Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
FrankD:
BTW, you surely meant to type “couldn’t care less”.
-
Forest Troll,
how easily the mask slips…
It is time he was shut up
Jawohl, mein Koncerned Women’s Auxiliarykommandant!
-
is consensus science? Yes or no?
Rather than type a single-word answer, bill typed:
And when I asked you “Is consensus evidence”, you never did answer with a single word answer of either yes or no.
Yet again, J-Anus here demands what he cannot and will not ever deliver.
-
Forest Troll,
how easily the mask slips…
It is time he was shut up
Jawohl, mein Koncerned Women’s Auxiliarykommandant!
Another J-Anus comment. See Herr J. Anus here talking somewhat differently:
If you can’t answer, then you can also fuck off (with Wow) as far as I’m concerned.
Wow, you’re a liar and fuck off please.
you’ve been living on borrowed time at this thread.
Liars are not welcome here.
Go away and do not come back.
All of which are this anus being Herr Fuhrer on page 25 of his jail thread.
Again, he demands of others what he would NEVER consider limiting his crusade for his faith.
-
There should have been a quote around another J-Anus ordering people around like he is the Kaiser:
If you can’t answer, then you can also fuck off (with Wow) as far as I’m concerned.
Apparently, he doesn’t like it done to him.
Just like a bully: loves dealing it out, whines and complains when he has to take it, the sniveling coward.
-
Bray, just to let you know, Watts’ only qualification in weather presenting is at a status “retired” and didn’t require any graduate education at all and has been closed since 2008 in favour of a certification that DOES require some science training.
What physical sciences does Anthony Watts practice?
None.
-
Hi Brad,
No, I meant “could” – I cared a non-zero amount, but not very much. And I meant “irony”, although it was also an explanation. An explanation relating to an ironic circumstance.
If you spent less time telling me what I meant to write, and more time dealing with the evidence you claimed to be addicted to, we might get somewhere. So here’s a reminder: You claimed a “takedown” by Pielke, but in fact Pielke endorses Brysse et al’s conclusions, within the scope of the evidence they adduce. True or false?
Please – no more airy persiflage about wanting more evidence – more evidence would improve nearly every scientific paper ever written. Pielke selected (one might even say “cherry picked”) from a vast array of data points, a few instances that buck the ESLD position, but neither you nor I can tell if these are representative. And for the moment, I could care less about whether more examples would support or refute Brysse et al. Its of non-zero interest, but for the here and now, I’m much more curious about something else.
What we have is Brysse et al’s paper, and Pielke’s blog post. So just regarding the paper that was written, not the paper you or RP Junior might have liked, does Pielke’s comment support its accuracy or not? 5-to-1 he says…
-
And remember, bray, one word answer, right?
True or false.
-
Tell us about temperature ‘hockey sticks’ Brad Keyes.
Bonus points if you can incorporate the best science on climate sensitivity.
-
Mr Stay Puft quoting drama queen Pielke Jr.[1]:
Further, one could easily pick … 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.
You do realise the minor nature of the errors in the AR4 wrt Himalayan glacier melt do you not? If you do not then go study the appropriate sections where you will find that one such could be nothing more than a typo that went unchallenged by a body not actually engaged in investigative scientific work, which is not the function of the IPCC.
As ever a Google search reveals who are running with this particular meme of Pileke Jr’s. origin right now.
That in itself is telling.
I admit to being coy about where my trail on this Brysse et. al. paper began [2], I was leaving it as an exercise for yourself so as to gain more insight into this whole business. Unfortunately, so interested were you in producing yet more baffle-gab that you kind of fell into the man-trap. And now you are digging a hole within your hole. How else could this thread grow so long. It is the depth record you are going for clearly.
[1] Why do I dub Pielke Jr. a drama queen? How else to describe one who makes a statement like this:
UPDATE 20 Feb 2013: Five days after writing this critique I was asked to step down from the GEC editorial board.
,
Here is a proposed letter of why Pielke Jr. was removed from the GEC Editorial board from The Letter Elsevier Should Have Sent Roger Jr.
Dear Prof. Pielke,
This letter is to inform you that the Editors have chosen not to renew your membership on the editorial board of Global Environmental Change at the end of your second term. There are two reasons for this.
