Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.
    http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/john-cook-3280/profile_bio
    http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/stephan-lewandowsky-685/profile_bio
    Just posting up the profiles of the 3 gentlemen that are getting multiple mentions atthis thread and the Feb thread.
    It appears that along with Roger Pielke jnr, Lewandowsky and Cook are probably not particularly good in matters climatalogical either?
    All of them do run blogs on the subject however.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    OK, Chameleon, we’ve demonstrated that Pielke’s opinions about climate science rest on non-facts and apparently fabricated quotes containing incorrect opinions.

    How about you demonstrate any error Lewandowsky or Cook have made in relation to climate science?

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince:

    Stu, you’ll notice that Brad didn’t touch the “Pielke isn’t a scientist”.
    The reason should be obvious.

    The reason is obvious to the sane:

    Pielke (Jr.) isn’t a scientist.

    What’s to touch?

    Brad relying on a non-scientist such as Pielke for his info is therefore not a personal decision he can even defend.

    Heh? I don’t apologise for a second for getting “info” from a non-scientist. Why should I? This weird new ethical code is your own invention.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince:

    OK, Chameleon, we’ve demonstrated that Pielke’s opinions about climate science rest on non-facts and apparently fabricated quotes containing incorrect opinions.

    You’ve “demonstrated” jack, in other words. You’ve proven to the world that you don’t trust Pielke Jr.

    Well la-dee-da.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince:

    How about you demonstrate any error Lewandowsky or Cook have made in relation to climate science?

    I’ll do you one better: Lewandowsky doesn’t know how science works.

    Check out this bollocks:

    Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.

    Neither does Cook:

    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.

  6. #6 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Vince?
    Why so tetchy?
    I was merely agreeing with DavidB that there are high profile people who are commenting on issues climatology who are probably not any good at it.
    Pielke jnr would be ONE of many!
    I could add more to that list if you like?
    I just put up the extra ones who have been quoted/mentioned numerous times here.
    I fail to see why you now demand that requires me to prove anything else about them?
    I have already posted their profiles.
    What else do you need?
    They, like Pielke, do not possess the necessary quals to be considered a ‘climate scientist’.
    However, they like Pielke do indeed run blogs on the subject.
    What’s your problem with that observation Vince?

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Stu:

    Oh hey, Brad, I must have missed it. In which comment did you publicly apologize for being openly, utterly and abjectly wrong about there being a well-funded climate denial network?

    Don’t worry Stu, you didn’t miss anything—I haven’t apologised for what you imagine to be my error on that front. Nor do I have any plans to do so.

    1. no scientists—well-funded, destitute or anywhere in-between—are denying climate

    2. the fossil-fuel multinationals are pouring their financial support into alarmist (or as you would call it, “mainstream”) climate science. Read the Climategate emails. The scientists you consider “good guys” are the ones giving Big Oil “input into the research agenda,” and asking their colleagues to “find angles that would appeal to [Exxon-Mobil],” in exchange for fossil-fuel “largesse.” Hell, which multinational corporation do you reckon put on the champagne and canapés for the book launch of Rajendra Pachauri’s bodice-ripping pulp fiction? The answer may shock and alarm you. Have you asked yourself how the directors of these companies would justify to their shareholders the simultaneous expenditure of large amounts of cash on both pro- and contra-CAGW research?

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    bill,

    Google it and you’ll find:

    Lubricious.
    adj.
    1. Having a slippery or smooth quality.
    2. Shifty or tricky.
    3. a. Lewd; wanton.
    b. Sexually stimulating; salacious.

    Are you really unable to figure out from the context which sense I meant?

    Hint: I highlighted it.

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

    Why do you ask?

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Jeff Harvey,

    you reply to chameleon’s citation of a new paper as follows:

    “When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate ‘scepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No.

    (There follows a description of a paper-counting exercise in which “meaningfulness” is implicitly defined as “proportion of papers supporting.”)

    Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 ‘clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.’

    Does chameleon argue against global warming or argue that recent warming is not man-made? (I’m not being a smart-arse, I’m genuinely asking.)

    So: 24 studies out of 13,950. That is 0.0017%. In other words, chammy is telling the scientific community that we don’t pay enough attention to 0.0017% of published papers, or that we ought to.

    How much attention should we pay to them in your opinion, Jeff? 0.0017% of our total attention? Less? Zero?

    Moreover, since most denier sites on the internet are operated by non-scientists, its hardly surprising that these pundits don’t know a thing about climate science and are camouflaging their own personal political agendas under the banner of ‘sound science’.

    Most believer sites on the internet are also operated by non-scientists. Shall we follow that through to its logical extension?

    Chammy, give it a rest, will you? You are beating a drum out of pure and utter ignorance of how science works and of the massive overwhelming consensus amongst researchers in the field.

    Could you elaborate on this accusation please Jeff?

    What aspect of “how science works” does chameleon show signs of failing to know?

    Does science work by counting papers?

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Me:

    we’ve demonstrated that Pielke’s opinions about climate science rest on non-facts

    Brad, in denial:

    You’ve “demonstrated” jack, in other words

    You have been unable to find one single error in the IPCC whereas I have highlighted one.

    The error I highlighted was an error of understatement, proving Pielke’s assertion (via fabtricated quote) wrong.

