Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Lionel:

    Hi. Are you out of hospital and feeling better—or at least less grotty? I hope so.

    I appreciate that other tags are required for emphasis such as the ‘i’ italic and ‘strong’ for bold.

    Or just ‘b’ for bold—there ya go, I saved you some time!

    Unfortunately ‘Page Source’ did not reveal where the error, if any, was.

    Been there. I once made a whole thread irreversibly italic by accident. To make the most of the situation, I quipped that the content of climate-alarmist websites seemed to be “chronically slanted.” Big mistake! That unleashed an earnest barrage of indignation about the right-wing, pro-Faux bias of the denialist flat-earthosphere. I should have listened when they warned me cults don’t have a sense of humor… hehe ;-)

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

    Uh, which of many are you referring to? I’ve pasted several lists of books and articles I’m supposed to read into a single text file, but unfortunately I didn’t record who recommended what. :-( Chances are I haven’t gotten around to whatever you told me to read yet, sorry mate.

  2. #2 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2013

    “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?”

    They don’t have to SAY it Brad. The very fact that a large majority of them are associated with libertarian/free market think tanks funded by the same industries with a vested interest in the status quo and attend shindigs should say it ALL. The information is out there is you bother to look for it. Sadly for the deniers, they just can’t help but wear their idealogical hearts on their sleeves. You think they’d try and keep a million miles away from the PR/think tank/astroturf groups if they wanted to retain even a sliver of credibility but they just cannot resist. That’s why most of the dolts who support them must share the same idealogical and political views: support for free market absolutism and de-regulation. To eviscerate the role of the government in the economy.

    Read Sharon Beder’s book ALONE and the story should be easy, Brad. You just don’t want to face up to the truth of it. That’s your problem. Moreover, for every Kahan there are hundred’s of Mann’s, Hansen’s, Mahlmann’s, Treneberth’s et al. Those downplaying the human impacts of warming are tiny and are growing smaller ever year as more data come in.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2013

    … and Brad, we aren’t discussing Kahan, the Professor of Psychology are we here?

    I suspect we are, in which case your argument is shredded further. I explained above that very, very few statured scientists are climate change sceptics. By that I mean most of the sceptics have mediocre CVs. There are FEW exceptions.

    That should say something. To you and Chammy, apparently, a medicocre pedigree doesn’t mean much. Well… it should.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2013

    “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”

    No it sure as hell hasn’t. And it also hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is large. Because it isn’t. It hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is made up of statured scientists for the most part, because it isn’t. It hasn’t shown that the deniers publish much in the way of evidence in peer-reviewed journals to support their arguments because they don’t. And it hasn’t shown that many, perhaps most of the scientists in the denial community are not ideologically driven, because there is a lot of evidence that a large number of them are, as evidenced by their associations with corporate front and PR groups. You need to do a bit more reading, Brad.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2013

    I’m going to wind this up by saying that its important to be polite, and at least to me Brad has been. That being said, his views are clearly gleaned from very few sources. Chammy is perhaps worse in this regard. Debating Brad and Chammy will only achieve something if they can bring something new to the table. They can’t. Its the same old stuff packaged and re-packaged as some kind of pseudo-intellectual discourse, when there is abundant information available – that neither of them has sourced – which bring down their thin arguments like a house of cards. Until I see them produce something new, its a waste of time. Science has moved on, as evidenced by the sheer volume of studies published in the world leading scientific journals (the latest one I sourced yesterday in SCIENCE).

    I also defend my statement. The planet is heading towards hell in a hand-basket in my honest, personal opinion as a senior scientist with some pedigree, based not only on climate change, but on a suite of human induced stressors that are undermining the health and resilience of the complex adaptive systems upon which civilization depends. The evidence for this is even more clear cut, except of course among largely the same band of pseudo-intellectuals who run blogs and have love-ins with corporate funded think tanks. I’ve battled these people for the past 15 years and I will continue to do so. More scientists need to take the lead from Edward O. Wilson, George Schaller, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich, Tom Lovejoy, Peter Raven, Stuart Pimm, James Hansen, Jared Diamond and others who have stepped outside of the laboratory and lecture hall to communicate the predicament to the general population. They knew what they were likely to face when they did so (as I did over Lomborg), but they felt that they were meeting a public responsibility. They indeed are.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Jeff:

    “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”

    No it sure as hell hasn’t.

    Jeff, the Abstract of the best-known paper by Kahan (who’s a CAGW believer, by the way) begins:

    The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

    (Emphasis as in original.)

    And it also hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is large. Because it isn’t.

    I know—it’s tiny, because the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.

    It hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is made up of statured scientists for the most part, because it isn’t.

    I know—the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.

    Jeff, climate change denial doesn’t exist. It’s a straw-man (though I don’t think your intention is to use it as one).

    I’m going to wind this up by saying that its important to be polite, and at least to me Brad has been.

    Why the hell wouldn’t I be? :-) You’ve always been polite to me!

    (I must admit, however, that I’m not crazy about your repeated claims that Chameleon is dumb—she isn’t, and I’m far from convinced that you’re paying sufficiently close attention to what she’s actually arguing, as opposed to what you might stereotypically expect her to be arguing.)

    Besides, the whole concept that people could raise their voices at each other and / or come to blows about the climate is supremely stupid, and would have been unbelievable to a previous generation. The weather is meant to be the prototypical topic of polite conversation.

  7. #7 Lionel A
    March 9, 2013

    BK:

    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.

    Dat ain’t necessarily so, the things that your liable to read ….is clarified over here.

    Besides, how do you explain chameleon, Duff, GSW, OP, Jonas, PentaxZ, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all. And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    March 9, 2013

    Lionel,

    you couldn’t be more wrong:

    And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.

    As a Renaissance man, I pursue both of them with equal avidity.

    Sometimes I think you don’t know me at all!

  9. #9 chek
    March 9, 2013

    “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.

    Typical unsupported “Brad” bullshit. Let’s look at this, his most stupidissimus of moronic assertions with something approaching objectivity here before once again dismissing “Brad” as the premier-dumbass, cock-blatteringly paleo-imbecilic, meme-regurgitating, know-nothing blot on the space-time continuum.

    Apologies regulars, but “Brad’s” unfailing and repeated stupidity is bringing out the hyphenated li’ll mike in me.

    Well done “Brad”. Once again.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    March 10, 2013

    chek,

    your cute little pie chart has fuck-all to do with the topic, which (as I’ve already pointed out!) was summed up nicely by Kahan himself as follows:

    On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly LESS likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

    (Emphasis added in the forlorn hope of imparting comprehension to you, which so far has proven to be very much like transfusing blood to a stone.)

