Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    Lionel A,

    I apologise for blaming you for Ian Forrester’s comments.

    No excuses.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    But you’re not blaming you for your attacks against Ian saying what you NOW insist you’ve always said?

  3. #3 chek
    February 26, 2013

    And before this disdappears under the bridge with the troll, Stu at #75 highlighting your disgusting behaviour is not trolling.

    Naturally, I expected Calumny to jump right in and point out your error, but it seems our partisan li’ll trollette de toilette is nowhere to be found when it comes to “Brad’s” trangressions no matter how egregious they may be.

  4. #4 chameleon
    February 26, 2013

    BBD,
    unlike you apparently, I don’t spend all night online.
    But now I am back online:
    The bleeding obvious is you have already decided what the reasons/motivations are.
    You have made that clear at 2 threads.
    You are asking to be proved wrong.
    That’s just an attempt to lay a semantic trap, not a genuine attempt to learn or understand another point of view.
    I am disappointed because I did think you were asking genuine questions upthread.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    unlike Bray apparently, I don’t spend all night online.

    FTFY chubby.

  6. #6 BBD
    February 26, 2013

    chameleon

    Then answer the fucking question.

  7. #7 BBD
    February 26, 2013

    chameleon

    To avoid any further attempts at misrepresentation on your part, we shall recap.

    Brad said:

    I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

    I responded:

    You deny that it’s politics, deny that you are in denial and admit that you know nothing about the science. How you can reject the standard scientific position on AGW from a position of ignorance is a mystery to me, unless we invoke politics and/or denial arising from fear.

    So what are your reasons?

    What can they be?

    You asked:

    Why are you missing the bleeding obvious?

    The fucking question, oh not-bright candle, is being asked of Brad. If you are going to inject comments into other conversations, do better than this.

    Or I will be increasingly rude to you, as Brad has used up all my store of patience.

  8. #8 Vince Whirlwind
    February 26, 2013

    Brad says,

    You tell us, you quoted it – where did you get it from? Is it real?


    I got it from Roger Pielke Jr, as should have been obvious from my Roger Pielke Jr quotation.

    I see – so you were quoting the ever-unreliable Roger Pielke Jr who was quoting serial fabricator Jonathan Leake who wasn’t quoting Robert Watson.

    I’m glad that’s cleared up.

    Perhaps you could point out which of your “axioms of science discourse” would indicate that this kind of error-strewn shenanigans is a good idea?

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    Vince:

    I’m glad that’s cleared up.

    So am I. But the question is why it took you so long.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    chek:

    “Brad” a denier denying denial – or do you deny it?

    I’m an AGW believer denying AGW denial and professing AGW belief.

    Deny that, “chek,” and you’re denying the truth (not for the first time).

  11. #11 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    Yup, you’ve cracked!!!!

  12. #12 Wow
    February 26, 2013
  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    Forrester,

    on one of the minor threads you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that

    … scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You then linked your few readers to some google searches, which are of zero avail to you because they fail to show that I’ve ever denied the existence of consensus in science.

    Apparently you think you can justify your aspersion with the further generalisation that, “Anyone who checks these citations will see that [the alleged claim is] made regularly by well know[n] and not so well known AGW deniers.”

    Well, it is well know[n], among those who know stuff, that I am not an AGW denier.

    So that excuse is abortive.

    Secondly, even you know that I’ve never claimed that scientific consensus doesn’t exist. Google can’t help you prove a lie.

    Thirdly, just in case you were thinking of pretending you only accused me of saying that, “Science is not about consensus,” science is not about consensus. I don’t believe I’ve ever pointed it out to you before, largely because it’s so goddamn obvious. Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus. If you don’t grasp this, it’s a sad indictment of your nation’s education system.

  14. #14 chek
    February 26, 2013

    I have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right. says “Brad”
    versus
    “Brad” who now says:
    I’m an AGW believer denying AGW denial and professing AGW belief.

    Glad that we cleared up that you’re an opportunistic, confused, lying toe-rag.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    Chek,

    “I’m an AGW believer denying AGW denial and professing AGW belief.”

    Glad that we cleared up that you’re an opportunistic, confused, lying toe-rag.

