Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    March 5, 2013

    Jeff:

    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.

    What dismissal? I recommended the book to Chameleon.

    In any case thank you, Jeff, for realizing that I have read it. BBD’s dismissal of the fact that I’ve read it—a fact which is not remotely controversial—is a clear sign of denial.

  2. #2 BBD
    March 5, 2013

    David B Benson

    Your tolerance toward BK is misdirected.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    March 5, 2013

    David,

    A fine summary of the work of Ruddiman and others.

    Thanks for that, I have been studying Ruddiman for a few years now (having suspected the case for some time before finding Ruddiman on to it) and have a couple of his books. As I don’t have access to that work you cited I’ll check back when final publication is in.

    I have read Broecker too, and of course Alley but more context on Rudiman’s line is provided by the works of Jared Diamond.

  4. #4 BBD
    March 5, 2013

    Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty Bradley:

    Once again, refuse to answer key questions that, were you to address them substantively and in good faith would immediately and irrevocably demolish your ‘position:
    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!

    - We are all laughing at you!

  5. #5 BBD
    March 5, 2013

    No comfort in the Ruddiman hypothesis for proponents of low ECS to GHGs.

  6. #6 BBD
    March 5, 2013

    Actually, while we are talking about books and Bill Ruddiman, he wrote possibly the best paleoclimate/climate textbook currently available: Earth’s Climate, past and future, now in its second edition. Very highly recommended, especially to Brad.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    March 5, 2013

    David,

    When BBD tells you

    Your tolerance toward BK is misdirected.

    I think it’s meant to be a hint. It’s not enough to agree with them about climate change, you actually have to hate people who disagree with them—hate us in a “put ‘er in the hotbox fer runnin’ away from the plantation”, “stakes and bundles of firewood” kind of way, like BBD—or else be prepared for Wow el al. to call you a

    double-fuckwit talking bollocks asinine idiocy stupid twunt of no use to man or beast.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    March 5, 2013

    Very highly recommended, especially to Brad.

    Indeed, that is one I have, and still studying, rather allot to it if one ponders on the implications rather than just reading it. My copy is in similar weight paper to my copy of Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science which is also highly recommended for climate and planetary systems (Earth’s systems) neophytes. Then progress onto Pierrehumbert’s, ‘Principles of Planetary Climate‘, first mentioned by David way up thread.

    James Hansen’s ‘Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity‘ is also recommended for the explanations of climate sensitivity and a counter to Lindzen’s nonsense. Lindzen must be getting used to being wrong, such a shame for a clearly talented physicist to have to dwell in and live off the brown-lash. Darned good quote from Feynman too, which sheds a spotlight on Lindzen’s type of argument.

    Much of which Lindzen, only dare repeat to lay-audiences or sneak into the type of media ‘balanced’ debate knowing that a gish gallop is tough to refute in a couple of minutes on such (Richard Alley is king of this sort of refutation), especially with a hostile, to climate science, chair.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    March 5, 2013

    Whilst writing about books here is a reasonable list from The Way Things Break .

    I could add a few to that now after four years.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    March 5, 2013

    Lionel,

    Darned good quote from Feynman too, which sheds a spotlight on Lindzen’s type of argument.

    Could you tell us the quote?

  11. #11 BBD
    March 5, 2013

    Why are all deniers so obsessed with Feynman? Is it because he is dead and cannot repudiate their hijacking of his words?

  12. #12 chek
    March 5, 2013

    It’s likely because – and “Brad’s” the perfect example – they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.

    Unfortunately, he’s been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol’ Rich, but there ya go.

    Meanwhile, “Brad’s” lips will be subvocalising at twenty to the dozen as he tucks another one under his belt to misuse at some point. Jackass that he is.

  13. #13 bill
    March 5, 2013

    BBD: Yes. By the same method homeopaths could use him to bolster their case.

    Remember also that Deniers will be the first to tell you that they’re deeply opposed to arguments from authority… apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority is just fine, though.

  14. #14 bill
    March 6, 2013

    BBD – here’s a current discussion at SkS on the Shanghaied Shades of Feynman & Popper vs. Reality.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    bill,

    you lack the subtlety of mind to know what’s wrong with this statement, so I’ll just explain it to you:

    Remember also that Deniers will be the first to tell you that they’re deeply opposed to arguments from authority… apostophised [sic] posthumous irrelevant authority is just fine, though.

    Oh FFS, bill! Argument from authority is completely illegitimate in science. And I’ve never said—nor has any other denier ever said—that it would be “just fine” to cite Feynman’s authority in science. That’s a private auditory hallucination of yours.

    We don’t cite his authority in science. We don’t even cite his authority about science (metascientifically). But we are fond of quoting his metascientific sayings—apparently more fond than believers. Why? Because Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders, in a crystal-clear Brooklyn register that anyone can understand. Even Arts graduates.

    By the same method homeopaths could use him to bolster their case.

    Really? I’d be amused and indebted if you could regale us with an impression of a hypothetical homeopath quoting Feynman “to bolster their case.”

  16. #16 David B. Benson
    March 6, 2013

    The Angry Summer: Report Blames Climate Change For Australia’s Extreme Weather
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/05/1677531/australia-summer-climate-change/
    *sigh*

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    chek:

    It’s likely because – and “Brad’s” the perfect example – they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.

    More CFC emissions. Yawn.

    You have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.

    Unfortunately, he’s been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol’ Rich, but there ya go.

    So you think James Hansen is an ignorant jackass? :-)

    ROFL….

    You just don’t know when to control your emissions, do you chek?

  18. #18 peterd
    March 6, 2013

    BK, #98:
    “Correctamundo. I wonder: does this suggest, by analogy, what a scientist should understand before she tries to teach a non-scientist about scientific reasoning?”