    If only the cheks hadn’t mated themselves for centuries, perhaps they wouldn’t be cursed with such feeble-minded descendants.

    What I’m trying to say is that you’re a retard.

    Without a pie-chart, though, I suspect you won’t even understand that.

  11. #11 David B. Benson
    March 10, 2013
  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    March 10, 2013

    Jeff,

    Apologies if you’ve already answered the following, but as I can’t find a response to it I’d like to gently :-) remind you that I’ve asked you this a couple of times:

    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?

    If I seem overly-insistent on hearing your thoughts about this, it’s because I’ve never had any trouble changing the minds of AGW deniers myself. So I’m dying to know what difficulties you’re encountering, and who knows: perhaps I can suggest a way ’round them?

    Cheers Jeff!

    Brad

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    March 10, 2013

    A little birdie says:

    *crickets*

    The [denier] count seems to have suddenly declined around here. Coincidence, do you think?

    No, I don’t think it’s a coincidence, Señor D. Byrd.

    I think it’s an intuitively-obvious epiphenomenon of the fact that CAGW infidels are socially adept (esp. compared to unsophisticated avian advocates of the capnophobist orthodoxy), and therefore have lives, and therefore have weekends.

  14. #15 Lionel A
    March 10, 2013

    Or just ‘b’ for bold—there ya go, I saved you some time!

    This goes back to the old physical/logical markup dichotomy.

    Different blog ‘engines’ handle tags differently with ‘b’ for bold failing. Similarly for emphasis some will use ‘i’ others ‘em’.

    Let’s make this bold and this too.
    Now emphasise this example and now this one.

    What tag soup will we end up with.

  15. #16 Lionel A
    March 10, 2013

    Sometimes I think you don’t know me at all!

    Well enough to know that you would continue with tergiversation.

  16. #17 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2013

    “The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones”.

    This means, of course, squat. Did Kahan poll the scientists doing the actual research? ow did he and his co-auhors evaluate ‘ scientific literacy’? Were they all herded into a lecture theater and given exams covering a range of fields in science? Or one about climate? This paragraph you cited is. for lack of a better word, bullshit. It doesn’t mean anything when it comes down to a person’s knowledge threshold exceeding a specific level in the field of climate science. I am sure that in terms of general knowledge, a lot of people would score well in what they know about basic ecology and /or evolutionary biology. But if you were to go beyond the surface veneer and get into more detailed theories and hypotheses that are taught to professional scientists in the field, they’d be blank. The fact is that there are few qualified climate change sceptics who are top scientists with a strong pedigree in the field. Just as there are very few top scientists who are creationists amongst scientists studying ecology and evolutionary biology.

    End of story, Brad. Game, set and match. What this means is that Kahan needs to up the ante and increase the expertise threshold in his vapid research. I couldn’t give a damn if people with a high school education knew as much about climate science as people who had business degrees. Neither group knows as much as scientists trained in the field. And as I said, most of those with the best qualifications agree (1) that humans are forcing climate, and (2) that the potential consequences of business-as-usual may be dire.

    As I said, Kahan’s work is a distraction. A meaningless exercise. He ought to learn a bit of science himself before writing more such piffle.

  17. #18 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2013

    “On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones”

    Please refer to my last posting. How does Kahan evaluate from members of the general public, “scientific literacy”? Did he give all respondents a questionnaire? Make them take an exam on general science and climate science? Ask them what their level of science education was?

    In the end, it boils down to what qualifications the respondents possess in the relevant fields. I have a PhD, but I would not say that this gives me greater acumen in quantum physics than a person with a high school science education when it comes to theories in that field. I never studied physics, and admit that I know very little about it in spite of my science education to doctorate level. My degree relates to what I studied: ecology and evolutionary biology. And even there, I have been forced to specialize.

    Essentially, Kahan has created a strawman of immense proportions with his throwaway puff-piece. No wonder that the denial weblogs went viral with it. No wonder you dredge it up. But as I said, it means diddly-squat, because a supposedly better education in science in no way can be correlated with a better knowledge of climate science. To go there, Kahan would have to evaluate the credentials of people up the chain and in that field. And then his little thesis would come unglued.

    As I said, a worthless distraction. You’d think psychologists would have better things to do, but if they want to gain attention from the usual suspects, then again writing said pieces are a way to do it, even when they mean squat.

  18. #19 Brad Keyes
    March 10, 2013

    Jeff,

    all your questions about Kahan’s work are answered in the paper. No, he didn’t question the scientists themselves, because he was interested in the public perception of climate change risks. The inescapable downside of this approach (which you go a little overboard in calling “vapid” and “piffle”) was noted by me in a message to you on the previous page:
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    … the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really is a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect 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”—and he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist. Plus he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    I mentioned his findings as they are directly responsive to your criticisms of the “denier” community as a whole, not just the minority of us who happen to be scientists.

    When you say,

    But if you were to go beyond the surface veneer and get into more detailed theories and hypotheses that are taught to professional scientists in the field, they’d be blank.

    Who would? Non-scientists? Yes, of course, but that means nothing and could be said of both “sides” identically.

    The fact is that there are few qualified climate change sceptics who are top scientists with a strong pedigree in the field.

    Not being a dog-breeder myself, I’ll have to take your word on their pedigree. However, the prior question must be: what do you imagine a qualified climate change sceptic is, in a world in which all scientifically-educated people are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual?

    Did you also see my response to your argumentum ad curriculum vitae :-) , 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 climate 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?
    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    You seem to suspect Kahan of being motivated by a desire to make CAGW skeptics look better than they are, but if you read his paper you’ll see he started out fully subscribed to the SCT, the Science Comprehension Theory, in which people (like me) who don’t see climate change as a threat know less about basic high-school science than people (like him) who are seriously concerned about climate change.

    You allege that

    Essentially, Kahan has created a strawman of immense proportions with his throwaway puff-piece. No wonder that the denial weblogs went viral with it. No wonder you dredge it up. But as I said, it means diddly-squat, because a supposedly better education in science in no way can be correlated with a better knowledge of climate science. To go there, Kahan would have to evaluate the credentials of people up the chain and in that field. And then his little thesis would come unglued.

