Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    Brad, you say:

    That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], 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!).

    What reasons?

  2. #2 chek
    February 23, 2013

    My surmise is that the nasty Cook and Lewandowsky had “Brad” chew through at least five carpets before he calmed down an realised his evasive and manipulative schtick only worked on the Cammys of this world.

    But “Brad” now has to rationalse his motivation” reasons”, which is always entertaining when attempted by the deluded..

  3. #3 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    I just want to see a list of these reasons so they can be evaluated *rationally*.

    A list of reasons. Not much to ask.

  4. #4 chek
    February 23, 2013

    Me too.

    But I suspect that he’ll go chew more carpet rather than box himself in with definitive statements that can never live up to his grandiloquent proclamations without exposing his complete lack of knowledge of what he’s talking about. Vanity and incompetence are a common enough mixture.

    We shall see.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    chek:

    My surmise is that the nasty Cook and Lewandowsky had “Brad” chew through at least five carpets before he calmed down an realised his evasive and manipulative schtick only worked on the Cammys of this world.

    I’m sorry if you feel “manipulated” by my facility with words, chek, but what exactly do you imagine I’m “evading”? I stood by my derision of Cook’s article (which, I remind you, was so scientifically illiterate that as soon as Wow excerpted his favorite paragraph, I knew that no practitioner of the physical sciences had written / spoken it). I was happy to defend such a my low opinion of the words quoted.

    Here is how I justified it (and this was before bill had let slip the identity of the author):

    Brad Keyes
    February 17, 2013

    Lotharsson is now crying “hyperfine sophistic parsing,” as if he’s merely the innocent victim of anal pedantry.
Let’s clear up that distortion right now: the turgid crock Wow dumped on us was foetid in both form and meaning. This isn’t just nit-picking.

    Wow’s unnamed “scientist” wanted us to believe that:

    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.

    



    There can never be a consensus of evidence, just like there can never be a consensus of cheese, nostalgia, salt water, bacteria, ham, etc.: because a consensus is a majority opinion.

    The “scientist” responsible for Wow’s quote either doesn’t understand this or is banking on the probability that his/her audience doesn’t understand it.

    
(We are dealing either with a hapless non-scientist or a liar, in other words.)


    But let’s be charitable and assume he or she meant to say “a consilience of evidence.”


    Then the passage becomes:


    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consilience 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.

    But now the untruth of this passage is a little more obvious than it was before, when it was camouflaged by our “scientist’s” category confusion, isn’t it?


    As everybody knows, a scientific consensus is perfectly capable of forming WITHOUT a consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion—and often does. This is not just a theoretical possibility.


    There was no “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” behind the infamous medical consensus on gastric ulcers, was there?


    When the chemical community snickered at Dan Schectman and refused even to examine his supposed quasi-crystals—which really exist, and for which Schectman was recognized with a Nobel Prize decades later—it wasnt because a “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” made them do it, was it?


    No. These consensi were due to fashion and prejudice. Nothing more.


    So Wow’s masked “scientist” is lying—there’s no other word for it, is there?—when he/she tells us that “most importantly, you need a con[silience | sensus] of evidence” in order to have a scientific consensus.


    You don’t.




  6. #6 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2013
  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Forrester:

    I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”.

    Citation?

    Oh, that’s right—you just made it up.

    Combat against strawmen is the terminal phase of a losing campaign. Carry on, soldier.

    LOL

    Nothing could be further from the truth (of course we all know how dishonest the likes of Keyes and Monckton are).

    How droll coming from the likes of Forrester, who attributes invented statements to me.

    Are they suggesting that “measurement” is not a science?

    I’d never really thought about it, but—yes.

    Measurement is surely the basis for all science since if we couldn’t measure we could not do experimental science.

    That doesn’t make it “a science.”

    You could equally call English “the basis” for modern science, since without a common language in which to report their research and findings, scientists couldn’t build on the work of other scientists around the world. Am I suggesting that English is not “a science”? Er, yes.

    Forrester proceeds to claim the triumph of metric standardisation as an example of the value of scientific consensus:

    The history of science shows great confusion when researchers in one part of the world tried to compare their results with those in an other part. The biggest problem was the use of differing measuring scales and standards.

    Eventually consensus was reached among scientists by setting up a number of bodies (General Conference on Weights and Measures, International Bureau of Weights and Measures and International Committee for Weights and Measures) in 1875 to set international standards of measurement. Surely this is a “consensus”.

    No more than the agreement to drive on a given side of the road in a given country is a “consensus,” Forrester.

    These standards are conventions, nothing more. (Like the rules of English, you might say.)

    They tell us nothing about nature, nor do they pretend to. They are not hypotheses, let alone hypotheses confirmed by evidence, nor do they pretend to be. They are not the truth, or true, or proven, or facts, nor do they pretend to be. They do not constitute scientific theory, nor do they pretend to.

    Forrester has confused himself.

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner

    ROFLMAO….

    As a denier, let me acknowledge for the record that science is NOT consensus!

    Which you already knew, of course, gentle readers.

    And now that we see a believer, Ian Forrester, openly denying such a truistic fact, we see the foundations of believalism itself, exposed in all their jerry-built risibility. The fact that the alarmist edifice built on such an absurdly feeble basis is slowly shuddering and crumbling is neither very surprising nor very interesting, is it?

    The misosophical stupidity of these people is to be despised.

  8. #8 Ian Forrester
    February 23, 2013

    Keyes once again shows his hatred for science and anyone connected to science. He thinks that by spouting big words which he doesn’t understand that makes him sound educated and “scientific” Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a despicable liar and arrogant to boot and doesn’t give a hoot for what becomes of future generations.

    He should be ashamed of his attitude, it is despicable that a so-called “intellectual” should be so full of hatred to his fellow beings that he wishes such dire straits on them because that is what continued emission of greenhouse gases will do. That is as close to a criminal act as you can get. I don’t understand why such hatred towards science, scientists and fellow human beings is allowed on a so called “science blog”.

  9. #9 David B. Benson
    February 23, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Please inform me of all the errors in Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Ian,

    of the two of us, only you are insulting and denigrating science, e.g.:

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner

    Stop accusing science of being consensus.

    That is beyond trivialisation. It’s defamation.

    If science were “consensus”, it would have left us wallowing in medieval ignorance. Still. To this day. It would have taught us nothing.

    “Consensus” is a pre-scientific way of knowing.

    You may as well call chemistry “alchemy”, astronomy “astrology” and science “religion.”

