Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    March 1, 2013

    Hey, Chameleon, still holding to your guns that the Australian summer that finished yesterday is not the hottest on the 103-year Bureau of Meteorology record?

  2. #2 David B. Benson
    March 1, 2013

    This Stephan Lewandowski?
    http://www.cogsciwa.com/
    A Winthrop Professor in The School of Psychology, at The University of Western Australia whose research seems to be computational modeling of human cognition?

    Probably better to stick with actual climatologists.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Brad says,

    Which is an extra special accomplishment considering he’s unable to understand science sensu lato.

    Yes, an evasive, dishonest twit who won’t read primary sources but likes to quote cranks knows all about “science”, while a respected professional is all at sea.

    What a topsy-turvy personal world you inhabit, Brad.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Bernard J:

    This thread is your prison, your stocks, your naughty corner.

    LOL. That would be why I come and go at my will, right? Good one!

    Talk about denial, Bernard.

    The idea that this thread or any thread knit by mortal woman can contain me is a comforting myth you tell kids to get them to sleep at night. Any adult still capable of believing in it at this stage, after seeing what happens to fools who think it’s safe to diss me on the marginal threads, would have to be the truest of True Believers!

    The reason I don’t contribute more widely to the blog is that I’m not a charity—why exactly should I help out low-traffic, non-brand-name threads by tossing hits their way? Let alone if you people don’t pick up your game dramatically; unless you’re grovellingly nice to me from now on in, don’t whinge when I take my style of commentary (which is my IP) elsewhere.

    We come here to ponder your misdeeds and unpick them for the edification of the third parties…

    Which you guys can’t seem to stop doing on the February thread either, can you?

    LOL! :-)

    Face it, Bernard: you enjoy discussing my ideas, considering them, arguing about them.

    And I get that. I’m used to it.

    But it would make much more sense to talk about me on the dedicated thread, so that—if nothing else—the visitors who want to catch up on the latest commentary from and about me will have a ”one-stop shop” for their BK fix, instead of being forced to check both this thread and the minor ones every day.

    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.

    In other words, you have no intention to show any support for your conclusion.

    Quelle surprise.

    you are [not] actually in any way informative… beyond the demonstration of denialist thinking and tactics.

    This shows your superficial awareness of my writings, Bernard. Seriously, don’t think you can get away with just skimming my comments and still hope to be able to make informed, intelligent contributions to the thread. You can’t—as the above attempt shows.

    Hint: I’m not even a denialist!

    I’ll stop there—no need to embarrass you further—but I suggest you make it your homework: spend the weekend really reading the points I’ve made. You won’t appreciate them fully the first time—don’t worry, there are some pretty deep concepts in my writing, and it repays repeated study—but at least you won’t make howlers (like “denialist”) in the future.

    “Variable and vulnerable self esteem alternating between overconfidence and inferiority” (not that the latter is permitted expression here…)

    But of course not! How convenient for your case.


    “Fluctuating or impaired empathic ability

    I can’t even begin to understand what you’re thinking here, Bernard. Or maybe I don’t care.

    Feedback at the halfway mark:

    Your analysis of me, so far, has been a slight letdown. Nonetheless, it’s undoubtedly one of the more interesting topics anyone has brought up at Deltoid for a while, so you should be commended for at least trying.

    In Part One you’ve obviously chosen to focus on the “Brad is a narcissist” myth, and while your analysis demonstrates an ability to cut and paste from the literature, it’s disappointingly short on references to the things I’ve actually said, done and thought. If we’d heard less from random academics and more quotes from me your comment would have held the reader’s attention better (and been intellectually meatier).

    Perhaps the most common answer, when people are asked what they think of when they think of me, is “justified arrogance.” You seem to have mistaken this charisma-like quality with a flaw of some kind, but I guess it’s understandable, given how much you don’t know. Indeed, from your point of view, my sheer self-confidence must be unfamiliar, confusing and even a bit intimidating, so we can’t hold you 100% to blame for your misguided diagnosis.

    Anyway, while you’ve failed to meet the (admittedly superhuman) burden of arguing that I’m a narcissist [LOL !], your comment is not without entertainment value. I’m now eagerly looking forward to the second half of your promised analysis of me: the development of your equally oddball theory that I’m “borderline (at least) psychopathic”! And remember: your troubles really don’t mean anything to me, so no more whining about how your computer or your cat died or whatever. This isn’t about you, Bernard.

  5. #5 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    BJ,
    did you know that your link was faulty?
    It’ s OK though, I had already read it earlier.
    The figs I gave you also came from BoM.
    It’s a bit confusing isn’t it?
    Whom do we believe?
    BoM or BoM?

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    you enjoy discussing my ideas,

    What ideas?

    I haven’t seen any.

    All I see is B-Grade logically fallacious argumentativeness and some vague beliefs.

    We see you believe sensitivity is 1.5, but you are unable to demonstrate any idea why this would be the case.

    No idea at all.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

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

    FTFY.

    Oh look! Brad, “My opinion is as good as the scientific consensus” Keyes is confusing himeslf with Richard Feynman again.

    What a hoot this nutter is, really.

  8. #8 bill
    March 1, 2013

    Seriously: ignore him and he will go away.

  9. #9 chameleon
    March 1, 2013

    Yep David B,
    that’s the man :-)
    Lotharsson is waxing eloquent about him at the Feb thread as well.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    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.

    Let me spell this out for you:

    You said Lewandowsky and Pielke had the same credibility when it comes to making statements about climate science.

    I demonstrated Pielke has low credibility due to persistent false assertions.

    This, Pielke and Lewandowsky have different credibility when it comes to climate science, unless you can demonstrate Lewandowsky also makes persistent false statements.

    I was unable to find any such false statements.

    Nor were you.

    You now deny you said what you said.

    You are thus not only wrong in your assessment of their respoective credibilities, but you are also a liar.

  11. #11 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    I think it’s now pretty obvious why Bray posts: simple narcissism.

    If he doesn’t get attention on his jail thread, he goes demanding attention outside it.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Oh look! Brad, “My opinion is as good as the scientific consensus” Keyes is confusing himeslf with Richard Feynman again.

    Conceptual distinctions aren’t your forte, are they Vince?

    My opinions about nature, and Lewandowsky’s opinions, Feynman’s, yours, and the consensus of patients in an institute for the retarded, and that of the IPCC, are all of identically equal evidentiary value in science.