    Please quote me ever denying AGW, you subpontine liar.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    “Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus”

    I suppose to an idiot like you, you don’ t know any better at all, do you.

  17. #17 chek
    February 26, 2013

    have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right. says “Brad”

    There you go sunshine. That’s you, that is.

  18. #18 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    “Please quote me ever denying AGW”

    This thread.

    Duh.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    We can all thank our lucky stars that it’s not just us who has no clue what the hell is wrong with Bray: he doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing either.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 26, 2013

    Yeah, vince, how come you took so long to tell Bray he’s wrong?

    Not even HE believed himself for a second!

  21. #21 chek
    February 26, 2013

    Once again, BBD’s perceptive comment to the effect that the inside of “Brad’s” head must be like a washing machine on an extended 2000 rpm spin cycle seems the only viable explanation..

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 26, 2013

    chek,

    Please quote me ever denying AGW, you subpontine liar.

  23. #23 bill
    February 26, 2013

    ‘Subpontine’? That’s bats number four, isn’t it?

  24. #24 chek
    February 26, 2013

    have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

    There ya go “Brad”. Let me know which of the big words you used without understanding them that you’re having trouble with now.

  25. #25 chek
    February 26, 2013

    Once again, no input from Calumny regarding “Brad’s” studied and evasive fuckwittery. How strange.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad says,

    Vince:

    I’m glad that’s cleared up.

    So am I. But the question is why it took you so long.

    I just wanted to be absolutely sure that you did indeed republish a fabricated quote without bothering to check its veracity.

    Let’s remember that the purpose of the fabricated quote was to denigrate the integrity and accuracy of the IPCC.

    Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science, however spreading invented accusations against the IPCC clearly reveals your motivations for claiming to have those reasons.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Incidentally, Brad, I seem to have missed your reasoned reponse to this:

    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    How about starting with
    Chapter4, Section5:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5.html
    4.5 Changes in Glaciers and Ice Caps

    How about finding just one error for us?

    Your reasons no doubt include your belief that the IPCC is wrong.

    Find some errors, demonstrate your reasons are real.

  28. #28 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Jeezus Kerrist.
    How long does it take to chew through a carpet anyway?

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    chek,

    Please quote me denying AGW, you subpontine liar.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince,

    I just wanted to be absolutely sure that you did indeed republish a fabricated quote without bothering to check its veracity.

    Let’s remember that the purpose of the fabricated quote was to denigrate the integrity and accuracy of the IPCC.

    If you literally believe someone fabricated the Robert Watson quote, I’m sure Roger Pielke Jr would like to know about it—why not post a comment to that effect at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html ?

    I’ll look out for your comment with interest, and for Pielke’s reply of course.

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince,

    Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science,

    Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science. That’s a figment of your imagination, just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW.

    Free advice: it’s not a good look for your position when you have to invent fictional opponents (sometimes called “straw men”) as a counterfoil.

  32. #32 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes asks:

    did I ask you to keep stalling? Or pony up your evidence?

    Keyes, all I am doing is giving to the opportunity to indicate that you understand what it is that others perceive in your behaviour here.

    You see, I wouldn’t want you to succumb to the temptation of saying “yeah, I knew that, but it was all a joke” when I come to specifics. I want to avoid post hoc rationalisation – something to which you seem rather prone…

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science.

    Your position on equilibrium climate sensitivity when you entered the discussion was a rejection of the best science.

    You rejected MBH98, and you were ignorant of independent temperature ‘hockey sticks’, which constitutes rejection by omission.

    You rejected the body of climatological ecophysiology that indicates that warming to the extent projected by the best understanding of climatic sensitivity will be serious, and indeed catastrophic, for many species on the planet.

    Of course, you have not actually said that you “reject climate science”, but then, that’s one of your little semantic tricksies, one of your linguistic straw men to which you are so partial…

    …has it never dawned on you that your ‘best’ arguments consist of logical fallacies rather than of empirically-supported, referenced and reasoned science?

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Bernard J:

    I want to avoid post hoc rationalisation – something to which you seem rather prone…

    And yet you’ve spent 24 hours and counting in ante hoc procrastination.

    Not looking good, Bernard.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Bernard J:

    I want to avoid post hoc rationalisation – something to which you seem rather prone…

    And yet you’ve spent 24 hours and counting in ante hoc procrastination.