    I don’t understand why such hatred towards science, scientists and fellow human beings is allowed on a so called “science blog”.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel A:

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

    I never knew Simon had passed any comment on Schneider. So I couldn’t have “repeated” it—my remarks were my own.

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

    No, why would that be necessary? Schneider’s interview was self-explanatory, was it not? His answers can surely be judged on their own merits.

    … 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 [if] the audience turns out to be the lay public[,] and the hard place of modern communication with its sound byte methodology.

    Yawn. Climate scientists act as if they were the first scientists in history to have this “problem.” Never mind that they also have unprecedented media buy-in and celebrity endorsement and the support of the international community and the entire environmental movement—advantages most scientists can only dream of—they still bitch and moan about how hard they have it.

    The other absurdity is, they can’t seem to get their rhetoric straight. One day, “the facts / the science / the truth” is so obvious, only the most obtuse deniers could fail to grasp “it”; the next day it’s so complex they’re agonising about how they can possibly dumb it down enough for proletarian comprehension.

    All these “dilemmas” have been considered and solved by previous scientists. The scientifically and morally correct solution was put succinctly by Feynman:

    “You should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not [only not] lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, an integrity that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

    “For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘there aren’t any.’ He said, ‘Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.’ I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing– and if they don’t support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.”

    (That last sentence seems almost prescient when we consider the attitude of later “scientists” like Monica Kopacz!)

    To digress for a moment, Feynman also had wise advice for hockey-bacillologists who might be tempted to secrete methods, censor data and obstruct replication:

    “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in ‘cargo cult science.’ It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    “One example of [the need for integrity] is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

    
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.

    “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”

    But still you misread Schneider.

    But still you won’t back up this opinion with specifics.

    Readers can judge for themselves whether my “reading” of Schneider—which I expressed mainly in direct quotations from the man himself—was erroneous in any significant way.

    (I note that you’ve eased back on the accusations of deliberate distortion—good.)

    The frequent attacks on

    You mean “criticisms of.”

    Stephen Schneider—as well as attacks on

    You mean “criticisms of.”

    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.

    Hahahaha.

    One ties oneself in the most ergonomically-unfriendly knots when one tries to find “reasons why” something is the case which isn’t the case in the first place. There is no “possible reason why scientists have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming”, because they HAVEN’T underestimated it. They’re systematically biased in the opposite direction.

    Schneider himself said it—weren’t you paying attention? “Offer up dramatic scenarios.” They admit exaggerating. They even suffer the occasional paroxysm of conscience and reproach each other for their exaggerations.

    Have you any idea of the acrimony that Santer suffered and from whom?

    Acrimony? In climate science?? I don’t believe you.

    [T]he 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.

    Really? I always found nature to be more than cinematic enough, epic enough and heroic enough in its own right to fascinate students for years on end. In my experience, it needs no embellishment.

    Then again, maybe this is only true for the important, profound and / or high-stakes areas of science; maybe climate change, where nothing interesting is going on, really does need to be sexed-up by unscrupulous carnival operators?

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

    I can think of no context in which his comments would be defensible.

    Furthermore, I quoted him fairly. Deny it all you want, he said what I said he said.

    And yes WRT to Feynman you are a hypocrite,

    Again I ask: in what conceivable way?

    Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, Lionel.

    also WRT Cook a disgusting libeller

    Could you be a bit vaguer?

    (and racist at that)

    Bluh? That’s a new one!

    You seem to have fallen into the A(P)GW v Climate Change trap, basically because you don’t understand their differences and interactions.

    Huh? Maybe I was confused about APGW several comments ago, but now that you’ve spelled out that somewhat idiosyncratic acronym in full I actually know what you were trying to say. And I know very well how anthro Pogenic global warming differs from climate change, of which it’s just one example or subtype.

    What’s not to understand? Were you expecting me to acknowledge the reality of one and deny the other? Sorry to disappoint you, but the evidence is pretty clear: they’re both—both CC and AGW—real phenomena.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    David D. Benson:

    Brad Keyes — Please inform me of all the errors in Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”.

    Sorry David, I don’t review books I haven’t read. Kind of a personal quirk. Sets me apart from your Danae and your Gleicks. :-)

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    BBD,

    If you’re still around, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Lionel A’s latest idea. He reckons that if you say “science is not consensus“,

    [you] should be ridiculed and told that [you] are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner

    How do you rate this recommendation?

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    BBD,

    Oops!—I meant “Ian Forrester’s,” not Lionel A’s, latest idea.

    Sorry if you were offended (as you should be) by that mix-up, Lionel.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    It was pointed out to Mr. Keyes much earlier that “scientific consensus” is practically synonymous with “accepted scientific theory”,

    *Sigh.* This tack again.

    Unfortunately, Lotharsson, the similarity between those concepts is not news to me. It was not news when “it was pointed out to Mr. Keyes,” and it isn’t news now.

    As desperately as Lotharsson wants me to, I have never disputed this banality.

    At one point he actually fantasised that I’d denied it:

    Your re-assertion that “accepted scientific theory” and “scientific consensus” are radically different concepts is noted.

    This fantasy even came with a backstory; in Lotharsson’s mind, I already had a history of denying it!

    It hasn’t changed since the last time, so there’s no need to respond further.

    
So I suppose I now have to reiterate to Lotharssson:

    I didn’t say what you think I said. Let alone twice.

    I didn’t assert it. Let alone re-assert it.

    I don’t even believe it. Let alone re-believe it.

    “Accepted” is a sociological word.

    “Consensus” is a sociological word.

    Let’s imagine the vast majority of scientists believed the theory that X.

    I’d call this a “consensus of scientists”, wouldn’t you?

    I’d call X an “accepted [by the majority of scientists] scientific theory”, wouldn’t you?

    We both know the phrases are fairly synonymous. But you won’t get this trivial semantic truth to do any propositional work, will you? It’s a logical dead-end, Lotharsson.

    But if you’re determined to figure that out the hard way, be my guest.

  16. #16 David B. Benson
    February 23, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Then you need to study Ray’s book. Relieve of your misconceptions about planetary climates.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    So: Ian F thinks consensus is science, and that if people disagree with this revolutionary re-definition, “They are to be despised.”

    As psychotic as that must sound to the healthy population, there already appear to be 4 takers, and counting, for Forresters’ notion! Here are the known subscribers so far:

    The They Are to be Despised List

    I. Forrester, founding member
    Lionel A
    Wow
    Lotharsson

    chek, you’ve always seemed borderline insane. Would you care to add your name to this august roll?