    We have thus demonstrated not only that Pielke is, as you say, untrustworthy, but also that you are unequipped – be it intellectually or just factually – to support Pielke’s assertion.

    Curiously though, you continue to deny. Deny. Deny.

    Everything you say is instantly shown to be shallow, wrong, or dishonest. And yet you continue.

    Clearly, you are motivated by something you won’t admit to. Yet.

  11. #11 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Vince?
    WTF?

  12. #12 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Most believer sites on the internet are also operated by non-scientists. Shall we follow that through to its logical extension?

    The ever-dishonest “Brad” attempts to create more false equivalence. The difference is that “Brad’s” ‘believer’ sites don’t invent their own crank theories or promote crank theories by cranks and pielkejrs et al., but do promote the peer reviewed science and the scientific consensus as does the IPCC.

    “Brad’s” ”logical” extension would of course be a hoot to see, but always, always, always fundamentally dishonest. Much like “Brad” himself.

  13. #13 chek
    February 28, 2013

    I’ll do you one better:

    Claims “Brad”.
    But then doesn’t.

  14. #14 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Chek?
    WTF?

  15. #15 chek
    February 28, 2013

    “Brad” at comment#7 avoids Stu’s question and refuses to apolgise for his error with yet more of his serially dishonest false equivalence.

    What is it about deniers that makes honesty impossible for them?

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    chek,

    I’ll do you one better:

    Claims “Brad”.
    But then doesn’t.

    LOL… are you telling us (before the Unblinking, Unforgetting Eye) that you can’t see a problem with Lewandowsky’s attempt at philosophy of science?

    Think carefully.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    John Cook has an article about the Recursive Fury paper at Huffington Post, where conspiracy theorists add comments to the article that reinforce the findings of the paper.

    Yes, who can forget when the original, seminal paper—Precursive Fury: When NASA Scientists Who’ve Walked on the Moon Go Skeptic—was published to widespread academic acclaim? What fun times we all had on Lewandowsky’s shapingtomorrowsworld site (which absolutely does not take its name from the environmental movement’s alleged itch for international power and influence, which is just a denier lie)!

    It wasn’t all beer and skittles though. Inexplicably, for at least two sustained weeks, Lewandowsky’s SS kidz would delete all my attempts to post the following:

    _______________________________________

    Here’s my favorite krazy klimate konspiracy theory, which seeks to explain the large number of skeptical comments on climate blogs:

    “Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.”

    Cue spooky music!

    The conspiracy theorist I’m quoting? One Professor S. Lewandowsky.

    (The beneficiary of Lewandowsky’s sagacious and not-at-all-paranoid thoughts? One Alene Composta, a satirical character whom Lewandowsky mistook for a person.)

  18. #18 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    It’s not a conspiracy theory.

    It’s a known activity engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, often emplying students at cheap rates.

    http://www.informationweek.com/security/client/air-force-seeks-fake-online-social-media/229219056

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing

    http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html

    http://www.examiner.com/article/centcom-government-not-using-persona-management-software-united-states

    I guess we can add the use of fake IDs to astroturf online media to the long list of subjects about which you are determined to offer opinion despite being in a position of apparently profound ignorance.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Hey Chek, (Ali G voice:) “High Five!?”

    Will he come back for more humiliation?

  20. #20 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    What is it about deniers that makes honesty impossible for them?

    Because reality is against them.

    Therefore reality MUST BE DESTROYED.

  21. #23 chek
    February 28, 2013

    And cranks like “Brad” really, really hate Lewandowsky.

  22. #24 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Hey Vince?
    How about I do a BBD and insist you answer my question at #6?
    Why so tetchy about me agreeing with David B and providing further evidence?
    Would you like me to add some more names to that list Vince?
    I could also add the names of people who run blogs on climate who do actually possess quals in that field.
    And yes M Mann would be ONE of them.
    :-)
    J Curry would be another ONE of them.
    :-)
    There are others.

  23. #25 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon

    How about you engage about K13 on the other thread? You brought this study up, after all.

  24. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    *** I have an admission to make – “Vince Whirlwind” is a fake ID that I use to try to spoil the astroturf.
    I was using my real name, but my employer is a multinational who could easily get very cranky with me if I upset any future anti-science government that might soon get in by calling them out for the ignorant anti-science liars in league with the cretinous Tea Party. that they are.

  25. #27 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Chek,
    Hate Lewandowsky?
    Seriously?
    Lewandowsky has less credibilty to comment on matters climatology than Pielke jnr.
    Hate and/or like has SFA to do with the matter.
    Read the profiles Chek.
    David B was right about Pielke jnr and Lewandowsky is even less qualified.

  26. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon, the point you seem to have missed is this: your question was based on a false premise.

    Let me explain it simply to you:
    – Pielke is a non-scientist who has written many incorrect things about climate science
    – Lewandowsky is a non-scientists who has written only correct things about climate science
    – Cook is a science educator who has written only correct things abuot climate science

    So, you see, with Pielke spouting nonsense about climate science, and the other two talking sense, your question which rested on the assumption that they shared the same approach to clomaet science was therefore an invalid question.

    So, I’m not tetchy, you’re just wrong.

  27. #29 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    Lewandowsky has less credibilty to comment on matters climatology than Pielke jnr.

    Well, seeing as we have pointed out a few of Pielke’s false assertions about climate science, how about you match us with some false assertions from Lewandowsky:

    ….