    Not looking good, Bernard J.

  36. #36 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Please quote me denying AGW, you subpontine liar.

    I already did, “Brad”.
    Twice.
    How credible will the response to your own words be?
    Ranging somewhere between ‘not ver’y to ‘laughable’, I’d estimate

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    chek,

    Please quote me denying AGW, you charming, honest, rational entity of full human status.

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Bernard,

    I forgot to mention: please address me by my first (screen) name next time. Who do you think you are, my geography master?

    Courtesy. That’s all I demand.

  39. #39 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Somehow I thought you’d go with the laughable option, “Brad”.
    Deny is what deniers do.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Somehow I thought you’d persist in your bizarre delusion, “chek.” Believe is what believers do.

    Hint: my interlocutor at the time understood perfectly well, though you seem unable to, that I wasn’t referring to AGW when I used the phrase “the supposedly ‘majority’ position.”

  41. #41 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Presented with a detailed description of his denial of climate science, Brad can only repeat:

    Please quote me denying AGW,

    In addition to the list of examples of Denial you have been responsible for, I would add your opinions on ocean acidification, which also amount to a rejection of the science.

    I also note that you appear to not be embarrassed to have been caught out spreading the fabricated Watson “quote”. Apparently it’s all Pielke’s fault.

    Here’s a clue: it’s your choice to reject climate science and defer to crank bloggers, and so it’s your choice you are spreading lies and fabrications.

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Incidentally, Brad, I seem to have missed your reasoned reponse to this:

    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    How about starting with
    Chapter4, Section5:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5.html
    4.5 Changes in Glaciers and Ice Caps

    How about finding just one error for us?

    Your reasons no doubt include your belief that the IPCC is wrong.

    Find some errors, demonstrate your reasons are real.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post #0152 on this thread:

    “BEST didn’t look back far enough to confirm there was any Hockey Stick.

  44. #44 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0159 on this thread:

    The sporting equipment analogy is almost entirely (~80%) due to the long, straight “shaft” FOLLOWED by the “blade” (~20%).

    AND

    the only reason the “blade” (an imperceptibly slow improvement in the world’s weather over the last couple of centuries) can even be described as “sharp” or “dramatic” by otherwise sensible adults, with a straight face, is that it was allegedly preceded by almost a millennium of even LESS dramatic climate change.

  45. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0186 on this thread:

    no matter what BEST found, you couldn’t possibly be telling the truth when you claim they confirmed:
    …that Muller had been “wrong” to criticize Mann’s algorithm—in other words, Mann’s private, home-coded, non-standard, unexplained, undocumented statistical methods were kosher all along; they had (for example) no a priori tendency to create a hockey-stick shape

  46. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0188 on this thread:

    The first person on Earth to succeed in retracing Mann’s statistical steps, even in broad outline, was the retired Canadian mining mathematician Steve McIntyre,

    McIntyre is an incompetent incapable of the statistical task he set himself, who in fact *failed*, and then compounded his failure by making false assertions based on further mathematical incompetence on his part.

    Here, you are rejecting climate science on the basis of having swallowed blog-nonsense emitted by McIntyre.

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0188 on this thread:

    I repeat, the supposedly scientific paper had already been in print for SEVEN YEARS, and was still a methodological black box.

    More lies, garnished from crank blogs.

    You shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet, Brad, some of it’s unreliable!

  48. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0196 on this thread:

    “Mann’s data is freely availble,”

    1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

    False, again.

  49. #49 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0196 on this thread:

    3. The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 statistical “methodology.” Which he didn’t disclose.

    False, again.

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
    post0198 on this thread:

    “Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.” Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency’s Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn’t had time to study Dr. Mann’s rebuttals in detail and can’t say who is right.
    Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn’t mean its results in this case are wrong.”

    So, you reject climate science on the basis of what some bloke says, who admits he hasn’t looked into it properly.

    And then the obligatory fabricated quote at the end just for good measure.

  51. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    So, how many quotes have we got so far evidencing Brad’s rejection of climate science?

    And that’s just from Page 1.

    30 more pages contain plenty more such evidence.

    My expectation is:

    We’re going to see more Denial from Brad.