    BK: The question would never arise, as she would be too wise to attempt to explain something so difficult. :-)

    Seriously, I am inclined to suspect that most scientists are actually rather poor in terms of their understanding of scientific reasoning. At least, insofar as that relates to epistemological issues, and the philosophy of science. (I remember my own early encounters, in third-year physical chemistry lectures, with the philosophy of science: I have never been able to shake off the feeling I had then that nearly all my classmates were deeply uninterested.)

    But what is meant by “scientific reasoning”? If I may be permitted to make ritual obeisance to the wisdom of Feynman, here is something he once had to say:
    “Scientific reasoning requires a certain discipline, and we should try to teach this discipline, because even on the lowest level such errors [as are associated with the mis-interpretation of results] are unnecessary today.” (R.P. Feynman, “The Meaning of it All”)

    I commend this endorsement of everyday commonsensical consideration of the interpretation of data to- just to take a purely random example!- those folk who cherry-pick a series of temperature measurements to show (for example) that the Earth has been “cooling for the last 16 years”, or some such nonsense. They should ask themselves “what’s up?” with that kind of interpretation of data. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be capable of such critical reasoning.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    ~ BEST OF THE MINORS ~
    For those who haven’t checked the lesser threads, here are some of the more important, thoughtful points raised in the periphery today.

    chek:

    As far as I can determine, Calumny’s sole purpose is to act as a weathervane for what the stupids are being fed.

    It’s a shit job for a piece of shit, but hey, somebody has to do it.

    Bernard J:

    Your husband must have been drunk when he met and married you.

    Vince Whirlwind:

    Bernard, I think her husband enjoys taking photos of sea walls.

    Brad Keyes:

    Brad has been placed in moderation because of repeated violations of the rules.

    Yikes! Given the low, low standards of commentary now permitted to be associated with the National Geographic brand, I shudder to think how vile this “Brad” fellow’s remarks must have been to attract censorial attention. What a misogynist adolescent he probably is.

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    Moderators,

    Sarcasm aside, I have to agree with mike on the less-popular thread: Bernard’s comment #89 was unbelievably stupid and ugly. Please do something about it.

  21. #21 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    Why do you *sigh* David?

    Have look back over the previous 35 pages of this thread and the umpteen other pages of attempts to reason with BK on other threads that precede it.

    If your frustration is borne of the belief that those efforts were simplistic or prematurely abandoned, you are mistaken. This is the end-game, where we are done with trying.

    Do, please, read the thread before passing snap judgements – if that is indeed what has happened here.

  22. #22 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    bill

    Sks does not disappoint!

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    chek,

    I presume that peterd’s accurate use of Feynman’s writing (in his thought-provoking comment #18) is yet another instance of the class of acts that “signifies the would-be user is an ignorant jackass” in your mind.

    What does that say about you, chek?

  24. #24 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    “Do, please, read the thread before passing snap judgements”

    There are several people who prefer not to think about whether the acts of others they don’t agree with have a valid excuse.

    Until much later when they have done it all over again and come to the exact same conclusion.

    But they hardly ever say “I guess you were right being abrupt and brusque with them”.

  25. #25 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    bill

    ‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don’t talk about *climate science*. Something I learned years ago in the unpleasant world of business negotiation is never let the other side control the discourse.

  26. #26 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    Eh, it’s all there, isn’t it? Climate agnosia (but rejection of the standard position), refusal to discuss the evidence, intensive reliance on obfuscatory misdirection and the shades of P & F, endless insinuations that climatology is pseudo-science etc etc etc.

    I”m surprised the mods haven’t shitcanned Ek. They should.

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    BBD:

    ‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don’t talk about *climate science*.

    Oh, how gasp.

    Forgive my obtuseness, but when did we agree dat dis wud b a *climate science* thread? Is ur monomania supposed 2b respeckted by da rest of us because… well, just because?

  28. #28 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    Mot du jour:

    Tergiversation.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    March 6, 2013

    ‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould.

    Were it not signs that English could be a second language I almost thought ‘Eclectikus was a sock for ‘Brad Keyes’ as he likes to throw out words such as ‘disquisitions. What is it about pretentious language and ‘purple prose that makes one shudder?

    PS BK read Hansen yourself as there is more than one reference to Feynman WRT Lindzen, following Lindzen’s trail may help you understand our disgust.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    March 6, 2013

    I”m surprised the mods haven’t shitcanned Ek. They should.

    Probably something to do with ‘enough’ and ‘rope’. The similarity with BK is striking though.

    Sorry for loose punctuation, I am feeling quite rough today with a nasty day at hospital tomorrow, I may not be back for awhile.

  31. #31 chek
    March 6, 2013

    Ah – the old Cliff Richard classic.
    “Tergiversation and obfuscation,
    I want the world to know that you can’t better me.
    Manipulation to peroration
    I want the world to know how slippery I can be”.

    Be well soon Lionel.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    Lionel,

    Good luck tomorrow. Hopefully it’s not as rough as you think.

    Take care—

    Brad

  33. #33 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    Sorry to hear that, Lionel. May I also wish you a speedy recovery.

    I also noticed the BK-ishness of Ek, and also wondered if we aren’t being treated to a dazzling display of sockpuppetry complete with ‘foreign accents’. Who knows?

    The song remains the same.

    And bloody hell, does check nail it nicely! Hats off!

  34. #34 BBD
    March 6, 2013

    ‘chek’. Sorry!

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    Bernard J,

    in refusing to apologise to Chameleon (as any normal commenter invested in their own credibility would do) you take refuge in silly counterfactual subjunctives:

    I would have made the same comment if you admitted to being a married male, and I’m sure that in that case your umbrage and Mike’s would have been non-existent.

