    OK, I read it. Now could you point me to a rebuttal / exposé / contrary view to Michaels’ piece that explains the egregiousness of it? Or could you yourself explain the egregiousness of it?

    Thanks again for the info,

    Brad Keyes

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek,

    let me remind you of Wow’s message of February 16:

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



    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    Our readers can see for themselves (whether you like it or not, chek) that Wow and I were using the word “scientist” in the same sense. So I ask again:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

  60. #60 chek
    February 22, 2013

    “Brad” as I’ve already said and can be said no plainer :
    NOBODY but you gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions. Now go chew some carpet or whatever it is you do when people don’t submit to your will.

    Moron.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Ever since bill exposed

    Nobody thinks bill exposed anything other than you’re a lying arsehole, Bray.

    Your disapproval of me is absolutely of no consequence to me since you’re a morally repugnant individual. Your diatribes are rather like Pol Pot telling people off for eating the last biscuit. While the crumbs of the last biscuit are still falling from his mouth.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Highly, highly amusing

    Because you’re insane?

  63. #63 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Physics.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Bray, how are you going to make me leave?

    And why, since you’re asserting you’re a JSM libertarian, which would make your “GO AWAY!!!” screaming rant entirely hypocritical.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Over at
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/kansas-renewables-guardian.html

    there’s an interesting bit on how, with enough PR bullshit being flown about pandering to the local prejudices, you can get turkeys to vote for christmas to be extended.

  66. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Lionel A,

    this comment ticked you off for some reason:

    A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?

    You responded:

    Oh! My! What a load of turgid obfuscation. First off Schneider did[n’t] advocate any such thing.

    Yes he did:

    ”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.”

    Your denials won’t change what Schneider said, Lionel.

    You are either not as good at language as you make out or are a liar. Which is it?

    Well, I’m not a liar. So we can rule out B.

    As for option A, I wasn’t aware that I “make out” that I’m “good at language.” (Do I?) But I can definitely read English satisfactorily. Can you?

  67. #69 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Just wondering, has anyone used Calibre to convert a game manual PDF to ebook?

  68. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek:

    My question obviously has a provocative effect on you—provoking everything but an answer, that is:

    “Brad” as I’ve already said and can be said no plainer :

    NOBODY but you gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions.

    That’s strange, because Wow accepts my “arbitrary re-definition” for the sake of the argument (which is exactly how it was intended).

    He’s even having a heroic little stab at answering the question on your behalf, since it seems to reduce you to impotent coprolalia!

    Isn’t that cute of him.

    But how about you do it, chek?

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

  69. #71 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    And which format should I use? Mobi?

  70. #72 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Here’s someone else who goes with the boy band theme: “he says it best, when he says nothing at all”:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html

  71. #73 chek
    February 22, 2013

    That John Cook sure is an excellent science communicator running an excellent science communication website.

    Have you got any more links that might educate carpet-chewing “Brad”, Wow? As many as you like, as they provide some benefit even to the most casual of readers.

    I expect the fact that John Cook’s qualified in physics and solar physics and teaches at university level as well as effectively practising science communication on a well-known website detested by climate denier cranks (such as carpet-chewing “Brad” here) must really make nobodies like carpet-chewing “Brad” quite dyspeptic.

  72. #74 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Well, Bray doesn’t actually bother reading anything (not, in any meaningful sense of “comprehending what is said”), so I’m not really bothered about what he reads or not.

    So I figure I’ll ignore him.

    Meanwhile, I can see if anyone here has used Calibre to convert Game PDFs (you never get a physical manual with games any more) to kindle format with calibre. Many of them use tables and I’m not sure if Calibre does will with those or not.

  73. #75 chek
    February 22, 2013

    In fact I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see The house of “Brad” rapidly becoming the House of Cook.

    Here’s how John Cook’s website, skeptical science explodes carpert-chewing “Brad’s” uneducated, child-like view of scientific consensus for instance.

  74. #76 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Sorry, can’t help you Wow – in the mobility stakes I haven’t evolved beyond laptop yet.

    Incidentally, skeptical science – that website John Cook runs – has another article on the global consensus here.

  75. #77 Lionel A
    February 22, 2013

    Ah! Resorting to pedantry and nit-pickery now BK:

    thanks for explaining the semi-literate initials APGW. AnthroPogenic!

    Which APGW was used to emphasise the anthropogenic part – but of course only you, the gatekeeper of language, can invents such stuff.

    and

    First off Schneider did[n’t] advocate any such thing

    I intended that to read ‘did not’, but my banana like fingers lost the ‘not’ somehow. I guess I should be sent back to school for that, in your books.