First your participation in the editorial work of the journal has become insufficient to justify reappointment to a third consecutive term. If we were being nice we might say that the bulk of submissions to the journal have moved away from your area of expertise, but let us not sugar coat it. Your interested in reviewing for GEC has diminished over your second term and was none too high to begin with. As you were told on your initial appointment we expect Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews. Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review 3 papers which you declined. Thus, in the last 2.5 years of your second term you reviewed 0 papers for the journal. Based on this record our most courteous conclusion is that your areas of interest are not a good match to the papers submitted to Global Environmental Change and this is increasingly the case.
Second, it is the policy of the Journal to rotate membership on the Editorial Board. This year there are 6 new Editorial Board Members, one through death of a previous member. In total 24 of the 37 board members from 2005 have been replaced since you joined. That 13 members remain is based on the judgement of the editors of their work on the Editorial Board.
We thank you for the editorial work you have done in your two terms of membership, and look forward to working with you on future submissions to Global Environmental Change if any.
and seeing his outburst at the head of his blog post I see no reason why they should recant any time soon.
[2]
@EthonRaptorWords you may be good with (and that could be a matter of opinion – yourself in particular) but context not so much.
I note others have responded to this particular ‘blinkered’ theme of yours but then there is something called time zones.
And Willard’s scientific qualifications are…?
-
Dagn. Tag failure, things tend to get lost at the edge of the edit window, the following was my comment on the letter, proposed, body beneath which it appeared:
..and seeing his outburst at the head of his blog post I see no reason why they should recant any time soon.
-
A Dutch assessment of the IPCC AR4 found much the same.
Except for the underestimation of ice loss. The underestimation of fire damage.
Oh, and the report includes many sections not just “The physical basis”. Go find a science paper on how a manganese mine works.
-
Pielke was sacked for not doing any work.
If I turned up one day out of six, I wouldn’t last six years, would I. Maybe you would, Bray, ‘cos your dad owns the mine you work at.
-
Despite continued reliance by “Brad” on questionable outlier commenters (Pielke Jnr.? The political scientist? Really?) this choice item seems to have slipped under the radar so far.
Which is a shame as it seems to me to be the money-shot that explains everything about “Brad’s” reluctance to deal with evidence and to hang on like a bulldog with lockjaw to his misrepresentation of what scientific consensus means.
Here’s the take home message from “Brad”:
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.It’s a straightforward enough deduction that the current “pseudoscientific scam ” referred to by “Brad” is climate science, and his “snake-oil salesmanship” isn’t referring to Goddard , Watts and McIntyre et al..
-
BK. And in case you still harbour delusions about Pielke Jrs’ delusions here are some more takes on it:
Roger Pielke Jr.’s fevered delusions of persecution continue unabated
and
Pielke Jr. implies conspiracy over routine journal procedure
Those examples are from two good blogs which will fill you in on much background which it is clear you so desperately need.
Both linked to from reference [1] in my post above.
-
Dear All,
what part of the following was unclear? This being a science blog, I (quite reasonably, I think) implored everybody to
- 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
Science? Stick to?
Please? -
FrankD:
Pielke endorses Brysse et al’s conclusions, within the scope of the evidence they adduce. True or false?
Of course. I thought I’d already agreed with you here (having misread your question initially).
The interesting question is how much (or little) that evidence means.
-
Lionel A
And Willard’s scientific qualifications are…?
Is this your way of spelling Anthony Watts? What’s the logic behind it—some kind of in-joke, presumably?
Anyway, I have no idea what Watts’ qualifications are. I’ve been reading his posts for years and I don’t think he’s ever mentioned them. That’s symbolic of one of the differences between our two cultures: believers are obsessively credentialist. Deniers, not so much.
Nevertheless, someone upthread attempted the somewhat desperate argument (or rationalisation) that John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog. If that’s a valid syllogism, then Anthony Watts is an even better climate scientist because he runs a much more active, widely-read climate-science blog.
Geddit?
-
John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog.
Of course, you can’t provide a cite for that, because it’s patently ridiculous. But it is nevertheless an adjunct to his field of science communication..
-
chek:
It’s a straightforward enough deduction that the current “pseudoscientific scam ” referred to by “Brad” is climate science, and his “snake-oil salesmanship” isn’t referring to Goddard , Watts and McIntyre et al..
No, climate science is not a scam. Nor is it the truth.
Nor is it a claim. Or a belief. Or a belief system.
Nor is it an opinion, conjecture or hypothesis. Nor is it something you can “believe” or “deny.” Or “agree” or “disagree with.”
It’s a branch of science.
Try again.
You only got one part of the “straightforward deduction” right: no, my “snake-oil salesmanship” wasn’t referring to Goddard, Watts and McIntyre et al.