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    And yet you’ve spent 24 hours and counting in ante hoc procrastination.

    Ah, more irony from Keyes.

    Shall we just say that you can’t perceive any of your own behaviour on Deltoid that would lead others to speculate about you as possessing narcissistic and/or borderline psychopathic tendencies?

    Once we squeeze that admission from you we can start to catalog the examples of signs that would lead people to thus wonder about your psychological state.

  53. #53 David B. Benson
    February 27, 2013

    This is all dreadfully dull.

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince:

    I also note that you appear to not be embarrassed to have been caught out spreading the fabricated Watson “quote”. Apparently it’s all Pielke’s fault.

    Of course I’m not embarrassed to have retweeted that quote of the former IPCC chairman via a legitimate scholar. If you really believe it’s all a Romanian conspiracy to defame Robert Watson then why have you still not alerted Pielke Jr to your suspicions? The legitimate place to do so would on the page where the claim was made, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html . I look forward to seeing if you have the courage of your convictions.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince:

    So, you reject climate science on the basis of what some …

    Nope.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Bernard J:

    Once we squeeze that admission from you we can start to catalog the examples of signs that would lead people to thus wonder about your psychological state.

    No, you could have started the moment I asked you for your justification, more than a day ago. Enough of your dilatory games. Nobody is gullible enough to believe you’re waiting for the go-ahead from me.

    NB I advise against insulting our intelligence by pretending you can backtrack from the diagnosis you made. You weren’t idly “wondering.” You used the word “demonstrable.” Go ahead, demonstrate, or forever be thought a fraud.

  57. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    why have you still not alerted Pielke Jr to your suspicions?

    Why would I? The man is a known fantasist and an unreliable source of information. I’m under no obligation to engage with his nonsense.

    Seeing as *you* are the one who was taken in by his misinformation, *you* are the one who should be asking him to explain.

    Found any IPCC errors yet?

  58. #58 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad says,

    Vince:

    So, you reject climate science on the basis of what some …

    Nope.

    But you do, and you’re in denial about it – your belief that MIchael Mann’s mathematics is what Steve McIntyre says it is is plain wrong, and McIntyre’s ludicrous effort was shown to be utterly wrong years and years ago.

    You reject climate science. You believe any fabricated quote or inept bit of statistics that supports your rejection.

  59. #59 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad says,

    Of course I’m not embarrassed to have retweeted that quote of the former IPCC chairman via a legitimate scholar.

    A legitimate scholar whose “reference” for that supposed quote is a link to an article in The Australian.

    Truly pathetic.

    How about reading AR4, finding some errors, and publishing your work?

    It seems those who reject climate science are all talk and no action when it comes to doing any academic or science work of their own.

    All talk….

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince:

    How about reading AR4, finding some errors, and publishing your work?

    It seems those who reject climate science are all talk and no action when it comes to doing any academic or science work of their own.

    Publish my work? LOL…

    Kiiinda busy here.

    You’re asking me to spend more than a few hours on a subject which doesn’t generally hold my interest for more than 1 or 2 per sitting. I’ve read more than enough IPCC literature to know the limits of my attention span.

    I’m asking you to do nothing more than take your suspicions of quote fabrication to Pielke Jr. himself.

    Seeing as *you* are the one who was taken in by his misinformation, *you* are the one who should be asking him to explain.

    Except that I’m not the one who thinks the quote was fraudulent. That would be you. It’s odd that you’re willing to say so in comments here, but not at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html, where it might be read and acted on. I’m sure he’s a reasonable fellow and would appreciate an accusation like that being brought to his attention …if it’s correct. ;-)

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    I advise against insulting our intelligence by pretending you can backtrack from the diagnosis you made.

    I have no intention of backtracking Keyes. I do however find it interesting to watch your responses to my attempts to ascertain your own understanding of your behaviour.

    And a linguistic contortionist such as yourself should be aware that technically it’s not a “diagnosis”, but more like a “diagnostic impression”. You seem to be unaware that the two are different, and given your previous journals of pedantry you should be able to appreciate that such difference is important…

    But keep posting as you are. You are accumulating such a long list of subtle reinforcements of my diagnostic impression that I would never bother to waste the time it would take to actually list them and explain them, but posterity may one day appreciate them.