    But still you misread Schneider. Are you always this obtuse?

    Did you consult ‘Brysse, K., et al., Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environ. Change
    (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008‘, at all?

    For it matters not what some other atmospheric physicist (Kopacz) writes it is that which Schneider wrote that is the subject here.

    mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little

    and mak[ing] little

    As for climate science being a morally decadent culture and Schneider being responsible for same is a total inversion of the truth, a must be coming from seventh rock from the sun when we have the likes of Monckton, Watts, Ball, Michaels, Lindzen, Plimer, etc., etc. representing the other side.

  76. #78 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Yeah, you have to wonder why there’s so much hate for a site that tries to inform. Even if it’s wrong (there would need to be proof of that, and in a few cases where this has happened, there has been an ATL correction).

    Meanwhile, WTFUWT demonstrates frequently (though not 100%) that they are earning their scorn, but deniers never see it.

    So the denial side insist absolutel accuracy in their projections, pretend that they never do wrong, when cornered say “Well, if you can prove that, I’ll say it was wrong” then hide/ignore any evidence and at best try the “I’m above it all, unlike you plebs” with “both sides are equally bad” without any proof of this assertion. And never retracts or admits error.

    The AGW realists admit the error on occasions where it is shown, admit that there are caveats to their statements and correct themselves.

  77. #79 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    “must be coming from seventh rock from the sun when we have the likes of Monckton, Watts, Ball, Michaels, Lindzen, Plimer, etc., etc. representing the other side.”

    Dark Side of the Moonies.

  78. #80 chek
    February 22, 2013

    As is well known Lionel, most denier claims of impropriety are specious projection based on accusing your opponents of doing what you’re doing.

    It’s a pity that John Cook’s excellent and generally thorough website skeptical science doesn’t yet cover this aspect of climate change denier behaviour. It’s an important one.

  79. #81 Lionel A
    February 22, 2013

    But I can definitely read English satisfactorily.

    That is a matter of opinion as there is little evidence of that in this context. It would appear that you lack the breadth of understanding required to engage on this topic in a meaningful way. Your shallow understanding is being exposed again and again.

  80. #82 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Thankfully, Monckton has stopped bullying this guy, so his site is a little quiet now, but he’s an illustration that AGW realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing:

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/

  81. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Lionel A:

    “First off Schneider did[n’t] advocate any such thing”

    I intended that to read ‘did not’, but my banana like fingers lost the ‘not’ somehow. I guess I should be sent back to school for that, in your books.

    Not at all; everyone makes typos. Notice how I quietly added the [not] and grappled with what you meant, not what you typed.

    You’re welcome.

  82. #84 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Why are you thanking Lionel?

  83. #85 chek
    February 22, 2013

    but he’s an illustration that AGW realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing:

    As BBD would probably say, the whole left /right thing is contrarian framing. Apart from Bickmore, I’m sure I saw that James Hansen is (or at least was) a registered Republican, as is Kerry Emanuel. There areseveral others talking here. Then of course there’s Margaret Thatcher and John McCain. And whilst totally anecdotal my impression would be that many successful academics would be ‘small c’ conservatives.

    Lefty eco-terrorist-hippie-activist-daughter-deflowering-climate-nazi-communists is very much an invention of the shady, rabid wing of the right that facilitates trash such as Limbaugh, Beck, Monckton and similar paranoid clowns in their win at all costs race whose apt motto could well be ‘Better a dead planet than a Red one’.

  84. #86 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Aye, it’s meant to censure anyone who DARES not conform by making them “THE OTHER”.

    So you tell them they are Nazis. Or commies, if Nazi won’t work. Or hippies if they won’t do it. Or all three plus any others if your listeners are dumb enough. Hell, it “worked” for Glenn Beck…

  85. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    chek:

    “but he’s an illustration that AGW realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing:”

    Correct.

    As BBD would probably say, the whole left /right thing is contrarian framing.

    No, unfortunately BBD is one of the proponents of such crude binarism himself, and simply won’t hear of it being wrong. Try telling him how many prominent contrarians are “left” / “socialist” / “liberal”-leaning. This data contradicts his private ironclad law (i.e. that all deniers are either neo-cons, conservatives, libertarians or fundagelical Christians), so he won’t even consider it.

  86. #88 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Wrong again, Bray.

  87. #89 chek
    February 22, 2013

    “Brad” your crude mischaracterisations are contextless and typical of you, unfortunately.

    Despite the impression McIntyre might like to give, as you would discover had you ever bothered with any of the links provided, has aided and abetted by unfair means and especially foul, the most venal of right wingers such as Smokey Joe Barton, and cynical evangelical fronts for ‘free marketeers’ such as the Cornwall Alliance of which McKittrick and Specer are members.

