Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    Hey, since Bray thinks it’s non science, indeed ANTI-science, to withhold your code, I wonder what you think now of Christy and Spencer withholding the code that they use for their satellite data conversion to temperature?

    (prompted by a query over at rabett run)

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    BBD,

    you probably don’t need this explained, but just to head off the wrath of the PC brigade, I should clarify that when I wrote…

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

    …I was merely paraphrasing your nostalgia for “stakes and bundles of firewood.” Your patron saint must be so proud. ;-)

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Wow,

    this is a fair question:

    Hey, since [Brad] thinks it’s non science, indeed ANTI-science, to withhold your code, I wonder what you think now of Christy and Spencer withholding the code that they use for their satellite data conversion to temperature?

    Short answer, minus crucial caveats:

    I think it’s non-scientific, indeed anti-scientific.

    Long answer, complete with crucial caveats:

    1. I haven’t read anything about the incident but you’re probably not telling the whole story. I don’t say this because I regard Spencer and Christy as paragons of probity, but because I regard you as anything but. I’ll assume, though, for the sake of argument that you’re being totally honest and not leaving anything out that would reasonably be expected to alter my answer.

    2. The scientifically-optimal course of action for C & S would be to disclose the source code.

    3. Ideally they should do so by publishing the code (perhaps as an Appendix in the relevant scientific paper).

    4. If, however, there are pragmatic, commercial or proprietary impediments to publishing the code, then the next-most acceptable practice would be to disclose it individually to anyone seeking to audit and/or replicate it. And by “anyone,” I mean on either “side” of the debate. This is a matter of principle, not partisanship.

    5. Short of disclosing the code, one legitimate alternative would be to strictly perform the following steps:
    — publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
    — publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does, so that any interested, numerate and competent programmer can implement a functionally identical program without guesswork, and use said program to verify for him- or herself that it transforms the raw data into precisely the same temperature outputs that the authors got as their findings

    6. The above principles assume they used in-house, hand-coded software. On the other hand, if they used off-the-shelf, closed-source commercial software, the requirements would be slightly different. In this case it may suffice to:
    — publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
    — publish the name and version number of the software product, and say exactly which features were used in which order—essentially, a “walkthrough” in enabling detail.

    7. Short of satisfying any of the above conditions (unless I’ve overlooked some other scientifically legitimate solution), Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial.

  4. #4 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Wow

    Perhaps you recall that I mentioned Christy and Spencer and the 2005 UAH debacle to Brad a long time ago. Perhaps he didn’t really understand the full implications.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    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.”

    We’ve been through this. CO2 forcing is only beginning to have an effect. You’ve seen the graphs.

    Everything you say is dishonest shite.

  6. #6 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Yup. Here we go: Page 36 # 69

    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.

    And what does Brad think about policy intervention?

    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?

  7. #7 BBD
    March 13, 2013

    Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are staggeringly dishonest?

    According to you:

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

    But why, Brad? Why is everybody else wrong? What special knowledge do you have?

    And how, if you accept a slightly conservative ECS estimate, do you think we are going to keep warming below 2.5 – 3C without emissions regulation?

    Something you *explicitly state* is ‘just stupid’. Don’t bother trying to lie your way out of this again – I will simply quote your own words at you. Again.

    It’s beyond a muddle. It is an incoherent mess. You are all over the place man. So much for your supposed intellectual gifts, eh?

  8. #8 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    I think it’s non-scientific, indeed anti-scientific.

    So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as “experts” whose statements on climate science are valid?

  9. #9 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    “1. I haven’t read anything about the incident”

    You never look, do you.

    But you go looking for incidents that may “prove AGW science a scam”.

    Why is that?

    It’s because you’re ideologically opposed to the consequent actions required by the fact of AGW.

  10. #10 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    5. Short of disclosing the code

    Hang on, that wasn’t an option you were going to allow Mann to do. Why do these clowns get the option?

    It’s because you’re ideologically predicated to accept their claims against AGW science.

    one legitimate alternative would be to strictly perform the following steps:
    — publish or disclose on request the full satellite data

    That is done for the MBH98 and MBH99 paper. Apparently not good enough for you then, why is it good enough for Christy/Spencer?

    See above.

    — publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does,

    That was ALWAYS available to McIntyre from the MBH98 paper. His competence at understanding the science wasn’t Mann’s fault.

  11. #11 Wow
    March 13, 2013

    “Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial.”

    Why are they “the Phil Jones”?