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    Keyes has really jumped the shark now.

    Lotharsson is breaking his policy against telling trivially-exposed lies now; read on!

    Ian Forrester argues against the proposition that “consensus does not exist in science” (my emphasis) which appears to be a reasonable paraphrase of one of Keyes’ positions despite Keyes feebly asserting it is not.

    Really? So why weren’t you able to quote me taking that “position,” Lotharsson? Why couldn’t you quote me saying something that might have been reasonably paraphrased as, “consensus does not exist in science”?

    Because you made that shit up.

    Like Forrester.

    Keyes ridicules this argument on the basis that “science is not consensus” (my emphasis).

    No, I ridiculed it on the basis that it was a strawman of Forrester’s own fabrication. Readers need only scroll up to see my reply for themselves:

    “I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim ‘science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science’.

    Citation?

    Oh, that’s right—you just made it up.

    Combat against strawmen is the terminal phase of a losing campaign. Carry on, soldier.

    LOL

    LOL

    It’s strawmen within strawmen!

    This is all great data for my next paper, Recursive Stupid: when believers relieve believers.

    Having misunderstood me in the clunkiest and most obvious way imaginable, Lotharsson tries to brazen it out with the condescension that is his stock in trade:

    Hands up if you caught that sly redefinition? Now, hands up if you see the logical error in that “rebuttal”? (And this is from a guy who claims to have a philosophy degree, which normally entails some sort of competence at basic parsing and basic logic!)

    And this from a guy who claims to work in software, which normally entails some sort of competence at basic parsing and basic logic!

    Astute readers may be wondering:

    hang on, where did Lotharsson even get the clause “science is not consensus” in the first place?

    Well, Lotharsson is (understandably) reluctant to draw attention to its source, but allow me to copy-and-paste the line he’s gone out of his way to avoid quoting. From a certain Mr. Forrester (my emphasis):

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

    It’s unmistakably clear what Forrester is asserting here: consensus is science.

    It’s unmistakably clear, from my reply to Forrester, how stupid I found that claim:

    Ian,

    of the two of us, only you are insulting and denigrating science, e.g.:

    “Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner”

    Stop accusing science of being consensus.

    That is beyond trivialisation. It’s defamation. [etc….]

    (It becomes impossible to believe, at this point, that Lotharsson still didn’t understand the origin of the disagreement over whether consensus is science.)

    As hard as it is to imagine an adult revealing such an uneducated thought in public, this really happened; and not only did Forrester publish the above claim, but other adults, rather than guffaw uncontrollably, took it seriously! Lotharsson himself, up until his recent attack of discretion, was more than happy to openly associate himself with Forrester’s misosophical musings by uncritically quoting…

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science…

    … thus earning himself a slot in the “They Are to be Despised” list.

    Of course, if Lotharsson feels his name was included in error, I’d be happy to remove it; it’s as easy as Lotharsson writing, “No, consensus is not science.” (My emphasis.)

    Failing that, the only reasonable inference is that Lotharsson agrees with Forrester’s fraudulent equation.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    What reasons?

    There is no reason.
    Because there are no reasons.
    What reason do you need to die-ie-ieeieeie.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    “That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming.”

    That’s entirely wrong. For a start you have invested your own self-worth into it.

    You also have no reasons for rejecting it. You never had any reasons for thinking ECS was 1.5 and 2.5-3 was an outlier. You have no reasons for rejecting the sensitivity other than “They may be wrong, right?”.

  21. #21 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    “I knew that no practitioner of the physical sciences had written / spoken it).”

    Based solely on your own definitions of what you have pre-determined to be scientifically acceptable.

    Which you neither adhere to nor have correct.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Ian F thinks consensus is science

    Either quote where Ian says this, or withdraw your lying statement.

    LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!

  23. #23 bill
    February 23, 2013

    The emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on, guys.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Hey bill,

    what do you reckon:

    is consensus science? Yes or no?

  25. #25 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Either quote where Ian says this, or withdraw your lying statement.

    LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!

  26. #26 mike
    February 23, 2013

    Brad,

    With regards to Wow’s, “LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!”, there’s some background to Wow’s comment, Brad, that you might find of interest in understanding where Wow’s age-inappropriate anger-issues are coming from.

    You see, Brad, Wow is “mummy’s” most precious little snookums-wookums bubber-bubber. And when Wow puts on his feisty-puppy, Wownd-up, big-boy-wannabe snot-act, mummzie-wummzie thinks her l’ll Wow is just the cutest punkin’-pie there ever was! (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow)

    Best to ignore him.

    \

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2013
  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Wow:

    LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!

    Finally you acknowledge it!

    Yet I see you are still spamming this thread with your stream-of-consciousness tweets.

    Let me remind you of your message of February 16:

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



    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    No it was not. I knew immediately that it couldn’t be, and I was right.

    It was from John Cook. As everyone knows, John Cook does not practice a physical science. He is not a solar physicist. He is not a physicist. You were lying.

    Your kind is not welcome here.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    mike,

    Interesting. It all sounds a bit Norman Bates-y… *shudder*

  30. #30 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel A:

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

    I never knew Simon had passed any comment on Schneider. So I couldn’t have “repeated” it—my remarks were my own.

    Aha! You do distort the intended message which did not necessarily imply that you had foreknowledge of Simon’s opining. Yet more sophistry. You are working up to a prize for this.

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

    No, why would that be necessary? Schneider’s interview was self-explanatory, was it not?

    No it was not, and certainly with the way in which you took a part out of context. You should study the paper for then you should grasp why your response here is invalid,

    But still you misread Schneider.

    But still you won’t back up this opinion with specifics.

    I have but you do not bother to read it, see above. That is not my problem.

    It seems that you like pontificating from ignorance as also seen with your exchange with David B Benson WRT your not reading Ray Pierrehumberts, ‘Principles of Planetary Climate.

    So, as with all of your arguments with myself, and others here, you are declaring from ignorance.

    Quite why Feynman’s expose on Cargo Cult Science is supporting your case is a mystery. And yes I have read much of Feynman’s works and indeed own copies of most including one that contains the description of Cargo Cult Science.

    Both Feynman and Schneider would by now be crying foul at your antics here.

    WRT Cook how do you think a mongoloid reference could NOT be racist?

    [John Cook] With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics…

    Cook clearly has an education in science sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate change science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of Skeptical Science.

    Therefore your declaration that,

    As everyone knows, John Cook does not practice a physical science. He is not a solar physicist. He is not a physicist. You were lying.

    is demonstrably untrue, see above. GOTCHA!