    But my response would be:

    1. you don’t know what the results would be until someone actually asks those questions

    2. you have no evidence that Kahan wanted to overturn the SCT—indeed, as a CAGW believer himself, he fell into the natural inclination to assume the SCT was true (as you can see in his Results section) until he actually analysed the answers

    3. if you think a higher-level version of the SCT would fare better empirically (e.g., that climate-worrying climate experts have a better knowledge of climate science than climate-apathetic climate experts), then why not let Prof Kahan know about your hypothesis on his blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog)—I guarantee he’d consider your idea with an interested and open mind as a possible research direction

  19. #20 BBD
    March 10, 2013

    # 80 previous page Brad Keyes

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

    Mutually? How so? Which are you admitting to? What misapprehensions do you believe I am labouring under? Keep the focus on the data. Don’t be evasive. Don’t indulge in tergiversation ;-)

    ***

    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?

  20. #21 BBD
    March 10, 2013

    @ 13

    Pub bores cannot be pub bores unless the go to the pub once in a while, eh Brad?

    ;-)

  21. #22 Wow
    March 10, 2013
    And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.

    As a Renaissance man, I pursue both of them with equal avidity.

    Aye, I guess that calling yourself a “rennaisance man” is a lot better for your ego than “clueless moron on multiple topics”.

    Your assertion is likewise complete bullshit as Lionel pointed out with respect to your displayed apathy for the denialist slug horde here. You only care about being right and someone who agrees with you for ideological reasons (the aforementioned slug horde) do that. so you don’t deign to notice what they do.

    Your desire for science is entirely to degrade the reality to stave off actions you abhor because you’re a libertarian idiot.

    Plain and simple.

  22. #23 BBD
    March 10, 2013

    Sorry – here are the pretty pictures that go with # 19:

    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: forcings and global average surface temperatures (5yr means; top). ‘W-M GHG’ (purple) indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. ‘All’ (red) is the net of all forcings. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions. Solar (yellow) can be seen to be rather less significant than is sometimes supposed.

    3/ Forcings as (2) and OHC 0 – 700m (5yr running mean) (top).

  23. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 10, 2013

    BBD,

    did you even read the previous page?

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

    Mutually? How so? Which are you admitting to? What misapprehensions do you believe I am labouring under?

    Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say, as you’ve said too many times to count:

    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 it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.

    Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say… well, I can’t think of an example; but I’m sure if you really furrow your brow, 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 on some matter.

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

  24. #25 bill
    March 10, 2013

    So, was that it? All that typing in order to discover that the neo-Renaissance wunderkind believes that ECS is 1.5C because… well, because he just does?

    Talk about bathos.

  25. #26 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    bill

    Interestingly, what BK actually said was this:

    You couldn’t be less correct.

    The argument for the estimate I gave [S< 1.5C for 2 x CO2] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you of this, so I’m not trying to do so.

    Since then, Brad has resolutely refused to answer question number two:

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

    One has to smile.

  26. #27 David B. Benson
    March 11, 2013

    The argument for a low ecs is thoroughly refuted by the evidence.

  27. #28 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    Wow:

    Your assertion is likewise complete bullshit as Lionel pointed out with respect to your displayed apathy for the denialist slug horde here. You only care about being right

    Not so. I also care about not being wrong.

    I think these are both excellent goals in life. In fact I consider it our duty, as apes privileged with rational consciousness, to do everything in our power to be

    1. right

    and

    2. not wrong

    about as many things as possible.

    You should try it one day.

    and someone who agrees with you for ideological reasons (the aforementioned slug horde) do that. so you don’t deign to notice what they do.

    Wait—I do or I don’t notice that my fellow deniers also seek to be right about shit?

    Try and slow down, make up your mind and write coherently.

    Your desire for science is entirely to degrade the reality to stave off actions you abhor because you’re a libertarian idiot.

    LOL! I can just imagine “Degrade the Reality” becoming a slogan as resonant, binding and universally-recognized as “Hide the Decline,” if only I’d said it.

    And how many times do I have to explain to you, Wow:

    I’m no more of a libertarian than the next guy. If you think adults should be free to drink a glass of red wine at dinner without the Mutawat or Elliot Ness kicking in the front door, if you believe adults have a right to get tattoos without making themselves persons of interest to the Ministry For The Promotion of Virtue and The Prevention of Vice, then congratulations: you’re a “libertarian idiot.”

    I won’t deny it: like many educated people, I read John Stuart Mill’s seminal book in college. I agreed with the basic premium he placed on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which must be pursued on the individual’s own terms and in his / her own best judgement), but I also accepted that these rights should be upheld only to the extent that one doesn’t infringe on the identical rights of one’s fellow human beings.

    And none of these ideas is remotely controversial in the Western world today, Wow. They might have raised eyebrows in Victorian England, but today, everyone you know is a libertarian.

    Reading Mill’s Libertarianism did not make me want to vote Ron Paul.

    Furthermore, no aspect of libertarianism is incompatible with the idea that the government is entitled and obliged to intervene where necessary to protect citizens from common harm.

    And yes,that means I support laws against industrial pollution. Anyone who ”abhors” such legislation has got serious issues.

    If you think any of this makes me unusual among CAGW deniers, I’m afraid you’re confused.

    Consider the denier Freeman Dyson, the “Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources”:

    Coal, Dyson says, contains “real pollutants” like soot, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, “really nasty stuff that makes people sick and looks ugly.”  These are “rightly considered a moral evil,” he says, but they “can be reduced to low levels by scrubbers at an affordable cost.”  He says Hansen “exploits” the toxic elements of burning coal as a way of condemning the carbon dioxide it releases, “which cannot be reduced at an affordable cost, but does not do any substantial harm.”

    Consider the denier Willis Eschenbach, who writes:

    Regulations are absolutely necessary for us humanoids, including environmental regulations. Otherwise, we’re pigs as a species; every river would be full of filth. It is a question of degree, not of the underlying need or justification for regulations. We need them, there’s no doubt of that. …

    Regulating CO2 is an incredibly stupid idea, but even if it weren’t, the EPA is not set up to handle it. Congress, you need to act here …

    There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”

    There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.

    It’s just stupid.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

  28. #29 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    BBD:

    Interestingly, what BK actually said was this:

    “You couldn’t be less correct.

    The argument for the estimate I gave [S< 1.5C for 2 x CO2] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature…"

    LOL !…. how far back did you have to go in the paleocommentary record to dig up that gem? As I’ve said countless times since that day of yore, I no longer think all the evidence points to a low ECS, and I explicitly recognize that you’ve cited evidence which would argue for a higher value.

    But go ahead—keep assailing a position I no longer hold if it’s the best you can manage.

    Since then, Brad has resolutely refused to answer question number two:

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

    One has to smile.

    Indeed. :-)

  29. #30 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    BBD:

    @ 13

    Pub bores cannot be pub bores unless the [sic] go to the pub once in a while, eh Brad?

    Hey, don’t get me wrong—I didn’t mean to suggest I have a social life these days. I don’t—what I’m studying is incompatible with such frivolities. :-(

  30. #31 chek
    March 11, 2013

    It’s just stupid.