  62. #62 Bernard J.
    February 27, 2013

    And lest Keyes thinks that I am “backtracking”, I will catalog some of the signs of his behavioural peculiarities. I simply won’t waste the time that it would take to be comprehensive – his examples are simply too prolific to warrant listing by anyone other than a seriously ASD pedant or a postgrad.

  63. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    I’m asking you to do nothing more than take your suspicions of quote fabrication to Pielke Jr. himself.

    Seeing as *you* are the one who was taken in by his misinformation, *you* are the one who should be asking him to explain.

    Except that I’m not the one who thinks the quote was fraudulent.

    Well, we’ve established that the opinion expressed in that purported quote is an incorrect opinion.

    Additionally, Pielke is not a climate scientist.

    In the circumstances, this justifies me in my long-standing opinion that Pielke has nothing whatsoever to contribute to my understanding of climate science.

    You might want to reflect on your decision to reject sound, professional climate science based on the nonsense opinions and dubious quotes gleaned from non-science literature you obtain from serially-incorrect non-scientists such as Pielke.

  64. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    This is how science works in Brad land:
    Professional scientists conduct professional research and publish their results in the professional science literature.
    Brad doesn’t read it.
    Non-scientists with no relevant discernable skills such as Watts, McIntyre, and Pielke publish uneducated opinions, false assertions and flawed and incompetent statistical research on their crank blogs.
    Brad avidly reads thew crank blogs, copies it, pastes it, spreads it far and wide.

    Brad then tells us, “My opinion is worth as much as the scientific consensus on climate change”.

  65. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad claims,

    I’ve read more than enough IPCC literature to know the limits of my attention span.

    .

    a. Another admission that you intend to continue your argument from ignorance: you won’t read the IPCC, and yet you have some fringe, conspiracy-theorist opinions about it.

    b. Did you find any of these “IPCC errors” your crank-blogs are telling you about?

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Here’s yet another example of Brad being duplicitous:

    I said,

    Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science,

    He said,

    Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science. …
    .
    Free advice: it’s not a good look for your position when you have to invent fictional opponents (sometimes called “straw men”) as a counterfoil.

    Hilarious – you want to berate others about straw man arguments immediately after you throw up a straw man argument.

    The issue is: you reject climate science.

    Your strawman: you deny you claimed to reject climate science.

    This is the inevitable result of cognitive dissonance: you project your idiocy onto others – you, the one who rejects cluimagte science (won’t even read it!) in favour of crank blogs and their incompetent and dishonest assertions.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Back in your cage, Bray.

    You were a very naughty boy.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    ” Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science. …”

    Nowhere have we claimed you claimed to have rejected climate science.

    We claim you ARE DENYING it.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    J.,

    I will catalog some of the signs of his behavioural peculiarities.

    Oh goody. I thought for a minute you were weaseling out of it. You sounded more afraid of being weighed and found wanting than of going down in Internet history as a weaselweight milquetoast faquer.

    (I ought to remind you, though, that you impressionistically diagnosed me not with peculiar behaviour but with one-and-a-half personality disorders, J. That is the track whence you must not back.)

    I simply won’t waste the time that it would take to be comprehensive – his examples are simply too prolific to warrant listing by anyone other than a seriously ASD pedant or a postgrad.

    Ah! I knew it—you’re a pop-psychological poseur. A dabbling dilettante.

    But that’s OK.

    Fear not, please speak freely about me. We’ll all be just as fascinated by your informal observations of me as a structured profile of me. As much about me or as little about me as you want to say will be fine by me.

    Now, where were we up to about me—“narcissism,” right?

    An absurd charge!

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Vince,

    Allow me to remind everybody else of what you remember but avoid mentioning: you said that,

    Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science

    … which was a lie.

    Nowhere have I acknowledged rejecting climate science (because I don’t), let alone given reasons for doing so (because it would be silly to do so). That’s a figment of your imagination, just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW.

  71. #71 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Despite “Brad’s” feeble and unsupported protestations otherwise, what is interesting is that “Brad” here has swallowed every bit of the crank consensus (see the scratched surface of “Brad” repeated memes itemised by Vince, while simultaneously denying the validity of the scientific consensus.

