Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    March 2, 2013

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

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

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

    3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C 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***

  2. #2 chek
    March 2, 2013

    And so it came to pass:

    Indeed it did “Brad”, with the unstated qualifier ‘in light of your history here’.
    Had it been before such, you’d have a point.
    But it wasn’t, and you don’t.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    Jeff Harvey:

    And by deniers I mean the climate change denial blogs, since few of them have any scientific bonafides…

    Where are these climate change denial blogs? I keep hearing about them but I don’t think I’ve had the… uh… pleasure of coming across one in my life. Do they offer ANY justification at all for the prima facie heroically improbable, ahistorical assertion that the Earth’s climate is static? Weird.

  4. #4 chek
    March 2, 2013

    “Brad’s” descent into semi-educated cretinisation continues unabated.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    March 2, 2013

    And so it came to pass:

    ““Brad’s” descent into semi-educated cretinisation continues unabated.”

  6. #6 chek
    March 2, 2013

    “Brad” pretends he doesn’t have a history here which informs opinion.
    But of course he does, and his descent into cretinisation continues on, whilst fooling nobody but himself.

  7. #7 chameleon
    March 2, 2013

    I would ask all of the deltoids a similar question BradK,
    There is apparently some sort of ratings system about the blogs that leads them all to make claims like JeffH has done.
    BBD has completely lost the plot over the same issue at the Feb thread.
    I think I will just paraphrase JeffH and just say there is no point in wasting my time in responding to BBD’s inappropriate and personal attack.
    I am also completely stunned that the moderator/s at this blog would allow Wow’s comment re the ‘bum etc. . . ‘ to stay up.
    Apart from the fact that Wow did exactly as was predicted, it is also a toxic comment.
    So the toxic nature of that comment totally overshadows the delicious irony.
    I’m starting to suspect you’re right and that Wow is paid by the ‘other side’ (whoever that is)
    :-)

  8. #8 David B. Benson
    March 2, 2013

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consilience
    consilience of evidence makes no sense. And
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
    to replace convergence is certainly new to me. I opine that Brad Keyes is making far to much out of the choice of a word.

    All too often those who do not know formal logic misuse proof. In careful writing it should only be used in the sense of a mathematical, i.e., deductive argument. It should not be conflated with the inductive logic’s weight of the evidence. In any case I prefer weight to convergence and that to consilience or consensus.

    There is a good case to be made, at least for some sciences, that evidence is partly subjective. In those cases consensus of evidence is appropriate.

    In any case, I view the whole matter as a tempest in a teapot.

  9. #9 chek
    March 3, 2013

    Calumny – quelle surprise – has no problem with li’ll ‘mike’s ‘ alluding to child sex abuse or allegations of racism in relation to Jeff Harvey’ s visit to Sri Lanka. What a stupid, dumbass, fully ignorable piece of shit ‘she’ is.

  10. #10 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    Chameleon

    BBD has completely lost the plot over the same issue at the Feb thread.
    I think I will just paraphrase JeffH and just say there is no point in wasting my time in responding to BBD’s inappropriate and personal attack.

    You bluffed and got caught. My best advice, then as now, is not to do it again.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    BBD:

    You said you were going away.

    Yet here you are.

    Again.

    Now we see what the word of a believalist is worth.

    Again.

    I guess you might rationalise your promise-breaking on the grounds that chameleon’s criticism of you was (in your opinion) illegitimate, giving you the grave moral duty and natural human right to respond inline.

    In which case, I’ll tell you what you told me the last time I followed that (perfectly sensible) principle: F___ off. In the name of good manners.

    For f___’s sake!

  12. #12 BBD
    March 3, 2013

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

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

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

    3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C 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***

    *** ;-) ***

  13. #13 chameleon
    March 3, 2013

    BBD,
    Why so tetchy?
    Why does it matter where you think I found the research?
    Maybe I found the link from a reference to geo physical at RC or Tamino?
    Would that make any difference?
    Maybe I’m not the liar you assert and I read the paper at the exactly the same link that I posted here?
    You have seriously lost the plot on this one BBD.
    You need to explain where you think I have misrepresented the paper.
    The rest of your pseudo psycho/political waffle is totally irrelevant and counter productive.

  14. #14 bill
    March 3, 2013

    What chek said. Chebbie, you’re a partisan idiot, defending degenerates.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    bill,

    thanks for reminding us that CAGW is an existent belief system, and not just some “straw man”:

    Joe Romm points out that rational people have tended to reverse the famous 5 stages of grief –

    “Finally, you end up in a kind of denial. It just becomes impossible to believe that the human race is going to be so stupid. Indeed, my rational side finds it hard to believe that we’re going to avoid catastrophic global warming, as any regular CP reader knows. But my heart, in denial, is certain that we will — see “How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated).” … “

    ;-)

  16. #16 bill
    March 3, 2013

    Brad, you’re a boring sophist.

    You’re too cowardly to answer the substantive questions you’ve been asked, and so are reduced to carrying on with cheap point-scoring that would embarrass a third-rate debating team.