    Who is the liar now? Your ‘facility with words‘ [1] is exposing you for the evasive, devious and mendacious troll that you are.

    One thing you are good at though is filling long posts with nothing more than exploding marshmallow, i.e. puffery also exemplified with your wibbling on scientific consensus. I figure you are close to holding a record for this.

    The scientific consensus on climate change describes the broad agreement on the specifics of the anthropogenic component as informed by the multidisciplinary nature of the data supporting that consensus position.

    As with other consensus positions in various other areas of science such as, relativity, plate tectonics and evolution there is still room for much debate about some of the details, indeed over the years this has required some drastic re-jigging of certain aspects of those sciences but the overall structure remains intact. And yes I have a reading and studying interest in all of those too with a library that supports it.

    [1] What a shame that hasn’t allowed you to progress beyond arguing from ignorance.

  31. #31 chek
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel, quite so.

    “Brad” despite the literally thousands of words and God only knows how many once perfectly serviceable carpets you’ve expended in your spittle flecked rants, let me repeat something you were told way, way back but have chosen to ignore in favour of seeing your own words in type and munching all those tasty carpets.

    “Scientific consensus is not the argument, but it indicates the strength of the argument”.

    I appreciate there are two clauses to that sentence and that may make things tricky for you, and there is possibly also a degree of subtlety there which may frighten you.But try “Brad”, just try. Deconstruct it as much as you like, but the meaning underlying the words should remain clear, even to you.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Finally you acknowledge it!

    Where?

    I was quoting YOU, Bray.

    Let me remind you of your message of February 16:

    I know Feb 16. You’re lying here too. It is from a scientist. Just you pretend they aren’t because you’re a fraud and he points it out.

    “I say he isn’t” isn’t proof of your assertion.

    And, likewise you have been unable to quote Ian saying that science is consensus.

    Three lies in one post.

    Unusual, but not unexpected, from you to pack so many in to one small post.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Bray, according to you, neither you, mike nor chubby, joan olap or panties are welcome here.

    Yet you do welcome them.

    Why do you welcome liars and love so much to lie yourself?

  34. #34 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Remember, no data will be read nor statement understood because Bray doesn’t even know why proofs are required in science.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    You’re just an ignorant prick, aren’t you, Bray.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    chek,

    You have no idea how science works, but let’s pretend you do. Let’s imagine this is not a load of bollocks:

    “Scientific consensus is not the argument, but it indicates the strength of the argument”.

    Then a strong consensus tells you the argument is strong.

    So a strong consensus tells you the argument is well-supported by nature.

    So a strong consensus tells you that nature is firmly on-side with your argument.

    So a strong consensus tells you something about nature.

    So a strong consensus is evidence about nature.

    So a strong consensus is scientific evidence.

    So a consensus can be scientific evidence.

    So in science, consensus can be evidence.

    So in science, consensus can be used as evidence.

    So in science, consensus can be something you can argue from.

    So in science, you can argue from consensus.

    Agree?

    You shouldn’t—that’s patently false. In science, you can’t argue from consensus.

    See the problem with positing your original bollocks?

    Ashes to ashes. Bollocks to bollocks. Reductio ad absurdum.

  37. #37 chek
    February 23, 2013

    Reductio ad absurdum

    That’s what you do “Brad”. On the opther hand your logical leaps into continual logical fallacies are a wonder to behold.

    It’s quite easy to see how you chew through so many carpets now. Everyday decisions must be a complete munchfest for you..

  38. #38 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    He knows Monckton Latin ™!

    I hope the pantwetter has wool fibre rather than man-made carpets. The roughage will keep him “loose”.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Still nothing showing Ian doing as Bray claimed.

    I guess he just can’t stop lying, the timewasting, the arrogant prick.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    He’s awful coy about “disproving” accusations of lying, isn’t he.

    It’s like he knows he was lying and is avoiding it.

    Aw, hell, no it IS that he knows he is lying and avoiding it.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel A,

    you’re weird.

    On the other thread you felt that, “The likes of Keyes are beyond contempt,” which is true—but I presume you meant “beneath contempt,” didn’t you? Presumably your sheer subcontempt for me got in the way of accurate typing.

    Yet on this thread, here you are, suddenly capable not only of noticing but also of exchanging detailed philippics with me.

    So either I’ve done something to rise by at least two levels in your esteem (from somewhere beneath your contempt threshold to somewhere above your attentional threshold), or you’re just not very consistent!

    But now that I’ve more than regained your contempt, let me make the most of this period of grace to comment on what you wrote:

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

    I never knew Simon had passed any comment on Schneider. So I couldn’t have “repeated” it—my remarks were my own. ”

    Aha! You do distort the intended message which did not necessarily imply that you had foreknowledge of Simon’s opining. Yet more sophistry. You are working up to a prize for this.

    Aha! You do distort the meaning of my reply, which didn’t necessarily imply that you’d necessarily implied that I’d had foreknowledge of Simon’s opinion. Yet more incomprehension. You are working up to a prize for this.

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

    No, why would that be necessary? Schneider’s interview was self-explanatory, was it not?”

    No it was not, and certainly with the way in which you took a part out of context. You should study the paper for then you should grasp why your response here is invalid,

    No, I can’t be bothered, since the a priori chances are that an essay written in 2013 isn’t going to add much by way of context to an interview Stephen Schneider gave in the late 1980′s.

    I already understand and accept (and am unmoved by) your point that climate scientists are in a “dilemma” when it comes to public communication. So what? All scientists working on a problem that touches on some public concern—which is to say, most scientists working today—must have been tempted at one time or another to “sex up” their findings in order to “get on the evening news,” but they’ve traditionally managed to resist such unworthy thoughts, because they know science is rooted in a principle of absolute honesty. Climate scientists are the only scientists who seem to struggle with this idea. And perhaps if climate-science role models like Schneider hadn’t opened the ethical door to a compromise between honesty and “effectiveness,” then the youth in climate science wouldn’t have been led astray. Who knows.

    What are Brysse, Oreskes and friends going to add to the thus-far unmoving picture?

    Unless you can be more specific, you’re giving no reason to spend my limited time reading their apologetics.

    It seems that you like pontificating from ignorance as also seen with your exchange with David B Benson WRT your not reading Ray Pierrehumberts, ‘Principles of Planetary Climate.

    This criticism might have some merit if there were any signs that I “liked pontificating” on climate science.

    But there isn’t, and I don’t.