    Why? Because libertarian idiots say so?

  31. #32 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2013

    I won’t belabor the point Brad. I do enjoy reading your responses. You put a lot of effort into them as well as thought. I will, however make a couple of point here.

    First re: Kahan’s research. A couple of years ago there was a small controversy in Holland because the Minister of Education suggested that the teaching of “Intelligent Design” alongside evolutionary theory might not be a bad idea. She was prompted by the fact that fundamentalist christians in the United States see Holland as a sort of European ‘beachhead’ to promote creationist nonsense. Her statement was rightfully condemned by the scientific community by-and-large in this country. However, coincidentally, they took a poll amongst staff (teaching, scientists and catering) at Wageningen University (WU) on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. WU is one of the top 70 universities in the wold according to the latest rankings and is of profound interest to me because the research institute where I work is next door to it and I collaborate with scientists there.

    It turns out that almost 50% of tenured staff (teaching and science in various disciplines`) actually supported some form of intelligent design theory, whereas the lowest support incredibly enough for this theory (28%) came from the general catering staff. I and many of my colleagues were shocked and dismayed at this poll, but does it indicate that the higher level of scientific education amongst those supporting the theory of intelligent design are correct? Of course not. Many of those who supported it worked in research that has no evolutionary underpinning, like agriculture, Essentially, the point I am making is that one can read whatever they want out of so-called polls. I stand by what i said and believe that Kahan’s findings belong in the bin.

    As far as scientific pedigree goes, its interesting that you bring up Richard Lindzen. Ah, good old Richard Lindzen. The one and same who once had to testify before Congress that he received 2,500$ a day in consulting fees from the fossil fuel lobby? By dredging up Lindzen, of course you have shot yourself in the foot. A point I make repeatedly is that the climate change denial/sceptic/downplay/ignore/adapt or whatever-you-call-it lobby has long had to rely on a few statured scientists in defending their arguments. For twenty years or so its been primarily Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Baliunas, Soon, the Idso clan, Michaels, Singer, Balling and a few others. In 1998 a memo was leaked from the American Petroleum Institute in which the API were worried that the climate change denial lobby would “lose credibility” if it relied on the same tired, old faces to promote their point of view. So where are we, 15 years later? Relying on the same tired, old faces of denial. Given the bags of money at their disposal, if there was a huge groundswell of support amongst respected climate scientists defending the arguments of Lindzen and co., we’d sure know about it. With corporate money backing them, it would be shouted from every vestibule of denial. Yet, here you are dredging up the name of one 73 year old and clearly controversial scientist who once received consulting money (a pretty hefty fee as it turns out at the time) from the fossil fuel lobby.

    You are standing on ever thinner ice, Brad. Be careful or the ice will break beneath you and there won’t be any more to defend.

  32. #33 Wow
    March 11, 2013

    “Not so. I also care about not being wrong.”

    You keep running into it and hugging it close to you, with a love that knows no borders.

    Your actions prove your statement absolutely wrong.

  33. #34 Wow
    March 11, 2013

    I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge “I’m a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind”.

    Hell, I can imagine him saying it to the arresting officer whilst still dripping blood and gore.

  34. #35 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    Wow:

    “Not so. I also care about not being wrong.”

    You keep running into it and hugging it close to you, with a love that knows no borders.

    What can I say? Not being wrong is my wife. Being right is my mistress.

    That’s the skeptical way.

  35. #36 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2013

    “I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge “I’m a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind”.

    Hey Wow, this sounds like a quote from Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama – ANY recent prime minister or president for that matter. Its called “double-speak” and would make Orwell cringe.

  36. #37 Lionel A
    March 11, 2013

    BK citing Freeman Dyson

    He says Hansen “exploits” the toxic elements of burning coal as a way of condemning the carbon dioxide it releases, “which cannot be reduced at an affordable cost, but does not do any substantial harm.”

    Before endorsing a statement claiming that Hansen exploits the toxic elements in coal, which should include mercury and also radiation hazards, maybe you should just read Hansen, ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’ would be a good start. Then you will appreciate that Dyson is oversimplifying to diminish one who should be a colleague.

    Similarly frequently Lindzen takes a tilt at other, non-specified because he doesn’t want to lose his pants in a lawsuit, scientists accusing them of fraud.

    One trail that follows Lindzen can be found by following from here: Lindzengate – one year on. Which starts by reviewing again Lindzen’s appallingly obfuscatory presentation at Westminster about this time last year. His presentation is riddled with erroneous conclusions and ill founded assumptions. He only got away with this because the lay audience heard what they wanted to hear.

    For another window on Lindzen, and Singer try this:
    If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.
    .

    Lindzen has his very own button at SkS (as do Michaels, Spencer and Christy, of whom the latter has recently added a further strike not yet recorded therein): Lindzen Illusions.

    There is also a Climate Misinformers hall of fame.

    The problem is that you appear not to have created an accurate and more complete cognitive framework of not only the multiple scientific aspects, diverse fields of research, that underpin what we (the broad community of the scientist involved and those of us who have studied much literature over many years) currently understand about the climate and where it is heading but also of the attempts of industry (many and varied) to finance a coterie of one time scientists willing to create the fog of doubt.

    You asked which of the reading list supplied should be consulted, the short answer is all of the above, although I, and David, have made some specific suggestion along the way.

    Having enjoyed my time at sea, although any ‘weather’ (Force 11 and 12 through the Pentland Firth and The Minch, hurricane off Cape Hatteras and other interesting times) was mostly a backdrop to my day to day activities, if not disabled I would love to have a shot at practical Oceanography.

    My journey studying weather and climate started whilst at university, as a mature student, with a 1985 print of the Fourth edition of this book Atmosphere, Weather and Climate.

    BTW citations involving WUWT do not impress, that you should use such raises another red flag to add to your frequent use of CAGW which originated with such, propaganda, sources (also listed in a nearby thread). It is propaganda, under the badge of advocacy, that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Christy and Plimer are now engaged, not science. Indeed with some it goes back to the early 1990s and even earlier – check out Michaels – Greening Earth – Western Fuels.

    Coal should be phased out ASAP, if not sooner, not least because of the CO2 connection but also because of the damage to terrain, ecosystems and water supplies caused by its extraction. By the same token, tar sands and shale gas (fracking) is utter madness and should cease forthwith.

    Many may not agree but baseload can be supplied by nuclear, 3-gen for now until deployment of 4-gen which latter can consume the waste created by earlier generations of nuclear including 3-gen. Fusion is pie in the sky for now. This book: Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power provides a good grounding in the technologies, management and policy issues.