-
pseudoscientific scam
Why so coy about expanding on your real interest “Brad”?
Far more interesting and to the point than a pointless waffle about a third league commenter like RPJnr. -
chek:
“John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog.”
Of course, you can’t provide a cite for that, because it’s patently ridiculous.
Oh, I know it’s ridiculous. But when has that ever stopped Lionel A?
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.
Geddit?
-
It’s a branch of science.
OK. let’s assume for a moment that you’re not an evasive wanker whojust made a strategic blunder. Why introduce the topic of ‘pseudoscience’ at all?
Were you suddenly overcome by concern for people investing in, say, dog astrology, a branch of pseudoscience that doesn’t deter in the least those such as Andrew Montford when a conspiracy needs to be manufactured?
-
“Brad” #23 Geddit
Clearly you don’t.
Your comprehension skills really are woeful, “Brad”. -
Huh? What “strategic blunder” do you think I might have made?
Why introduce the topic of “pseudoscience” at all?
Because Forrester has fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is science.
Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence.
And this list goes on.
-
Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence.
No “Brad”, that’s entirely your own invention which you’ve adopted despite repeated corrections. And yes, you have a long list of those.
-
Were you suddenly overcome by concern for people investing in, say, dog astrology, a branch of pseudoscience that doesn’t deter in the least those such as Andrew Montford when a conspiracy needs to be manufactured?
Not particularly.
1. Nobody takes dog astrology seriously.
2. Nobody mistakes astrology for science any more (canine or otherwise)—which means it no longer has the status and power of pseudoscience.
-
Brad
You say:
Science? Stick to?
Please?By all means. Now, please stop your incessant evasions, re-read and respond to the following:
[# 1]
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?
***
[# 58]
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.
-
Chek @ 15
Yes, the mask certainly slipped there didn’t it? And we see the arrogant denialist tool behind it. A man who recently had the fucking gall to call me dishonest.
-
chek
sorry if you thought this paraphrase was unfair:
“Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence [2].”
I actually meant to quote your original formulation that the scientific consensus indicates the strength of the argument.[1]
I got it mixed up with its logical corollary.
Do I take it that you stand by claim [1] but reject claim [2]?
But claim [2] can be derived by simple logic from claim [1].
If you don’t like [2] then you have only 2 choices:
- reject [1]
OR
- dispute the logic by which [2] is derived from [1] -
Is it fear, Brad? Or are you just an ill-informed lying tool of a libertarian?
Oh, and perhaps a lawyer? You are rather good at misdirection, which makes me wonder how you acquired the facility. Or are you just a dishonest man for whom this comes naturally as breathing?
-
This comment is not printed in invisible ink.
Your serial avoidance of much of what I ask is has now reached the level of parody. You look bad, Brad.
The more you dodge, the worse you look. And I know you know what you are doing, so presumable some inner part of you is shrivelling away as you duck and dive and misdirect and twist.
-
BK and his Janus face:
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
So. It’s OK for you to introduce Pielke Jr. so as to cast doubt on the the Brysse et al. paper but it ain’t fair for us to pin you to the wall on that because you consider it unfair to do so.
Oh dear BK. Perhaps you should join Pielke in his naughty corner for being such a wimp and cry-baby and making a fuss over nothing as we have seen.
Now re Willard,
Is this your way of spelling Anthony Watts? What’s the logic behind it—some kind of in-joke, presumably?
If you don’t know then go find out, shouldn’t be too hard for a clever-clogs like you. I ain’t doing your homework for you. And it would appear there is still much of that open to do from elsewhere above:
Principles of Planetary Climate,
Revelle & Lancaster v Singer & Lindzen,
Santer v Michaels,
Paul Ralph Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider v Julian Simon and now you.With that latter consider this:
The original wager between Simon on one hand and Schneider and Ehrlich on the other was a ten year bet about the scarcity of five important commodities at the end of the wager period. Through unforeseen circumstances, an economic slowdown, Simon took the bet. When it came to more relevant trends for the welfare of humanity as a whole Simon would not take a follow up bet.
Now YOU tell me the details of that. The finding out will be good for your education on the things that really matter.
The answer can be found in ‘Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future‘ or at http://www.zsbbwemk.emk/camj/Zpygldmmb/zcr.frkj (Yes you do some more homework here too. Clue, this month).
-
Because Forrester has fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is science.
Now, now Brad, it is you that has fallen for the logical fallacy that any of us would think consensus is science. Unless of course you can quote, pointing to sources, that indicate otherwise.