    Coulda shoulda woulda. You made the comment you made, Bernard, and it sucked, like you.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    March 6, 2013

    Vortical Vince:

    And let’s just remember the kind of operation the likes of Brad is engaged in:

    [followed by instructions for astroturfing]

    Of course, you’re not accusing me of astroturfing, are you Vince? Nah, that—having the cojones to tell a simple lie—isn’t your style, is it? The best you can muster is to accuse “the likes” of me of being engaged in a “kind of” operation like astroturfing …whatever that means.

    Brave, brave Sir Vincent spinning bravèly,
    His arms a weasel hurlant on lines nebuly!

    I seriously think obvious astroturfers should be deleted out of hand, their IPs permanently blocked.

    Oh well, there goes Reality Drop. :-) LOL !

  37. #37 David B. Benson
    March 7, 2013
  38. #38 chek
    March 7, 2013

    What I did notice in that exchange David, was the marked difference between those who want to know and those who don’t.
    By the by, fulling (a wool treatment process) long ago was carried out by a fuller, tramping around ankle deep in piss. It seems some still fully live up to the surnames they’ve inherited.

  39. #39 bill
    March 7, 2013

    re #20 BK

    Are you serious? Shall we fish out some of your comments about Oreskes, then?

    Hypocrite.

  40. #40 David B. Benson
    March 7, 2013

    chek — :-)

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    bill:

    re #20 BK

    Are you serious?

    Yes.

    Shall we fish out some of your comments about Oreskes, then?

    You must do what you feel is right.

    It will not avail you, of course.

    But knock yourself out.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    chek,

    you seem to be understandably reluctant to defend this stupid theory about quoting Feynman:

    It’s likely because – and “Brad’s” the perfect example – they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.

    As I pointed out, you have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.

    You then let slip this gobsmacking prejudice:

    Unfortunately, he’s been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol’ Rich, but there ya go.

    It follows that you think James Hansen and peterd are ignorant jackasses. Care to comment?

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    Bernard J:

    Is Keyes’ [sic] still struggling to understand why his behaviour indicates excessive narcissism?

    LOL… now you can be too narcissistic, according to resident pop-psych dilettante Dr J!

    This may come as a shock to a hyponarcissistic nobody like yourself, Bernard, but my self-esteem is one of the things that most draws people to me.

    By the way, would your latest struggle against English punctuation be an example of whatever chek meant by “apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority,” I wonder? Anyone here speak slovak?

  44. #44 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    The sickening exhibition of dishonesty continues:

    I think it’s meant to be a hint. It’s not enough to agree with them about climate change, you actually have to hate people who disagree with them

    I don’t think you are contemptible because you disagree with me Brad. You are contemptible because you *refuse* to substantiate your ‘argument’ by answering key questions.

    This reveals you to be a lying, posturing, denialist toe-rag conducting a monumental exercise in bad faith on this thread. Which is contemptible.

  45. #45 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    @ 27

    Fuck off or answer the questions.

  46. #46 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    Side-note:

    Along with tergiversation, dishonesty, framing, projection, misrepresentation and misdirection, deniers – bereft of any scientific argument – are also obliged to rely on game theory, eg # 7.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    Oh, and to preëmpt the inevitable shrill demands for proof, this:

    my self-esteem is one of the things that most draws people to me.

    … is simply one of the leading explanations I’ve heard as to why I’m so well-liked—which is one subject on which I’m not inclined to dispute the consensus!

    ;-)

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    BBD,

    It’s hard to miss the fact that you’re none too keen to answer this question (my emphasis):

    “‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don’t talk about *climate science*.

    Shocking!

    But hang on: when did we agree this was a *climate science* thread? Is your monomania supposed to be respected by the rest of us because… well, just because?

  49. #49 chek
    March 7, 2013

    Just a reminder to “Brad” that climate change isn’t some future hypothetical but is happening now and affecting real people.
    And just as with money, you can’t eat word soup.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    chek:

    And just as with money, you can’t eat word soup.

    Never heard of it. Is it a bit like word salad (“a consensus of evidence”) with a side of alphabet soup (“apostophised”)?

  51. #51 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    # 48

    Tergiversation.

  52. #52 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    Please, respond to David B. Benson’s # 16 and # 37…

  53. #53 BBD
    March 7, 2013

    With explicit reference to your stated position:

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

    Subsequently modified to:

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

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    BBD # 53:

    There is no modification in my position as per those quotes; I stated it differently, but not inconsistently.

    David # 16:

    Thanks for the link.

    On superficial reading (sorry, very pressed for time right now) there are some obvious questions about the article’s logic, e.g.

    1. if the atmosphere in Australia is “moister,” how can it be more conducive to bush fires?

    2. how can the various potential anthropogenic factors in bush fire genesis (land management, backburning, arson, AGW) be disentangled, and did the article make any effort to do so?

    3. why does the article claim an increase in “extreme” weather events only to show a graph in which the increase in warm “extremes” is exactly offset by a decrease in cold “extremes”?

    David # 37:

    No more than usual—should I have? Have you?

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2013

    “Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders”

    Come on Brad. Now you are getting a bit desperate. For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie. They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs (e.g. many of the prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll) and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society. They want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it and in this context the idea that the planet is quickly heading for an abyss is impossible to reconcile.