    But local power generation from renewables is an essential part of the mix.

  37. #38 Wow
    March 11, 2013

    Well, Blair’s used the “If I did wrong, then God will judge me”.

    BULLSHIT.

    I don’t remember seeing God at the bloody polling booth.

    And if that was an acceptable method of sorting out justice, then why not just off Tony and if he done wrong, then God will sort him out, and if he done good, then God will give him a reward, right?

    Ah, no, it seems that even the godbotherers would rather wait and get a reward after THEY managed a full and active life.

    Pity he didn’t let others do the same and not invade.

  38. #39 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    I don’t remember seeing God at the bloody polling booth.

    Really?!

    God is everywhere (vote early, vote often)—ask bill if you don’t believe me!

  39. #40 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    BK

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

    No, it’s what I’d call a calculated misrepresentation. I am not labouring under any misconceptions regarding this conversation. I dislike this sort of sly shit, Bradley.

    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 it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.

    Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won’t explain on what basis you do so. Hence the term ‘denier’.

    Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’) but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    Is is politics?

    Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it’s abundantly clear that this is not the case?

    ***

    Not a word about Marcott? You surprise me. I told you the Mannean hockey stick was an irrelevance and so it is. Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann.

  40. #41 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    BBD,

    Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it’s abundantly clear that this is not the case?

    I might well ask what motivates you to *secretly hate* Belgians, BBD? Sure, you’ll deny considering or treating them any worse than any other ethnic group til you’re blue in the face; we know, we know. You can spare us the innocent act, BBD, for no matter how many times I prove to you that a Belgian is a genetically, karyotypically complete person like any other, no many how many mDNA studies I show you confirming the theory of our common ancestry, deep down you have no intention of ever changing your mind and viewing Belgians as real, full human beings, do you?

    Is it politics?

    Is that where your unspoken and unacknowledged Belgophobia comes from?

  41. #42 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2013

    Brad, one final point.

    Lindzen has 218 papers in his career, and the most citations his work has ever received in one year is just over 300 (for comparison I had 516 citation last year for my own scientific papers). Michael Mann’s work was cited almost 1,000 times last year, and although he is 25 years younger than Lindzen he already has 154 publications and virtually the same number of total citations as Lindzen.

    If this was a tennis match, the score would be Mann-Lindzen 6-2, 6-1, 6-4.

    If Lindzen is the poster boy for denial, then that lot really is in trouble.

  42. #43 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    All Lindzen (and Spencer’s) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.

    Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his ‘infra-red iris’ hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):

    Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2

    Lin et al. (2002)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Harrison (2002)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(2002)083%3C0597%3ACODTEH%3E2.3.CO%3B2

    Fu et al (2002)
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html

    Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2009)/Spencer & Braswell (2009):

    Trenberth et al. (2010)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml

    Lin et al. (2010)
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226

    Murphy et al. (2010)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml

    Dessler (2010)
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract

    Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):

    Dessler (2011)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml

    Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf

  43. #44 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    Oops. Too many links = automoderation. Let’s chop this one up:

    All Lindzen (and Spencer’s) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.

    Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his ‘infra-red iris’ hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):

    Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2

    Lin et al. (2002)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Harrison (2002)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(2002)083%3C0597%3ACODTEH%3E2.3.CO%3B2

    Fu et al (2002)
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html

  44. #45 BBD
    March 11, 2013
  45. #46 BBD
    March 11, 2013

    Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):

    Dessler (2011)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml

    Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf

  46. #47 Lionel A
    March 11, 2013

    I have a post pointing to Lindzen related material stuck in moderation, too many links I guess. It may drop through eventually.

  47. #48 Wow
    March 11, 2013

    It’ll never drop.

    Post again with no more than two links per post.

  48. #49 David B. Benson
    March 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes’s latest fails to carry through to the correct conclusion. Emitting excess CO2 indeed violates rights of others.

  49. #50 Brad Keyes
    March 11, 2013

    BBD,

    you accuse me of a premeditated deception (emphasis added):

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

    No, it’s what I’d call a calculated misrepresentation. I am not labouring under any misconceptions regarding this conversation. I dislike this sort of sly shit, Bradley.

    But it wasn’t a deliberate untruth, or an inadvertent untruth, or even an inadvertent half-truth. It was the truth. I’ve explained to you too many times to count—so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now—that:

    you misunderstand me every single time you say, as you’ve said too many times to count:

    “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.

    Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again. The only mystery that remains is:

    Was that a calculated attempt to misrepresent my views, or the result of a persistent inability to understand English?

    ”The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.”

    Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS.

    Nonsense. ECS is just a temperature range—it couldn’t possibly “say” (imply, indicate, entail, mean or prove) that AGW will be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with even if AGW were going to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.

    For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.

    Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’)

    Enough of your fictions, BBD. I grow tired of having to rebutt the argumentum ad imaginationem.

    I describe emissions control as “stupid” because I’ve considered it, not because I’ve refused to do so.

    Readers who look back at my actual comment can see for themselves how dishonest it is to use that second quote (“It’s just stupid.”) in service to the insinuation that I refuse to consider emissions control. They can see for themselves that I meant emissions control was just a stupid idea as opposed to an a priori abhorrent idea. My claim, which you’ve mangled, was that CAGW deniers have no ideological motive to refuse to consider emissions control.

    but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    Is is politics?

    
No.

    Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it’s abundantly clear that this is not the case?

    
That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.

    Not a word about Marcott? You surprise me.

    
That’s simply another way of admitting that you don’t understand the very basics of my thinking or behavior.

    If you did, you’d be aware that I’m loath to comment on papers I haven’t read.

    I told you the Mannean hockey stick was an irrelevance and so it is.

    Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.

    Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann.

    You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?

    Let me guess: because he’s so irrelevant.

    So irrelevant that you’ll defend the scientific propriety of his, ahem, methodological and ethical innovations to the hilt.

    I believe you.