    Surely they are “the Pons and Fleischmann”. You haven’t shown Phil Jones has having hidden his code or hiding anything else.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    March 13, 2013

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

    Hum!

    BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..

    Whatever I have fixed your statement to more truly reflect your actions:

    I can’t resist quote mining from some choice pronouncements…

    Brad you fail, fail and fail again and still you tergiversate which is also a characteristic of Plimer.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Wow:

    So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as “experts” whose statements on climate science are valid?

    Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.

    As I told some three-lettered somebody weeks ago, I don’t think I’ve ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it, let alone cited it as the “expert” truth.

    (The strikethrough is due to the fact that you don’t know what the word “cohort” means.)

    But you go looking for incidents that may “prove AGW science a scam”.

    Don’t use quotation marks unless you’re quoting me, which you’re not.

    You’re fabricating and misattributing to me an idea I don’t even believe and have certainly never tried to “”prove.””

    Why is that?

    Because you can’t defend your POV honestly.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Wow:

    “Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial.”

    Why are they “the Phil Jones”?

    If they’re obstructing efforts to audit their calculations, then they’re “the Phil Jones” of CAGW denial because Jones wrote the immortal email:

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

  15. #15 chek
    March 13, 2013

    The Phil Jones reference indicates that our wordy interlocutor, far from being widely read or informed, merely picks up and then regurgitates speed-read denier chum chunks. Forget “Brad” having any comprehension – original, insightful or otherwise – of the issue. Stilted, talk-point repetition is all there is.

    Slightly further back in the trhread was mention of how the intelligent can be in denial just as deep as the stupid. I disagree, in that intelligence that is indistinguishable from stupidity is still stupid. It may be stupidity with a wider vocabulary or skillset, but somehow I don’t think nature awards extra points for those.

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Lionel:

    Hum!

    BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..

    Whatever I have fixed your statement to more truly reflect your actions:

    “I can’t resist quote mining from some choice pronouncements…”

    Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources, I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.

    Good starting points for you (once this gets through moderation) would be http://mikehulme.org/category/articles-reviews-talks and http://mikehulme.org/category/archived-publications/.

    Let me know if you think any of my elisions have unfairly mutilated Hulme’s meaning.

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 13, 2013

    Wow:

    “one legitimate alternative would be to strictly perform the following steps:
    — publish or disclose on request the full satellite data”

    That is done for the MBH98 and MBH99 paper. Apparently not good enough for you then, why is it good enough for Christy/Spencer?

    1. It wasn’t done for MBH. Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.

    2. If Spencer and Christy don’t do so either, then they’re stooping to the level of MBH, which is not excusable.

    “— publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does,”

    That was ALWAYS available to McIntyre from the MBH98 paper. His competence at understanding the science wasn’t Mann’s fault.

    Oh, FFS, you know not whereof you crap on.

    Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.

  18. #18 chameleon
    March 13, 2013

    Moderator/s,
    Can you please explain why my comments are spending up to 24 hours in moderation?
    Have I broken one of your rules?
    [You used a sock]

  19. #19 David B. Benson
    March 13, 2013

    Brad Keyes — So far this century over 100,000 Europeans died prematurely due to heat waves. In addition agriculture has been severely disrupted. Is not yet possible to attribute either to global warming, but it is certainly implicated.

    Extreme storms are definitely becoming more extreme and this is attributable to global warming. Not to mention Greenland melt and arctic sea ice loss. The latter is certainly affecting weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.

    And from everything I have seen Terra and its inhabitants are on track for at least 4 K warming. For a hint of just how bad that will be, read Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    March 13, 2013

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

    Yes, in *your* reality, Watts is an “affirmer”, because of the vast reams of solid science about climate change that he denies.

    He denies the temperature record. He denies the results of scientific research, including – hilariously – his own.

    But you like what he has to say.

    What do you call somebody who rejects science in favour of cranky nonsense from inexperts?

    Apart from a complete fucking idiot, that is?

  21. #21 chek
    March 13, 2013

    For those who don’t yet know – including obviously “Brad” here -” The Hockey Stick Illusion.” is a conspiracy novel which purports incompetent crank ‘analyst’ Steve McinTyres is a ‘hero’ by the GWPF and Scottish Oil Barons (I kid you not) connected rural accountant nutter and noted conspiracy crank Andy Montford. Footnotes and the illusion of ‘research’ do not decouple it from the Dan Brown or Von Daniken shelf at your fave bookstore.