    I think its a massive abuse of science and of the scientific community to consider a tiny number of mostly obscure, mediocre scientists (as there are very, very few statured scientists who deny the reality and seriousness of AGW) as well as a larger number of citizens with no real interest in science as defenders of scientific integrity. This is the paradigm shift writ large. The anti-environmental lobby has tirelessly used a coterie of PR strategies to give the impression that they are the ‘true’ environmentalists (whilst working hard to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit), and your claiming the moral and scientific high ground amongst deniers on the issue of climate change is just par for the course. But it is total and utter b*.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    March 7, 2013

    Jeff:

    Thanks for speaking your mind!

    Come on Brad. Now you are getting a bit desperate. For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie.

    I don’t belong to a “climate change denial community,” but—assuming you mean the CAGW denial community—exactly the same statistical observation could be made of the other half of the population: most of the CAGW belief community has no idea what the scientific method is and therefore couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie or a policy white-paper.

    They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs (e.g. many of the prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll)

    Many prominent believers are on the same payroll (again, assuming you mean [dis]believers of CAGW). And the biggest corporation of all—the US government—employs the vast majority of climate scientists, on both “sides.”

    and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society.

    Of course, all things being equal, people may not enjoy feeling guilt—the popularity of Catholicism notwithstanding—but do you have any evidence that suppression of guilt is the motivating factor that makes the difference between belief and denial [of CAGW]?

  57. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    You decided this was a climate science thread, Brad, when you decided to try to snow this blog under with your idiotic opinions about climate science.

    The fact your opinions rely on your repeating crud from crank blogs, and defended by appeals to authority in the form of mangled quotes is a problem of your own making.

    You’ve told us the consensus view is wrong.
    You’ve told us sensitivity is 1.5.

    The evidence says you are wrong.

    You present no counter-evidence of your own, but instead engage in diversion and the attacking of straw men, as though faulty debating techniques were a valid way of advancing science.

    All you’ve managed to prove is that you are either ignorant or a liar. Likely both.

  58. #58 chameleon
    March 7, 2013

    Vince,
    This blog and this thread is about political and public opinions on policies that are using the climate and/or the environment as a platform.
    Even JeffH has clearly ponted that out at #55.
    I’m interested to how JeffH would define a ‘true’ environmentalist?
    I may be incorrect but it appears he believes it is a movement based on politics?
    His theory also reads a bit like a melodrama with the attendant black hats/white hats that we need to collectively and unanimously boo/cheer :-)
    I actually agree that the politics is melodramatic, but I also think that the type of accusatory, motherhood statements that JeffH makes above are fuelling the melodrama, not dousing it.

  59. #59 Vince Whirlwind
    March 7, 2013

    A “true” environmentalist is a person of “true” conservative values.
    Not a tea party activist, not a LaRouchian conspiracy-theorist, and not a crypto-communist posing as a “Green” in order to impose their sociophobic compulsions on the rest of us.

  60. #60 David B. Benson
    March 8, 2013

    As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry. So, fewer perhaps but certainly more extreme precipitation events in Queensland but at the same time drier conditions further south; more bush fires irrespective of (mis)management regimes.

  61. #61 David B. Benson
    March 8, 2013

    SCOTT A. KLEINER

    EROTETIC LOGIC AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

    It is a near truism that science is a form of inquiry that has produced, and is likely to continue to produce, the most credible beliefs and belief systems purporting to realize certain fundamental epistemic and pragmatic aims of contemporary culture. However, with a few exceptions among the historically oriented philosophers, most epistemology of science has been concerned with the analysis of extant scientific concepts and static relations of evidence, and not with systematic procedures for the production of concepts or evidence. As is well known, the ‘context of discovery’ is sometimes thought to be beyond the reach of logic and epistemology. The subject of discovery is then left to historians, psychologists and social scientists.
    However, the epistemological problem of systematic inquiry has been of interest to a number of important philosophers in the western tradition and again is receiving the attention of philosophers of science. …

    Synthese
    January 1988, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 19-46
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00869617?LI=true

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    Vince,

    as befits your coat of arms (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-36/#comment-152282), you’ve made a vertiginously ambiguous, mustelistically mealy-mouthed, mendacious allegation:

    You decided this was a climate science thread, Brad, when you decided to try to snow this blog under with your idiotic opinions about climate science.

    “Idiotic”? That’s a heroic description, given that my assessments of climate science stand conspicuously unrefuted.

    My opinion of the climate, which is far less certain, was extorted by the repetitive, plaintive and obsessive entreaties of BBD. The only snow job is the one you’re attempting when you imply I thrust my climatic views in your face.

    You’ve told us the consensus view is wrong.

    Er, no, I’ve told you:

    1. that consensus is not evidence (in science)

    2. that you’ve yet to show any good evidence for the (irrelevant) premise that there’s a scientific consensus in favor of climate alarm—and as a result, it’s far from clear that I disagree with any consensus that may exist

    You’ve told us sensitivity is 1.5.

    Because BBD begged me to.

    And then when he presented evidence to the contrary, I said it might not be 1.5.

    In other words, I’ve behaved honestly, skeptically and properly at all times. If only the same could be said of you, the conversation would probably be relatively advanced by now.

    You present no counter-evidence of your own,

    Maybe because I’d rather hear from people who know and care more about the climate than me.

    but instead engage in diversion and the attacking of straw men,

    What the fuck ever, you fraudulent halfwit.

    as though faulty debating techniques were a valid way of advancing science.

    Yeah, that’s right, I’m what stands in the way of your winning a Nobel Prize for the advancement of science through blog commentary.

    Nutjob.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    David:

    As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry.

    OK, thanks David—that could (if true) rescue the logic of the article. Paragraph 2 is infelicitous:

    All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago,” the report warned. “The basic features of the climate system have now shifted and are continuing to shift.”

  64. #64 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    # 54

    Tergiversation.

    As always you attempt to maintain your contrarian stance (# 53) simply by *denying* the evidence and refusing to discuss your reasoning.