    Which, come to think of it, you are on.

    Toodles.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    chameleon:

    I am also completely stunned that the moderator/s at this blog would allow Wow’s comment re the ‘bum etc. . . ‘ to stay up.

    I know. The good people at NatGeo must be thrilled to have their brand associated with Wow’s vile emissions.

    Apart from the fact that Wow did exactly as was predicted, it is also a toxic comment.

    So the toxic nature of that comment totally overshadows the delicious irony.

    I’m starting to suspect you’re right and that Wow is paid by the ‘other side’ (whoever that is)

    If he isn’t, then the forces of Denial are getting all that brilliant advertising for free. And the ironic perverse unbelievably absurd fact is that the troletariat thinks its worst ambassador since 10:10 is actually doing a good job! ROFL.

    Think I’m joking? Check out BBD’s oblivious encomium to him on the minor thread!

    Wow # 29

    Come on, you’ve done astonishing things here. I’ve never seen endurance like it. You have nothing left to do. TL may be being a little more hands-off than we would prefer, but it’s his blog… what can one do?

    The only possible explanation for why partially-rational beings would make such a maladaptive choice of spokesmodels is that they just count his comments and don’t bother reading them.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    Dear homo deltoides,

    Ready for the clue-bat upside your robust skull?

    Here’s what you yourselves thought about Wow when you last made the mistake of thinking it was possible to reason with him about something.
    You’re gonna need to be a bit clearer if you want to be understood.

    How does this sentence connect in any way with what I wrote?

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, tediously wrong. Perhaps you only saw “saw what you wanted” in my comment?

    Your mindreading skills are appallingly ineffective.

    Either you communicated really poorly, or you were deeply offensive for no obvious good reason. I’m hoping for the former.

    But on this fear thing you are apparently operating from a fundamental definitional error… assessing the effectiveness of a fear is a category error…

    Wake me up when you decide to address the reasons rather than pretend they weren’t given.



    Aren’t you embarrassed by that pathetic misdirection attempt? True, it is a lovely strawman you’ve skewered. But how about you try dealing with what was actually said?

    This is a well understood concept – at least by people other than you.

    
And yet, Rebecca gave reasons. Your claim to the contrary was an assertion that is trivially rebutted by noting that yes, Rebecca actually gave reasons.

    You didn’t even argue that her given reasons weren’t rational or weren’t valid or the like – you merely asserted they didn’t exist, and then questioned her mental health on that basis. If you’re going to speculate on that front you’re arguably looking in the wrong direction.

    

Let me fix your black and white strawman which might be getting your thinking stuck, and then see if the light dawns:

    
This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me.


    Given that this has been explained to you already, we’re apparently into flat out denial…

    I repeat, this is basic high school English comprehension.


    Your entire attack seems to rest on hyper-fine parsing which has the added demerit of being incorrect – not to mention an incredible tone-deafness.

    I’d consider seeking help. One could start with a High School English teacher.


    You’re way too good at fooling yourself by asserting false assumptions. That allowance doesn’t mitigate your driven determination to misinterpret Rebecca – or your complete tone deafness.

    It is denying the context, and denying the clear enough intent of the writer. Doing so may indicate a significant difficulty English comprehension, or some other issue.
    ————————————————
    :-) ;-) :-)

    Newsflash, believers:

    Wow has not gotten any better.

    Every time he opens his mouth HE COMES ACROSS JUST AS OBNOXIOUSLY STUPIDLY TO US AS HE DID TO YOU the last time you bothered to listen to him.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    bill,

    this is about as content-free and unpleasant as we’ve come to expect from you:

    You’re too cowardly to answer the substantive questions you’ve been asked,

    You mean, other than the one I’ve firmly answered with total certainty every single time BBD dements and re-asks it: “On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based?”

    For the last fucking time, BBD, I’m perfectly aware that AGW is potentially dangerous. This is a trivial, truistic motherhood statement.

    You must mean the question I keep “dodging” and “feigning agnosia” on, right?

    Wrong. Your problem, bill, is that you’re getting cowardice mixed up with the perhaps-related concept of courage. I know the distinction might be tricky, so let me clarify. I have been serially asked the same question, to which I’m not sure what the correct answer is, and rather than take the easy, craven and lazy route of professing whatever opinion would satisfy my interrogator and disarm his ideological immune response against me, I’ve exhibited integrity and probity by serially telling the truth: I’M NOT SURE.

    and so are reduced to carrying on with cheap point-scoring that would embarrass a third-rate debating team.

    Quite apart from the plain counterfactuality of this attempt at a put-down, the analogy you construct is noticeably confused. (Maybe you’ve never watched a debate.) A third-rate debating team would be proud to score cheap points, not embarrassed.

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    David:

    consilience of evidence makes no sense. And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
 to replace convergence is certainly new to me.

    Fair enough, David, but it’s not actually a new idiom. Even Naomi Oreskes knows it.

    As a metaphor it makes about as much sense as convergence, confluence, etc., surely.

    I opine that Brad Keyes is making far to[o] much out of the choice of a word.