    ;-)

  50. #51 chameleon
    March 12, 2013

    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/rainforests-not-at-risk-of-shrinking-from-climate-change-say-experts/story-fncynjr2-1226594180256
    Found this under ‘science stories’ in google news this morning.
    Haven’t read the paper yet but this report does seem to indicate that this new research supports other recent papers re tropical scenarios.
    Have been away ( & very busy) and have not had much time to catch up on conversations here.
    I have noticed the conversation re Kahan however.
    JeffH, you do realise that Kahan would be a ‘supporter’ of much of what you say and in much of what you believe don’t you?
    Also JeffH,
    re comment #5
    I absolutely agree that people should attempt to be polite.
    May I respectfully suggest that indiscriminately using the term ‘denier’ for anyone who questions your statements and/or asks for clarification of some of your statements is not being polite?
    And David B,
    May I ask why you have linked this twice?
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthropocene-climate-farming/1955041/
    I don’t really think there is any question that the planet and therefore the climate/environment would be different without the presence of mankind and the concurrent development of farming and agriculture.
    Your second link also partly points this out.
    One of the most natural things that mankind does (even from the caveman days) is to use and alter the environment to suit mankind.
    It is not a perfect story and there have been mistakes, but in the big picture it is certainly not all a bad story.
    IMHO much of current behaviour has seriously lost some perspective.
    Farming and agriculture is one of the major reasons why the human race is such a successful species.

  51. #52 David B. Benson
    March 12, 2013

    Given how much harm a mere 0.8 K warming has done already I find a claim that 4 K ‘can be taken in stride’ preposterous.

  52. #53 bill
    March 12, 2013

    What a hoot! You can wave it away a priori, you know, just like claims of finding diatoms in meteorites.

    People, seriously, ask yourselves: why are you wasting your time here?

  53. #54 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    DBB:

    This is one of the most interesting comments so far—thanks.

    Given how much harm a mere 0.8 K warming has done already I find a claim that 4 K ‘can be taken in stride’ preposterous.

    1. Do you, in fact, think we have four to five times as much AGW ahead of us as behind us?

    2. If so, how long do you think it will take for the next 3.2—4.0 degrees’ worth of AGW to occur, given the current levels (i.e. bugger-all) of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction?

    3. What do you see as the principal harms and benefits of global warming so far? Has it been net detrimental?

  54. #55 Vince Whirlwind
    March 12, 2013

    For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.

    Yes you can, due to the following combination of reasons:

    1/ Goklany has no special qualifications in either climate science or risk management

    2/ Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.

    Hardly surprising to find Brad – yet again – sourcing his opinions from a crank blog.

  55. #56 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    Vortical Vince:

    2/ Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.

    Anthony Watts emphatically acknowledges the reality of climate change, so the obvious question is whether the rest of your comment is any more trustworthy than the bold-faced lie above.

  56. #57 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    In short words, Vince: why should we trust what you say, or care what you say, when you tell a lie like that?

  57. #58 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    This is just painful to read:

    “Any suggestions for collective nouns?
    
A mendacity of deniers?
    
A pomposity of deniers?

    An embarrassment of deniers?

    A delusion of deniers?
    A pustule of deniers?

    A flock of deniers.

    A confusion of deniers?

    A benthos?
    A Conspiracy of Deniers.



    A baffle of deniers.
    A glib of deniers.
    A falsehood of deniers.
    A crank of deniers.
    A prattle of deniers.
    a frauditorium full of deniers
    a Bishop Hill of deniers
    a junket of deniers
    a lyin’s den of deniers”

    Misologists really shouldn’t attempt philology.

    The answer is a liard of deniers. Four liards make one sou.

  58. #59 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    But then, we already knew you people had no idea about the Middle Ages.

    :-)o

  59. #60 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    Nick tries his hand…

    In reference to #34, an irrelevance of deniers. What a conga-line of Montfordian suckholes, and how better to give Tara an insight into their pathology

    “A shame stage of sceptics.”

  60. #61 chek
    March 12, 2013

    More “Brad” mangling in progress.
    Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.
    “Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann”.
    You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?

    Au contraire for despite denier attempted spin hiding behind a veil of sarcasm, Mann’s reconstruction was the first time such an undertaking had been attempted and as such was groundbreaking. In that sense alone it added to the sum of human knowledge.

    The point (as if you didn’t know) that BBD is making is that Mann’s findings have been replicated so many times now that despite denier fixation on his iconic heap-big-magic hockey stick totem – it’s not the only one, but it’s still the one the unwashed majority of deniers fixate on.

    “Brad’s” addiction to crankery, crank blog information and his curious reticence to substantiate his crank blog formed opinions continues apace. Nothing new (since about 2009 at the latest) there.

  61. #62 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2013

    Brad, you really keep shooting yourself in the foot, don’t you? Now you are citing Indur Goklany, a think tank shill if there ever was one:

    http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Indur_Goklany
    http://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/10/974842/-Climate-Denial-Wholly-Owned-Subsidiary-of-Exxon

    Goklany has long eben associated with corporate-funded right wing think tanks. He is a perfect example of a denier who cannot help but wear his political ideology on his sleeve. To be honest, he is one of the worst people that you could cite. Here is a rundown of Goklany’s bonafides:

    Career: 30 publications (since 1973), 139 citations TOTAL, and only 5 last year. Five! I get more in less than a week.

    How desperate are you Brad? How far to the bottom of the barrel are you willing to scrape to come up with what ytou consider to be ligitimiate voices of denial? What this shows is that your arguments depend largely on a few dissenting voices, and those diussenting voices more often than not are or have been directly or indirectly on the corporate fossil fuel payroll at some point. And you expect rational responses to this?! Come on Brad. You are painting yourself into a corner. My advice is to leave here gracefully while you still have a thin veneer of credibility. The more you write, the deeper you sink.

  62. #63 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again.

    The questions are *not* ‘falsely premised’. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me. Evasive and dishonest in equal measure.

    That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.

    WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.

    As for the ‘personalise and demonise’ tactics you and your fellow lying denialists use against Mann and Jones – they fool nobody outside the denialist bubble. The rest of us understand that M&J are not proxies for climate science. We see the misdirection, the trickery, the dishonest rhetoric for what they are. Clearly we are cleverer than you, Brad. Or we don’t share your motivations, at the very least.

    You describe emissions controls as ‘stupid’ because you are motivated to do so by your worldview. You make idiotic remarks about ECS for the same reason. You are, as everyone can see, a denier motivated by your politics.

    We’d have more time for you if you had the integrity to admit this openly instead of constantly lying about it.

  63. #64 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    My claim, which you’ve mangled, was that CAGW deniers have no ideological motive to refuse to consider emissions control.

    This claim is false.

  64. #65 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2013

    I totally agree withg David Benson. The curret modest increase in atmsopheric C02 concentrations is already having serious consequences, and that’s ifwe ignore temporal lags in some effects, such as those on antural systems which operate over larger scales. To think that humanity can ‘adapt’ to or ‘manage’ a 3-4C rise is the sprint of folly. In other words, profoundly and dangerously naive and ignorant.

  65. #66 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    “WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now?”

    Of course you’re a racist.

    Racists never say they are a racist.

    You’ve never said you were.

    Therefore, as far as Bray is concerned, that proves you’re a racist!