    If you can’t then you will be admitting that your assertion above was also a false assertion.

  28. #30 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    So, Brad. How do we reconcile your ophidian rhetoric with your rare, unguarded statements?

    How do we reconcile your attempts to say one thing while constantly implying another?

    How do we reconcile your pretence of acceptance of AGW with this:

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

    The parsimonious explanation is that you are a liar and a troll. Since you refuse to explain your reasoning behind the oft-quoted statement above, I’m inclined to stick with the parsimonious explanation.

  29. #31 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Oh chameleon, my dear…? Kopp et al?

  30. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince:

    It’s not a conspiracy theory.

    It’s a known activity engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, often emplying students at cheap rates.

    Really? There’s a proven conspiracy, known to be engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, to clandestinely pay climate skeptics to comment, using multiple personae, at Alene Composta’s blog???

    LOL.

    Ah, no, fellas, that would be what your sophistimicated academic types call a “conspiracy theory.”*

    Just because someone, somewhere in history has done it for some reason to some poor soul, doesn’t mean they’re doing it to you right now via your dental fillings. Sheesh.

    * Why not look it up? You’ll be amazed to know that your better-quality dictionaries these days actually define double-word phrases—things like “flying fox,” “Trojan horse,” “inkjet printer” etc. (but not phrases that are no more than the sum of their parts, like “scientific consensus”).

  31. #33 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Well yes I did BBD,
    So far the commenters only want to invent arguments with me, not discuss the new publication.
    I’m assuming they’re waiting for some hints from Tamino or SKS or Rabbet or WUWT or Jonova.
    Vince seems to be struggling with the concept of ‘not dissimlar’.
    Bill and rhwombat have opted out entirely.
    What would you like me to add?
    I provided the link, the summary and my assessment of the conclusions.
    Do you think they’re incorrect?

  32. #34 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    Can we discuss K13 on the open thread? I will respond there.

  33. #35 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    We’re trying to discuss it, Chameleon, but you don’t seem to be joining in.

    Why is that?

    Why can’t you describe how you came across it?

    Why do you falsely claim to have provided a summary when all you did was cut and paste the abstract and then add in a mysterying reference to Church et al?

    Why don’t you stop posting other stuff and come and actually make some comments about your paper rather than just falsely claim to have done so?

  34. #36 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Ummmm Vince?
    Is Lewandowsky a Climate scientist for fox ache?
    I was merely agreeing with David B and adding further comment on other non qualified people who run blogs on matters climatology.
    Why are you so tetchy about that?
    Lewandowsky has no more credibilty in matters climate than Peilke jnr.
    I suppose if you disagree with that, you can explain why you think he does?
    I can find nothing in his profile that would indicate that.
    If there is, please enlighten me :-)

  35. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Why am I not surprised that this statement of Brad’s,

    Really? There’s a proven conspiracy, known to be engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, to clandestinely pay climate skeptics to comment, using multiple personae, at Alene Composta’s blog???

    is entirely different from what was asserted?

    Just can’t help himself.

    A liar and a troll, whose argument cannot even begin without a logical fallacy.

  36. #38 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon – open thread.

  37. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    Lewandowsky has less credibilty to comment on matters climatology than Pielke jnr.

    Well, seeing as we have pointed out a few of Pielke’s false assertions about climate science, how about you match us with some false assertions from Lewandowsky:

    ….

    If you can’t then you will be admitting that your assertion above was also a false assertion.

  38. #40 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    Of course BBD,
    It is however 10pm in OZ EDST
    I need my 7-8 hours.
    It may have to be tomorrow.
    :-)

  39. #41 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Why is it you have time to post lies on this thread, but no time to quickly nip over to the other thread to post your assessment of this paper, which you have read?

  40. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Lewandowsky has no more credibilty in matters climate than Peilke jnr.
    I suppose if you disagree with that, you can explain why you think he does?
    I can find nothing in his profile that would indicate that.
    If there is, please enlighten me

    Easy, it goes like this:

    PIELKE = OFTEN WRONG

    LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG

    When you assess the credibility of two competing sources, the source that has often been found out to have been wrong is less credible and the source that has never been seen to be wrong is more credible.

    I wonder if you can grasp this concept?

  41. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    BBD:

    How do we reconcile your pretence of acceptance of AGW with this:

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

    That’s easy. It’s so easy I can’t believe you’re confused. In fact I’m almost inclined to think you’re just pretending to be confused, since you appeared to understand me perfectly well when this ancient quotation was first typed by me. (I wonder, is your recent onset of difficulty in reconciling my statements entirely genuine, BBD?)

    The solution to the grand paradox, as I’m confident you already know, is as follows.

    I do accept AGW, a phenomenon whose existence (by happy coincidence) is apparently accepted by the majority of climatologists too—though the evidence for it would be precisely as convincing as it is whether or not there was a professional consensus in its favor.

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    Please don’t misunderstand, inadvertently or otherwise, my hesitation to believe the claim that there’s a scientific consensus on the existence of an AGW crisis. In evaluating the climatic conjecture for myself, I don’t give a tinker’s cuss whether or not such a consensus exists. But for old-fashioned reasons of truth, honesty and the American way, I would prefer that you people not make things up, however irrelevant those things be.

  42. #44 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Chameleon

    You are being evasive. But I will be here tomorrow.