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    Chammy,

    I don’t consider a multinational corporation that hires big PR guns on the one hand to give the impression that it is engaged in sustainable, environmentally friendly practices (e.g. via Greenwashing) whilst investing considerably more money on the other to reduce government regulations that limit tits profit-making capacity as being ‘environmentalists’. Yet this is what has happened, thanks to E. Bruce Harrison and corporate PR efforts waged through a good-cop bad-cop strategy. Essentially, a company will donate 30,000 dollars to WWF or Greenpeace or another so-called environmental group and then this allegedly kind-gesture will be highly publicized (just look at some of the Earth Day corporate sponsors), but then , on the other hand, the same corporation will invest ten times as much money in lobbying members of Congress, or in supporting astroturf groups, in an attempt to defeat legislation protecting the environment from its activities. The very fact that these astroturf groups often use environmentally friendly names when they are working hard to undermine the protection of important habitats (such as wetlands) is clear evidence of this. I recall the National Wetlands Coalition, a group (thankfully now defunct) that had a duck flying over a wetland as its logo on its web site. To the layman, it was an environmental group that aimed to protect wetlands. But in reality, it was a corporate front group funded by a range of industries and developers and set up by a PR firm whose sole aim to lobby members of the US government to reduce laws protecting wetlands from development. In other words, to undermine the comprehensive wetlands protection act, singed during the 1980s as a means of protecting watersheds and other important habitats which harbor high biodiversity. Developers saw this as a major impediment to their actions and thus profits, but instead of being honest, they used subterfuge to mislead the public as to their true intent. Wise Use groups do this in the US all of the time. Thus this is hardly an exception, but its now a very common practice. Check out the web sites of the Greening Earth Society or C02 Science and you’d get the impression that they are pro-science environmental sites whose aim is to ensure that woodlands are protected. In reality, they are linked with the Western Fuels Association, a cola industry lobby groups with scientists on its payroll which argues that the burning of coal is good for for nature because it puts more C02 into the atmosphere and this benefits plant growth and cascades up through the food chain. Of course this is overly simplistic drivel, but these sites are not aimed at scientists but at the general public. And of course the aim is to ensure that we continue burning coal in vast quantities, which benefits the coal extraction industries.

    There are countless more examples of this kind of nefarious and dishonest behavior. I have lectured on it for many years. But if you and Brad by now don’t understand what a true environmentalist is, or think that people who downplay the seriousness of AGW are ‘friends of science’ and ‘scientific integrity’, then you are both more simple than I thought. I have tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt, but some of your comments are so utterly naive that they defy any form of rudimentary logic.

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    (oops, its and not tits!)

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    BBD:

    # 54

    Tergiversation.

    Shouldn’t you have moved on to a different mot du jour by now, BBD? You’ve been accusing me of “tergiversation” for more than 24 hours. The problem is, if you take another look at your Word A Day calendar, you’ll see that tergiversating requires conflicting statements, self-contradiction and vacillation, none of which is to be seen in my #54.

    As always you attempt to maintain your contrarian stance (# 53) simply by *denying* the evidence and refusing to discuss your reasoning.

    Because I’m such a nice guy I’ll let you in on a secret:

    this insult of yours is weak, and weak-sounding, which makes you seem weak and look weak, because you completely fail to say what evidence I’m denying, and because the reader who then looks at my #54 can’t help but notice that I’m not denying any evidence. I’m appealing to totally uncontroversial logic.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    Jeff:

    But if you and Brad by now don’t understand what a true environmentalist is, or think that people who downplay the seriousness of AGW are ‘friends of science’ and ‘scientific integrity’, then you are both more simple than I thought.

    But I don’t think that, and I’m pretty sure Chameleon doesn’t either.

    People who downplay the seriousness of AGW are no better than those who upplay it. They all belong in Science Jail. The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight.

  69. #69 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    Brad and Chameleon

    Perhaps all this might be clearer with a few simple data visualisations.

    1/ Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of the TOA radiative imbalance *increasing* as a result of *increasing* CO2 forcing ends up in the global ocean.

    2/ GHG forcing (predominantly CO2) has become increasingly dominant since the early 1960s. Here you can see global surface average temperatures (top) compared to forcings. ‘WM – GHG’ indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. The net of all forcings is indicated by the heavy red line. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions (negative forcing). Solar can be seen to be rather less significant than is frequently supposed by contrarians.

    3/ Forcings as above, this time shown with OHC 0 – 700m (top).

    Contrarians generally fail to understand that overall, ‘AGW’ is only just starting to happen which is why the effects to date have been *minimal*.

    What is required is that one looks at the *forcings*. If CO2 forcing continues to increase it is very obvious indeed that energy will continue to accumulate in the climate system at a similarly increasing rate. It is impossible to see why the extreme weather events that have characterised the first decade of the C21st will not become increasingly frequent and increasingly severe. The implications for global agricultural productivity are serious, especially as global population is predicted to reach ~ 9bn by mid-century.

    And the disruptions will not stop. Contrarians frequently behave as if CO2 will automatically stabilise at ~550ppmv later this century without policy intervention and all will be well. ECS is ‘only’ 2.5C – 3C and we’ll ‘adapt’ to our emerging new world of extreme weather, infrastructural attrition and endemic food insecurity.

    We will struggle with all this. And I haven’t even mentioned post-C21st sea level rise.

  70. #70 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    The scaling and offset have failed on the OHC graph. Bitter experience with this data viewer tells me there is nothing I can do about this. Values are not preserved in the postable link. You can scale the Y axes using the vertical blue bar and and offset with the pink (?) bar. Click just above or below the green tab.