    Any moronic anti-AGW science motif, and ol’ “Brad’s” right in there like Flynn. Along with his sock doxy.

  22. #22 chek
    March 13, 2013

    I should add that cranks like stories by other cranks.
    It entertains them.
    It’s reality that they find too dull or difficult.

    Better to rage against the evil that is embodied in Mike Mann or Phil Jones than the RF forcing spewed out by planetary-wide complicity with Exxon or Koch Industries.

    Really, we’re deling with arrogant children unwilling to put away childish things and grow up.

  23. #23 bill
    March 13, 2013

    The Hockey Stick Illusion now? Priceless! You’ve nearly worn the bottom out of the barrel…

    And, ooh – muppet uses sock! Intriguing. Did we see it?

  24. #24 bill
    March 13, 2013

    I haven’t kept up – has he cited The Oregon Petition yet? Slaying the Skydragon?

    What a cartoon!

  25. #25 chek
    March 14, 2013

    Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.
    Yes indeedee you betcha.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    Vortical Vince:

    “In your words, in your system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.
    Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.”

    Yes, in *your* reality, Watts is an “affirmer”, because of the vast reams of solid science about climate change that he denies.

    No, in my reality, i.e. reality, he’s a climate change affirmer because he affirms that climate change is real.

    He denies the temperature record. He denies the results of scientific research, including – hilariously – his own.

    Mmm. That would be hilarious.

    When you’ve got a minute, Vince, would you please tell us how you think science works? Close your eyes, imagine a bunch of “science” occurring and describe what you visualise.

    Thanks in advance,

    “Brad”

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    chek,

    This turgid crap resonates will all the credibility (and facility with English) of a book review by Peter Gleick or Dana:

    For those who don’t yet know – including obviously “Brad” here -” The Hockey Stick Illusion.” is a conspiracy novel which purports incompetent crank ‘analyst’ Steve McinTyres is a ‘hero’ by the GWPF and Scottish Oil Barons (I kid you not) connected rural accountant nutter and noted conspiracy crank Andy Montford …

    Any moronic anti-AGW science motif, and ol’ “Brad’s” right in there like Flynn.

    Allow me to quote someone who can both read and write:

    “If you can bring yourself to read Montford’s book you won’t find an attempt to ‘debunk’ AGW because that’s not what the book is about.

    “It’s about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.

    “In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider’s ‘honest vs effective’ mindset gets out of control.”

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    Lionel A:

    BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..

    Fine, Lionel; I suppose I’ll enzymatically deplimerize it for you, will I? Lazy bastard. ;-)

    Without further ado, I present the unelided Mike Hulme: same awful taste, now harder to digest!

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy – as on the facts of science.

    Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to ‘identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much.’

    This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

    SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    The idea of climate change has become so powerful and visible that, according to Hulme, it has really penetrated to all aspects of culture, politics and society. “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.”

    Hulme and like-minded scientists are concerned about the commercialisation of various aspects of climate change. “Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along. It provides a new way in which commodification happens. The idea of carbon market is one of the examples; the idea that how this commodity has to be priced. By doing so we actually create a new vehicle for capitalists. We see the same thing happening in the case of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) proposal, a new plan for private companies and wealthy nations to pay poorer nations to keep their tropical forest intact.” According to him carbon offsetting is a big business, and a very attractive one. Ahead of the Copenhagen negotiations, Hulme thinks it is vital for everyone to understand the valid reasons for why there is disagreement about climate change.

    SOURCE: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/plan/no-consensus-yet-climate-change-hulme-702

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    I have no problem with scientists offering clear political messages as long as they are clearly recognised as such; and the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically motivated. All well and good.

    SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946476.stm

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    In doing so, he successfully argues that these explorations can inspire a collective change in communication. “Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy,” he writes. “It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.” But Hulme is not merely advocating intellectualism. Rather, he ultimately issues a John F. Kennedy-like call to action: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”

    SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0908/full/climate.2009.70.html

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    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.

    SOURCE: Hulme, M., Why We Disagree About Climate Change, 2009 (p. 326)

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    David,

    thanks.

    1. If AGW has already killed 100,000 people, why does BBD speak of it becoming dangerous in the future tense?

    2. How many deaths due to cold has AGW prevented?

    3. What other benefits has AGW conferred so far?

    4. You say that

    Extreme storms are definitely becoming more extreme and this is attributable to global warming.

    Radical, dude!

    But what does it mean?