    He doesn’t know how proof or logical induction goes. He just knows where those words are in the dictionary.

  66. #67 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    @ 58

    Or in a word, ‘denial’.

  67. #68 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    BBD:

    You describe emissions controls as ‘stupid’ because you are motivated to do so by your worldview. You make idiotic remarks about ECS for the same reason. You are, as everyone can see, a denier motivated by your politics.

    ROFL!

    Don’t stop there, BBD! Go on, elaborate on what my political worldview is.* I insist.

    I could do with a good laugh :-)

    We’d have more time for you if you had the integrity to admit this openly instead of constantly lying about it.

    Oh, like the way you candidly own up to your disturbing eugenicist ideas, BBD?

    (Dear readers: for a masterclass in denial, observe how BBD now pretends he has no idea what I’m referring to. Ready… set… deny!)

    *And please, BBD: don’t shield yourself behind vacuous weaselries like “Libertarian! Cappuccino capitalist! Paleo-neo-Party-Of-Lincolnist! Extreme centrist!,” or similar inanities applicable to every man and his dog. Have the dignity to take a falsifiable stab at the question: what are my politics?

  68. #69 chek
    March 12, 2013

    Anthony Watts isn’t a denier. Who knew?
    And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn’t a duck?

  69. #70 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    Wow,

    Perhaps Lotharsson was a bit harsh on you—you do show signs of high-school-level cortical functioning from time to time. For example, this précis was very insightful:

    “WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now?”

    Of course you’re a racist.

    Racists never say they are a racist.

    You’ve never said you were.

    Bingo.

    Rather like the way I avoid espousing right-wing ideology, voting right-wing, admitting I’m right-wing, or otherwise behaving so as to suggest right-wing sympathies, BBD likewise plays his racism extremely close to his chest. The duplicitous bastard!

  70. #71 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    BK

    You have not responded to my main point above. Evasive verbiage, yes. Substance, no.

    I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.

    The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.

    Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won’t explain on what basis you do so. All you do is quote rubbish from WTFUWT. This is less than inadequate.

    Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’) but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above. Please address this point directly

    Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again.

    It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* ‘falsely premised’. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me.

    It is extremely clear that you are being serially, persistently *evasive*.

    Why is this?

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    chek:

    “Anthony Watts isn’t a denier. Who knew?”

    Not you, fool.

    “And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn’t a duck?”

    Ah, that old canard.

    Pay attention, chek, while I explain this as simply as I know how:

    In Vince’s words, in Vince’s system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.

    Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.

    Get it? That’s not “quacking,” it’s mooing. Barking. Neighing. But Vince inhabits an alternative reality. He’s in a barnyard of his own. Technically, as you appear to agree with him, perhaps I should call it a folie à deux.

  72. #73 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    You ask David B. Benson this instead of answering my questions, which is irritating:

    1. Do you, in fact, think we have four to five times as much AGW ahead of us as behind us?

    2. If so, how long do you think it will take for the next 3.2—4.0 degrees’ worth of AGW to occur, given the current levels (i.e. bugger-all) of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction?

    Obviously it all depends on emissions reductions. Which you think are a ‘stupid idea’.

    You seem increasingly muddled.

  73. #74 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    *Sigh.*

    I hoped it was obvious from the question itself (“given the current levels [i.e. bugger-all] of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction”) that I meant assuming little or no emissions reductions.

    I’ll try to remember to spoon-feed you next time, BBD.

  74. #75 Lionel A
    March 12, 2013

    BBD

    BK “That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.

    BBD “WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.

    Indeed, and that coming from someone (BK) who described John Cook as mongoloid.

    Hypocrisy on top of continued tergiversation.

    Keyes, the slant of your continuing distorted view of the field of climate science (many disciplines) and of the history of the denial machine clearly indicates that your grounding in these topics is far from complete and you really need to do allot of reading to catch up hence our continuing attempts to bring relevant and worthy literature to your attention.

    Your cognitive framework is distorted due to lack of understanding of many essential concepts.

    Consider that achieving ECS is rather like collecting the gold at the end of the rainbow for as long as we continue to add CO2 then the point of equilibrium moves ever further into the future. The concept of a single doubling of CO2 (from pre-industrial levels), although meaningful in the context of a specific temperature increase is rather arbitrary in the context extended time.

    Also the current rate of increase in CO2 levels (and other GHGs) is unprecedented.

  75. #76 chek
    March 12, 2013

    You [Brad] seem increasingly muddled

    I think that’s the nub of it BBD.
    Anything that “Brad” can say will only look stupid in daylight because it’s either based on hopes’n’wisful thinking, or discredited (or easily discreditable) crank bullshit.

    It’s ostensibly easier to avoid and evade rather than confront, which is what “Brad” cannot face up to, hence these pusillanimous distractions and ‘look squirrels’ pointing to unskilled sources.

  76. #77 Wow
    March 12, 2013

    For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.

    Why not?

    You seem to have accepted it with no skeptical inquiry into it based solely on it saying AGW is nothing to worry about.

  77. #78 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    BBD:

    @ 58

    Or in a word, ‘denial’.

    WTF?

    That’s even less lucid and responsive than your usual fare, BBD.

    Comment #58 reads, in its entirety:

    “Nick tries his hand…

    In reference to #34, an irrelevance of deniers. What a conga-line of Montfordian suckholes, and how better to give Tara an insight into their pathology…

    A shame stage of sceptics.”

  78. #79 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    BBD, I told you:
    “Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again.”

    You replied, turning singular to plural for motives know only to yourself:
    “It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* ‘falsely premised’. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me.”

    Yet the premise of this question, which you asked over and over, is false:
    “1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.”

    Here is the answer I have never refused to give, with apologies to David Benson and other readers for the tedious repetitiousness of the lesson I’m trying to convey:
    “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.”

    In case that’s not clear enough, what it means is that I fully appreciate the fact that AGW is potentially dangerous.

    And therefore your question was false.

  79. #80 Brad Keyes
    March 12, 2013

    A,

    you’re indulging in non-sequuntur again.

    BK “That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.”

    BBD “WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.”

    Indeed, and that coming from someone (BK) who described John Cook as mongoloid.

    Yes.

    And?

    As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?

  80. #81 chek
    March 12, 2013

    I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.”

    So what’s the implied (though non-exisent according to present knowledge) conditional, brainbox? We’ll be saved by a cavalry charge of pink unicorns, you utterly ignorant, smug, scientifically illiterate moron?

    As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?

    Such a vituperative display of inaccurate and factually wrong adjectives shows John Cook really succeeded in rattling your cage little man, and showed you for the worthless word merchant you are, “Brad”.
    And by showed, I of course mean to yourself, which is unforgivable in “Brad” world.