    Zero.

    That’s an axiom governing opinions about nature. In science.

    (If you don’t like it, too bad. Happily you’re not a scientist, so your incomprehension is essentially victimless.)

    On the other hand, Richard Feynman’s opinions about science, which I tend to share, are worth a hell of a lot more than Lewandowsky’s, which I reject.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince:

    We see you believe sensitivity is 1.5, but you are unable to demonstrate any idea why this would be the case.

    No idea at all.

    Are you still going on about this?

    I’ve given the ECS thing nary a thought since the day (a couple of weeks ago) when BBD and / or Bernard linked me to papers disagreeing with my initial estimate. I’ve had more urgent and interesting things to do than read them, but I’ve explicitly told you that I’m even less certain than I was before about the low estimate I gave. If I cared deeply about the topic I might be in a position by now to give you a more final answer. But I don’t and I’m not so I won’t.

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    My opinions about cardiac surgery, and my plumber’s opinions, my cat’s, yours, and the consensus of patients in an institute for victims of Brad’s sophistry, and that of the IPCC, are all of identically equal evidentiary value in science.

    Knowledge doesn’t accumulate if you can’t identify the authorities, twit.

    And if we needed Feynman interpreted, we wouldn’t rely on a slimy weasel to do it for us, would we – we would choose somebody qualified and credible.

    Your opinion, eg, “sensitivity is 1.5 degree”, which you are unable to provide any reason for, is utterly worthless.
    Lewandowsky’s opinion on the same subject, however, will almost certainly be based on something you are incapable of: an honest appreciation of the facts.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    Knowledge doesn’t accumulate if you can’t identify the authorities, twit.

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such, you twit. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

    Or as Feynman put it, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

    And he should know. :-)

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    just FYI: your use of the “cardiac surgery” cliché betrays your confusion between science & technology, semantic learning & procedural learning, and knowledge & expertise.

    Like I said:

    Conceptual distinctions aren’t your forte, are they?

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Lies of a Loather
    ~ ~ Part 248 ~ ~

    [Brad] certainly dons a martyr’s cape over his banning at Lewandowsky’s

    Pfft.

    Quote me ever lamenting my expulsion from that paradise, liar. Ever.

    for repeatedly violating the commenting terms & conditions at shapingtomorrowsworld

    Bullshit.

    Show me two comments of mine at shapingtomorrowsworld that violate “the commenting terms & conditions.”

    It’s not as if your addiction to this lie is untreatable, Lotharsson. It’s not as if you haven’t been given every opportunity to kick the habit. It’s been repeatedly explained to you why I was banned. But nobody can help you if you won’t help yourself.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Could this be bill’s most worthwhile thought ever?

    Why not just do it [stay off Brad's thread]? …
    He’s just rehashing run-of-the-mill Denialist chum-nuggets in a self-satisfied stylee (sic) anyway, so what’s there to lose?

    A capital idea, Mr Byrd.

    Do it do it do it.

  19. #19 chek
    March 1, 2013

    “Brad’s” always good for a round of Crank Bingo.
    So far we’ve had:

    1) You people are losing the argument
    2) Fantasising his interpretation of science as synonymous with Feynman’s and superior to the professionals here.
    3) Reliance on crank sources, never primary literature
    4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.
    5) A sucker for false equivalence.

    … and probably a bunch more that isn’t worth the effort researching over in his swamp.

    But feel free to add any others that spring readily to mind.
    Just head your post “Brad Crank Bingo”.

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    Brad says,

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority

    Absolute. Garbage.

    Which biologist is going to prove atomic theory from personal obersvations and first principles before moving on to whatever organic process they are interested in?

    You are a complete idiot.

    and

    *You* are not an improver of knowledge, therefore *you* need to rely on authorities or your opinion necessarily is unsound.

  21. #21 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    just FYI: your use of the “cardiac surgery” cliché betrays your confusion between science & technology, semantic learning & procedural learning, and knowledge & expertise.

    Garbage. Again.

    Science is taught.

    Cardiac surgery is just as much science as dendrochronology, not that you would understand the first thing about what science is, seeing as you chose to complete an Arts degree, instead.

    I’m sure you can sit around a table and wear a skivvy with the best, but you are absolutely not in the running when it comes to saying anything sensible within a conversation about a field of scientific endeavour.

  22. #22 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    …as you demonstrate everytime you try.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    chek,

    you incorrectly suggest that I’m

    4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.

    May I remind you that I’ve willingly accepted correction when shown the error of my ways in such matters as:

    1. getting Lionel A and a Forest Troll mixed up
    2. the term of art “heavy metals”
    3. the occasional comment that I’ve misinterpreted by reading it too quickly
    4. failing to distinguish positive loop gain from high (near 1.0) positive loop gain
    5. failing to distinguish tipping points from runaway warming points

    and have also corrected myself (despite the failure of anyone else to show I was in error) on a number of matters including the nature of Naomi Oreskes’ solecism about the “cure for malaria,” which on closer examination was merely a verbal “typo” on Oreskes’ part and did not reflect a true deficit in her knowledge.

    Now let’s see if you have the integrity to admit you were wrong in claiming that I never admit I’m wrong.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince:

    Cardiac surgery is just as much science as dendrochronology, not that you would understand the first thing about what science is, seeing as you chose to complete an Arts degree, instead.

    It’s ignorant of you to think I completed an Arts degree and not a Science degree.

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince:

    “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority”

    Absolute. Garbage.

    Which biologist is going to prove atomic theory from personal obersvations [sic] and first principles before moving on to whatever organic process they are interested in?

    LOL!

    Do you seriously not recognise the saying about the
    “improver of natural knowledge”?

    It’s so well-known I didn’t even put quotes around it, given that “plagiarism” from such a famous source surely isn’t even possible—or so I would have thought until I met you, Vince!

    Are you really telling us (because you sure are showing us!) that you had no idea the author of those words of profound metascientific wisdom was:

    — a scientist

    — a famous scientist

    a famous biologist ?

    “Which biologist,” indeed!

    ROFLMAOAYI !!!

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    What a slimy little crook Brad is,
    Chek accuses:

    4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.

    Brad, up to his usual tricks:

    admit you were wrong in claiming that I never admit I’m wrong.

    Must have used his Arts degree to get a job as a Real Estate Agent, I reckon.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    the author of those words of profound metascientific wisdom was:

    So you *do* recognise authorities in science?