    Rarer?

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2013

    “Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion”

    Excellent? To whom? A denier? GM isn’t a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form. Calling it ‘excellent’ reveals exactly where you are coming from, Brad.

  31. #31 chameleon
    March 14, 2013

    I don’t know what a sock is!
    Can I please have:
    a) a definition and
    b) the comment where I have used a ‘sock’.
    ? ? ?

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    Jeff:

    GM isn’t a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form.

    Who’s GM?

    Anyway, the argument is about the use and abuse of statistics, Jeff—you don’t need to be a climate scientist to know that all is not well in the house of palaeoclimatology.

    The reason BBD insists that “Mann and Jones aren’t proxies for climate science” is that BBD knows as well as I do what it would say about climate science if they were.

    They’re not, of course. The median, mean, modal or model climate scientist has less to hide. But Mann and Jones are proof of what you can get away with in climate science and still keep your job.

  33. #33 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    1. It wasn’t done for MBH

    It WAS done for MBH. “The Hockey Stick Illusion” is a work of fiction. It is as real as “The DaVinci Code”.

    Read MBH98/99, not what some crank wrote about it.

    2. If Spencer and Christy don’t do so either

    What’s with the “If”? You don’t bother putting “If Mann didn’t….”.

    That’s because you don’t want it to be true, but have to pretend you’re being “reasonable” so can’t deny it.

    There is no “If”.

    And you refuse to act upon that.

    Because you’re a hypocrite? Or is it because you’re a liar? Or both?

    Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.

    Oh, FFS, you know not whereof you crap on. That’s no more relevant than telling someone who wants to know if there is anything hidden in the bible to read “The DaVinci Code”.

  34. #34 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    If they’re obstructing efforts to audit their calculations

    Why the If?

    they’re “the Phil Jones” of CAGW denial because Jones wrote the immortal email:

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    Neither they nor you answered that question.

    Phil Jones doesn’t work for you or McIntrye as personal secretary.

  35. #35 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.

    You sick fuck.

    I don’t think

    That’s true.

    I’ve ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it

    You have used their names to prop up your fantasy interpretations of reality. Just because you “forget” doesn’t stop that from being the case.

    (The strikethrough is due to the fact that I don’t know what the word “cohort” means.

    FTFY.

    Don’t use quotation marks unless you’re quoting me, which you’re not.

    Seems like you don’t know what quotation marks mean.

    You’re fabricating and misattributing to me an idea I don’t even believe and have certainly never tried to “”prove.””

    So now you’re in denial about your entire catalogue of bullshit you’ve posted on this blog, not just your use of Christy and Spencer.

    Because you can’t defend your POV honestly.

    Really? Prove it, else it’s just your assertion.

  36. #36 Wow
    March 14, 2013

    Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources

    Hmmm. You link in that very post.

    You aren’t very observant are you. And a brazen bare-faced liar to boot.

    I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.

    No, you don’t think. That’s your problem, bray.

  37. #37 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    BK

    You ignore # 5 # 6 # 7.

    RSVP.

    And ask yourself a very pertinent question. How did I get from where I was in 2011 to where I am now?

    How do you think I achieved that?

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    Wow,

    this is sound advice:

    Read MBH98/99, not what some crank wrote about it.

    Also, read what Andrew Montford wrote about it.

    (If you can “bring yourself” to do so, that is. As BBD put it.)

    ”2. If Spencer and Christy don’t [publish in enabling detail] either”


    What’s with the “If”? You don’t bother putting “If Mann didn’t….”.

    Right. Because I know he didn’t.

    That’s because you don’t want it to be true, but have to pretend you’re being “reasonable” so can’t deny it.

    So you agree that I’m behaving the way a reasonable person would.

    Guess what, Wow: that’s because I’m reasonable.

    There is no “If”.

    And you refuse to act upon that.

    Upon what? Upon the fact that there is no “if”?

    LOL.

    OK Wow.

    Out of morbid curiosity: what actions, exactly, were you waiting for me to take?

    Because you’re a hypocrite? Or is it because you’re a liar?

    Keep guessing. I’ll let you know when you’re warm.

    “If they’re obstructing efforts to audit their calculations”

Why the If?

    Didn’t you just ask—and answer, to the best of your poor ability—that question?

    “they’re “the Phil Jones” of CAGW denial because Jones wrote the immortal email:

    “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?””

    

Neither they nor you answered that question.

    OMFG.

    If you understood the first thing about science, Wow, you’d be aware that the question answers itself.