    Which is only what is to be expected from crank deniers. As David Benson says, it’s all dreadfully dull and not news at all.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “Now, where were we up to about me—“narcissism,” right?

    An absurd charge!”

    Ah, who couldn’t see this one coming. What a moron!

  73. #73 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    “just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW.”

    That’s a figment of your imagination.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    Nowhere have I acknowledged rejecting climate science (because I don’t)

    indeed, you don’t acknowledge.

    You still do however.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 27, 2013

    I think Bray just had a bet on with Joan who could have the longest thread.

    It’s all entirely boring, predictable denial from Bray now, in a desperate attempt to drag it all out.

  76. #76 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Pretentious? Moi?

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    *Sigh*.

    Are you Loathsome tonight?

    I think between BBD and Wow and Bernard J and Vince (and more) they’ve nailed BK.

    It sure takes a lot of people to nail me in Lotharsson’s mind, doesn’t it?


    He simply won’t answer a straight question about his reasons for believing things that go against the mainstream conclusions of climate science,

    You say they do, but I’m still waiting for any legitimate opinion polling of climate scientists that suggests the “things” I believe are out of majoritarian sync. Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised if such data exists—since climate science (uniquely among sciences) has the cash to waste on gathering such scientifically-void “evidence.” But in the absence thereof, you can’t even make the scientifically-irrelevant assumption you’re making!

    preferring instead to throw up a smokescreen of his own questions (which lately, rather Latimer-like, are almost entirely irrelevant quibbles about definitions that no-one here is relying on in their critique of BK’s climate science position).

    Really? Nobody here is relying on bullshit consensualist arguments? Then their refusal—to a person—to acknowledge the illegitimacy of such arguments becomes a bit of a mystery, doesn’t it?


    His pattern of behaviour makes it hard to simultaneously rule out all three of: lying, mental illness and ignorance.

    Sure, for a trained psychologist. But you’re a professional blog commenter! Come on!

    See for instance merely the latest few of many – the assertion that he’s “defending the scientific process tooth and nail” when he personally refuses to accept the results of that process and literally denies rejecting those results,

    Wrong. I accept all (and only) the results of the scientific method on questions about nature.

    the apparent self-delusions about the superiority of his own faculties and the complete lack of change of position on any number of issues when it is demonstrated that his argument is fallacious or that evidence undermines it.

    Ah, this must be a reference to my intransigent rigidity on estimated ECS, the Rose / Murari Lal quote, the four or five times I’ve clearly misread someone’s comment in my haste or misattributed one of Ian Forrester’s obnoxious lies to Lionel A, and my continued insistence that Oreskes is medically and metallurgically illiterate.

    Hang on, that’s not right! I’ve changed my position on all those things.

    Nope, no idea what the hell the Loather is going on about.

    (And let me extend my apologies once more to Lionel and the lovely A family for inexplicably mistaking him for a forest troll.)


    His latest dodge – we have to totally agree on his definition of “evidence” before he will provide any otherwise it is “pointless” to do so – is not only fallacious, but appears to be a transparent attempt to avoid the question

    “Appears” to be “transparent”? Weasel, get thee hence.

    It’s an obvious and explicit attempt on my part, not to avoid the question as such, but to avoid wasting hours answering it. Why spend my precious time detailing the evidence against climate alarmism, and exposing the lack of evidence for it, if my interlocutor doesn’t even know and/or acknowledge the difference between evidence and non-evidence?

    All in all, Loather, that was a virtuoso blend of the irrelevant and the false. It may just be your best attempt yet!

    Finally I can’t help but chuckle at the total overnight disappearance of the “intellect envy” meme from the local pop-psychological discourse. Courage of your convictions, anyone?!

    LOL :-)

    Losers.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    This is how a palindromic pervert speaks to women …

    Amazing how you had to say that here on this thread, chubby.

    Go fuck off, you ignorant twat.

    … thus providing ample evidence for Mr. Alder’s moseisleyism:

    [Deltoid] was quite the weirdest and nastiest bit of the climatosphere I have ever visited. Perhaps the strangest part is that they delude themselves that they are a ‘high-traffic’ and highly successful part of the debate.

    Don’t go there. Life’s too short.

    Should’ve listened. Should’ve listened.