    How about recognising some recent ones, eh?

    Like those authorities that say Steve McIntyre is a lying joke, for example?

    And really…don’t even imagine you’ve stepped ahead of me – it’s just pathetic Brad.

  28. #28 chek
    March 1, 2013

    Now let’s see if you have the integrity to admit you were wrong in claiming that I never admit I’m wrong.

    The ‘never’ is your own sneaky addition there “Brad”.
    And I’m thinking specifically of a few (including me) pointing out the payrolled denier mill, whose (documented) existence you wouldn’t admit as highlighted by Stu.

    So another Crank Bingo item can be added:

    6) Creating a strawman to play the victim-bully role.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince:

    “the author of those words of profound metascientific wisdom was:”

    So you *do* recognise authorities in science?

    Oh for fox ache.

    No, I referenced a great scientist who happened to compose one of history’s finest lines about science, Vincent. I did not cite his authority IN science.

    See the word “metascientific,” Vince?

    Do you have even a vague idea what those first 4 letters are doing there? Go on, take a guess.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    chek,

    the word “never” was implicit in your word “unable.”

    However, since you object to my paraphrase on grounds known only to yourself, please accept my apologies and let me try again:

    Now that you’ve been shown your error, let’s see if you’re able to admit you were wrong to accuse me of being “unable to admit error even when shown it.”

  31. #31 chek
    March 1, 2013

    Now that you’ve been shown your error…

    Really?
    Where did that happen?
    Oh, I see now -you inferred it – all on your own – inside your own crank brain.
    It could just be your guilty conscience trying to get a message through as best it can, “Brad”.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince:

    And really…don’t even imagine you’ve stepped ahead of me – it’s just pathetic Brad.

    Riiiight.

    I’m sure you walked into your own man-trap on the Huxley quote deliberately… It can’t have been what it looked like…. no sirree…

    ROFL !!!

    :-)

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    chek:

    “Now that you’ve been shown your error…”

    Really?
    Where did that happen?

    Are you blind, chek?

    You accused me of being

    4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.

    But I showed that this accusation was erroneous. I pointed out that I’ve willingly conceded my error, when shown it, in such matters as:

    1. getting Lionel A and a Forest Troll mixed up
    2. the term of art “heavy metals”
    3. the occasional comment that I’ve misinterpreted by reading it too quickly
    4. failing to distinguish positive loop gain from high (near 1.0) positive loop gain
    5. failing to distinguish tipping points from runaway warming points

    and that I’ve also corrected myself (despite the failure of anyone else to show I was in error) on a number of matters including the nature of Naomi Oreskes’ solecism about the “cure for malaria,” which on closer examination was merely a verbal “typo” on Oreskes’ part and did not reflect a true deficit in her knowledge.

    So chek, now that it’s been shown that you were in error to say I was “unable to admit error even when shown it,” let’s see if you’re able to admit it.

  34. #34 chek
    March 1, 2013

    Brad Crank Bingo #8

    7) Arguing strawmen which don’t negate the original accusation even after a specific example has been pointed out.

  35. #35 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Those errors have made absolutely no difference to you, though.

    You still assert that only you know science and only you can say who is or isn’t a scientist. And despite errors, you have never considered that you’re making yet more.

    These are not acknowledging error. They’re dismissing error.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Well I’ll be damned. You *completely ignored* those questions I keep on asking you! Again! I’m shocked to the core.

    Here they are again. To avoid the suspicion that you are a lying troll who has, in fact, lost this debate, you need to provide substantive answers to the three (3) questions below.

    1/ (a) 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?

    1/ (b) 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 *FIFTH* consecutive time of asking!!)

    3/ You say:

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

    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.

    Come on Braddie! Let’s have some straight answers this time!

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    BBD:

    I’m busy correcting liars, but

    2/ Do you reject the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? (This is now the *FIFTH* consecutive time of asking!!)

    NO. Nor do I accept it. Notwithstanding whatever guess you extorted from me previously, I’m really not sure what the most probable ECS is. Are you?

  38. #38 chek
    March 1, 2013

    whatever guess you extorted from me previously

    There goes “Brad” the victim, again.

    I’m busy correcting liars, but

    …but haven’t got the time to correct your own. What a strange egocentric yet curiously self-unaware world you live in “Brad”

  39. #39 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    BK

    Strike one. First evasion. Refusal to answer (2).

    I am sufficiently convinced by the scientific evidence – particularly paleoclimate evidence – to accept the range approximately 2.5C – 3C. Why aren’t you? On what evidence do you base your rejection of this range?

    Climate agnosia is just evasiveness cloaking denial. Here, we will deal in evidence and reason.

  40. #40 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Try again on (2).

    What about (1) (a) and (b) and (3)?

  41. #41 chek
    March 1, 2013

    Just a quick note to advise “Brad” that if the subject is beyond your personal expertise (as is 99% of the modern world to 99% of the population) accepting the scientific consensus is a perfectly respectable stance to adopt.
    Except to cranks, obviously.

  42. #42 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    BK

    Oh my, oh my. You’ve done it again:

    I’ve given the ECS thing nary a thought since the day (a couple of weeks ago) when BBD and / or Bernard linked me to papers disagreeing with my initial estimate. I’ve had more urgent and interesting things to do than read them, but I’ve explicitly told you that I’m even less certain than I was before about the low estimate I gave. If I cared deeply about the topic I might be in a position by now to give you a more final answer. But I don’t and I’m not so I won’t.

    This is astonishing.

    How – in the name of God how – can you claim that you don’t believe AGW is potentially dangerous if you ‘don’t care’ about ECS? ECS determines the level of potential danger. I don’t believe you are stupid, so I assume you understand perfectly well what you are doing here. You are indulging in denial.

    - Don’t like what the evidence implies…

    - Won’t read the evidence…

    - Pretend neither to know nor care…

    - Avoid, avoid, avoid…

    This is denial in action, Brad. This is *you*.

    Wake up.

    Which brings us back to # 39:

    Strike one. First evasion. Refusal to answer (2).

    I am sufficiently convinced by the scientific evidence – particularly paleoclimate evidence – to accept the range approximately 2.5C – 3C. Why aren’t you? On what evidence do you base your rejection of this range?

    This feigned climate agnosia is just evasiveness cloaking denial. Deal in evidence and reason and substantive responses.