We have explained how science relates to consensus, or consensus to science (cart and horse working more on the pusher principle here) but that isn’t quite equating the two is it now?
-
Brad’s problem is simply described as Fractal Wrongness:
“Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person’s worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person’s worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.”
-
Brad is also, apparently, a fucking coward who won’t answer some straightforward questions but is happy to call me dishonest out of the side of his mouth.
Well póg mo thóin, Bradley.
-
# 36
What interests me is *why* BK behaves the way he does. How do you end up being fractally wrong? Why can’t he see what he’s done to himself and why does he refuse to discuss his reasoning in direct, substantive terms?
More detail at # 29 above.
-
Science? Stick to?
Please?Science? Start? Will you?
-
Anyway, I have no idea what Watts’ qualifications are.
Then why did you claim he had science qualifications?
As a professional meteorologist, Watts clearly has an education sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate science
-
Nevertheless, someone upthread attempted the somewhat desperate argument (or rationalisation) that John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog
Lying again, Bray.
Nobody did that, you made it up entirely.
This is called “lying”.
-
No, climate science is not a scam. Nor is it the truth.
What unscientific rubbish are you blathering on about now?
That doesn’t make ANY sense.
-
“Oh, I know it’s ridiculous.”
Does this mean you knew that it was a ridiculous claim that someone had tried to say that John Cook was a scientist because he ran a science blog?
THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LIE???
-
Lionel A
“Because Forrester has fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is science.”
Now, now Brad, it is you that has fallen for the logical fallacy that any of us would think consensus is science. Unless of course you can quote, pointing to sources, that indicate otherwise.
So is it your understanding that consensus is not science, Lionel?
Good—consider yourself removed from The “They Are to be Despised” List !
Just be prepared for a certain Forest Troll to start ridiculing you as an ignoramus:
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
-
Where did JeffH go?
He was very clear that Humlum, Marohasy & Curry, who clearly are practicing scientists and also have websites, were only ‘medoicre’ or had questionable previous employment.
I wonder what his assessment of John Cook is?
No offence Deltoids but have you perhaps noticed your litmus
test for ‘acceptable’ scientists keeps changing all the time? -
This thread was populated for a long time by Brad Keyes’ opinions about apparently low climate sensitivity and about the alleged ‘fabrication’ of temperature hockey sticks where he apparently believed none existed.
Obviously he wanted two bites at the denialist apple. Well, actually it was three, because he eventually conceded that if sensitivity is as great mainstream science says it is, and if it was warming as much as mainstream scientists say it is, it doesn’t matter anyway because warming is ‘good for us’.
Much energy was expended in order to educate Keyes about stuff on which he so firmly opined, but which by his own confession he knew nothing, and about which he had conducted no background reading. Keyes was directed by many people to material that would begin to fill the gaps in his knowledge, but he has since shifted the spotlight to a game of look at his word salad, and not at the factual meat. So once again…
Tell us about temperature ‘hockey sticks’ Brad Keyes.
Bonus points if you can incorporate the best science on climate sensitivity.
Consider this your exam after having been sent to school. You have no excuse now for getting it wrong.
-
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
-
Chameleon,
Tell me about it.
JeffH (the last semi-reasonable believer since FrankD) is nowhere to be seen, while every second comment comes from a pusillanimous palindrome.
God hates rational discourse, apparently.
-
That means you too BJ
You are also good for a laugh:-)
Why do the usual commenters here not see the conundrum?
There is straight out derision of someone like Judith Curry or Humlum with addex sneering that they comment on areas outside their expertise and that they are ‘cranks’ and they don’t have enough peer reviewed publications or citations to be taken seriously.
Yet here you all are defending Cook?
He is not in the same league as some of the scisntists you have sneered at for having the audacity for commenting on climate research. -
Ooops!
Sorry about the typos in that comment. -
BernardJ,
Memory is playing tricks on you:
This thread was populated for a long time by Brad Keyes’ opinions about apparently low climate sensitivity [...]
Much energy was expended in order to educate Keyes about stuff on which he so firmly opined, but which by his own confession he knew nothing, and about which he had conducted no background reading.
I repeat:
—the only opinions I’ve expressed about climate sensitivity were those you and BBD dragged out of me by insisting that no conversation was possible unless I shared them with you
—I did so with the qualification that I might be wrong and that you were free to convince me that ECS was higher
Your faulty memory has misattributed your own zealous opinionation to me.