  71. #71 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    Let’s try the
    OHC vs forcings
    graph again.

  72. #72 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2013

    “The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight”.

    And those that are doing so are ther statured scientists who argue that their are potentially serious consequences of inaction on AGW and that, on this basis, we ought to be doing something about it. True scientists work on probabilities and not on absolutes, hence why most who agree on AGW argue that the C part is a possibility of inaction to deal with the problem. Deniers, on the other hadn downplay the A part and totally ridicle any notion of serious consequences. This explains why the ranks of those who downplay the seriousness of AGW is full of bitter old retired academics with little pedigree in any field, who published few papers and were rarely cited. And even amongst active researchers today, very few of the AGW downplayers have much in the way of pedigree. If one bothered to look through the Web of Science they’d find the sceptical camp full of scientists wtih 20 or less publications over m,any years, less than 500 citations of their work, and people who are generally obscure in science. The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider mydelf to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32. But this does notput me at the head of the pack for researchers with my tenure in my fieid. I would probably be in the 10-20% near the top, but that’s a lot of people ahead of me. But in climate science, you have veritable bottom-feeders getting underserved attention in the media and in sceptical blogs simply because they downplay AGW.

    This is the crux of the problem. And its time you and Chammy realized it.

  73. #73 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    Brad

    # 67

    Where are you getting your definitions from? I checked, and the *very first* one that comes up in google is this:

    1
    : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation

    Synonyms
    equivocation, shuffle, circumlocution

    Related Words
    quibbling; ambiguity, ambiguousness, equivocalness, murkiness, nebulousness, obscureness, obscurity, opacity

    Near Antonyms
    candor, directness, forthrightness, frankness, openheartedness, openness, plainness, plumpness, straightforwardness

    Could this be more dishonest bollocks from you? Why yes, it could.

    Your final paragraph at # 67 can be considered further tergiversation.

  74. #74 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    BK

    because you completely fail to say what evidence I’m denying

    Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty:

    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!

    - you aren’t a nice guy, Brad!

  75. #75 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    BK statements:

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

    [quibble, quibble quibble # 54] Subsequently modified to:

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

  76. #76 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    …And no mention of # 69 and Jeff Harvey’s # 72.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    BBD:

    Where are you getting your definitions from?

    1. the fact that I know Latin

    2. the fact that in Latin, it means to turn 180 degrees

    I checked, and the *very first* one that comes up in google is this:

    When I need to check, I use Dictionary.app on my Mac.

    1
    : evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement :

    Ah! So you’re ascribing to me behaviour which is indistinguishable from genuine indecision / sincere uncertainty / bona fide agnosticism.

    Fair enough.

    I assumed you were being pejorative or accusatory in some way.

    Silly me.

    : equivocation

    Oh! So you are accusing me of something?

    It raises the question: did you use the word “tergiversation” to prevaricate? Are you using ambiguous language to conceal the truth or avoid committing yourself? I think you’re Vince’s ferrety banner-man, aren’t you, BBD!

  78. #78 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013

    Check out the web sites of the Greening Earth Society…

    Indeed, and one of the key players there was Pat Michaels who pops up in that article linked to by David B Benson here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/#comment-152285.

    Not his being caught with his usual sleight of hand

    Michaels says:

    In what is always a bad sign for solid science, they found that any connections between blocking frequency and global warming are highly dependent upon the methodology they used.

    (Emphases added.)

    Wait a minute. Paper discusses amplitude and Michaels makes a claim about frequency? Um, bullshit. Of the standard Michaels variety.

    Check out the role of Western Fuels.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013

    Drat. Nested blockquotes don’t seem to work, unless…?

    “Michaels says:

    ” In what is always a bad sign for solid science, they found that any connections between blocking frequency and global warming are highly dependent upon the methodology they used.”

    (Emphases added.)

    Wait a minute. Paper discusses amplitude and Michaels makes a claim about frequency? Um, bullshit. Of the standard Michaels variety.”

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    BBD:

    Snarkasm aside, thanks for taking the time to get those visualisations together. A projection, graph or image of one’s mental model does wonders to dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013

    OK, thanks David—that could (if true) rescue the logic of the article. Paragraph 2 is infelicitous:

    Well the news for you is that IT is TRUE. Which you would discover if you bothered to read from some of the publications recently cited in this thread, and recently at that.

    Please describe exactly why, or in which way, Paragraph 2 is infelicitous?

    Can I expect more tergiversation?

    Tergiversation: equivocation, prevarication. Also an instance of this, an evasion, a subterfuge. OED Shorter (two large volumes) 5th Ed.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    Lionel, your “emphases” aren’t being “added.” Simple bold tags within the block quote do the trick.

    And you’re not being clear about who’s speaking when. In my experience the only way to “nest” quotations is with quotation marks. :-(

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    Lionel A:

    Please describe exactly why, or in which way, Paragraph 2 is infelicitous?

    I would’ve thought this was obvious, particularly thanks to my high-tech use of bold tags within blockquote tags. ;-)

    I repeat, paragraph 2 states:

    All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago,” the report warned. “The basic features of the climate system have now shifted and are continuing to shift.”

    This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.

    Can I expect more tergiversation?

    Expect what you like; but if you think you’ll be getting prevarication, evasion, equivocation or subterfuge from me you’re going to be disappointed.

  84. #84 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    Come on chammy!

    Discuss specifics.

    # 69. # 72.

    Get on with it.

  85. #85 Lionel A
    March 8, 2013
  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    March 8, 2013

    Jeff,

    Let’s quickly go back to this remark:

    For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie.

    As I pointed out before, most of the entire population wouldn’t know the scientific method if it robbed a bank and held them hostage, and therefore couldn’t tell good science from that found in a fortune cookie, spraypainted by Banksy or printed in a policy white-paper.