    The usual right wing and free-market think tanks and suspects make appearances too. Association matters. As my gran used to say,’ show me your friends and I’ll show you who you are’..

    But not having read them you’ll never know why BBD’s view is anything but crude binary thinking. There is strong evidence in that instance.

    John Cook’s excellent website, skeptical science has this to say about the Cornwall Alliance.

  88. #90 BBD
    February 22, 2013

    BK

    I knew you wouldn’t bother reading those DC links (or any of them, come to that). And now you look doubly stupid for defending the indefensible from a position of ignorance despite being warned not to do this at the outset.

  89. #91 BBD
    February 22, 2013

    As for Dyson, you (as usual) have only the corner of the picture. Here’s some perspective.

    I have noted that you are (as always) framing. I said that the vast majority of deniers are motivated by conservative/libertarian/fundamentalist beliefs. You refuse to discuss your motivations and lie when challenged, claiming that you have been open and honest. So I supplied the probable detail based on the usual profile of deniers like yourself.

    I still think I am almost certainly correct and you have done absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise.

  90. #92 Stu
    February 22, 2013

    So let me get this straight. Is Brad now going full Jonas in purporting to define what science is? It’s hard to make out from the puddles of delusional whining he’s leaving all over his dungeon.

  91. #93 Stu
    February 22, 2013

    So let me get this straight. Is Brad now going full Jonas in purporting to define what science is? It’s hard to make out from the puddles of delusional whining he’s leaving all over his dungeon.

  92. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    Stu:

    So let me get this straight. Is Brad now […] purporting to define what science is?

    No. Not even close.

    Get it straight:

    (I cut out your Jonas reference because, having spent no time on his thread, I can’t comment on what his views on science may be.)

    I read Wow’s quote “from someone” about scientific consensus (which turns out to have been from John Cook) and immediately said that “no scientist could have come up with this.”

    Wow said I was wrong.

    I bet I was right.

    Wow said I was wrong. But he refused to say who the source was, preferring to dance around and insist I didn’t know what I meant by “scientist” anyway. So I came up with an objective definition (for the sake of the bet):

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.

    Wow accepted this definition, replying:

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



    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    Do you agree with Wow, Stu?

    If so, which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, Stu?

  93. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 22, 2013

    BBD:

    I have noted that you are (as always) framing.

    Every day I’m framing.

    I have no idea what you mean, but it sounds cool.

    I said that the vast majority of deniers are motivated by conservative/libertarian/fundamentalist beliefs.

    You said deniers they were *invariably* hiding the shameful secret that they were conservatives / libertarians / fundamentalists, and that this was *obvious.*

    Interestingly your mates don’t agree with you, arguing that “realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing.”

    Your mates are right (except that they fallaciously identify believalism with “realism”, and libellously identify denial with “denialism”).

    You refuse to discuss your motivations and lie when challenged, claiming that you have been open and honest.

    Rubbish. I’ve always been candid about my “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.

  94. #96 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    On motivations:

    – AGW denial and ‘scepticism’ is *almost invariably* associated with conservative/liberterian/fundamentalist belief systems.

    – This is because AGW is a destructive challenge to those belief systems.

    – You claim to be different, yet karaoke the contrarian memes without providing an alternative motivation for doing so.

    You are either confused or being evasive.

    Why do you cleave to

  95. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    BBD:

    As for Dyson, you (as usual) have only the corner of the picture. Here’s some perspective.

    No offence BBD, but I don’t have time to read every link people want me to read, so I won’t even bother when your advertisement for it is so vague. You’ve given me no reason to think that, even if the article consists of 100% God’s own truth, it would change my claim about Dyson, which is (in the words of the NYT) that Dyson is ““an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources.”

    Alleging that I only have “one corner of the picture” is pretty weak compared to coming out and disagreeing with what I’ve said. DO you deny that Freeman Dyson is a “liberal”, BBD? If not, then is it really necessary that I read your spaceship article? Wouldn’t it just be simpler to admit that, as your mates put it, believal / denial isn’t a left-wing / right-wing thing?

  96. #98 David B. Benson
    February 23, 2013

    A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?

    Feynman did just that whilst on the Challenger commission.

  97. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    BBD:

    - You claim to be different, yet karaoke the contrarian memes without providing an alternative motivation for doing so.

    That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right (In this instance, not as a general rule—hence I don’t really agree with the adjective “contrarian” either!).

  98. #100 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    What reasons?

Current ye@r *