    If you’ve been following the thread from the beginning, you’ll know that the only positions I’ve expressed on climate sensitivity, atmospheric feedback, medieval temperatures, etc., have been those that BBD and Bernard dragged out of me. They insisted on knowing exactly “where I stood.” I submitted to their climate-doctrine litmus tests reluctantly, and it would require a powerfully distorting historical lens to think I’d “pontificated” to anybody here on the subject of the climate.

    Quite why Feynman’s expose on Cargo Cult Science is supporting your case is a mystery.

    Perhaps I should have been more didactic. I’ll try again.

    Contrast Feynman’s philosophy in these passages (my emphasis):

    “You should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not [only not] lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, an integrity that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.

    with Schneider’s philosophy in this passage:

    “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.”

    See the irreducible contradiction between them? The point being: you’re either a Schneiderian or a Feynmanian; you can’t be both, by the principle of non-contradiction.

    Both Feynman and Schneider would by now be crying foul at your antics here.

    No—Feynman would be too busy crying foul at Schneider’s antics to criticise a humble little non-scientist like me. Schneider’s “balance between being honest and being effective” would appall him.

    Cook clearly has an education in science sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate change science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of Skeptical Science.

    ROFL!

    Okay… okay… so far I’ve heard:

    1. Cook is a practicing physicist
    2. Cook is a practicing solar physicist
    3. Cook is a practicing climate scientist

    And number 3 was as simple as running a blog!

    Anthony Watts, whose climate-science blog is much more active and widely-read than Cook’s, must be a climate überscientist by your logic! Give the man an honorary Professorship.

    The uncanny thing is, despite Dr Cook’s years of research and publication in the peer-reviewed climate-science literature, he’s inexplicably managed to avoid picking up the rudiments of scientific thought! It’s almost unbelievable that someone who’d hung out with scientists and listened to their opinions, or even done so much as read a book or two about the history of opinions in the science community, could ever produce a falsehood as gross as this one with a straight face:

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

    Are you actually naive enough to buy this, Lionel? Are you really oblivious to the existence of scientific consensi that don’t have the support of a consilience of evidence?

    Finally:

    When you seconded Forrester’s decree that “They are to be despised,” adding “Indeed”, what precisely were you agreeing with?

    Did you mean that “deniers” are “to be despised” for saying “consensus is not science”? I consider that to be the obvious reading of Forrester’s remarks, which conclude:

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

    They are to be despised.

    If this is the idea you were endorsing, does a reasonable person have any choice but to conclude that you think consensus is science, Lionel?

    In which case, it’s futile for us to even attempt to discuss what “the science” tells us, because we speak two different dialects of English. When I say things like “science” and “evidence”, I mean science and evidence. When you say “science” and “evidence”, it’s anyone’s guess what you mean. (“Consensus” and “opinion,” perhaps?) In any case it’s doomed to be a pseudo-conversation.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Projection from our resident pinhead prick.

    Again.

    Comprehension: pegged at 0% and holding.

  43. #43 chek
    February 23, 2013

    “Brad’s” looking more and more like another refund pending case for the Oregon Institute.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    I think Bray has watched too much Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles, cooing on about con-sensei.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Maybe this explains Bray’s “Walter Mitty” hallucinations:

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

  46. #46 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    Bloomin ‘eck.

    More exploding marshmallow from Mr Stay Puft!

    Lionel A

    you’re weird.

    On the other thread you felt that, “The likes of Keyes are beyond contempt,” which is true—but I presume you meant “beneath contempt,” didn’t you? Presumably your sheer subcontempt for me got in the way of accurate typing.

    I would only appear weird to a clot from the other side of Alice’s mirror.

    So now you of the ‘word police’ are censuring me for using the phrase ‘beyond contempt’. If I wish to use that then who the fuck do you think you are to decide otherwise. Sheesh! You are a jerk of the first water, indeed beyond the pail. And yes I do not what I mean there too.

    The rest of that exploded marshmallow is just more of the same ol’ same ol’, ‘I don’t need to learn anything I don’t want to’ even though I feel free to take climate scientists apart on the basis of mine own ignorance’.

    See the irreducible contradiction between them? The point being: you’re either a Schneiderian or a Feynmanian; you can’t be both, by the principle of non-contradiction.

    Now you are making stuff up.

    Anthony Watts, whose climate-science blog is much more active and widely-read than Cook’s, must be a climate überscientist by your logic! Give the man an honorary Professorship.

    Ah! Never mind the quality, feel the width again. Now what scientific qualifications does Willard have, exactly?

    One ties oneself in the most ergonomically-unfriendly knots when one tries to find “reasons why” something is the case which isn’t the case in the first place. There is no “possible reason why scientists have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming”, because they HAVEN’T underestimated it.

    You clearly do not have a handle on the history of this subject, once again that paper I cited will help you out with your false notion that scientists have not understated the perils of warming.

    Neither do you have any clue, or pretend not to, about the long history of dirty tricks aimed at climate scientists as indicated in a para’ with link here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-27/#comment-150412.

    But of course your overweening arrogance makes you believe that you need not bother following the links in arguments. And your arrogance is clearly displayed at every post as you try to poke fun at others use of language. A ‘poor humble non-scientist’ you will never be. Perhaps you should discover what humility means

    As a bore, you are a class act, as a poor humble non-scientist, not so much.

    It clearly is a waste of time arguing with one of your ilk, as somebody once remarked [1], ‘arguing with him is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall.’

    [1] about a certain British Minister for Technology when whilst in the US trying to discuss sorting out problems with a certain British gas turbine engine for a certain newly developed mark of a well know US military aircraft.

    You had better sort out the syntax etc. on this post before it goes to print, you being such an expert like.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Brysse et al., page 9:

    It is not merely that dramatic claims open scientists to criticisms from skeptics and other external opponents; dramatic claims lay scientists open to criticism from their peers.

    Notice the author’s use of what BBD would denounce as “framing”: the ontological field is divided between scientists on the “inside,” and skeptics on the “outside.” Skeptics are implicitly called “external opponents”!

    This is either:

    1. a bizarre and inadvertent admission that nobody inside climate science is skeptical, and that climate scientists and skeptics are opposed to each other

    2. a deliberate use of a fictional dichotomy, which delegitimises “skeptics” by denying the significant real-world overlap of the sets “climate skeptics” and “climate scientists.”

    Because science operates according to a prestige economy in which reputation is paramount, anything that might incite the distrust of one’s peers is to be avoided.