  43. #45 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    Why not? Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range?

  44. #46 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    And Brad, it’s not ‘apocryphal’. That is a misrepresentation so egregious it richly deserves the simpler description of ‘lie’.

  45. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Brad says,

    the evidence for it would be precisely as convincing as it is whether or not there was a professional consensus in its favor.

    Irrelevant – you don’t base your belief on the evidence, as you admit you don’t read any primary sources.

    And judging by your use of sources, you exclusively inform yourself from crank blogs, seeing as you repeat a whole raft of denier-nonsense, some of it years out of date.

    No Brad, if you aren’t completely delusional, it’s because you are a liar.

  46. #48 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    No BBD,
    Seriously.
    I do live in NSW Australia.
    It is now 10.45 pm.
    I’m tired and I need to sleep.
    I will re appear tomorrow :-)

  47. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Sou is plugging her own blog on one of the minor threads here:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/

    Wonder if someone can have a peep at this and tell me who is the crazy person – me or the subject of my latest post:

    A curious tale of a bloggie winner and his dog

    I’m always up for some amateur psychiatry (*cough*Bernard), so Sou’s enticement was irresistible.

    Having read her post, I second the advertisement. Read Sou’s Kenji Watts post. The usual rule applies though: the comments under it are more intelligent and interesting than the article itself.

    More to the point, anyone who’d like to see a case study in denial could do worse than reading Sou’s responses to her readers!

    First, I pointed out to the bloggeress:

    “Dog impersonations are okay but human impersonations are not. The other difference being that the UCS is completely open, while the Heartland Institute is a very secretive organisation.”

You forgot one last difference, Sou: Watts hasn’t tried to pass off an amateurish forgery as a leaked UCS document in order to pseudo-scandalize the target of his fun.

    Sou replied:

    Neither did Dr Gleick, so that’s a straw man.

    This reaction was surprising, to say the least!

    Did you know, gentle readers, that there are still people on the planet who haven’t heard about the fraudulence of the Heartland Institute’s supposed “Strategy Document,” Peter Gleick’s ninth “steal”?

    I didn’t.

    Naturally I wasted no time in sharing this year-old “news” with Sou, only to run into the brick wall of denial.

    Brad, you are welcome to contribute to discussion provided you do not promote unfounded and unsubstantiated rumours.

    Hmmm. Coming from a blog proprietoress who appears perfectly content to refer to Peter Gleick’s dossier as if it were authentic, it seems audacious (to put it kindly) to adopt a selective anti-rumor-mongering policy!

    But fair enough. It’s Sou’s blog—if she wants to moderate hypocritically, God bless her.

    So I tried again, removing any hint of endorsement of unproven claims.

    Brick wall.

    At this point, I’m afraid to say, Sou’s injunction against “promot[ing] unfounded and unsubstantiated rumours” could only be described as dishonest, given that my comment promoted no such thing.

    But I gave her the benefit of the doubt and submitted yet another iteration of the information, even more inoffensive, modestly-scoped and rigorously objective than the last, only to have Sou delete it again!

    LOL. Believers In Denial.

    Well, perhaps her name comes from the fact that she doesn’t give two sous for the facts?

    In any case, as a special treat to Deltoid readers, I now present v 3.0 of

    **** The Comment that was Too Hot for HotWhopper! ****
    _________________________________________________________________

    Sou,
    
1. I recommend Megan McArdle’s textual analysis of the 9th document in Dr Gleick’s Heartland dossier, the so-called “Strategy Document.” McArdle, a warmist at The Atlantic, comments that some sections of the Document “read like they were written from the secret villain’s lair in a Batman comic …by an intern.” In short, McArdle finds that it is unpersuasive as a real document.

2. Dr Mosher read the “Strategy Document” and publicly alleged that Dr Gleick was its author on the basis of the writing style, long before Gleick came out as the “leaker” of the dossier.

    (Amusingly, Dr Kaczynski was caught by writing-style analysis, but we needn’t go there! :-)… )
    __________________________________________________________________
    Afterword
    Dear Sou,

    You have serially deleted comments which made no factual claims you couldn’t easily verify yourself by googling, and which expressed no opinion other than that “I recommend McArdle’s article.”

    One struggles to see how such transparent and objective commentary could possibly be construed to “promote unfounded and unsubstantiated rumours.”

    What’s your real agenda in objecting to what I’ve posted, Sou?

    Because at the moment, of you, Anthony Watts and Kenji, I’d have to say you’re the crazy party.

  48. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon,

    Ummmm Vince?

    Is Lewandowsky a Climate scientist for fox ache?

    You’re forgetting, chameleon, that John Cook practices climate science “by virtue of his founding of, and involvement with” his blog*; and Lewandowsky is Cook’s mentor and teacher; so, by the socratoplatonaristotelian property, Lewandowsky is a jedi master of climate science.

    Simples!

    * Does not work for climate infidels.

  49. #51 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Brad

    What a vast cloud of obfuscatory pixels. Let’s get back to business.

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

    Modified as:

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    Why not? Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range?

    An impressively compressed misrepresentation: apocryphally “majority” view

    The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced. This is not apocryphal. Describing it as such is a lie.

    Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not ‘apocryphal’, the use of scare quotes around “majority” amplifies the lie.