    Cook’s “choice of a word” was symptomatic either of an amazingly-naive category confusion on his part, or of a cynical intent to miseducate millions of people like Sou (or lower) who genuinely don’t know that consensus refers to opinion, not evidence. (I know it takes a bit of a leap of empathy, but try to imagine how Cook’s argument would sound if you were as uneducated as them.)

    Either of these possible causes of Cook’s solecism would be pretty troubling, I’m sure you’ll agree. So I think it’s difficult for you to claim that I shouldn’t draw so much attention to his “choice of a word.”

    Secondly, was the irony deliberate when you voiced the following complaint straight after opining that I was “making far to[o] much out of the choice of a word”? :-)

    All too often those who do not know formal logic misuse proof. In careful writing it should only be used in the sense of a mathematical, i.e., deductive argument.

    Ah, how frustrating it must be for semantic purists to have to witness the almost daily neglect, by some writer somewhere, of the technical criteria for appropriately using such a term! Hehehe. ;-)

    No, seriously, I feel your pain.

    However, if you’re suggesting that I misused the word “proof,” no. I didn’t.

    I used it in the context of a “deductive argument”—a syllogism—exactly as you prescribe.

    Namely: that if Cook were telling the truth (which he isn’t) and you ”needed” a whole heap of consilient evidence in order to get a consensus of scientists (which you don’t), then a consensus of scientists would prove that there was a whole heap of consilient evidence lying around somewhere, wouldn’t it?


    There is a good case to be made, at least for some sciences, that evidence is partly subjective.

    Really?!

    Let me guess: you consider a prime candidate for one of these subjectively-evidenced sciences to be … climate science. Right?

    (This is a pretty enlightening conversation so far!)

    In those cases consensus of evidence is appropriate.

    I’m not so sure I agree 100% with your policework there Lou.

    To have a consensus—a majority opinion—of scientific evidence would require said evidence to the subject of the cognition. Evidence would have to be people, or at least one of the smarter species of monkey.

    But it isn’t. Even if scientific evidence were a subjective matter (you said it, not me :-) ), or even “a matter of opinion” so to speak, “a consensus of evidence” would still be categorically-confused word-salad because evidence isn’t capable of having opinions.

    You can have a consensus of Christian Scientists or sweet scientists or Home Science teachers, but not of evidence.

    In any case, I view the whole matter as a tempest in a teapot.

    Again: really?

    I LOVE science and I’m afraid I can’t share your insouciance about the strategic deflation, debasement and dumbing-down of public language around scientific knowledge.

    Thanks, nevertheless, for your thoughtful and responsive comments so far!




  21. #21 David B. Benson
    March 3, 2013

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/consensus
    just means general agreement. Being an American scientist and not a Brit schooled philosopher I have no difficulty with the general agreement of the evidence.
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/consensus
    While I personally would use that phase, I see nothing misleading about consensus of the evidence. Obviously what is meant (only some overly pure philosophers disagree) is the general agreement of those who know the evidence about what it means (or implies). I suspect that most actual scientists would agree with me that this issue of word choice is a tempest in a teapot.

    As for subjective evidence, consider the history of determining the properties of the electron. (I choose not to attempt to repeat Millikan’s experiment on his original apparatus.) But even more profound is the fact that the ability to even see the facets of a stained gram-negative micro-organism has to be trained. One only sees what the instructor has presented.

    Neither example has much to do with climatology wherein the difficulties are those of any historical science such as meteorology or geology. The difficulties are largely objective in that everybody shares the same ones.

    Your syllogism is: X is necessary for Y. Y holds. Therefore X does as well. Impeccable modal logic provided one accepts the S4 axioms or a similar system. So under that assumption, yes, a proof.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    March 3, 2013

    Brad, the controversy over consensus with respect to climate change is ‘manufactured’ by those with vested interest in denial. From Media Lens UK:

    “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. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. 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.’

    Powell said:

    ‘Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.’

    Adding:

    ‘Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.’

    The notable US science writer Phil Plait ‘marvelled’ at Powell’s ‘persistence in unearthing the facts and figures’, saying:

    ‘His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.’

    But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:

    ‘There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

    ‘When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.'”

    There you have it. ‘Corporate-sponsoired’ crap’ stands out for me, speaking as a scientist, when we are talking about contrary evidence. What is remarkable is how successful those who deny AGW have been in giving the impression that the science is somehow ‘controversial’ or that the evidence is ‘ balanced’. Its is not – it is heavily skewed to the pro-AGW side.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    David,

    Thanks for clarifying the idea of partially-subjective evidence.

    Regarding Millikan’s oildrop experiment, bear in mind that there was also the complication of verecundia, that horror of contradicting authorities which especially afflicts the weak-minded. There’s a nice quote (which I can’t locate) to the effect that the median man would prefer to be wrong if everyone else was wrong than to be right alone.

    Your syllogism is: X is necessary for Y. Y holds. Therefore X does as well. Impeccable modal logic provided …

    Hehe. Actually, though, my logic was for all intents and purposes indisputable. We’re talking about a public argument. Nobody who matters in the target audience for climate rhetoric is really likely to have any objection to the S4 axioms (even if they know what they are), are they?