    All very nice in theory, but the environmental sciences community doesn’t actually punish false alarmism, does it? Look at Paul Ehrlich, who’s made a career out of never being right and remains as highly-respected as ever among ecologists. Look at Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the serial reef obituarist. As long as your predictions bring in the next grant, your peers aren’t going to care too much which orifice you pulled them from.

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel:

    “Anthony Watts, whose climate-science blog is much more active and widely-read than Cook’s, must be a climate überscientist by your logic! Give the man an honorary Professorship.”

    Ah! Never mind the quality, feel the width again. Now what scientific qualifications does Willard have, exactly?

    As a professional meteorologist, Watts clearly has an education sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of the award-winning science blog WUWT.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    In case a certain palindromic peeping-tom is lurking, waiting for a chance to misunderstand something, that last paragraph was ironic.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    As a professional meteorologist

    So what actual scientific training has Watts had, do you know?

    I tell you you do not know, so go and check up what Watts has for qualifications.

  51. #51 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    He’s no more qualified than Glenn Beck.

  52. #52 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    So, Bray, if Anthony Watts is only a weather PRESENTER, what does that do to your assertion about him that was premised on “as a professional meteorologist”..?

  53. #53 chek
    February 23, 2013

    It’s interesting that ol’ “Brad” here is side-stepping further and further away from any actual science (which he’s too ignorant and lazy to inform himself of) and deeper into Hello! magazine territory by way of diversion.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    After taking stuff out of context we have more marshmallow from Stay Puft.

    This is either:

    1. a bizarre and inadvertent admission that nobody inside climate science is skeptical, and that climate scientists and skeptics are opposed to each other

    2. a deliberate use of a fictional dichotomy, which delegitimises “skeptics” by denying the significant real-world overlap of the sets “climate skeptics” and “climate scientists.”

    Only in your twisted mind which removes things from all context.

    Keep reading much other stuff you betray your naivety still, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-27/#comment-150412.

    WRT Paul R. Ehrlich who you slur with this, ‘…who’s made a career out of never being right…‘. Never, not eve? No exaggeration there?

    Perhaps you should read ‘Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future‘ and see where you seem to fit in that picture.

    Maybe you consider yourself a master of language and rhetoric but, as we see, of reason not so much.

    Ehrlich was right to point at the population bomb and it is only some unforeseen by him temporary improvements in agricultural techniques, dependant upon oil and thus the ‘temporary’, that he was off with the timing. However there is a growing number of the world’s population falling below nutritional standards that maintain health and life. This not only in developing countries but also the sold called ‘West’.

    Ehrlich has more knowledge and understanding in the tip of his index finger than you have in the whole of your sentient being, and by a long way.

    Have you not heard about food banks in Britain, or elsewhere.

    Then there is this: The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See (part 1 of 8) .

    and

    this: The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.

    In that latter we see the worst outcomes (True.B) that many scientists could foresee happening if we continued BAU at its most extreme – continued overexploitation of ALL resources in order to achieve infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Many scientists could see this coming but never propounded the worst of outcomes because they knew only too well that they would have trouble from the likes of you and then any chance of reasonable discussion would be over.

    The bottom line here is that you can use words but not in a reasonable manner.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    He’s being a very coy boy, isn’t he.

    Wonder what he has to hide.

  56. #56 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    Stay Puft again:

    …the very nature of his involvement with and founding of the award-winning science blog WUWT.

    My turn for a ROTFL

    Before braying about that you should have learned what the award was and how he won it. But sorry I forgot, you are a neophyte here aren’t you.

    I think the name of this thread is wrong it should be Bragelina.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    And isn’t that award the result of several people agreeing?

    Does that make it a consensus?

    Surely not, Bray NEVER uses a consensus as argument! NEVAH!!!!!

  58. #58 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    It seems that Brad would rather engage in literally endless argument about the definition of scientific consensus than discuss the scientific evidence and its implications.

    Evidence which suggests – very strongly indeed – that unless emissions are substantially and rapidly reduced, the consequences for future generations and global ecology will be severe.

    But Brad is not afraid of AGW. He’s a ‘realist’ not a ‘climate worrier’.

    This is an impossible position to hold in the light of the current scientific understanding of AGW. So *why* does Brad believe something silly? He is a clever chap. Why do something illogical and even foolish? What *motivates* this behaviour?

    There are a few possible answers:

    - Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded Brad from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications

    - Brad understands the situation reasonably well but rejects the standard position because it is in direct conflict with his political beliefs

    - Brad has glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW

    Despite Brad’s attempts to deflect this line of enquiry by fake outrage and playing the victim and definitional nit-picking it remains the key to everything.

    Once again, I invite Brad to examine his conscience and tell us what he finds.

    Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why does Brad never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?

    Is it politics? Brad says not, but I for one think he’s lying.

    Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won’t read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up his constructed reality at any cost to his own integrity or that of his ‘arguments’ etc).

    Only Brad can clear this up and he keeps refusing to do so. So we continue to assume he’s lying and it’s politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps Brad, for all the bravado and bluster, is actually terrified inside. So frightened that his mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.

  59. #59 Stu
    February 23, 2013

    I’m sorry if you feel “manipulated” by my facility with words

    Thanks for the laugh, Napoleon. That was priceless.

  60. #60 chek
    February 23, 2013

    No, Stu!
    Stop! Don’t do it!
    If you goad him it’ll…
    OMG too late!
    Oh, the humanity!
    Won’t somebody please think of the carpets!!

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    chek:

    It’s interesting that ol’ “Brad” here is side-stepping further and further away from any actual science (which he’s too ignorant and lazy to inform himself of) and deeper into Hello! magazine territory by way of diversion.

    Why would I discuss the scientific evidence with the like of you, chek, when you think consensus is a form of scientific evidence (“consensus indicates the strength of the argument”)? What would either of us learn?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    How can you discuss the science when you don’t know what it is?

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    BBD,

    This is a perceptive remark:

    It seems that Brad would rather engage in [...] argument about the definition of scientific consensus than discuss the scientific evidence and its implications.

    Yes I would. Before sinking substantial amounts of time and energy into discussing “the scientific evidence” I would like to ascertain that my interlocutors understand such things as: what scientific evidence is; what scientific evidence isn’t; the difference between science and pseudoscience; etc.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    Brad

    Can we cordially agree that we don’t give a stuff about the definitional argument over what constitutes the scientific consensus and get down to something a bit more substantive? Eg # 1 and # 58.