  81. #82 Lionel A
    March 12, 2013

    As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?

    And you are sick, seek professional help before continuing with more tergiversation.

  82. #83 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    BK

    Yack yack yack.

    Evasive, politically motivated dishonest denier.

  83. #84 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Your fucking lies:

    There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”

    There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.

    It’s just stupid.

    Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    On, and on, and on, and on.

    Lies.

  84. #85 BBD
    March 12, 2013

    Since you are too stupid and dishonest to write this down yourself, I am going to fix it for you:

    As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW will turn out to be dangerous unless emissions are limited.

    There, you lying fuckwit. That wasn’t so hard was it.

  85. #86 chameleon
    March 12, 2013

    BradK @#58,
    :-) :-)
    The behaviour at the March thread is indeed painful to read.
    It appears that totally counter productive name calling is acceptable yet a comment like mine above @#51 was in moderation for nearly 24 hours.
    No wonder there is such a backlash in the Australian electorate.
    The WA election results indicate very bad news for the current Fed govt.

  86. #87 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    thanks for this unusually polite comment:

    BK

    Yack yack yack.

    Evasive, politically motivated dishonest denier.

    But motivated by what politics, BBD?

    Come on, this thread could do with some comedy.

    What are my politics?

  87. #88 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    just when I thought you were becoming tolerant of heretics, the old Dominican instinct kicks in and you rant…

    Since you are too stupid and dishonest to write this down yourself, I am going to fix it for you:

    … followed by a declaration of a belief I don’t believe, and am too lucid and honest to write myself:

    I don’t dispute that AGW will turn out to be dangerous unless emissions are limited.

    Why do you and your fellow domini canes feel the need to put words in people’s mouths? Is it impossible to defend the orthodoxy honestly?

    Even if the international community never lifts a finger to limit CO2 emissions (and presumably it won’t), I am not remotely convinced that AGW is going to be net-harmful.

    The most fascinating thing about your little forgery / ventriloquism, however, is that it suggests an awareness on your part that AGW has not yet proven “dangerous.”

    Perhaps the Inquisition and its victims are of a more similar mind on such matters than a certain party would like to admit, eh BBD? ;-)

  88. #89 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    you ruin the moment of ecumenical empathy with your foul mouth:

    There, you lying fuckwit. That wasn’t so hard was it.

    Aaaaand just like that, it’s faggots and fomites again with the fascist enforcers of the Faith.

  89. #90 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Why are chameleon’s comments now mired in moderation for hours on end?

    Surely no one here is worm enough to fear her polite questions.

  90. #91 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    chek:

    “As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?”

    Such a vituperative display of inaccurate and factually wrong adjectives shows John Cook really succeeded in rattling your cage little man, and showed you for the worthless word merchant you are, “Brad”.

    Not at all, chek. Adjectives are just for fun!

    As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an idiot, philistine and retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?

  91. #92 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    “As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?”

    And you are sick, seek professional help before continuing with more tergiversation.

    Gosh, you’re so right, Lionel—I really need to stop beating round the bush! Enough with the equivocation, prevarication, ambivalence, indecision, mealy-mouthed mustelism and umming-and-ahhing…

    Note to self: stop being so damned polite. Tell us what you really think of John Cook.

  92. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    March 13, 2013

    Breathtaking example of denial from Brad here: who knew Anthony Watts was not a denier?

    Who knew the man who said, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong”, and then refused to accept BEST’s result, and continued to promote his fact-free and evidently incorrect premise, was in denial?

    Who knew that Anthony Watts’ “Surface Stations” schemozzle wasn’t the epitome of denial in action?

    Who knew that this crank blogger unfamiliar with further education and on the payroll of Heartland Institute, an organisation devoted to lying about climate change, wasn’t a denier?

    Who knew the man whose blog provides a platform to every cranky denialist in town, no matter how egregiously denialist, was a denier?

    Who knew the man who even today claims the US temperature record is wrong, despite being proven wrong by 3 independent studies, including his own, is a denier?

    Who knew that Anthony Watts’ continued promotion of the serially-incorrect Lindzen as a valid source of climate-related information wasn’t yet another symptom of his denial?

    Not Brad.

    Brad never knew.

    Brad came down in the last shower.

    (Or, he knew and he’s just lying. Again.)

  93. #94 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Where are my manners? I almost forgot:

    Congratulations to the March 2013 thread on its 100th comment!

    And we’re still (just) under half way through the month!

  94. #95 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    (And they said giving me my own thread would kill popular interest in the minor threads! Ha! How wrong they were—for 100 reasons, and counting!)

  95. #96 chameleon
    March 13, 2013

    Moderator/s
    Why have I been placed in moderation?
    I was not warned and nor have I used bad language or been blatantly rude to anyone.
    Have I made a mistake with an email address or have I inadvertently broken a rule or messed up a link or something like that?

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    further on the ‘dangerousness’ of AGW, I can’t resist quoting some choice pronouncements from Professor Mike Hulme—my emphasis:

    ‘Self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking… scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence.

    Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.

    The largest academic conference that has yet been devoted to the subject of climate change finished yesterday [March 12, 2009] in Copenhagen … [The] statement drafted by the conference’s Scientific Writing Team contained … a set of messages drafted largely before the conference … And the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically-motivated. All well and good.

    There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups to latch on to, whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.

    We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us… Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.

    Believe it or not, Hulme teaches science. He’s the founding director of the Tyndall Centre and Professor of Climate Change at the UEA. He prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author on the Climate Scenario Development chapter of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, as well as a contributing author on several other chapters.

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Vince,

    yes, you must think I was born yesterday. How else could you hope your shameless back-pedalling would go unnoticed:

    Breathtaking example of denial from Brad here: who knew Anthony Watts was not a denier?

    Did you really think I’d forget that your original accusation was somewhat more specific than the inane epithet “denier”?

    Did you really think I wouldn’t copy and paste what you actually typed?

    Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.

    As I’ve patiently taught chek:

    In your words, in your system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.

    Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.

    The interesting question, Vince, is whether you’re lying to yourself or just to us.

  98. #99 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Here it is again, expressed in terms even a denialist half-wit cannot possibly misinterpret:

    Because ECS is *at least* 2C and probably higher,AGW will be dangerous unless emissions are reduced.

  99. #100 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    Thanks for confirming you don’t consider AGW dangerous yet. Why do you think David makes the following claim (my emphasis)?

    Given how much harm a mere 0.8 K warming has done already I find a claim that 4 K ‘can be taken in stride’ preposterous.

    Are you and David reading the same Science™?