    On “consensus of evidence,” you’ve demonstrated my point for me. :-)

    While I personally would use [a different] phase, I see nothing misleading about “consensus of the evidence.” Obviously what is meant (only some overly pure philosophers disagree) is the general agreement of those who know the evidence about what it means (or implies).

    Yet that’s not at all what John Cook says it means.

    Despite your confidence in the obviousness of “what is meant,” you’ve interpreted the phrase wrongly (from the perspective of the author who coined it) !

    This is the problem when people use words nonsensically.

    They seduce you—but not me, because I have zero tolerance for quasi-sensical pseudo-arguments—into thinking they obviously mean blah blah blah, while someone else (even the author himself) is just as likely to think they mean yadda yadda yadda, where blah != yadda.

    You’ve apparently opted to reconcile the incompatible words “consensus”, “of ” and “evidence” by reinterpreting them as “consensus about evidence.”

    Cook, on the other hand, appears to reinterpret them as “convergence of evidence,” which he defines as:

    many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion

    If even you—a scientist, who lives and breathes concepts like evidence—can be confused by Cook’s dodgy vocab, is it any surprise that simple folk like Sou internalise false ideas about how science works from him and his accomplices in science miscommunication?

    Finally, I think you’re right when you

    suspect that most actual scientists would agree with me that this issue of word choice is a tempest in a teapot

    but for the wrong reason.

    It simply wouldn’t occur to the average scientist that John Cook’s abuse of words could mislead muggles, because to the average scientist it’s “obvious” how scientific argument works—so even if Cook mangles the explanation, there’s no harm done. What I suspect the average scientist fails to appreciate is that the average punter doesn’t have any firm grip at all on the way evidence, knowledge, truth etc. function in science.

    If you’ve been a scientist for decades you probably don’t even remember how confusing, prestigious and mystical the language of scientific epistemology sounds when you don’t speak it.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    Jeff,

    I recognize the existence (according to the physical evidence) of AGW.

    Nobody of my acquaintance is unconvinced of AGW. I’ve met a couple of AGW disbelievers in my time but I had no real difficulty changing their minds, by which I mean: getting them to understand and (provisionally) accept the evidentiary argument for AGW.

    Before you went to Sri Lanka, you mentioned that you have AGW-denying friends and that (to your credit as a human being!) you’ve managed to remain friends—a feat of common, everyday decency which I can’t quite see Lotharsson accomplishing.

    But did you see my followup message, the one in which I asked why your friends didn’t believe in AGW, what you’d done to make them aware of the case for AGW, and why they remained unmoved by it?

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    bill,

    Sorry, I neglected to thank you for this additional reminder that CAGW is an existent belief system, and not just some “straw man”:

    The great New Yorker write Elizabeth Kolbert perhaps best summed up this form of denial. Her three-part series, “The Climate of Man,” which became the terrific book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, famously ends:

    [civilization is destroying itself, &c. &c.]

    Or to quote chek:

    Consequences indeed. ‘Alarmist’ is too mild a word.

    Glad we’ve finally sorted out the vexed issue of what we’re allowed to call you.

    :-)

  26. #26 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    “just means general agreement. Being an American scientist and not a Brit schooled philosopher I have no difficulty with the general agreement of the evidence.”

    No, you have to be a complete ignoramus like Bray not to get it. Brit Philosophy courses failed has nothing to do with Bray’s incomprehension.

  27. #27 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Why so tetchy?

    Why so coy?

    Why does it matter where you think I found the research?

    Why did you lie about it if you don’t think it matters?

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    Wow, you’re an ignorant idiot:

    Brit Philosophy courses failed has nothing to do with Bray’s incomprehension.

    No, especially since

    — my name isn’t Bray
    — I’m not British
    — I didn’t fail any Philosophy courses
    and
    — I’m not the one suffering incomprehension

    Seriously Wow, as Lotharsson has already put it to you: “
This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me.
.. consider seeking help.
”

    Unless of course, you’re on the Heartland payroll, in which case I take my hat off to your skill and indefatigability in embarrassing the catastrophists.

  29. #29 BBD
    March 3, 2013

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

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

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

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

    ***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***

  30. #30 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    Roll up! Roll up! See the Amazing Brangelini twist words and warp logic with the power of his mind alone!

    Be astonished by jaw-dropping displays of mendacity!

    Witness mind-boggling evasions!

    Brace yourselves for logic-defying displays of self-serving rhetoric!

    ********************************************

    “Brangelini does not disappoint” – Gavin Schmidt

    “Astonishing antics” – James Hansen

    “More compelling that a six-lane pile-up” – New York Times Review of Blog Shite

    “I knew Brad was gonna be huge but even I am stunned” – Tim Lambert

  31. #31 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    And stay in your kennel, you’re not welcome outside it.

  32. #32 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    For the last fucking time, BBD, I’m perfectly aware that AGW is potentially dangerous. This is a trivial, truistic motherhood statement.