    Now, back to (1) (a) and (b); (2); (3).

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    chek,

    thanks for the following polite and reasonable comment:

    Just a quick note to advise “Brad” that if the subject is beyond your personal expertise (as is 99% of the modern world to 99% of the population) accepting the scientific consensus is a perfectly respectable stance to adopt.

    Yeah, I’ve heard this, and it’s a superficially convincing argument. (I’m ignoring your last quasi-sentence because the noun “cranks” is inanely subjective.)

    I don’t agree with it, however.

    Firstly, if a scientific question is beyond your personal capacity to form an evidence-based opinion, then it’s more reasonable not to have an opinion on it. If someone pressures you to adopt one in the absence of intelligible evidence, ask them to fuck off.

    I always do, and my policy hasn’t let me down yet.

    It forces me to be agnostic about a few esoterica like string theory, but so what? Even physicists haven’t sorted that out yet (or at least, they hadn’t last time I checked—which was late 2007).

    Scientists who know what they’re talking about never seem to have trouble explaining it in a manner I can grasp.

    Secondly, there are many reasons why the “scientific consensus” is not a useful guide to the most likely theory in the absence of intelligible evidence, but perhaps the simplest reason is that on 99% of questions, nobody knows what the scientific consensus is. It’s never been determined, because that would be a waste of time. Climate science is the first field to even consider the use of scientific opinion-polling as a heuristic. (Why doesn’t this ring alarm bells with you, by the way?)

    Let’s take the rhetorical favourite, medicine, as an example. Please don’t tell me what 9 out of 10 “cancer doctors” think. You have no idea. Nobody does. Consensus is simply not a topic of measurement, interest or conversation in medicine. It’s beneath doctors to resort to such voodoo non-evidentiary factoids. Next time you’re in an ED or ER, eavesdrop on the doctors’ office (which is usually centrally-located). Listen to how they do (and don’t) debate for and against the list of possible diagnoses and treatments. Hint: the phrase “9 out of 10 doctors” is not going to come up.

  44. #44 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    Appeals to climate agnosia are diagnostic of denial, Brad. See above.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Jeff H:

    As a colleague once told me, he wouldn’t debate a climate change denier for the simple reason that they will lie through their teeth (as they have nothing to lose by doing so) whereas the scientist they debate would see their cautious honesty work against them.

    Really? Such defeatism is needless and unfortunate.

    Climate change deniers—the two or three who still exist—are clearly deeply confused, but it ought to be pretty easy to set them straight, I’d imagine. And I’m not purely guessing here: I’ve corrected a couple of man-made climate-change deniers in my time; I found them to be well aware of how little they understood the issues and more than happy to have their minds expanded / changed. The only catch is that you have to reason with them like adults—which was no challenge for me, but it might be too much to ask of certain commenters here.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Jeff Harvey:

    These people (we all know who they are but let’s repeat them for clarity: Brad, Chameleon, Spangled Drongo, Jonas, Mike, Olaus, GSW, Karen, Sunspot, Betula, PentaxZ and more) stay in the shadows …

    Very poetic Jeff, but were you still referring to us a paragraph later when you wrote that,

    They consistently misquote esteemed scientists like Huxley and Feynman to give the impression that, were they alive, these scientists would side with those who downplay AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment.

    If you’re talking about us that’s a bit of a dishonorable remark, Jeff, unless you have in mind any specific series of occasions on which I’ve ever misquoted Feynman or Huxley, or even distorted their views about anything. I’d be surprised (and embarrassed) to learn I’d done it once, let alone consistently, so please let me know if you have any basis for such a charge.

    (I’m pretty confident in saying chameleon is innocent of the same accusation, too; I don’t know the others well enough to comment.)

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    BBD,

    To an extent I can empathize with your frustration, though it’s based on unclear thinking:

    How – in the name of God how – can you claim that you don’t believe AGW is potentially dangerous if you ‘don’t care’ about ECS?

    I never disputed that it’s potentially net-dangerous—just like walking your doggie. I merely told you that I have no reason to believe it actually is net-dangerous on the balance of probabilities. Much less do I think it’s net-dangerous on the catastrophic, existential, generational scale that might justify all the pious song and dance.

    ECS determines the level of potential danger.

    If ECS could range as high as 50.0 C, then yes, I’d probably care more than I do about what the true value was. But we know it’s not that high, don’t we? So the key question is: is there any real danger at stake in the argument between, say, 1.0C and 3.0C?

    I don’t believe you are stupid, so I assume you understand perfectly well what you are doing here. You are indulging in denial.

    Well I’m not sure what you mean by that psychopathological claim (are you?), but if you mean that I’m partaking in disbelief, then yes, I suppose I am—in the same sense that you’re engaging in belief. Not a very profound observation, is it?

    - Don’t like what the evidence implies…

    To me it implies less morbid winters, more abundant crops and global food security (at the cost of an increase in pollen allergies), a greener biosphere and some degree of prophylaxis against the next glaciation (which really will be catastrophic when it happens).

    - Won’t read the evidence…

    I’ve read plenty of supposedly alarming climate-science papers, only to be pleasantly disappointed time after time after time. If the papers you’re recommending are better (i.e. worse) than the ones I’ve read, then the timing is unfortunate, because I’ve got a lot of other shit on at the moment. I may get around to them at some point.

    - Pretend neither to know nor care…

    What makes you think I’m pretending? I really don’t know any more than I know, and I really don’t care any more than I care, id est a non-zero amount, but not enough to motivate me to learn more in a hurry.

    - Avoid, avoid, avoid…

    This is denial in action, Brad. This is *you*.

    Ha!

    You make it sound like an effortful process. Not so! I assure you, nothing is easier or more passive than not seeing the supposedly-overwhelming evidence for alarm.

    Wake up.

    Why? If the climate starts acutely falling apart I’m sure I’ll hear about it along with everyone else. In the meantime there are plenty of other, clear and present problems I’m working on. What exactly angers you so much about my agnosticism? Do you think I’m the person who’s preventing action on climate change? Why would that be a reasonable thought, any more than if I resented you for standing in the way of a cure for… I dunno… diabetes? I mean, you’re not panicking about the predicted diabetes epidemic, as far as I can tell: so that gives me just as much right to burn you at the stake for apathism as you have to burn me. You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem, BBD, and right now you’re the latter! Burn!

    The world doesn’t revolve around the climate, BBD (unless you have some startling new evidence that it does).