  50. #52 chek
    February 28, 2013

    This one misrepresentation after another after another bt “Brad” is just getting tedious.
    “Brad”, you’ve just earned yourself the moniker “Bradliar”.
    Congratulations.

  51. #53 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    The deniers’ signature tune:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye_fZocBAMI

  52. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince and chek,

    since you’re having so much trouble following along, let me recap slowly.

    1. A ‘conspiracy theory’ (and Mac users just need to right-click to verify this) is defined as:

    conspiracy theory
    noun

    a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an event.

    2. Some meanie commenters at her blog made an imaginary woman cry.

    3. Stephan Lewandowsky, the great humanitarian and empath, reached out to dry her satirical tears by proffering the theory that the mean commenters were being covertly paid by unknown organizations to leave their mean comments, and to deceptively inflate their numbers by using multiple “personas”.

    4. Only a batshit-crazy person could have thought this was plausible.

    5. You’ve now helped flesh out the conspiracy theory by naming some suspects:

    It’s a known activity engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, often emplying students at cheap rates.

    6. Your argument, for want of a better word, seems to be that a roughly analogous technique has been used in unrelated contexts by organisations in the past; therefore it was NOT a conspiracy theory to theorise that pseudo-commenters employed by a covert organisation were conspiring against “Alene Composta” (a fictional, satirical character). Have I got that right?

    7. That’s a batshit-crazy conspiracy theory and you’re the theorists.

    8. Geddit?

  53. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    BBD:

    The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced. This is not apocryphal. Describing it as such is a lie.

    First of all, what kind of mealy-mouthed mustelism is the phrase “potentially dangerous,” BBD?

    I’m going to ignore that and pretend you said something pertinent to our actual disagreement, e.g. “a major net threat / risk / danger, on rational probabilistic average.”

    If this is the majority position among climate scientists, I wasn’t aware of that (and my opinion to the contrary cannot, therefore, have been a lie)—nor was I aware that you’d informed me of the existence of any research purporting to demonstrate that. (Have you?) If you have, then I missed it; please accept my apologies.

    How large is the majority of climate scientists who say they consider AGW to be a major net threat / risk / danger on rational probabilistic average unless we reduce our emissions, may I ask?

    As an aside, when you said “the majority position among climate scientists,” did you intend this to be synonymous with “the climate-scientific consensus”?

  54. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince:

    LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG

    Lewandowsky:

    Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.

    LOL

  55. #57 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    WTF?

  56. #58 Lionel A
    February 28, 2013

    BK wrote elsewhere:

    But here you wander into denialand, Lionel:

    Not so. Rose is repeating a mischaracterisation of the issue when on the other side, and just by way of example we have this from a real climate scientist :

    New Research Links Climate Change to Extremes.

    And you can forget the layers of introductory treacle.

    Answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?

  57. #59 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Bradliar still pfaffing about attempting another denier diversion by reducing science to a Bradliar approved definition, rather than deal with the published literature I see. What a time-wasting, sack-of-shit doofus.

    13,950 peer reviewed articles between 1991-2012, versus 24 contrarian ones

  58. #60 chek
    February 28, 2013

    LOL

    A zinging rebuttal there by Bradliar, fully within his competence this time, too.

  59. #61 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    BK

    The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced. This is not apocryphal. Describing it as such is a lie.

    Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not ‘apocryphal’, the use of scare quotes around “majority” amplifies the lie.

    You are lying troll.

  60. #62 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    BK

    How large is the majority of climate scientists who say they consider AGW to be a major net threat / risk / danger on rational probabilistic average unless we reduce our emissions, may I ask?

    Your claim is:

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

    Modified as:

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    To make these statements you must already know the answer to the question you pose. You must have REASONS. So you tell me.

  61. #63 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    BK

    Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range?

  62. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Lionel A:

    Answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?

    Yes.

    Yes I do, Lionel.

    I blieve, Amen.

  63. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    BBD:

    The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced.

    Sigh.

    So is walking your doggie.

    This “majority position” (citation?) is perfectly compatible with AGW being actually non-dangerous, and even beneficent (like other warming episodes).

  64. #66 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Bray can’t count!

  65. #67 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    BK

    1/ Answer the question posed at # 62. You *must* have this information in order to make the following claims:

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

    Modified as:

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    So you tell me – not ask me – about the size of what you assert is the apocryphally “majority” view.

    You assert that the “majority” is ‘apocryphal’. You *twice* put scare quotes around “majority”. Defend your assertion. Don’t ask me about this again until you have done so.

    2/ Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range? Third time of asking in a row. Answer please.

  66. #68 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    This “majority position” (citation?) is perfectly compatible with AGW being actually non-dangerous, and even beneficent (like other warming episodes).

    3/ What other abrupt >2.5C warming during an interglacial are you referring to here? I have no idea what you are talking about.

  67. #69 Lionel A
    February 28, 2013

    Keyes just cannot help himself:

    Yes.

    Yes I do, Lionel.

    I blieve, Amen.

    I thought as much, why use one word when you can use eight, well seven and a non-word. Prolix be thy name, but not the only one.

    Another display of your Janus face, and poor sense of humour whilst once again evading answering a question honestly.,

    So, to be clear, answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?

  68. #70 Stu
    February 28, 2013

    Let me get this straight, Brad. You said there was no such thing as a well-funded denialist propaganda operation. You were proven wrong. Now your argument is what, that the fossil-fuel industry (also) funds actual climate research?