    Earlier:

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

    Lying fuck!

    ;-)

  33. #33 BBD
    March 3, 2013

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

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

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

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

    ***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***

  34. #34 chek
    March 3, 2013

    … the catastrophists.

    So you sleepwalkers, deniers and liars think that you’ll have earned immunity from resource depletion and climate change because you did your corporate duty? Good luck with that supposition.

  35. #37 Brad Keyes
    March 3, 2013

    BBD

    You said you were leaving the main thread.

    Yet here you are. Again.

    So we see what the word of a believalist is worth. Again.

    You falsely call me a liar for stating the following facts:

    1. I know AGW might turn out to be harmful.

    2. I’m not convinced that it will turn out to be not only harmful, or very harmful, or more harmful than beneficial, but very much more harmful than beneficial.

    3. I’m not convinced that more than 50% of the relevantly-knowledgeable scientists are convinced of it, either. You’ve suggested they are, but that didn’t convince me. Whether you’re telling the truth is of zero evidentiary significance about nature, of course. So nothing hangs on this—other than the question of your probity, which has already been answered beyond much doubt.

  36. #38 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Fantasy.

    The only world deniers will live in.

  37. #39 Wow
    March 3, 2013

    Bray, you won’t stay in your kennel.

    You won’t answer questions.

    You won’t show any evidence.

    You won’t visit reality even for a second.

    Poor little baby, so easily confused when others don’t do as he petulantly demands.

  38. #40 BBD
    March 3, 2013

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

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

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

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

    Remember:

    – evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    – unreferenced claims are worthless!

    – I’m laughing at you!

    ***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***

  39. #41 BBD
    March 3, 2013

    BK

    You said you were leaving the main thread.

    Yet here you are. Again.

    So we see what the word of a believalist is worth. Again.

    Oh give over with your nonsense! I didn’t ‘give you my word’.

    Being accused of bad faith by you is beyond funny.

  40. #42 chameleon
    March 3, 2013

    BBD,
    I believe Lotharsson’s name for what you’re doing at the moment is ‘flouncing’.
    Brad K has answered your question. Apparently you don’t like the answer and hence you have decided to read something else into it?
    You also outlined what you think the answer is at this thread and the Feb thread.
    Your answer is not BradK’s answer BBD.
    Considering you were the asker (at the moment it looks more like some type of inquisition) and BradK is the answerer, then I think we could move on.
    I guess you can enlighten us about why you don’t like his answer if you think that may progress any discussion?

  41. #43 chek
    March 3, 2013

    Hey Calumny, why are you so ashamed to admit you’re up to your neck in, and get your information from, shit denier blogs?

  42. #44 David B. Benson
    March 4, 2013

    The vast majority of scientists know almost nothing about
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
    They are far too busy practicing their discipline.

  43. #45 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    chameleon

    You say:

    Brad K has answered your question.

    There were three.

    I think you are a lying toe-rag. If you disagree, you can make your case by quotation.

    These are the questions. Read them carefully before selecting you best of The Great Brangelini!

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

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

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

    Remember:

    evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    unreferenced claims are worthless!

    :-) ;-) :-)

    Rock the stadium, chameleon. Your audience awaits….

  44. #46 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    David:

    The vast majority of scientists know almost nothing about
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
    They are far too busy practicing their discipline.

    I agree. Formal epistemology to a scientist is about as useful as formal grammar to a native speaker, or ornithology to a bird (apologies to Feynman). It doesn’t mean scientists aren’t epistemologists—they are, even if they’ve never heard of the word.

  45. #47 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Uuuurp!

    Oops! Sorry!

  46. #48 BBD
    March 4, 2013

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

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

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

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

    Remember:

    evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    unreferenced claims are worthless!

    :-) ;-) :-)

    ***ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS CAN STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***

  47. #49 chameleon
    March 4, 2013

    OK BBD,
    I should have used the plural. My apologies.
    Instead of ‘question’ please substitute ‘questions’ and also substitute the plural form of the rest of the words that refer to said singular now plural (eg ‘them’ for ‘it’)
    And can you pleeeaaaaase stop doing what Lotharsson calls ‘flouncing’.
    BTW BBD,
    I’m not even slightly concerned about your opinion of me. I don’t know you anymore than you know me.
    I am not judging you personally BBD. I am commenting on the topics under discussion and asking questions.
    For all I know or you know, we could be friends or acquaintances or associates in the real world.
    You personal attacks are totally unsubstantiated and tend to indicate more about you rather than whoever you are personally attacking.

  48. #50 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    BBD:

    - evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    Yes, but how is this evasive:

    I’m not going to answer your quiz, BBD.

    It isn’t. There’s nothing evasive about it.

  49. #51 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Oh, thank you Brad!

  50. #52 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Uuuuurrrp!

    Oops! Sorry!

  51. #53 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Remember:

    - repeated quizzing is diagnostic of obsession!

    - reneging on your flounce is stalking!

    - stalking is a sign of infatuation!

  52. #54 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Can somebody help?