-
chameleon,
Near as I can tell it works like this:
Cook is doctrinally correct, so his pseudo-qualifications count; Marohasy and Curry are doctrinally (and sexually) incorrect, so their real qualifications are to be contemned as “mediocre” “pedigrees” (sneer sneer).
-
BBD,
LOL, you sure can carry a grudge:
Brad is also, apparently, a fucking coward who won’t answer some straightforward questions but is happy to call me dishonest out of the side of his mouth.
If I called you dishonest (I can’t remember that conversation), then it’s obviously because you were being dishonest at the time. Haven’t we moved on?
-
We’ll move on when you begin to discuss your reasoning in substantive detail, with reference to the open questions you are once again not addressing.
-
BBD,
cordial thanks for your correct use of the word “reasoning” in place of “motivation.”
As I think I may have mentioned already, I’ll try to take further time out of my busy schedule to “discuss my reasoning in substantive detail” if you will do me a tiny but crucial favor.
What I need is for you to acknowledge, in a few words, that you agree with the following bedrock axioms of scientific reasoning:
1. “consensus is not science”
2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
3. scientific consensus is not evidence of scientific evidence
4. scientific consensus does not “indicate the strength of the argument”
5. it is illegitimate for scientists to argue, or seek to persuade the public, or seek to convey the strength of an argument, using non-evidence (e.g. scientific consensus)
6. a scientific consensus can occur in the absence of what John Cook calls “a consensus [i.e. a consilience] of evidence” (multiple lines of evidence all converging on a single consistent answer)
I hope these ground rules should take you less than a minute to read and accept. Sorry for the hassle, but it would be futile for us to keep discussing science and evidence in the absence of some kind of assurance that we are both speaking the same language, which, for want of a better word, I call English.
Thanks BBD.
-
Nope.
More ophidian rhetoric. I’m not going to allow you to direct this conversation: we aren’t going to talk about the other conversation you were having about the scientific consensus. We have had that discussion. You know my position.
There are more recent *unanswered questions* which you are not addressing.
To return to those unanswered questions. You said:
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.
What reasons?
-
“Brad”, you’re obviously more used to dealing with half-wits elsewhere, and find it unacceptable and strange that here you’re the ignorant half-wit.
Just out of interest, assuming Deltoid was populated by a community of Chameleon or Brad-calibre stupids who acceded to your ludicrous terms, what then? In other word,s what impact do you imagine you’d have made on the world in any quantifiable terms?
-
Keyes continues to distort what I said. His dishonesty knows no bounds. Nowhere did I ever say “consensus is science”. He deliberately distorts what people say so that he can argue that they are wrong. The only person who is wrong in everything they say is Keyes himself. What I did say was that anyone, including Keyes, who says “consensus does not exist in science” is lying. Anyone who has any knowledge of how science works will appreciate that I am correct. Only dishonest deniers twist words to say the opposite.
An example of how Keyes distorts peoples’ words is as follow: if someone says “chromatography is science” you cannot twist it and say “science is chromatography”. That is exactly what dishonest denier troll Keyes has done to my comments.
The only person who gets ridiculed as an ignoramus, a dishonest one at that, is Keyes.
-
Brad
-
Forrester:
Nowhere did I ever say “consensus is science”.
You said that people who disagreed with that claim were to be ridiculed:
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
Are you now saying “consensus is not science”?
-
BBD,
I repeat,
You have already decided what Brad K’s reasons are and you have clearly outlined what you think they are here and at the Feb thread.
I am not making this comment to defend Brad K.
My comment is more to do with my disappointment in your behaviour after you began with halfway decent questions.
He has already explained that other than being a libertarian (in the original defintion of the word NOT the Americanism of it), the rest of your ‘right wing etc…’ summation of either his motivations or his reasons was incorrect and therefore baseless.
If you are not prepared to understand that or engage on his point above about science and consensus, then you can’t progress this discussion in a civil manner.
I was reading online this morning and stumbled accross this article about the current state of politics in Australia (where I come from).
The rhetoric and the narrative at the moment is directionless.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-has-lost-the-plot-and-the-narrative-20130221-2eua9.html
I think the same applies to the climate debate.
We all know that the planet and the climate would be different if there were no humans or less humans.
The real issue is not the science BBD, it is most definitely a social/policy issue.
It looks like nearly everyone has lost the plot in a similar fashion to what is outlined in this opinion piece.
Most people do not care about all the complications and intricacies or who is employed by whom or who is funded by whom.
They just want to be able to trust that people have ethics and integrity and will do their best to do right thing.