    You really think you’re fooling anyone here?

  69. #71 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    Stu

    Perhaps more to the point, does the FF industry think it is fooling anyone by bunging some chump change to the likes of UEA CRU etc?

    Cheap PR.

  70. #72 chek
    February 28, 2013

    You really think you’re fooling anyone here?

    Just himself, but that’s enough..

  71. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    BBD:

    Perhaps more to the point, does the FF industry think it is fooling anyone by bunging some chump change to the likes of UEA CRU etc?

    Chump change? They were major enough contributors to have the scientists offer them “input into the research agenda” and look for “angles that would appeal to [Exxon-Mobil].” Look outside the emails and you’ll discover with a few keystrokes that Big Oil has funded climate-alarm-predicated research projects to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Are you unaware of this fact?

  72. #74 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Lionel A,

    Sigh.

    “So, to be clear, answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?”

    Yes.

  73. #75 Vince Whirlwind
    February 28, 2013

    Brad demonstrates yet again that he doesn’t read the information he is provided with before attempting to share his ignorant opinion:

    Vince and chek,

    since you’re having so much trouble following along, let me recap slowly.

    1. A ‘conspiracy theory’ (and Mac users just need to right-click to verify this) is defined as:

    conspiracy theory
    noun

    a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an event.

    You didn’t read the links I provided.

    Those links demonstrate quite clearly that your above train of thought is spurious.

    Why don’t you demonstrate some good faith by figuring out why?

    Elsewhere you write:

    Lewandowsky:

    Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.

    It stands to reason that if you get your conspiracist information from crank blogs, you will have strange attitudes towards the basic processes through which science is advanced.

    Here’s a hint: You are the one with the problem of non-understanding, as evidenced at least 250 times so far on this thread alone:
    – you do not acquire information from primary sources
    – you acquire information from cranks like McIntyre and Pielke
    – you make assertions you then fail to back up with any valid information or analysis

    What is a good value for climate sensitivity, do you think?
    Do you accept you have been misled by your unreliable sources and that 1.5 degree is not a particularly sound opinion to have?

  74. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    BBD:

    Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not ‘apocryphal’, the use of scare quotes around “majority” amplifies the lie.

    Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not ‘apocryphal’, the use of scare quotes around “majority” amplifies the lie.

    You *twice* put scare quotes around “majority”. Defend your assertion. Don’t ask me about this again until you have done so.

    So you tell me – not ask me – about the size of what you assert is the apocryphally “majority” view.

    Don’t you understand the accepted effect of “scare quotes” in written rhetoric?

    They express agnosticism—or skepticism, or cynicism, or uncertainty—as to the veridicality of the contained word[s].

    They do not imply knowledge that the contained words are false.

    They do not imply that the writer knows the correct words to substitute for the included words.

    Your argument makes about as much sense as if I were to demand that chek (who habitually uses scare-quotes around my screen name):

    1. prove that my screen name is not my real name

    2. tell us all my real name

    3. prove it

  75. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 28, 2013

    Vince,

    you simply repeated the following quote by me, without apparently writing anything responsive to it:

    Lewandowsky:

    “Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.”

    Do I take it you have no idea what’s fatuous about Lewandowsky’s attempt at describing “the basic processes through which science is advanced”?

    I would’ve thought this was obvious, but:

    Science is inherently skeptical, as Lewandowsky himself dimly recognises. Richard Feynman memorably described the “first principle” of science, in his plain-speaking Brooklyn style, as “you must try not to fool yourself.” In a word, skepticism.

    You cannot do science without trying not to fool yourself. Skepticism is, and has always been, the “first principle” of modern science.

    But you can do science without peer review.

    In fact that’s what scientists did for a couple hundred years. Modern science worked perfectly well without peer review, until the post-WW2 glut in government-funded research forced journal editors to farm out the labor of pre-publication proofreading to domain specialists (the “peer review system”).

    If peer review is “the instrument by which scientific skepticism is pursued,” then Einstein was not a skeptic and Einstein was not a scientist. He submitted his three century-changing papers in 1905. They were published without ever being peer-reviewed.

    This is the reductio ad absurdum of Lewandowsky’s dictum. Do you begin to see how incoherent his pseudophilosophy is?

  76. #78 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    BK # 76

    1/ You *must* have specific information in order to make the following claims:

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

    Recently modified to:

    What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.

    So the:

    supposedly “majority” view

    And:

    apocryphally “majority” view

    Is ‘wrong’ and you ‘don’t accept it’.

    Why not? On what specific information is your rejection based?

    Since you must already have this information to make your assertion in any way valid, you must also have comprehensive supporting references. Please provide them.

    2/ Do you reject the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? This is now the *fourth* time of asking in a row. Please answer.

    This “majority position” [scare-quotes *again*] (citation?) is perfectly compatible with AGW being actually non-dangerous, and even beneficent (like other warming episodes).

    3/ What other abrupt >2.5C warming episodes during an interglacial are you referring to here? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please note: abrupt climate change during deglaciation is not the same as abrupt warming during an interglacial. To avoid any time-wasting. There’s been enough of that already on this thread.

  77. #79 chek
    February 28, 2013

    Time to hold the weasel’s feet to the fire until some honest, verifiable, substantive answers to BBD’s outstanding questions are forthcoming. Another Jonarse style thread here is not required.