    Because my aim is to try and find something wrong with it, that’s why you should make your data available to me.

    Even actors who portray scientists on television know this! Jones is too unscientific even to do a half-assed job of impersonating a scientist.

    ”Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.”



    You sick fuck.

    *Sigh.*

    Would someone like to explain the “when did you stop beating your wife” meme to Wow?

    They don’t pay me enough for this.

    ”I’ve ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it”



    You have used their names to prop up your fantasy interpretations of reality. Just because you “forget” doesn’t stop that from being the case.

    And just because you “remember” doesn’t stop it from being make-believe, Wow.

    Of course, there’s really only 1 (one) way to resolve the question that must be going through readers’ minds right now, if they’re not already familiar with your schtick: “Is ‘Wow’ just making this shit up, or did ‘Brad’ actually cite Christy and Spencer’s work?” …and that is to quote me citing it.

    Which you haven’t done, will never do, and couldn’t do if your life depended on it.

    Because you’re making this shit up.

    How much is HI paying you to lie so ineptly?

    (The strikethrough is due to the fact that I don’t know what the word “cohort” means.

FTFY.

    Nope, you succeeded only in FTUFY.

    I’m not sure how well you grasp the whole Internet concept, but people can still read what you wrote before. It doesn’t disappear just because you’re too embarrassed to quote yourself. We can still see your confused, semi-literate attempt to use “cohort” in a sentence:

    So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as “experts” whose statements on climate science are valid?

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    chek:

    Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.

    Yes indeedee you betcha.

    I’m morbidly curious: which supernumerary persona do you suspect of being Chameleon’s handiwork? Given that she and I are for all intents and purposes the only 2 realists participating here (except maybe on Jonas’ thread, which I’ve never visited), the theory is …bizarre. To put it delicately.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    chek,

    It bores me how wrong this conspiracycomplicity theory is:

    Better to rage against the evil that is embodied in Mike Mann or Phil Jones than the RF forcing spewed out by planetary-wide complicity with Exxon or Koch Industries.

    Name the climate scientist who wrote:

    I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso*.

    Alarmist or denier?

    *Exxon-Mobil is called Esso in the UK.

    Name the climate scientist who wrote:

    In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society.

    Alarmist or denier?

    Name the climate scientist who wrote:

    Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached….

    What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

    1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the T[yndall] C[entre], broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

    2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

    Alarmist or denier?

    Name the climate scientist who wrote:

    Subject: BP funding

    …dear TC colleagues, it looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge University? Cheers, Simon

    BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EMISSIONS STUDY

    Alarmist or denier?

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    BBD:

    BK
    You ignore # 5 # 6 # 7.
    RSVP.

    Well, now that you’re being so civil, rational and personable, I’d be only too happy to rectify that lapse in my thoroughness, BBD!

    :-)

    See, isn’t this much more pleasant?

    #5:

    Everything you say is dishonest shite.

    I know you are, but what am I?

    #6:

    And what does Brad think about policy intervention?

    “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.”

    Good point.

    (Are you suggesting there is something intrinsically bad about it, BBD?)

    #7:

    Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are staggeringly dishonest?

    THATS WHAT SHE SAID LOL


    And how, if you accept a slightly conservative ECS estimate, do you think we are going to keep warming below 2.5 – 3C without emissions regulation?

    Maybe we won’t.

    Something you *explicitly state* is ‘just stupid’. Don’t bother trying to lie your way out of this again – I will simply quote your own words at you. Again.

    And it was so devastating the last time.

    ;-)


    It’s beyond a muddle. It is an incoherent mess. You are all over the place man. So much for your supposed intellectual gifts, eh?

    This rhetoric can only be characterised as a disingenuous, jesuitical and ultimately see-through bid to downplay or dissimulate the fact that you’re a poopy head.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    March 14, 2013

    BK

    I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.

    Well I did try but your regurge was a mish-mash of bits from here there and everywhere as far as I could see, probably from a number of sources. But then I had so many hits on just one string that it was hard to discover the precise source of that. So going looking for a number of such was likely to be a time waster. Hence my Plimer reference.

    I think moderation bin gets anything with more than three, or four links besides anything tarred by specific words. Maybe even certain URLs invoke a trip to the spam bin.

    So this:

    Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources,

    is more bull. ‘Actively punishes‘ indeed. Oh! Poor little Brad is being picked on (NOT). Shame.