I also found this link which looks like it agrees with David B that warmer temps probably will mean higher humidity.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/global-warming-may-hurt-productivity-study/story-e6frg6nf-1226584737038
“The study, published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, uses a computer model that simulates warming and a rise in humidity and their impact on strenuous outdoor activity.”
” It foresees warming of 1.4-1.7C and a humidity rise of 11 per cent by 2050 compared to this benchmark.”
But the conclusion is:
” The authors point out that the models do not take into account several factors that could change the picture, such as technological change and fluctuations in carbon emissions.” -
This is fun.
-
Ignoramus Keyes is so stupid does he cannot see that removing a “not” in a phrase dos not make it mean the opposite. Consensus is part of science but is not everything in science. See my previous post if anyone has difficulty in understanding this simple concept.
Keyes’ ignorance and arrogance get worse and worse as he contributes more and more dishonest rubbish to this thread.
-
BBD:
we aren’t going to talk about the other conversation you were having about the scientific consensus. We have had that discussion. You know my position.
Not with any confidence. It would be a big help if you could simply make it explicit. It should only take you a few seconds to agree with my 6 statements.
-
Ian,
So you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?
-
Ian,
So you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?
-
Keyes, consensus is part of science, get that through your thick skull. It is how science shows what the true facts are, once all, or a large majority, of scientific evidence points to one answer then the consensus has been established. There will always be idiots and ignoramuses like you who disagree but you are a very small minority.
I don’t understand why a scientific illiterate such as Keyes thinks he knows all about how science works and scientists don’t. Oooh wait a moment, didn’t Dunning and Kruger have some thing to say about that?.
-
Brad
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.
What reasons?
-
Ian Forrester,
“…… he cannot see that removing a “not” in a phrase dos not make it mean the opposite.”
That is actually correct.
Well done Ian Forrester!
Well done!
So Ian Forrester,
Why are you having difficulty understanding that it works both ways?
More often than not if ANYONE questions anything here, it is automatically assumed that they must believe in the ‘opposite’
Further,that ‘opposite’ is usually somehow connected to suspicious funding, right wings, crank blogs or a comprehension disorder.
That is actually at the root of the poor engagement between BBD and BradK at the moment.
BBD has ‘assumed’ that Brad K is ‘contrarian’ and believes in the ‘opposite’ of whatever BBD believes in.
To engage with that assumption, one is expected to argue that they are not what they are not and did not mean what they did not mean….which is a little like your complaint above.
It’s rather irritating isn’t it? -
RPJr is the next thing to a charlatan; his views on matters pertaining to climate are entirely ignorable.
In my considered opinion.
-
Ian,
Just to clarify,
Do you agree with us deniers that consensus is not science?
-
David,
what about the views of the former IPCC chief, Robert Watson, whom Roger Pielke Jr quoted?
Are his views on matter pertaining to climate ignorable?
-
BBD:
What reasons?
I’d be more inclined to risk hours of my life cordially discussing these reasons with you if you could just spend a few seconds clarifying your yes / no position with respect to the 6 axioms I enumerated.
-
So…..Brad still doesn’t understand what the scientific consensus describes….or is pretending he doesn’t.
Chameleon, on the other hand, doesn’t have to pretend anything – “warmer temperatures mean more humidity”!
Gee whiz! How humid is the Sahara, genius?
-
David B,
Because I respect the way you engage here, you have motivated me to look up Roger Pielke Jr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.
This is his wikipedia link but google also bring up heaps of other stuff which includes his blog (which I have never visited)
Do you mind explaining why you personally consider him a charlatan? -
Your “axioms” are meaningless drivel, Brad.
In the absence of any qualifications or expertise (that’s you), you need to defer to the scientific consensus, unless, you have information to the contrary.
As we’ve established, your belief – to take one example – that sensitivity is 1.5 degrees is not based on any personal information held by you. It’s a made-up load of nonsense which you ..er…support by boasting that you haven’t read any of the primary literature on the subject.
I mean, really, where on earth does this ridiculous act of yours play well? The half-wit club?
-
Brad Keyes:
I repeat:
—the only opinions I’ve expressed about climate sensitivity were those you* and BBD dragged out of me by insisting that no conversation was possible unless I shared them with you.
[snip]
I did so with the qualification that I might be wrong and that you were free to convince me that ECS was higher
And this is my point. You have been shown to be wrong about climate sensitivity. You have been shown that the MBH98 hockey stick is corroborated by at least five independent proxies.