  48. #48 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    There’s nothing left to be said except to reiterate that you are hopelessly sunk in denial, and you refuse to examine either the evidence or your conscience on this matter.

    More fool you.

    Goodbye, Brad.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    March 1, 2013

    It is clear that Brad Keyes does not understand the concept of ECS judging by this mind numbing bit of crankery:

    If ECS could range as high as 50.0 C, then yes…

    Come on Brad, tell us all what you think ECS is? No evasions this time or trying to regurgitate other nonsense from yourself.

    Have you any idea about the nature of ecological disasters just a 2K uptick in average global can bring on? Explain why this matters? Or does not matter for that matter?

  50. #50 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven’t answered my questions.

    1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.

    2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.

    3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘benificent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.

    Most recent full version here.

    Unanswered. And we both know they are going to stay that way.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Lionel,

    Come on Brad, tell us all what you think ECS is?

    Your question is muddy. What do you want to know: the definition of ECS or its value?

    If the latter, you’re SOL. How many times do I have to tell you I don’t know how much the climate warms per doubling of atmospheric CO2? Are you going to pretend you do know, Lionel?

    Have you any idea about the nature of ecological disasters just a 2K uptick in average global can bring on?

    That’s a meaningless question in the absence of a timeframe.

    What kind of pop-sci buzzword is “uptick” anyway?

    Explain why this matters?

    Because disasters are bad, mkay?

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    March 1, 2013

    all I did was repeat Huxley’s famous dictum that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority,

    Another lie.

    You did more than regurgitate a partial quote, (calling it a “dictum” – ah, the irony! Your feeble attempt at pomposity actually contradicts your argument!) you placed it in a context, you surrounded it with your words, and thus attempted to provide an interpretation of Huxley.

    You don’t understand science, you don’t understand Huxley.

    As I responded to you:

    *You* are not an improver of knowledge, therefore *you* need to rely on authorities or your opinion necessarily is unsound.

    Scepticism and a dismissal of belief, for Huxley, are necessary to produce primary research.

    You are producing no such thing – not even looking – therefore your opinions on climate science can only ever rest on what is the consensus among the authorities.

    Your denial of this basic reality of science is evident to everybody.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    March 1, 2013

    Keyes,

    Your question is muddy. What do you want to know: the definition of ECS or its value?

    Anything to avoid answering the question. It was straightforward enough.

    TBS it had a two part answer the first of which was asking YOU to explain the concept of ECS, so now please do so.

    As for value, yes there is some idea about the value so only with a S like you would I be SOL expecting a straight answer from you.

    That is the thing, you never have given one. Now prove us wrong.

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    BBD:

    You said you were going away.

    Yet here you are.

    Now we know what the word of a warmist is worth.

    1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based?

    Hmmm.

    Hard to say, not being an expert in your neurology.

    But if pressed, I’d guess it’s based either on your failure to listen to, or on your refusal to acknowledge, the agreement I’ve already expressed with that proposition: of course AGW is “potentially dangerous”!

    That’s every bit as truistic as it is trivial.

    2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2?

    On what basis do you persist in refusing to accept that I decline either to reject or to accept that range?

    3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘benificent’ you need one as an analogue.

    Waaaait a minute, that’s a trick question!

    Tsh, do you think I was born yesterday BBD?

    “Abrupt” doesn’t give me enough information—you need to provide at least 1 more cli-sci jargoneme.

    Do you mean “dramatic”? Are we talking “upticks”? A “dramatic uptick,” for instance? Is that what you’d like?

    More fool you.

    What this mean.

    Heap syntax bad. BBD not school?

    There’s nothing left to be said

    At all.

    Goodbye, BBD.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    March 1, 2013

    Vince,

    d’oh!

    OK, thanks for reminding me that the word “dictum” doesn’t denote a mere “saying.” I always forget, because it looks like it ought to mean “thing someone said.” Yes, yes, har har, it actually implies a pronouncement from an authoritative source. Oh, the irony.

    The rest of your comment is wrong as usual.

  56. #56 Stu
    March 1, 2013

    you’re out of your depth on the topic of how science works and have no coherent comeback.

    Hey, abject clownshoe, have you ever considered the possibility you are talking to actual scientists?

    Don’t be Jonas. He’s boring. You’re gravitating to the same sad state of delusion he’s in.

  57. #57 BBD
    March 1, 2013

    I’m not here, really. This is just a repeat:

    On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven’t answered my questions.

    1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.

    2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.

    3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.

    Most recent full version here.

  58. #58 David B. Benson
    March 2, 2013

    Those who study such matters think ECS is most likely around 2.4—3.0 K. Even the low end of that will be very bad.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Stu:

    “you’re out of your depth on the topic of how science works and have no coherent comeback.”

    Hey, abject clownshoe, have you ever considered the possibility you are talking to actual scientists?

    No. Because what you’re intentionally, sleazily and descientifically hiding by pulling my sentence out of context is that I was talking to a single person, whose misunderstandings of the scientific process excluded any possibility that he was a scientist.

    Of course you know all this, don’t you Stu? I’m only being explicit about it in case some reader of ours is innocent enough to be taken in by your Trick to Hide the Context.

  60. #60 Vince Whirlwind
    March 2, 2013

    misunderstandings of the scientific process

    How, I wonder, does Brad imagine he could ever detect such a thing?

    The rest of your comment is wrong as usual.

    …because Brad *is* engaged in producing knowledge, hence his belief in low sensitivity?

    No?

    No. Brad produces no knowledge, believes nonsense he reads on crank blogs, and denies real science produced by real scientists.

    …and thinks he is a Feynman.

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Vince:

    “misunderstandings of the scientific process”

    How, I wonder, does Brad imagine he could ever detect such a thing?

    Was that you I was talking to, Vince (in the dialogue Stu strategically sampled)? I couldn’t remember which of the interchangeable affirmers it was, but you do seem aburinated about something now.

    Relax. So it was obvious you weren’t a scientist. Big deal. Don’t take it as a personal indictment—science is subtle and complex, you can’t possibly guess how it works (someone has to teach you), and even professional fakers like Chris Mooney and John Cook don’t pull off the act convincingly.

  62. #62 David B. Benson
    March 2, 2013

    Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. from
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

    So that John Cook appears to (probably) have some understanding of science.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    David,

    Yeah, John Cook does appear to have some understanding of how the sun works, but that’s not the same thing as—and in Australia at least, it doesn’t entail any formal instruction in—how science works.