    Help me understand this:

    Yes, but how is this evasive:

    I’m not going to answer your quiz, BBD.

    Uuuurrrp!

    Ooops! Sorry!

    It’s al the chortling!

  53. #55 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Lest we forget:

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

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

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

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

    Remember:

    evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    unreferenced claims are worthless!

    :-) ;-) :-)

    ***ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS CAN STOP THE AWFUL PUBLIC HUMILIATION***

  54. #56 David B. Benson
    March 4, 2013

    #46 Brad Keyes — Point taken.

  55. #57 David B. Benson
    March 4, 2013

    BBD — You grow exceedingly tiresome.

  56. #58 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    BBD:

    “Help me understand this:

    Yes, but how is this evasive:

    I’m not going to answer your quiz, BBD.


    You seriously don’t get it?

    I’m standing my ground, stalker.

    It’s broad daylight. The whole street can see your erotomanic actions.

  57. #59 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    My apologies, David.

    I find BK exceedingly tiresome.

  58. #60 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    BK

    What ‘ground’? You haven’t substantiated anything.

    I’m standing my ground, stalker.

    It’s broad daylight. The whole street can see your erotomanic actions.

    Erm… you’ve lost me here. ‘Stalker’? ‘Erotomaniac’?

    WTF?

  59. #61 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Sorry: ‘erotomanic’.

    Silly me.

  60. #62 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    #46 Brad Keyes — Point taken.

    Cool, we’re on the part of the merry-go-round where Brad gets to tell us how many epistemologists it took to get Curiosity & Discovery to Mars.

    Next stop: Brad avoids explaining how epistemology is relevant to his denial of the very real and concrete published results of many individuals work on climate science, representing as they do over 99% of the work being done in the field.

    Future episodes: The Straw Man, Begging The Question, Diversion, and Denial.

  61. #63 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Vince,

    this is a curious claim:

    Brad avoids explaining how epistemology is relevant to his denial of the very real and concrete published results of many individuals work on climate science, representing as they do over 99% of the work being done in the field.

    So up to 1% of the work being done in the field is NOT the very real and concrete published results of the work of individuals?

    What is it then?

  62. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    So up to 1% of the work being done in the field is NOT the very real and concrete published results of the work of individuals

    Ah, yes, I forgot that part of the merry-go-round:
    – parsing errors, ignorant and deliberate

  63. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    (With a free ‘Begging The Question’ thrown in, evidently).

  64. #66 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Vince:

    Ah, yes, I forgot that part of the merry-go-round:
    – parsing errors, ignorant and deliberate

    If you don’t want me to parse your errors, stop making them.

  65. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    March 4, 2013

    And at ‘Parsing Errors’, we have a detour into ‘Tedious Repetition’.

  66. #68 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Vince,

    you advise Chameleon on the subsidiary thread:

    I find it hard to believe that you could even imagine yourself successfully participating in an intelligent discussion on the public’s trust in science following the deluge of well-funded professional anti-science PR propagated around the world’s mass media since the 1960s.

    You could read the excellent, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes if you’re interested, though.

    Yes, if you’re interested in the way such theories work, Oreskes’ book is a very lightweight and unchallenging articulation of the meme that there’s a consp, er, a concerted, well-orchestrated, well-funded, decades-long covert effort to discredit Science™ Itself.

    While I recommend the tree-pulp version, slower thinkers may prefer the audio book, which apparently allows you 13 whole hours to take in the full ramifications of the novel’s alt-history premise.

  67. #69 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Just a word of caution to those contemplating the modest pecuniary and intellectual investment of reading Oreskes’ conspiracy thriller The Merchant of Doubt:

    if you’re the kind of person who gets morally exercised by the Galileo Movement’s mention of “banking families,” nudge nudge, then you may lack the stomach for Oreskes’ core “thought” that a tight-knit cabal of merchants (whose surnames just happen to share a particular ethnocultural connotation) have been pulling the strings of world history from behind the scenes for the last 50 years.

  68. #70 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    It’s okay though: Naomi Oreskes is one herself, as someone on one of the obsolete threads assured me confidently.

    Or at least, we can presume she is, given that the notoriously racist Hannah Arendt centre was willing to interview her!

    *crosses eyes, whistles and makes circumtemporal twirling gesture with index finger*

  69. #71 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Brad

    You have never read MOD. This is just another of your many lies.

  70. #72 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Bernard J:

    Odin on a stick.

    Hehe. Can I borrow that eublasphemism? When bill is around one doesn’t want to be too overt, lest one attract epithets like “Hitchenist anti-ecclesiastical myth-hater!” (My usual “Mithras,” when placed on a stick, didn’t seem to be a sufficiently oblique metonym.)

    For someone who tries to hang off every one of Keyes’ words you [Chameleon] seem to miss the most basic of his statements.

    Logic fail. You can only allege that Chameleon “tries to hang off every one of Keyes’ words” if you deliberately ignore the fact that she’s unaware of one of my most classic statements. That fact makes your theory, not Chameleon, look bad.