You have not however acknowledged your errors of understanding.
Why will you not admit that you were wrong in your understanding of climate sensitivity?
Why will you not admit that the MBH98 hockey stick is replicated by completely independent studies, using completely independent proxies?
And for the record, just how did you expect to have a conversation about how scientists are (in your opinion) wrong, if you didn’t first clearly put forward your own understanding?! Why was it necessary to ‘drag’ this from you at all?
[*For the record, it was BBD only who "dragged" from you your understanding (or rather, lack thereof) about climate sensitivity, as posted back on 10 February (comment #25 on page 7):,
I consider a sensitivity less than 1.5C per CO2 doubling to be much more likely. But if you want to upsell me to twice that, I’m all ears. What is the argument for a higher sensitivity?
I joined that conversation at comment #81 of the same page, quite a time after you posted your own comment.]
-
BK
I’ll be happy to spend those hours in cordial discussion once you have answered the question:
What reasons?
This has nothing to do with the other conversation, and pretending that it does, and making conditions conditional on that pretence, is transparently evasive.
-
Vince,
As David B clearly pointed out, that higher humidity with higher temps was definitely not uniform.
Using the Sahara as an argument is totally irrelevant. -
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
-
BBD:
I’ll be happy to spend those hours in cordial discussion once you have answered the question:
What reasons?
That will take hours.
And those hours will be wasted (however cordially) unless we both mean the same thing by terms such as “science” and “evidence.”
Therefore such a conversation is, alas, contingent on your yes / no answer with respect to the 6 axioms I enumerated.
You could have acknowledged all 6 in the time you’ve misspent arguing why you don’t need to.
Then we could have moved on to the long, cordial discussion of my reasons.
-
Bernard J:
You have not however acknowledged your errors of understanding.
Why will you not admit that you were wrong in your understanding of climate sensitivity?
Because that would be dishonest.
I haven’t had time to critically read enough evidence to say that (though you may or may not have provided me with it already—I can’t tell, because I haven’t had time to critically read it).
I have done the next best thing and openly said I was less confident than before in my earlier estimate.
Apparently you expect more than that.
Sorry.
-
BernardJ:
For the record, it was BBD only who “dragged” from you your understanding [...] on 10 February (comment #25 on page 7)
Fair enough.
-
chameleon — RPJr is a political scientist. His ventures into the use of statistics are overly naive (but then, that may be easily be said of a great many scientists of many different flavors). He then brings a ‘stance’ to his policy proclamations. That would be acceptable except he fails, consistently, to mention that such are merely political, not informed by physical science or even economics (which he knows less than he thinks he does). So, in summary, he pretends an understanding much greater than he actually possesses.
Brad Keyes — I don’t know what Watson is quoted as having said or written.
-
Ian:
I don’t understand why a scientific illiterate such as Keyes thinks he knows all about how science works and scientists don’t.
Er, you’re making things hard for yourself there by trying to understand something that isn’t real.
I firmly believe that scientists do know how science works.
That’s why, when someone demonstrates an abject failure to understand how science works, for instance by saying something like this …
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.
… I automatically assume he or she is not a scientist.
And I’m always right.
-
Chameleon amuses us with,
As David B clearly pointed out, that higher humidity with higher temps was definitely not uniform.
Using the Sahara as an argument is totally irrelevant.Sydney’s humidity is 71% at the moment, whereas Adelaide’s is apparently 43%.
The modelling in the study you mention involved an 11% increase in humidity.
Clearly, there are bigger factors affecting humidity than temperature.
It occurs to me – heating up a given chunk of air actually decreases its relative humidity.
So air could get warmer, pick up additional moisture, and yet remain at the same relative humidity level….hmmm….In any case, I wasn’t saying that a warmer world wouldn’t have more water vapour in it .
What I *was* saying, was that 250 million years ago, all that additional water vapour wasn’t much help to the vast tracts of the continent it never fell on. We know from the rocks that it was a very, very arid time, with hot, mostly lifeless seas, and a hot, mostly lifeless continent. -
I haven’t had time to critically read enough evidence to say that (though you may or may not have provided me with it already—I can’t tell, because I haven’t had time to critically read it).
I have done the next best thing and openly said I was less confident than before in my earlier estimate.
Apparently you expect more than that.
I expect that anyone who is going to engage in a discussion of science, and especially a discussion where the science is challenged, would be sufficiently informed so as to understand the basics – at least to the point of having an operational capacity to so engage.