  65. #65 chek
    February 23, 2013

    You’re right, “Brad”. Your misrepresentation begins as soon as the words hit your cortex. Plus you don’t know anything, which is what makes your adopted position so curious.

  66. #66 BBD
    February 23, 2013

    We crossed; consider the request repeated.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    You’ve had no problems with wasting thousands of words on fuck all so far, why so coy now?

    Run out of carpet?

  68. #68 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Boy knows big words.

    Like interlocutor.

    But not like consensus.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Were you busy trying to find any science education Watts has undertaken?

    Did you fail to find any?

    Maybe he’s hiding his declining intelligence…

  70. #70 bill
    February 23, 2013

    Hey Brad, what do you reckon?

    Is your question bullshit? Yes or no?

    All you are demonstrating here is your intellectual dishonesty.

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 23, 2013

    Lionel A:

    “See the irreducible contradiction between them? The point being: you’re either a Schneiderian or a Feynmanian; you can’t be both, by the principle of non-contradiction.”

    Now you are making stuff up.

    No, the principle of non-contradiction is real and fairly important—I commend it to your (constant) attention. Especially when saying things.

    (I’m appalled that you weren’t taught this at some point in your education.)

    Or did you mean to say I was making up the contradiction between Feynman and Schneider?

    Uh, no I wasn’t. Perhaps I still wasn’t explaining it with sufficient obviousness.

    Feynman’s ethics demand “bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong” when communicating with the public, and that, “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it.”

    According to Schneider’s ethics, by contrast, it’s OK to “make little mention of any doubts we might have” when communicating with the public.

    Feynman demands “absolute integrity“.

    Schneider advocates “a balance between being honest and being effective.

    Spot the difference?

  72. #72 chek
    February 23, 2013

    Another oddity about moron “Brad” here, is he’sheavily reliant on Watts and McIntyre, but not the first port of call for anyone genuinely interested, the IPCC.

    You might think anyone genuinely interested would be interested in the weight and diversity of evidence (notice how quickly “Brad” and Calumny dropped their hockey stick nonsense?) that gives rise to the scientific consensus.

    But no, “Brad” just chunders on like a shit sluice with a broken ‘off’ valve.

  73. #73 chek
    February 23, 2013

    …and see he’s still in denial playing word games with what people said versus what he postulates they meant rather than confront evidence. What a waste of a paycheque.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Whereas you, Bray, manage to avoid any hint of honesty and manage to completely fail to be effective.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Bray, Is the reason why LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE because you don’t want competition?

  76. #76 David B. Benson
    February 23, 2013

    Place holder.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    I asked:

    Hey bill,

    what do you reckon:

    is consensus science? Yes or no?

    Rather than type a single-word answer, bill typed:

    Hey Brad, what do you reckon?

    Is your question bullshit? Yes or no?

    All you are demonstrating here is your intellectual dishonesty.

    No, bill, it’s a simple question with a single-word answer (yes or no), and your evasion of it is astounding.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    chek:

    You might think anyone genuinely interested would be interested in the weight and diversity of evidence (notice how quickly “Brad” and Calumny dropped their hockey stick nonsense?) that gives rise to the scientific consensus.

    But chek, you think consensus is evidence (“the consensus indicates the strength of the argument”), so what would be the point of discussing “the evidence” with you?

  79. #79 BBD
    February 24, 2013

    Brad

    # 1

    # 58

    ?

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    BBD:

    Can we cordially agree that we don’t give a stuff about the definitional argument over what constitutes the scientific consensus and get down to something a bit more substantive?

    Sorry but I do give a stuff.

    This is not “just” definitional; it’s not “just” semantics; it goes to the very heart of how (and whether) we understand science.

    When a whole cohort of believers has been raised to think consensus counts as evidence in science (or even worse, to ridicule the idea that “consensus is not science“, as Lionel does!), then we have a major, major societal problem on our hands.

    Even after the climate debate has come and gone this time-bomb of mass scientific illiteracy will still be out there, ticking. What pseudoscientific scam will these rubes fall for next? Such a radically miseducated populace has no intellectual immunity to snake-oil salesmanship, so it could be anything.

    This is a major and compelling problem. If you’d rather talk about degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2, then I think you’re missing the bigger and far more fascinating (to me, anyway) picture: the public and its relationship with science, which has never been as strained as it is now.

    We live in interesting times.

  81. #81 chek
    February 24, 2013

    We can add deductive reasoning to the list of things “Brad” here is unable to handle.

    So let’s return to BBD’s post #58 which shouldn’t torture “Brad’s” brain unduly. If he can be honest, that is.

  82. #82 chek
    February 24, 2013

    Oh dear, “Brad’s” a cheap conspiract theorist after all.
    How disappointing if not completely unexpected.

    But then for the average half-wit, conspiracies are generally easier to understand than real life, and real life evidence.
    You were right BBD. He’s an avoider.

  83. #83 BBD
    February 24, 2013

    # 1

    # 58

  84. #84 chameleon
    February 24, 2013

    BBD,
    You have already decided what you think those reasons are.
    You have outlined them here and at the Feb thread.
    Can you explain what you think current behaviour and policy is achieving in terms of measureable and practical results?
    No one believes that the climate and/or the planet would be the same if there were no humans.

  85. #85 Ian Forrester
    February 24, 2013

    Keyes says:

    it goes to the very heart of how (and whether) we understand science.

    It is obvious to everyone (except the denier troll hanger ons) that Keyes does not understand science. He doesn’t appear to even understand simple logic and reasoning. It is time he was shut up, his dishonest ramblings are lowering the quality of what used to be a decent science blog which had good discussions of climate science. Now it is just full of Keyes’ nonsense going round and round in loops and smearing and insulting anyone who dares to correct him.

    Tim, why do we have to put up with this dishonest, arrogant know nothing boor? If someone came into your house and smeared shit all over your carpet you would throw him out immediately, how can you not see that is what he is doing here?

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    A forest troll says:

    It is obvious to everyone (except the denier troll hanger ons) that Keyes does not understand science. He doesn’t appear to even understand simple logic and reasoning.

    Thanks for your concern, F, but my understanding of science is just fine. The enigma I’m currently working through is how you came to misunderstand it so badly as to believe consensus is science:

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner blah blah won’t somebody think of the children blah

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    Being a bit of an evidence junkie, I recommend that everyone:

    - read the Brysse et al. paper to which Lionel kindly provides a link

    - read Roger Pielke Jr.’s magisterial takedown thereof

    - not clog up this thread (please) debating whether or not it’s just coincidence that Pielke Jr. was fired from the GEC editorial board five days after publishing his rebuttal

    Further, one could easily pick out a few findings from the report which tell a different story: drought, methane emissions, flooding, disaster costs, Himalayan glacier melt and so on. In 2010, Robert Watson, a former Chair of the IPCC, noted of the errors discovered in the AR4 report: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.” A Dutch assessment of the IPCC AR4 found much the same.