  79. #79 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Courage of your convictions, anyone?!

    Absolutely precious coming from you, precious.

    [Deltoid] was quite the weirdest and nastiest bit of the climatosphere I have ever visited. Perhaps the strangest part is that they delude themselves that they are a ‘high-traffic’ and highly successful part of the debate.

    Whatever else you may say, sniffing out shit from the shit purveyors isn’t difficult, nor sugar coated on this blog. Of course the obverse is that the honest have no problems whatsoever.

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Have you heard about the Loathsome Loather?

    He’s further amused!

    I am further amused by BK’s assertion that he hasn’t claimed to have rejected climate science, which is an obvious strawman and a continuation of the bad faith tactics.

    LOL. Magical thinking at its finest. As if calling it a “strawman” can turn back time and untell Vince’s lie:

    Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science

    And what classic theme do we find recurring here?

    I suspect that he’s used to having an audience who buy the shit he’s selling

    Yes, we’re familiar with your low opinion of the critical-thinking faculties of science and philosophy graduates, Lotharsson. We don’t understand it, but we’re familiar with it.

    Yawn.

  81. #81 chek
    February 27, 2013

    Yes, we’re familiar with your low opinion of the critical-thinking faculties propensity of those like me who believe and spout any old unsubstantiated denier garbage even though I quite shockingly claim to be a science and philosophy graduate[s], Lotharsson. We don’t understand it, After due consideration it is erminently understandable but we’re familiar with unfamiliar with being called out on it.

    Fixed that for you to make sense within the voluminous evidence contained in this thread “Brad”.

  82. #82 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Lotharsson’s summary on the other thread was spot-on.

    Your response another exercise in self-serving tripe.

    You bore me.

  83. #83 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    And you never answer my questions.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    # 78

    Latimer is a joke. He wouldn’t answer my questions either. Because I nailed his nonsense too.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    BBD,

    I’m still pondering your disagreement with 4 of the 6 statements I considered axiomatic—why do I consider them truisms? why do you consider them false despite the first 2 being true?, this kind of thing. I’d prefer to figure out what the stumbling blocks are to agreement and get around them than use the current impasse as an excuse to postpone evidence-based argumentation indefinitely, yet there can be no point moving ahead until we reconcile our understanding of how evidence works.

  86. #86 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    Balls. You are being evasive. You don’t get to insist on your own, private definitions of what constitutes scientific consensus.

    You can play these games with some people but not with me.

  87. #87 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    You would do infinitely better at this stage to explain and defend your reasoning for this:

    I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

    Just make a scientific argument against the scientific consensus. If you have one, that is.

  88. #88 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    If not, I predict you will go back to avoidance tactics dressed up as definitional argument about SC. As usual.

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    Oops!

    Brad says,

    But here you wander into denialand, Lionel:

    “But of course BK doesn’t deny AGW he believes it,”

    Are you denying that I deny it?

    Congratulations. I don’t.

    (*shh*—don’t tell Vince, or he’ll have you up on apostasy charges.)

    but of course I meant chek. Chek is the one who denies my belief in AGW; Vince denies my belief in climate science itself.

    Must remember not to get Dumb and Dumber mixed up.

  90. #90 BBD
    February 27, 2013

    BK

    Back at # 33, Bernard J said:

    [Brad Keyes, quoted:] “Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science.”

    Your position on equilibrium climate sensitivity when you entered the discussion was a rejection of the best science.

    You rejected MBH98, and you were ignorant of independent temperature ‘hockey sticks’, which constitutes rejection by omission.

    You rejected the body of climatological ecophysiology that indicates that warming to the extent projected by the best understanding of climatic sensitivity will be serious, and indeed catastrophic, for many species on the planet.

    Of course, you have not actually said that you “reject climate science”, but then, that’s one of your little semantic tricksies, one of your linguistic straw men to which you are so partial… [Emphasis added]

    …has it never dawned on you that your ‘best’ arguments consist of logical fallacies rather than of empirically-supported, referenced and reasoned science?

    Same old semantic tricksies, Brad. Some of us are bored, bored, bored…

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad says,

    I accept all (and only) the results of the scientific method on questions about nature.