    Anyway Bernard, you’ve tipped us off that you’re here, so no more evasiveness please (and in case BBD is stalking still, note that I’m using the word where it actually applies): hurry up and gives us that defense of your thesis that I’m somehow “borderline (at least) psychopathic.” I couldn’t care less about your dead cat, computer or whatever personal problem you’re using as an excuse: you owe us a discussion of me and my supposed indifference to fellow human beings.

  71. #73 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Vince:

    And at ‘Parsing Errors’, we have a detour into ‘Tedious Repetition’.

    No, the Tedious Repetition has stopped, you’ll be glad to know—BBD appears to have taken David’s hint.

    (Thanks again, David.)

  72. #74 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    BBD:

    You have never read MOD. This is just another of your many lies.

    I have too. (And I read it at a perfectly normal w.p.m. for university graduates.)

    This all happened a couple of years ago when a good friend and CAGW believer, whose intellect I respect, said in an email that Oreskes’ vision of history was “interesting.” I mistook this for a non-ironic endorsement of her book. You should have been a fly on the wall when I told my friend I’d made it all the way through, expecting perhaps a bit of gratitude on his part, only for him to confess he hadn’t read it himself! LOL :-)

    Anyway BBD, try to stop lying.

  73. #75 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    David, you’re talking bollocks when you complain about BBD’s insistence on being answered as “boring” yet have never said a word about Bray’s antics.

    And you go double-fuckwit when you say to the galloping donkey “point take”. The arrogant little twat has never made a point in their entire tiresome screed here. Or elsewhere, apparently.

    So, David, take your asinine idiocy elsewhere, you’re a stupid twunt and of no use to man nor beast.

  74. #76 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    Wow,

    David has managed in a few short posts to contribute more of value to this thread than you have in all your hundreds of comments, yet you have the cretinousness and (as has already been pointed out by Lotharsson) tone-deafness to pejorate David’s intelligence in the most vulgar terms, e.g.:

    So, David, take your asinine idiocy elsewhere, you’re a stupid twunt and of no use to man nor beast.

    As Lotharsson once told you:

    Either you communicated really poorly, or you were deeply offensive for no obvious good reason. I’m hoping for the former.

    I’ve long given up on “the former” myself.

  75. #77 chameleon
    March 4, 2013

    Yep,
    Deeply offensive for no obvious good reason.

  76. #78 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    Yep, to a rampant raving narcissist like you, a post that fluffs your ego is of MAJOR importance, isn’t it.

  77. #79 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    BK

    You know you haven’t read it. I know you haven’t read it.

    We both know the truth ;-)

    Your daily humiliation and exposure as a liar and denialist who refuses to answer questions because to do so would instantly and irrevocably demolish your ‘position’ must now resume:

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

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

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

    Remember:

    evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    unreferenced claims are worthless!

    :-) ;-) :-)

    This exercise serves both to rub your face in your dishonesty and denial, and as a public example of what you are doing here.

    It is regrettable that certain commenters find the process tedious, but it remains necessary.

    I also enjoy laughing at you. And you don’t like being laughed at, do you Brad?

    ;-)

  78. #80 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Don’t mind me, everyone—I’m not really here, as BBD says when he’s pretending not to be somewhere he promised he wouldn’t be.

    I made you no *promise*! And I’ve pointed this out in response to this lie upthread. Yet you repeat it again!

    You lying fuck!

    ;-)

  79. #81 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    Hell, Bray said he’d leave but he weaselled out of that and then asked “what’s a weasel denier?”.

    Seems, like every narcissist, it doesn’t count if it’s him doing it.

  80. #82 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    wow

    In all the time I’ve been debating liars like Brad, I don’t think I’ve ever been confronted by something as hilariously *shameless* as BK’s attempt to re-define standard English usage. Let’s marvel over this once again.

    [BBD:] – evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    [BRAD:] Yes, but how is this evasive:

    I’m not going to answer your quiz, BBD.

    It isn’t. There’s nothing evasive about it. [all emphasis as original].

    So in the mind of The Great Brangelini, refusing to answer questions that sit at the very heart of his ‘argument’ does not constitute an evasion. Let’s just roll the tape again:

    [BRAD:] There’s nothing evasive about it.

    Yes, he really *did* say that!

    This is how sunk in bad faith and denial our mutual friend really is.

    While antics of this kind are funny on one level, they are repellent on another. There’s something disquieting about watching an intelligent human being do this to themselves in public.

    It’s interesting watching BK getting rattled too. Like all narcissists and borderline psychos he cannot tolerate ridicule.

    So keep on making mock and asking the questions he cannot answer except by destroying the lie he is pushing here.

    Let’s see how far beneath contempt Bradley is prepared to go!

  81. #83 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    BBD:

    You know you haven’t read it.

    I know I have read it.

    I know you haven’t read it.

    There’s a word for “knowing” things that aren’t true, even after it’s been explained to you that they’re not true: delusion.

    I apologize for my previous suggestion that you were lying, BBD. It’s clear you were, and are, simply in the grip of psychosis.