  78. #80 chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    OH!
    How did I miss this @ #42?

    “….Easy, it goes like this:

    PIELKE = OFTEN WRONG

    LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG

    Vince has made up yet another formula like his formula for ‘intellect envy’.
    :-)
    I also note above that Vince is confessing that he is part of his own conspiracy @ # 26.
    Vince ,
    You seriously need to follow Latimer’s advice from a few weeks ago and get out some more.

  79. #81 BBD
    February 28, 2013

    chameleon

    Other thread.

    Full disclosure: it is 23:30 here and I am leaning towards bed, so we need to make brisk progress or you will be waiting for me ;-)

  80. #82 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    Moron Brad makes shit up.

    Again.

  81. #83 chek
    February 28, 2013

    The joke is he probably thinks it seems plausible.

  82. #84 David B. Benson
    March 1, 2013

    Better today.

    Best climatology blog is
    http://www.realclimate.org/

  83. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    chameleon
    February 28, 2013

    OH!
    How did I miss this @ #42?

    “….Easy, it goes like this:

    PIELKE = OFTEN WRONG

    LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG

    Vince has made up yet another formula like his formula for ‘intellect envy’.

    What is curious, Chameleon, is that you respond to my post without offering any hint of evidence showing that I am wrong.

    All you have to do is show us where Lewandowsky has been wrong about climate science.

    We’ve shown you Pielke is habitually wrong.

  84. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Brad says,

    Do I take it you have no idea what’s fatuous about Lewandowsky’s attempt at describing “the basic processes through which science is advanced”?

    Let me guess, your argument will centre around some examples of “how science was once advanced, many moons ago”.

    See, Brad – you don’t need to type so much – we know your dishonesties off by heart.

  85. #87 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Brad says,

    ‘Do I take it you have no idea what’s fatuous about Lewandowsky’s attempt at describing “the basic processes through which science is advanced”?’

    Let me guess, your argument will centre around some examples of “how science was once advanced, many moons ago”.

    Are you alexic? I already made the argument:

    Lewandowsky:

    “Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.”

    Keyes:

    Science is inherently skeptical, as Lewandowsky himself dimly acknowledges. Richard Feynman memorably described the “first principle” of science, in his plain-speaking Brooklyn style, as “you must try not to fool yourself.” In a word, skepticism.

    You cannot do science—any science—without trying not to fool yourself. Skepticism is, and has always been, the “first principle” of modern science.

    But you can do science without peer review.

    In fact that’s what scientists did for a couple hundred years. Modern science worked perfectly well without peer review, until the post-WW2 glut in government-funded research forced journal editors to farm out the labor of pre-publication proofreading to domain specialists (the “peer review system”).

    If peer review is “the instrument by which scientific skepticism is pursued,” then Einstein was not a skeptic and Einstein was not a scientist. He submitted his three century-changing papers in 1905. They were published without ever being peer-reviewed.

    This is the reductio ad absurdum of Lewandowsky’s dictum. Is it dawning on you how incoherent his pseudophilosophy is?

  86. #88 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    No Vince,
    I wasn’t commenting on your idea of wrong and right in your world.
    I was only agreeing with David B that there are many people who are NOT QUALIFIED as climate scientists making authorative public comments on matters climate.
    They also run blogs on this subject.
    Lewandowsky and Cook are 2 of those along with Pielke jnr.
    They are NOT the only ones.
    You have now invented a silly formula about it which is very funny but entirely irrelevant.

  87. #89 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    And the mask slips again.

    .
    Palindromic punk:

    Nah, he wants the martyrdom.
    I say let him have it.

    BBD
    wow
    If only they did it the old-fashioned way. With a stake, and bundles of firewood.

    Then gather your faggots, because it’s the only way you people are going to win the climate debate at this stage.

  88. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Brad says,

    ‘Do I take it you have no idea what’s fatuous about Lewandowsky’s attempt at describing “the basic processes through which science is advanced”?’

    Let me guess, your argument will centre around some examples of “how science was once advanced, many moons ago”.

    Are you alexic? I already made the argument:

    Yes, another strawman argument – more dishonesty.

  89. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    hameleon
    March 1, 2013

    No Vince,
    I wasn’t commenting on your idea of wrong and right in your world.
    I was only agreeing with David B that there are many people who are NOT QUALIFIED as climate scientists making authorative public comments on matters climate.

    No, Chameleon, you are now being untruthful about what you previously said.

    Will you correct this yourself, or do I need to?

  90. #92 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Let’s be clear on why your previous statement was wrong:

    – Pielke makes statements about climate change that are wrong.

    – Lewandowsky does no such thing.

    ( – Brad tries diversion in the form of mad non-sequiturs, but nobody’s fooled by his dishonest behaviour)

  91. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Yes, another strawman argument – more dishonesty.

    Substantiate the above or admit what is publicly obvious: you’re out of your depth on the topic of how science works and have no coherent comeback.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but dishonestly accusing an honest person (for example, me) of dishonesty is a form of lying, which makes you unwelcome here.

  92. #94 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

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

    Indeed we were.

    I’m always up for some amateur psychiatry (*cough*Bernard)

    And yesterday I typed a comprehensive listing of the documentation of evidence for your narcissism, until a frozen computer scuppered the conclusion on the last furlong. Fortunately my new iMac arrived today, although I don’t intend to wast the same amount of time that I did yesterday documenting the blatantly obvious. Even so, there are a couple of points from my first draft that are worth repeating.