After many pages of your blatherskiting, and on every substantive point of human-caused global warming that you have attempted contradict, I have been firmly left with the impression that you are not sufficiently informed to make a competent judgement.
-
David:
Brad Keyes — I don’t know what Watson is quoted as having said or written.
OK, but you shouldn’t need to. You know who Watson is, so you should be able to say whether his opinions are ignorable a priori. That’s what “ignoring” means, does it not?
Anyway:
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.
(In passing, I think it takes a very special mind to be worried by the discovery that things aren’t as bad as the IPCC has been telling us. Normal people would be relieved. What kind of perverse incentives govern Watson’s attitudes?!?)
-
Wahhh! The IPCC did some typos! Outrage!
Nice one, Brad, I don’t think the Merchants had tried that one yet.
And, you’re wrong. Again. On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change.
but….but….typos!!!111!!!!1!1
-
Incidentally, we understand your aversion to reading any of the primary materials you like to write off as being wrong or the product of conspiracy, but maybe we can ask you to read these two documents and then explain to us exactly what errors are contained within?
(This is your opportunity to display some scepticism towards the crank blogs you get this drivel from – who knows? you might come to the stunning realisation that the crnak blogs are horribly misinformational!)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.htmlSpot any errors there?
No? How can this be?!Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html -
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29
is simply wrong (in that purported quotation) with regard to cryosphere changes and possibly extreme precipitation events, for example. -
Vince:
And, you’re wrong. Again. On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change.
For example, temperature? I suppose that’s changing faster than the IPCC predicted, Vince?
-
Vince:
Wahhh! The IPCC did some typos! Outrage!
FFS.
Name a typographical error for which the IPCC has attracted opprobrium / outrage / calls for Pachauri to be stood down / IAC investigations.
When Robert Watson said, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” which typos was he referring to, Vince?
-
Bernard J:
After many pages of your blatherskiting, and on every substantive point of human-caused global warming that you have attempted contradict, I have been firmly left with the impression that you are not sufficiently informed to make a competent judgement.
Oh well. I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore. It’s a pity you feel that way—we hate seeing you leave.
But c’est la vie. Enjoy the side threads.
-
10 pm Sunday place holder
-
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.htmlSpot any errors there?
No? How can this be?!Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.htmlRead them, and point out any errors. If you can. And if you can.
-
Vince:
And, you’re wrong. Again. On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change.
For example, temperature? I suppose that’s changing faster than the IPCC predicted, Vince?
I don’t know – I doubt the IPCC is in the business of making predictions, but you would have to check their projections to know how they did on heat accumulation.
Have you done so?
Or are you relying on some crap fed to you by cranks like Anthony Watts, seeing as you are too lazy (or is it stupid?) to read any primary materials yourself?
They were *definitely* underestimating the rate of sea level rise.
-
Here we go, Brad, it turns out (quelle énorme surprise!) that the advice you uncritically and unsceptically accepted from this Rovbert Watson (whoever he is) is totally wrong:
Arctic sea ice extentAccording to a study conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models. The study concludes that the 18 models on which the IPCC has based its current recommendations could already be out of date, and that the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC’s worst case scenario, possibly leading to an ice-free summer Arctic before the end of the 21st century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
So, Robert Watson was wrong. Your unnamed “Dutch Assessment” is obviously also incompetent. You sure pick your sources, eh Brad?
-
Brad Keyes, #88:
“Anyway:
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.(In passing, I think it takes a very special mind to be worried by the discovery that things aren’t as bad as the IPCC has been telling us. Normal people would be relieved. What kind of perverse incentives govern Watson’s attitudes?!?)”
Brad, are you not mis-reading Watson here? Surely what worries him is *not* the thought that actual warming has been overstated. What worries him is that the errors in the IPCC report are *all* in one direction, which (to his mind, and perhaps to those of others) might indicate some kind of bias.
-
Vince:
For example, temperature? I suppose that’s changing faster than the IPCC predicted, Vince?
I don’t know – I doubt the IPCC is in the business of making predictions,
And yet in your very next message, you argue that claims of IPCC alarmism are wrong because “Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models.”
LOL…
but you would have to check their projections to know how they did on heat accumulation.Have you done so?
NO, you would have to check their projections to know how they did on temperature, because:1. It was you who said that “On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change.”
2. The IPCC clearly has made projections of the “rate of change” of temperature.
3. The “rate of change” of temperature clearly is an “issue of substance” in the global warming debate.
FFS!
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 24, 2013
February 25, 2013
February 25, 2013