    However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community. Unfortunately the bar for most such studies is set quite a bit lower than what we would call scientific methodological understanding. But notwithstanding this limitation, the results leave you with little basis for thinking (or would leave you with little basis for thinking, if you were thinking this) that people on my “side” are any less discerning of real versus faux science than people on your “side.”

    They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs

    Has a “denier” ever admitted this? And if not, how do you know it’s true?

    Meanwhile, by contrast, there certainly are public figures on your “side” who, by their own admission, are ideologically and/or politically motivated to assert human impacts on climate.

    and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society.

    Sorry, Jeff, but this instrumental explanation doesn’t appear to make a lick of sense—possibly because I’ve never felt the guilt you describe, but more likely because it’s just illogical.

    Why do you characterize our society as ecologically rapacious and over-tubercular?

    Is it:

    a) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate and despoiling ecosystems in the process

    b) because we’re causing CAGW

    or

    c) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate, despoiling ecosystems in the process and causing CAGW?

    If the reason is A, what conceivable difference would it make whether CAGW were real or not? The fact that CAGW is make-believe does nothing to change the fact that our society is committing said crimes against the environment.

    If the reason is B, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.

    If the reason is C, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.

    If the reason is D (none of the above), then what is it?

    They want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it and in this context the idea that the planet is quickly heading for an abyss is impossible to reconcile.

    Just out of curiosity, is this (the words in bold) something you’ve believed for a long time? Did you believe it even before the evidence came along for CAGW?

    I think its a massive abuse of science and of the scientific community to consider a tiny number of mostly obscure, mediocre scientists (as there are very, very few statured scientists who deny the reality and seriousness of AGW) as well as a larger number of citizens with no real interest in science as defenders of scientific integrity.

    Why? Not that I’m conceding the correctness of your premise (that there are few serious scientific seriousness-deniers), of course, but even if I did for argument’s sake, why would it be abusive to consider a minority to be on the side of scientific integrity?

    What do you think “scientific integrity” is, Jeff?

    No, hang on, that’s a potentially tricky / trappy question, so allow me go first:

    Scientific integrity is what you describe when you talk about that incident early in your career, when a reviewer didn’t believe your findings, so you tried to send them all your data, which they refused to look at, and I called you “the opposite of Michael Mann.” That’s scientific integrity, in a nutshell.

    [Y]our claiming the moral and scientific high ground amongst deniers on the issue of climate change is just par for the course. But it is total and utter b*.

    Well, yes, that would be total and utter b*. But I don’t pretend to tower over other deniers morally or scientifically. (Is this what you meant?) Plenty of deniers are better persons than me, and plenty of deniers are better scientists than me, and plenty of deniers are better persons and better scientists than me.

  87. #87 Wow
    March 8, 2013

    Bray isn’t talking.

    Maybe best leave it, he seems to have gone somewhere else to scream for attention.

  88. #88 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    # 80 Brad Keyes

    [pretty pictures] dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under.

    Mutually? How so?

  89. #89 BBD
    March 8, 2013

    Incidentally, a long time ago I said to you that if we ignored Mann’s work the big picture would not change.

    Nor has it.

    But perhaps Marcott et al. (2013) are just the latest recruits to the Team?

  90. #90 chek
    March 8, 2013

    This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.

    And there we have one English literalist approach to science in a nutshell. While it is undeniably true that warmer air can absorb more moisture, it is not axiomatic that it will, as other factors are also to be accounted for. Dry inland air when warmed up has no source of moisture and what began as dry air can only become yet warmer dry air. The ever-warming atmosphere over desert areas does not magically induce moisture because of its temperature.

    Brad pretends (or maybe really doesn’t understand) this in pursuance of his simpleton denial and thinks offering up uninformed and thus faulty ‘logic’ scores a point. Idiot that he is.

    Can I expect more tergiversation?

    Indeed it is only be expected, along with “Brad’s” tnew heme song.

    “Tergiversation and obfuscation,
    I want the world to know that you can’t better me.
    Manipulation to peroration
    I want the world to know how slippery I can be”

    You may try to corner me with your science,
    But that only reinforces my defiance
    I’m only interested in your compliance
    With my deniance*
    As’ long as I’m here”.

    “Tergiversation and obfuscation” etc.

    (*h/t to Horatio Algeranon. the master of lyricism and this expedient addition to the language)

    You have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.

    The worst I might ever have to do these days is kick shit out of the way. I certainly don’t argue with it “Brad”. Something to do with its consistency is repulsive. Something you seem intent on replicating.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Wow says…

    [Brad] isn’t talking.

    Maybe best leave it, he seems to have gone somewhere else

    …despite my having written 5 of the preceding 10 comments!

    Nothing like denial, eh, Wow?

  92. #92 David B. Benson
    March 9, 2013

    As the Hadley cells expand (due to global warming) the poleward edge of the cells marches further poleward. So at the descending edges, the poleward ends, deserts expand polewards and contract somewhat equatorwards.

    This tends to agree with the data so far, wherein the process as only just begun. What the data firmly shows is the large increase in precipitation in the tropics and the more modest increase in mid and high latitudes.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Jeff:

    The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider myself to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32.

    Congratulations, Jeff.

    You’re so equal, you’re like the Albert Einstein of scientists!

    That’s 125 more papers than Michael Mann had to his name when he was hailed for overturning the MWP theory and chosen by the President of the US as his personal science advisor.

    Sure, you’re a fair way behind Richard Lindzen, but still: your credibility is impressive, I won’t deny it.

    When you say stuff about the climate, it’s 63.5 times truer than MBH98, and more than half as true as what Professor Lindzen says!