    And to remove any doubt that he’s illiterate on that front, check his bizarre attempt to explain it to non-honors students:
    http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-denial-11763

    (Especially incompetent is the 2nd paragraph.)

  64. #64 Sou
    March 2, 2013

    By vote of HotWhopper management, Brad, I regret to inform you that you are no longer welcome to post on HotWhopper.

  65. #65 David B. Benson
    March 2, 2013

    Brad Keyes — For a one paragraph summary I don’t find his 2nd paragraph that terrible. What do you object to?

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    By vote of HotWhopper management, Brad, I regret to inform you that you are no longer welcome to post on HotWhopper.

    Gosh, that must have been a gut-wrenching split decision.

    What make-believe commenting policy did I violate, I wonder?

    Never mind, this is the definitive answer to your last comment:

    Sou, I presume you intended that as a rebuttal of someone’s comment, but it’s so elliptical as to be meaningless. What was the point of typing it, may I ask?

    ”you wore out that argument long ago”

    Which one?

    ”You can’t go around making up stuff,”

    What stuff?

    ”re-defining words”

    Such as?

    ”and denying a body of knowledge exists”

    What did I deny exists?

    ”I expect you got those fanciful ideas from some denier site”

    What fanciful ideas?

    ”you think there’s some other mysterious body of knowledge around that conflicts with all the known knowledge of the past 200 years”

    When did I say any of this gobbledegook?

    ”- – even though no-one has published it yet”

    And where did you read it, Sou? In a dream?

    “and no-one else has ever heard of it”

    I know I haven’t!

    ”and it presumably re-writes all the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.”

    Where can I buy one of these magical pens, Sou? LOL !

    ”A classic case of ‘climate science is a hoax’.”

    Wait a minute—there may be some dodgy climate scientists, but that’s no reason to write off the whole field of inquiry!

    ”I don’t know what you ‘believe’ about climate
    science,”

    We noticed.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Gentle readers,

    I almost forgot the link. Here, for your delectation and puzzlement, is Sou’s attempt at refuting my last uncensored comment at her lil blog—the attempt critics have called “so elliptical as to be meaningless”:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/the-curious-tale-of-watts-and-his-dog.html?showComment=1362154774161#c3882580583503484117

  68. #68 Sou
    March 2, 2013

    What make-believe commenting policy did I violate, I wonder?
    Published comments together with subsequent unpublished comments come under the category of “persistent troll” in that they divert discussion from the main topic to suit Brad’s agenda as well as being self-contradictory and circular.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    chameleon:

    I am once again a bit disappointed in you BBD.

    You do ask quite reasonable questions sometimes.

    Unfortunately however, it seems if you don’t get the answers you expect and/or if you are asked qualifying questions (before an answer is provided) you like to just launch into rather abusive, personal, pseudo psychological/political attacks.

    I can only conclude from that behaviour that you aren’t actually interested in a civil discussion, you’re only interested in trying to prove that something is amiss and dreadfully personally wrong with whoever you have questioned.

    Sorry if that sounds harsh but that’s how it appears to me at the moment.

    I wouldn’t exactly call your portrait of BBD “harsh,” Chameleon!

    More like a masterpiece of circumspection, lenience and polite understatement. :-)

    We’ve wasted a lot of time overestimating BBD’s good faith, I’m afraid.

    I reluctantly came to the same conclusion yesterday, when, within the space of 24 hours:

    — Lotharsson floated his steatorrheal pop-psychology meme-du-jour to the effect that I was motivated by a desire for “martyrdom,” and BBD said it was a pity they couldn’t martyr deniers old-school, using stakes and bundles of firewood

    — one of the interchangeable believalists on the minor thread told one of their interchangeable lies about me, for which I held the little liar accountable then and there …upon which BBD said I should “fuck off” and graced us all with a lecture about “the height of bad manners” [!] that I’d displayed by wandering off the reservation of the main thread

    — BBD serially and loudly demanded to know why I wouldn’t agree with him that AGW was “potentially dangerous,” ignoring the fact that I repeatedly agreed with him that AGW was “potentially dangerous”

    — BBD perseverated in asking me by what amount, in degrees celsius, the Earth’s climate responds to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and point-blank refused to take my honest answer (“I don’t know”) for an answer, insisting on a religious rule he no doubt invented for the occasion:

    This feigned climate agnosia is just evasiveness cloaking denial.

    Appeals to climate agnosia are diagnostic of denial, Brad.

    Wow. (The interjection, not the idiot.)

    Sadly, it seems BBD is just another vested-up climate Talib, but with a slower-than-average fuse.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Sou,

    you characterise my comments at your blog as “self-contradictory and circular.” Period. You don’t say how or why you came to feel this way.

    In case readers are wondering: yes, Sou regularly resorts to this kind of unverifiable, unfalsifiable, uninterpretable handwaving.

    This is not, alas, atypical of Sou.

    Just out of morbid curiosity, Sou, I wonder if you’re able to:

    1. cite one instance of self-contradiction and one instance of circular reasoning in the most recent comments of mine (the ones which precipitated your unwillingness to debate me any more)

    and—assuming you can accomplish point 1:

    2. reflect on your motivations for declining to do the normal human thing and point out the above problems at your blog, thus both practically enabling and socially pressuring me to acknowledge my errors (if any) in front of your readers.

    In other words, I wonder if you can explain why you’ve opted to eschew the normal behaviour of human beings who are confident in their own correctness and to adopt instead the standard petulant tactic of dissimulators who know very well that they’re wrong, have been shown up as wrong, and have no useful comeback in their intellectual arsenal.

  71. #71 chameleon
    March 2, 2013

    David B,
    I’m assuming you mean this paragraph?
    “There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.”

    I believe BradK has already outlined what his objections are.
    However,
    I am interested in your perspective.
    From what I’ve seen, I’m reasonably confident you can articulate your considered opinion without resorting to personal attacks.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    David,

    Brad Keyes — For a one paragraph summary I don’t find his 2nd paragraph that terrible. What do you object to?

    You really don’t see the problem? Okay.

    1. The phrase “a consensus of evidence” is word salad and would never have snuck past a scientifically- or, heck, a verbally-fluent editor. A murder of lettuces; a flock of bilirubin; a Michael Sandusky of Jeff Menn; that kind of thing.