    The first is that this thread is your prison, your stocks, your naughty corner. We come here to ponder your misdeeds and unpick them for the edification of the third parties who might stumble upon them, and not because you are actually in any way informative… beyond the demonstration of denialist thinking and tactics. You are not this thread’s owner, nor its proprietor, nor its moderator – in spite of your behaviour indicating that you believe otherwise.

    You don’t get to dictate what people say here, nor how they address you, nor whether they can post at all – in spite of your behaviour indicating that you believe otherwise. And yet this is one of your defining schticks here – amongst several – that are reflective of a narcissistic personality.

    Secondly, I have no inclination to wade through your epic expatiation here in order to catalog the considerable list of comments from you that support this conclusion. What I will do though is repeat what I listed before – some of the characteristics of a narcissistic personality…

    From Ronningstam 2011 (p90):

    “Grandiosity, an enhanced or unrealistic sense of superiority, uniqueness, value, or capability expressed either overtly or covertly and internally”
    “Variable and vulnerable self esteem alternating between overconfidence and inferiority” (not that the latter is permitted expression here…)
    “Strong reactions to threats to self-esteem including intense feelings (aggression, shame, and envy)…”
    “Self-enhancing and self-serving interpersonal behavior”
    “Aggressiveness”
    “Avoiding and controlling behavior and attitudes to preserve self-sufficiency and protect against affects and threats to self-esteem”
    “Fluctuating or impaired empathic ability”

    From DSM-IV:

    Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

    (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
    (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    (3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
    (4) requires excessive admiration
    (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
    (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
    (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
    (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
    (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

    Shall we leave it to the list (and perhaps even yourself) to check these criteria with repeated and evident demonstrated behaviour from you on this and other threads on Deltoid, STW, and elsewhere?

    And in spite of the intimation in your comment:

    Sou is plugging her own blog on one of the minor threads here:

    this thread is not a ‘major’ thread by any measure other than the lengths to which you stretch out an exchange by the instrument of semantic divagation. It’s only significant in your own mind, unless it is to serve as an example to the world of your peculiar bastardisations of logic and science.

  93. #95 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Vince?
    WTF?
    Of course Lewandowsky is prone to error when he comments on topics outside of his expertise.
    Actually, he is also human, so I suspect he is prone to error inside his own area of expertise as well, just like the rest of us mere mortals.
    Your invented formula is rubbish Vince and your attempt to invent an argument with me is equally nonsensical.
    I do seriously recommend Kahneman’s book to you.
    I am not trying to argue with you and I have no intention of arguing that I didn’t say what I didn’t say or arguing that I didn’t mean what I didn’t mean.
    Take Latimer’s advice and get out some more Vince.
    You and Bill are probably correct about where the voting is heading.
    According to the latest polls, the coalition with a rather large majority and Abbot as PM is looking increasingly likely.
    I can assume that you think this is just terrible, but I’m quite sure it will not cause the sky to fall in.
    As per usual, us Aussies will muddle through no doubt.
    ;-)

  94. #96 David B. Benson
    March 1, 2013

    Which Lewandowski?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Lewandowski
    obviously knows nothing about climatology nor (being but an economist) the proper functioning of science.
    There is also LINDA M. LEWANDOWSKI from Duke who might know a little and a rather mysterious Stephan Lewandowski.

    Probably better to stick to actual climatologists.

  95. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Substantiate the above or admit what is publicly obvious: you’re out of your depth on the topic of how science works and have no coherent comeback.

    Nobody has the faintest interest in discussing with you your peculiar and irrelevant notions as to “how science works”.

  96. #98 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    Of course Lewandowsky is prone to error when he comments on topics outside of his expertise.

    Good. So you can provide an example of Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science then.

    Please go ahead.

    This is the fourth time I have suggested to you that you do so.

    If you can’t demonstrate Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science, then the statement,
    Lewandowsky is never wrong about climate science
    remains a true statement.

    The fact I have had to ask you 5 times now to provide an example of Lewandowsky being in error with no response on your part indicates that my statement could very well be correct.

  97. #99 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Thanks David B,
    Yes it is that mysterious one :-)
    I linked him upthread along with Pielke Jnr and Cook.
    Vince doesn’t seem to get the point and is still claiming I need to argue about saying something I didn’t say or meaning something I didn’t mean.
    It leads him to make strange comments like this one:
    ” If you can’t demonstrate Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science, then the statement,
    Lewandowsky is never wrong about climate science
    remains a true statement.
    HUH?????
    You are of course correct David B,
    We would do better to stick with the actual climatologists.
    Vince could also understand that even climatologists are human and therefore will not be infallible.
    Especially about the highly unco operative beast we know as climate/weather.

  98. #100 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Nobody has the faintest interest in discussing Richard Feynman’s peculiar and irrelevant notions as to “how science works”.

    FTFY.

    Your slavish fascination with a failed niche science is suddenly easier to understand.

    If you can’t demonstrate Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science, then the statement,
    Lewandowsky is never wrong about climate science
    remains a true statement.

    Which is an extra special accomplishment considering he’s unable to understand science sensu lato. Great effort Stephan! Don’t pay any attention to the big psychologists—you’re the real champ!