    And that’s how the scientific method works, kids!

    Right?

  94. #94 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    BBD:

    “[pretty pictures] dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under.”

    Mutually? How so?

    Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say [what you've said too many times to count on this thread]:

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

    As I’ve explained (so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now), I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.

    The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether there’s any rational basis to think it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to whine about when there are other, clear and present dangers to deal with.

    Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say… well, I dunno an example; but I’m sure if you think hard enough, there must be some occasion on which I’ve failed to comprehend your POV. Not as catastrophically as you’ve misunderstood mine, perhaps; but still, I must have misunderstood you at some point.

    Calling the incomprehension “mutual,” therefore, was what’s known as a polite presumption.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Wow:

    [Brad] isn’t talking.

    Maybe best leave it, he seems to have gone somewhere else…

    Seriously dude, how much is HI paying you to make an idiot of yourself?

    If you’re doing it for free, then I must reiterate Lotharsson’s advice to you:

    “This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me.
… I’d consider seeking help.”

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Jeff,

    Just to disambiguate what I wrote here…

    However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community. Unfortunately the bar for most such studies is set quite a bit lower than what we would call scientific methodological understanding. But notwithstanding this limitation, the results leave you with little basis for thinking (or would leave you with little basis for thinking, if you were thinking this) that people on my “side” are any less discerning of real versus faux science than people on your “side.”

    …I didn’t mean that the Kahan et al. work itself wasn’t of a scientifically high standard!

    What I meant was that the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really was a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect of the questionnaires in this genre of study is essentially to place the population on a curve based on how much high-school and socially-topical science trivia they have at their command.

    Dan Kahan’s research impresses me because he’s skeptical of his own findings, he actually refines his own hypothesis from one paper to the next, he seeks out interaction with deniers—and so, to paraphrase the homage I paid to you, Kahan is “the opposite of Stephan Lewandowsky”—he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist, and he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    A palindromic pignoramus paid by HI prophesies:

    Abbot [sic] is still going to punish you for daring to introduce [the carbon tax], though, and will rip it out and “compensate” the ones “damaged” by it

    Punish whom?

    The ALP?

    Boo-fucking-hoo.

    I can’t wait. People who look the electorate in the face and feed us a read-my-lips lie deserve no mercy.

    That’s my ethics platform. Then again, I’m a denier, and we’re notoriously zero-tolerant on liars.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    ”This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.”

    And there we have one English literalist approach to science in a nutshell.

    Gosh, chek’s sure put me in my place for expecting scientific reports to mean what they say! How will I ever live down such a naïve mistake?

    While it is undeniably true that warmer air can absorb more moisture, it is not axiomatic that it will, as other factors are also to be accounted for.

    What a trivial and irrelevant thing to say. Nobody is debating whether or not warmer air is inevitably moister air.

    The only question of interest to anyone but chek is: why does the scientific report quoted in David’s article claim that all extreme events are occurring in a moister climate when those very events supposedly include an increase in bushfire frequency—a problem which (as David himself has no difficulty grasping) implies conditions that are drier, or at least not wetter, than they were before?

    Both David B. Benson and I evidently know exactly what we’re arguing about; perhaps this ought to serve as chek’s cue not to butt in lest he further embarrass himself with his spectacular talent for point-missing.

    Dry inland air when warmed up has no source of moisture and what began as dry air can only become yet warmer dry air. The ever-warming atmosphere over desert areas does not magically induce moisture because of its temperature.

    Damn—that’s a great point, because:

    1. Tasmania—the State singled out in the article for record bushfires—is well-known for its vast desert areas!

    2. Bushfires are the scourge of Australia’s deserts!

    And chek’s peculiar brand of complete f—king c—p and content-free condescension just keeps coming:

    The worst I might ever have to do these days is kick shit out of the way. I certainly don’t argue with it “Brad”. Something to do with its consistency is repulsive. Something you seem intent on replicating.

    Chek, mate, you’re really struggling to keep a lid on your CFC emissions, aren’t you?

  99. #99 Lionel A
    March 9, 2013

    BK

    Lionel, your “emphases” aren’t being “added.” Simple bold tags within the block quote do the trick.

    I appreciate that other tags are required for emphasis such as the ‘i’ italic and ‘strong’ for bold. If you had been paying attention you would have appreciated that in turn.

    On nesting quotes, yes using quotation marks is an answer which I have used and I was trialling nested blockquotes to see if that helped but at first was not sure if it was failing because of mistyping – banana like fingers and not picking up the mistype by feeling grotty which was affecting my vision. Unfortunately ‘Page Source’ did not reveal where the error, if any, was.

    Also, if you referred back to the original source on which my comments were based you would have understood who was writing what.

    BTW. How far have you got with the reading list?

  100. #100 Lionel A
    March 9, 2013

    BK

    Expect what you like; but if you think you’ll be getting prevarication, evasion, equivocation or subterfuge from me you’re going to be disappointed.

    And you have proven beyond any doubt that this is all you have – tergiversation. Here’s why.

    You repeat your mantra about Paragraph 2 being infelicitous WRT David’s statement, this can only be true if you snip as you did so as to use only the non-emphasised part of the full statement:

    As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry. So, fewer perhaps but certainly more extreme precipitation events in Queensland but at the same time drier conditions further south; more bush fires irrespective of (mis)management regimes.

    Tergiversation – overmuch, lots, the cup of this thread runneth over with examples of your indulgence in such.

    Get out of that without more tergiversation.

    Besides, the main point is that you are arguing from false premise, why, because you clearly have not studied, or chose to ignore, the relevant literature examples of which you have been pointed at which explain these points about changing climate regimes.