    Notice the lexicographer’s advice attached to the definition of consensus, a word having exactly one sense:

    noun
    1. general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion)

    Since “consensus” refers to a collective opinion, the words “of opinion” in the phrase “consensus of opinion” are redundant and should therefore be avoided

    2. apologists for the barbarism “a consensus of evidence,” people like Lotharsson, plead that it’s mitigated by John Cook’s metaphorical intent, as implied by his rephrase: “many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”

    I’m less inclined to be charitable, having spent considerable time working directly with the victims of stultifying propaganda.

    The bizarre concatenation “a consensus of evidence” indicates, to me, a premeditated evasion of the normal, correct phrase: a consilience of evidence.

    2a. By replacing the right word with the wrong word, Cook must be hoping to confuse uneducated readers.

    And this prestidigitation, ham-fisted and tin-eared as it may be, works. I know it works because our friend “Sou,” among other people, really believes “consensus” is a measure of evidence. She’s never managed to tell me how much evidence, exactly, it denotes; but nor has she ever managed to grasp that what it actually measures is opinion. I repeat: people like Sou exist who really are ignorant of the word’s meaning, and are therefore easy marks for cheesy tricks.

    2b. By replacing the right word with the wrong word, Cook also imbues his made-up formula with a semblance of scienciness; arguably even a pseudosyllogistic quality. Listen to the rhythm of the fallacy. Bear in mind that credulous people LOVE a pattern-based “argument” whose “coherence” derives entirely from the Koran-like repetition of phonemes and lexemes. Such people would likely never be fooled if Cook had chosen his words honestly; even the dullest mind would surely perceive the bare-naked arbitrariness of a pronouncement like this:

    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consilience of evidence—many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.

    Not quite so persuasive now, is it?

    3. To state the obvious: Cook’s formula is a lie.

    You do not “need a con[sensus|silience] of evidence” in order for a majority of scientists to vote in favor of a given idea. Cook just made this up. Not only is there zero analytical basis for believing his claim (particularly once his deceptive vocabulary is corrected), there’s also no shortage of empirical proof that it’s FALSE. Modern scientific history is full of majority opinions that arise in the absence of “many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.” Such beliefs have even been known to remain popular in the scientific community in the presence of many different measurements disproving them.

    4. The motive for Cook’s lie is self-explanatory. It’s the same motive that launched the whole ‘consensus science’ publishing genre (associated with authors like Naomi Oreskes) in the first place.

    But I’ll spell the obvious out anyway, for slower thinkers.

    The point is as follows.

    Once they succeed in fooling you—once they’ve made you believe you need a consilience of evidence in order to get a consensus among scientists—then it follows (from this delusory principle) that a consensus among scientists proves that a consilience of evidence exists to support it.

    The consensus itself then does the work of evidence.

    (If you don’t believe me, ask chek. Chek will tell you, with a straight face: the scientific consensus itself indicates the strength of the argument.)

    Who needs physical measurements, who needs instrumental data—who needs a scientific argument at all—when the public is just as happy to be convinced by an opinion survey of climate scientists?

    This new / medieval, PostNormal / pre-scientific epistemological arrangement is a wet dream come true for the climate industry.

    This is the “logic” it needs the taxpaying public to acquiesce to.

    This is the “logic” it needs you to acquiesce to.

    Don’t.

  73. #73 chek
    March 2, 2013

    “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science….Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”Frank Luntz, Republican Party apparatchik and language mangler

    “Brad” here still thinks there’s mileage in that old dog yet by insisting there is no validity to the scientific consensus So far thousands of words and inordinate volumes of wordsoup from “Brad” insisting so have failed to sway anybody here.

    It must be very disappointing for him, but the insane will persist in the same method hoping for a different result. It’s what defines them.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    chek,

    quick comprehension test: which scientific consensus view do I not agree with personally?

    Also, do you get the important difference between disagreeing with the majority scientific view and disagreeing with the argument that we should agree with what the majority of scientists think, at least if we’re clueless about the science ourselves? (You articulated the latter argument rather well yesterday, if I recall—did you see my response?)

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Oops—I meant “the Michael Sandusky of Jerry Menn.” *

    And they say I’m unable to admit my mistakes!

    *Strictly speaking, “Jerry Männer.”

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    David,

    It occurred to me that I left a premise unspoken in the argument above. Depending on how much logic you’ve studied, the following might or might not already be obvious, but just in case it’s not…

    Evidence can be thought of (simplifying slightly) as information that modifies the likelihood you assign to a given proposition. For instance:

    evidence for X, a.k.a. evidence that X, is information which forces you to find X more plausible than you did before

    proof of X, a.k.a. proof that X, is information which forces you to believe X

    In rhetoric, there is no functional difference between

    — evidence for X
    and
    — proof that there is evidence for X.

    Each is just as cogent as the other.

    Either of them would force you to increase the likelihood you assigned to X, i.e. to consider X more plausible.

    Thus, if you allow a consensus among scientists to act as proof of the existence of a consilience of supporting evidence, then you’re allowing the consensus among scientists to act as evidence.

    Which, as I said before, would be a dream come true for bad scientists.

  77. #77 chek
    March 2, 2013

    Hi everybody, let’s meet “Brad”. Hi “Brad”.
    Hi, scienceblogs:deltoid folks
    Now “Brad” here is with us as yet another contender only this time with no scientific argument whatsoever. Is that correct “Brad”?
    That’s right, chek
    Ah, another one. So “Brad”, what’s your gameplan?
    Well chek, first I’m gonna fuck with words, then I’m gonna gangbang the language until it means what I want it to mean.
    So no science?
    Not one iota
    None at all?
    Not a sausage.
    Just for the sake of crystal clarity then “Brad”, you have no scientific argument whatsoever to offer, here on a scienceblog?
    Nothing at all, chek. Zero, zilch and zip on that front chek. Nothing, nada and nihil sciencewise. No science at all will be polluting my discourse. I’m confident that pure wordfuckery will see me through, just as it has on all my other attempts elsewhere.
    Yes, we’ve seen. OK, thanks “Brad”, I think that’s all we need to know.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    chek,

    good one!

    :-)

    Isn’t it amazing, though, how much vitriol, choler and bile I can milk from you people without even making a scientific argument?

    By the way, you’re conspicuously dodging my quick comprehension test: which scientific consensus view do I not agree with personally?