    For some reason Brysse et al. neglected to consider a 2010 paper (co-authored by Michael Oppenheimer) which warned of the threat of a dramatic increase in poor Mexicans migrating north into the United States due to climate change. Talk about drama!

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    chek, Forest Troll,

    I’ve also noticed something interesting about your verbal behaviour when cornered: everything’s faeces with you people, isn’t it?

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  89. #89 Stu
    February 24, 2013

    Brad, pathetic douche who makes love to his thesaurus…

    Did you just quote Pielke? Seriously?

  90. #90 Stu
    February 24, 2013

    Wait, never mind that, did you just use “magisterial” and “Pielke” in the same sentence?

    Seriously? The author of “The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming”?

    Are you for fucking real?

  91. #91 David B. Benson
    February 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes — While your understanding of science might indeed be ‘just fine’, it is not good enough to understand the intricacies of climatology. I have previously indicated a way to remedy the current situation. Another way is via a quite decent history, “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    David Benson,

    thank you for the rec. To be totally frank I’m more interested in science in se than climate science, but since the latter has thrown up so many questions around the former, I’ll try to find time to read Weart’s account.

    But your comment also raises a question. Given “the intricacies of climatology,” which require a better-than-just-fine grasp of science, isn’t it weird that your co-believers blame people who don’t understand climate science—and understand it the same way they do? If the science of climate change is as fiendishly complex and multidisciplinary as it’s typically said to be, why are so many people surprised and angered by the bimodal distribution of conclusions drawn from it, even among experts?

  93. #93 FrankD
    February 24, 2013

    I read Pielke’s “majesterial takedown” and walked away with this:

    “Of these 11 [datapoints], according to Brysse et al. the scientific community has been accurate on 5, overestimated the near term evolution in 1 case and underestimated in 5″.

    So, just considering the evidence adduced in Brysse et al, Pielke agrees that when predictions are in error, they are five times as likely to be underestimates as overestimates. That sounds like “Erring on the Side of Least Drama” to me. The other five points were essentially bang on, so don’t consitute erring on either side.

    How this constitutes a “majesterial takedown”, I’m not too sure, but Brad has asserted on numerous occasions that his language skills are superior to people posting here (myself included), so I’m sure there is some subtlety I’m missing here. Perhaps he will explain how errors showing a tendency towards lowballing in 83% of cases is not “Erring on the Side of Least Drama”.

    I expect that a wider survey would yield different numbers, but whether it would fundamentally change the balance I couldn’t say.

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    Stu,

    I don’t know how to break this to you but the reputable academic journal that saw fit to publish Brysse, Oreskes, Oppenheimer et al. has also seen fit to have Roger Pielke Jr. on its editorial board for 6 years.

    Seriously. The author of “The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming”.

    I am for fucking real.

    Try to deal.

  95. #95 David B. Benson
    February 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes — To answer your question(s), I don’t know. Read what Oreskes has to say maybe?

    However, the experts all come to about the same conclusion. There are a few physicists (and geologists) who assume since they have mastered one narrow area therefore instantly understand climatology; they are uniformly wrong in that assumption.

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    FrankD:

    How this constitutes a “majesterial “magisterial takedown”, I’m not too sure, but Brad has asserted on numerous occasions that his language skills are superior to people posting here (myself included), so I’m sure there is some subtlety I’m missing here.

    Refresh my memory, Frank.

    Did I really say my linguistic skills were better than yours, or did I:

    — commend you for having the good sense not to pass judgement on my etymological competence without sufficient data

    and

    — praise your contributions to this thread on the subject of Medieval, Medical, Modern and Moncktonian Latin?

    Perhaps he will explain how errors showing a tendency towards lowballing in 83% of cases is not “Erring on the Side of Least Drama”.

    Easy.

    A wider survey would yield different numbers.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    Ian,

    One more thing:

    You should thank your long blue hair—you’re a very lucky forest troll.

    See, your fellow believer BBD knows (more than) enough about how science works to know how deranged this exhortation from you is:

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner blah blah won’t somebody think of the children blah

    But don’t worry, he won’t say anything. He’s bound by the general policy of the climate movement: solidarity trumps honesty.

    Which lets you off the hook in the short run… but has proven corrosive to the credibility of the climate movement over the long run.

  98. #98 FrankD
    February 24, 2013

    Brad – no you really did. It was way up the thread, not the “etymological skills” comment, and you questioned whether I had a basic understanding of English. Meh. Could care less.

    Thanks for the correction on “majesterial”. Yes, magister and all. Ironically, I’ve just been correcting some homework for an indifferent speller and had been substituting “majesty” for “magesty” – LOL #irony.

    “Perhaps he will explain how errors showing a tendency towards lowballing in 83% of cases is not “Erring on the Side of Least Drama”.

    Easy. A wider survey would yield different numbers.

    But thats a simple non sequitur. It’s not the question I asked. Asserting that a different study would get different results (which it might, or might not – we have no evidence) does not explain how the 5:1 ratio found is not erring on the side of least drama.

    You asserted that Pielke’s takedown was “magisterial”, but it agrees with Bysse et al. So how is it even a takedown?

  99. #99 David B. Benson
    February 24, 2013

    10 pm Saturday place holder.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 24, 2013

    Brad – no you really did. It was way up the thread, not the “etymological skills” comment, and you questioned whether I had a basic understanding of English. Meh. Could care less.

    I must have taken my class hatred of the local trogs out on you! :-) Sorry.

    Ironically, I’ve just been correcting some homework for an indifferent speller and had been substituting “majesty” for “magesty” – LOL #irony.

    Isn’t that more of an explanation than an irony?

    Easy. A wider survey would yield different numbers.

    But thats a simple non sequitur. It’s not the question I asked.

    Correct—I didn’t read carefully. I was addressing the question of whether the sample carefully selected by the authors was evidence for the reality of ESLD.

    Asserting that a different study would get different results (which it might, or might not – we have no evidence)

    But as Pielke Jr.’s argument implies, larger, non-selective surveys—like the analyses of errors throughout IPCC AR4—suggest that the true trend is ESMD.