    …and fabricated quotes repeated by non-scientists like Pielke

    … and defective statistics from a non-scientist called McIntyre.

    …. and an anti evidence-based belief in a “Climategate” whistleblower, when the cops themselves say it was an illegal access from the outside.

    Scientific method? Pull the other one.

  92. #92 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    Brad now says,

    Nowhere have I acknowledged rejecting climate science (because I don’t), let alone given reasons for doing so (because it would be silly to do so). That’s a figment of your imagination,.

    Which is a contradiction of what he has previously said:

    I have reasons … for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

    Discounting the first strawman, (denying you acknowledge being a denier of climate science), what is clear is that you deny climate science, and you claim to have reasons for doing so.

    So far, those reasons amount to a great gabble of garbage gleaned from crank blogs with virtually zero reference to primary sources.

    You may think those are reasons for your denial of climate science, but it is patently obvious from just what piss-poor reasons those are that you are in fact driven by motivations, not reasons.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 27, 2013

    BBD:

    Balls. You are being evasive. You don’t get to insist on your own, private definitions of what constitutes scientific consensus.

    Gonads. You are being lubricious. My “own, private definition of what constitutes scientific consensus” is confirmed by every dictionary known to man, BBD. You don’t get to insist on the priority of some random enthusiast’s Wikipedia spiel over legitimate lexicography.

    Bernard J may have had the brains to say,

    Of course, you have not actually said that you “reject climate science”, but then, that’s one of your little semantic tricksies

    (otherwise known as facts), but that didn’t stop Vince from lying, did it? As I told him:

    Vince,

    Allow me to remind everybody else of what you remember but avoid mentioning: you said that,

    “Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science”

    … which was a lie.

    Nowhere have I acknowledged rejecting climate science (because I don’t), let alone given reasons for doing so (because it would be silly to do so). That’s a figment of your imagination, just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW.

    Finally, thanks for your concern, BBD:

    Brad, I’m almost certain that if you keep posting outside the Brangelina thread you will be banned. TL is bound to notice eventually.

    Oh, I’m sure he’s already noticed that the February thread can’t seem to stop talking about me (in craven and forked tongue) and is more than happy for me to occasionally intervene against the constant trickle of defamation if I generate interest in both threads, which, of course, I do.

  94. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    February 27, 2013

    “Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science”

    … which was a lie.

    You are the liar. Or you’re simply stupid.

    You *do* reject climate science. (eg, referencing non-scientist Pielke’s nonsense).

    When questioned, you refer to the *reasons* for your beliefs, in the context of denying you have political motivations.

    To summarise:
    – you deny climate science
    – you rely on cranks to support your position
    – you give those cranks’ misbegotten opinions as your “reasons”
    – you deny your reasons are factually incorrect
    – you deny being moitivated in your denial
    – you deny your denial

  95. #95 bill
    February 27, 2013

    Lubricious.

    Adjective:
    Offensively displaying or intended to arouse sexual desire.
    Smooth and slippery with oil or a similar substance.

    Sorry, you’re a ‘graduate’ in what, again?

  96. #96 Stu
    February 27, 2013

    But Vince, Pielke is a scientist. As is Pauling. As is Wakefield. As is Newton. I mean, there is absolutely no precedent for a scientist going off the deep end. And even if that did happen, luckily, science totally depends on what a person of authority said, rather than reproducible results. See, this is why evolution is 100% about what Darwin wrote, and why climate change is 100% about what Mann wrote. Science has no mechanism for self-correction whatsoever.

  97. #97 Gator
    February 27, 2013

    Stu, I think Vince is referring to Pielke Jr. the non-scientist, not Pielke Sr. the deep-end scientist.

  98. #98 David B. Benson
    February 28, 2013

    RPJr is a political scientist and so a scientist in the wider sense of a seeker and disseminator of truths about the universe. Unfortunately he is not very good at matters climatological.

  99. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Stu, you’ll notice that Brad didn’t touch the “Pielke isn’t a scientist”.
    The reason should be obvious.
    Brad relying on a non-scientist such as Pielke for his info is therefore not a personal decision he can even defend.

    David – you’re very generous. I, for one, wouldn’t praise Pielke by saying he is “not very good”.

  100. #100 David B. Benson
    February 28, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — I try to be polite.