  79. #79 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Hardly rational to assert “how much vitriol, choler and bile I can milk from you people” when your past messages have astounding amounts of vitriol, choler and bile. You really aren’t managing to do anything here.

    And yes, the antiscience bullshit crowd is not welcome here.

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    And yes, the antiscience bullshit crowd is not welcome here.

    Very few people knowingly oppose science.

    It’s not unusual, however, for people who only vaguely understand what science is to find themselves inadvertently fighting against it with all their might, despite claiming (and believing) they’re on its side.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    To put it another way, we all think we’re on the side of science.

    Unfortunately we can’t seem to agree which side that is.

    :-)

  82. #82 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Yup, you don’t know anything.

  83. #83 BBD
    March 2, 2013

    *****THIS AUTOMATED REPEAT COMMENT FUNCTION IS ACTIVATED BY FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS*****

    I’m not here, really. This is just a repeat:

    On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven’t answered my questions.

    1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.

    2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.

    3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.

    ****SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT FEATURE******

  84. #84 Lionel A
    March 2, 2013

    At:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-34/#comment-151755

    Keyes continues his noisome attack on John Cook by attempting to ridicule this:

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

    Just because you don’t agree with it does not make it invalid, no matter how many times you repeat.

    Now answer this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-34/#comment-151724

    and this,

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-34/#comment-151853

    without using posts reeking of oleaginous hypocrisy.

    Aside.

    Can he do it?

  85. #85 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “Just because you don’t agree with it does not make it invalid,”

    To Bray’s narcissism, that is the ONLY definition of “invalid”: he doesn’t agree with it.

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Lionel A:

    Just because you don’t agree with it does not make it invalid, no matter how many times you repeat.

    Yes I know.

    What make it invalid are the errors of fact and logic from which it suffers.

    Some of them are detailed here.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Lionel A:

    Now answer this:

    Now finish my case study for me. It’s due on Monday. Cheers.

  88. #88 chek
    March 2, 2013

    To put it another way, we all think we’re on the side of science. Unfortunately we can’t seem to agree which side that is.

    Says “Brad” who immerses himself in crank blogs. Idiot.

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    To [Brad]’s narcissism, that is the ONLY definition of “invalid”: he doesn’t agree with it.

    To be fair, not everything I fail to agree with is invalid.

    A lot of it is simply false.

    A further fraction of it is indeterminate, so I don’t reject it either.

    And of course 1% or so of what I don’t accept is true / valid. (If I knew which 1 percent it was, I’d accept it.)

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    chek:

    Says “Brad” who immerses himself in crank blogs. Idiot.

    Tim is a crank?

  91. #91 chek
    March 2, 2013

    Heh. Let’s recall that your single attempt at discussing science here on scienceblogs petered out in a flurry of evasion and ignorance from you. That’d very likely be due to your being ‘on the side of science’, astounding as it may seem,, at crank and denier blogs elsewhere with primary literature not even being a consideration on ‘your side’ of science.

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Lionel:

    Keyes continues his noisome attack on John Cook by attempting to ridicule this:

    Hey, that’s how unbelievers roll. We attack people by ridiculing their arguments.

    (I’ve noticed that believers aren’t quite as good at this game. They often get mixed up, and try to attack arguments by ridiculing their people. It rarely works.)

    Anyway Lionel, a very rough introduction to the ways in which John Cook’s paragraph is ridiculous can be found at #72, with an addendum at #76.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    By the way Lionel,

    How would you like it if I ran around calling you “A”? Please refer to me as “Brad.” I know it’s a bit soon to be friends, but if we can at least be friendly it’s bound to improve the debate, if nothing else.

    You’re not still mad at me for getting you conflated with Ian Forrester, are you? I admit there’s no good way to spin that—except perhaps by pleading that at least I didn’t get you mixed up with Stu…? That’s gotta drop the heinousness down one or two echelons in the pyramid of depravity!

    :-)

  94. #94 chek
    March 2, 2013

    Anyway Lionel, a very rough introduction crank interpretation by a fully-fledged anti-science crank to the ways in which John Cook’s paragraph is ridiculous can be found at #72, with an addendum at #76.

    FTFY.

  95. #95 BBD
    March 2, 2013

    # 91

    ;-)

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    chek:

    Heh. Let’s recall that your single attempt at discussing science here on scienceblogs petered out in a flurry of evasion and ignorance from you.

    Er, your recall is playing tricks on you. I’ve discussed science several times here.

    Or perhaps, in your dialect, “science” is an abbreviation for “climate science”—in which case you must be referring to l’affaire ECS…

    …and your memory is still malfunctioning. That wasn’t my attempt at discussing anything. The fact is, I took pity on BBD and his fellow petitioners, whose obsessive inquiries after my opinion on climate sensitivity finally wore me down. So I made the fatal miscalculation of thinking we could discuss it cursorily, they’d get it out of their system and we could move on.

    Scroll up 10 comments or so and you can see how that worked out!
    ;-)

    Like I said. Obsessed.

  97. #97 chek
    March 2, 2013

    Like I said. Obsessed.

    What, like a horticulture blog is ‘obsessed’ by gardening, or a food blog is ‘obsessed’ by cooking, you mean “Brad”? Or perhaps you mean like you’re ‘obsessed’; with making a fool of yourself at every turn.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    So it was written:

    (I’ve noticed that believers aren’t quite as good at this game. They often get mixed up, and try to attack arguments by ridiculing their people. It rarely works.)

    And so it came to pass:

    That’d very likely be due to your being ‘on the side of science’, astounding as it may seem,, at crank and denier blogs elsewhere with primary literature not even being a consideration on ‘your side’ of science.

    Anyway Lionel, a crank interpretation by a fully-fledged anti-science crank to the ways in which John Cook’s paragraph is ridiculous can be found at #72, with an addendum at #76.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    And so it came to pass:

    Or perhaps you mean like you’re ‘obsessed’; with making a fool of yourself at every turn.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    March 2, 2013

    So, you refuse to answer straight questions.

    In that case, seeing as your time is too precious to go look up stuff about that which you continue to argue from ignorance whilst it has NOT been a WASTE OF OUR TIME in trying to get you to stop making a twerp of yourself!

    What an arrogant, bad mannered fool you are who thinks he is oh so clever sparing with words. ‘Too clever by half’, springs to mind.

    I’ll leave you to play with your sand, have fun.