  82. #84 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Let’s look at one of your trivial exaggerations. You claim to have read MoD in under four hours.

    Since I don’t feel inclined to credit you with superpowers, you will have a reading speed of 250wpm with 70% comprehension.

    My edition of MoD averages 10 words per line and has 39 lines per page. Excluding references it is 274 pages long, so let’s call that 250 pages of text.

    390 words per page x 250 = 97,500 words. To read this book and fail to comprehend nearly a third of it would take, on average, 6 hours 30 minutes.

    Yet you claim perfect comprehension in under four hours. An exaggeration of this scale is indistinguishable from a lie!

  83. #85 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Oh, and Bradley…

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

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

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

    Remember:

    evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!

    feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!

    unreferenced claims are worthless!

    :-) ;-) :-)

  84. #86 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    BBD:

    Since I don’t feel inclined to credit you with superpowers, you will have a reading speed of 250wpm with 70% comprehension.

    1. Where the what are you getting those figures?

    And before you tell me how fast the average American reads, let me repeat:

    I read it at a perfectly normal w.p.m. for university graduates.

    2. What the what do you mean by your construct of “70% comprehension”? Are you suggesting that I found every third word unintelligible? Every third concept? Every third sentence? Every third chapter?

    Let’s look at one of your trivial exaggerations. … An exaggeration of this scale is indistinguishable from a lie!

    Ah, the proportionateness and consistency with which the mind of the True Believer is synonymous. :-)

  85. #87 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Can’t you do even the most basic, trivial research yourself, Brad?

    I’m not surprised you are so clueless about climate.

  86. #88 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    I read it at a perfectly normal w.p.m. for university graduates.

    While you are verifying my figures by getting off your arse and checking for yourself, you can rustle up a number and a reference for this claim.

  87. #89 Jeff Harvey
    March 4, 2013

    Brad, It’s too bad that you don’t appear to have read many other books which have closely examined the strategies of the climate change denial lobby, as well as other overt forms of anti-environmentalism, Books by David Helvarg, Andrew Rowell, Sheldon Rampton and David Stauber, Jeffrey St. Clair, Sharon Beder etc. make the case pretty clear. Besides, there is nothing remotely controversial in the Oreskes tome as far as I can see; perchance you just don’t like the message?

    Given your speed reading skills perhaps you ought to check out the wide and well referenced literature base. It might open your eyes just a tad.

  88. #90 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Oh and Bradley, the reason I’ve ceased to bother being pleasant to you is because you *refuse* to substantiate your ‘argument’ by answering those pesky questions.

    This is conclusive proof that you are a lying, posturing, denialist toe-rag conducting a monumental exercise in bad faith on this thread. And if there’s one thing I cannot be doing with in this life it is bad faith. So I’ll be poking you in the eye on a routine basis from now on.

    Enjoy! You’ve earned it!

  89. #91 BBD
    March 4, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    Brad’s in *denial*. He doesn’t read things he doesn’t want to know about. Thus maintaining his denial-enabling climate agnosia.

  90. #92 Lionel A
    March 4, 2013

    Jeff,

    Given your speed reading skills perhaps you ought to check out the wide and well referenced literature base. It might open your eyes just a tad.

    The Keyes problem is that he reads too fast to take in context, probably.

  91. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 4, 2013

    A,

    The Keyes problem is that he reads too fast to take in context, probably.

    1. Failing to take in context is not reading at all.

    2. The assumption that reading speed and comprehension are inversely or negatively related is at best questionable.

  92. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    March 5, 2013

    He doesn’t need to.

    He already knows what he wants to think.

  93. #95 David B. Benson
    March 5, 2013

    Brad Keyes — You are welcome but it does not seem to have worked. :-(

  94. #96 peterd
    March 5, 2013

    BK, #46:
    “Formal epistemology to a scientist is about as useful as formal grammar to a native speaker”
    And formal grammar *is* useful to a native speaker when she must explain English grammatical constructions to a non-native speaker.

  95. #97 Brad Keyes
    March 5, 2013

    Jeff,

    thanks for the author recommendations.

    Have you had a chance to look at my questions: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-35/#comment-151939
    ?

  96. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 5, 2013

    peterd:

    And formal grammar *is* useful to a native speaker when she must explain English grammatical constructions to a non-native speaker.

    Correctamundo. I wonder: does this suggest, by analogy, what a scientist should understand before she tries to teach a non-scientist about scientific reasoning?

  97. #99 David B. Benson
    March 5, 2013

    The Anthropocene began 9,000 years ago:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthropocene-climate-farming/1955041/
    A fine summary of the work of Ruddiman and others.

  98. #100 Jeff Harvey
    March 5, 2013

    BBD, I agree. That’s why my post was written tongue-in-cheek. Brad’s dismissal of the Oreskes book – which has nothing remotely controversial in it as far as I can see (I read it too, but not in 4 hours) – is a clear sign of denial. My point is that if one bothers to look further, there is plenty of information available showing that there is a well-organizws and funded anti-environmental lobby, in which climate change denial is just one (albeit large) facet.

Current ye@r *