    One thing is for sure, once the context is found Hulme does not conclude what you think he does, or what you make out he does.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    March 14, 2013

    So Brad,

    2. If Spencer and Christy don’t do so either, then they’re stooping to the level of MBH, which is not excusable.

    what do you think MBH stooped to? Pleasse explain in detail or should I expect more tergiversation .

    I have lost count how many times I have prompted for an answer here.

    Same goes for questions BBD has asked. Tergiversation, and its synonyms, should be your epitaph.

  44. #44 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    # 16

    Neither link works.

  45. #45 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    It’s illuminating to see where Brad actually got his Hulme pastiche from.

    The reason why Bradley’s links don’t work is because he never went to the primary documents and his actual source does not supply them (wonder why?). The decontextualised snippets came from this purveyor of tripe. The posts either side are entitled Eco-imperialism – Every environmentalist’s Dream and UN IPCC: Rotting from the Head down. Yup; one of *those* sites.

    Not only do the decontextualised snippets match those provided in Brad’s comment, right down to the emphasis, Brad has lifted his description of Hulme almost verbatim from the same place.

    Here’s Brad:

    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.

    Here’s the ‘source’:

    Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters.

    Just more evidence that Brad is primarily motivated by politics and knows next to nothing about climate science.

    Politics. Politics. Politics. Won’t say what they are!

    ;-)

    Just admit it, Brad. We all know anyway, so it’s only a formality.

  46. #46 Ian Forrester
    March 14, 2013

    Keyes once again shows his dishonesty (page 37 #97)by cherry picking and attempting to smear a well regarded scientist. Here is the context for the cherry pick he made re Mike Hulme:

    Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to “identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much”.

    This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

    This shows a far different view point than the one Keyes tries to portray with his dishonesty. I wonder if he lives alone, never goes out, since he can’t have any friends when he shows such a flagrant dislike for the truth. How does he manage to be employed, the first thing I looked for in any employes who worked for me was honesty?

    The Mike Hulme quote is from an opinion piece in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

  47. #47 Lionel A
    March 14, 2013

    Neither link works.

    As I discovered earlier but forgot to mention through distraction and short term memory leakage (due to medics).

    Whatever yet another example of TERGIVERSATION.

  48. #48 BBD
    March 14, 2013

    Lionel A

    WRT non-links – I got that, don’t worry. Otherwise why would you end up (like me) searching for text strings? And finding zillions of hits, all to contrarian sites, and nothing to the source quoted by BK.

    You called it exactly right at # 12.

  49. #49 David B. Benson
    March 14, 2013
  50. #50 chameleon
    March 14, 2013

    I agree David B.
    That piece is well written and it also looks at the practical application (or maybe impractical is a better word?) of some of our policies.

  51. #51 chameleon
    March 14, 2013

    OK moderator/s,
    if you are not prepared to explain where you think I have used a ‘sock’ (which I assume means a sock puppet?) then you are exhibiting extremely poor behaviour!.
    I do not intend to waste my time arguing that I didn’t do what I didn’t do.
    I have NOT commented at Deltoid under any other name and every comment made by chameleon is made by the same person , as in me.
    That is my first and only comment re the baseless accusation that I have used a ‘sock’.
    I would prefer to continue being able to comment at this site but will not do so if you insist on moderating me for absolutely no reason.

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    BBD:

    Just more evidence that Brad is primarily motivated by politics and knows next to nothing about climate science.

    Politics. Politics. Politics. Won’t say what they are!

    Oh, I’ll happily tell you my politics.

    After the hilarity of watching you guess.

    Come on BBD, you’re the one making the accusation: back it up with specifics. What politics are driving my CAGW denial?

    Just admit it, Brad. We all know anyway, so it’s only a formality.

    What “we all know” is that your cluelessness about my politics is rivalled only by your ignorance of the future of the climate, you pompous twat.

  53. #53 bill
    March 14, 2013

    Gee, everything Brad ‘knows’ about ‘science’ actually comes from the more feral denier blogs! Say it isn’t so?! ;-)

  54. #54 bill
    March 14, 2013

    Oh – and Chebbie – sock-puppetry; explanation, please.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    BBD:

    It’s illuminating to see where Brad actually got his Hulme pastiche from. … Brad has lifted his description of Hulme almost verbatim from the same place.

    This Earth Hour, illuminate yourselves by seeing where I “actually got” my “description of Hulme almost verbatim from”:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&q=Mike+Hulme,+founding+director+of+the+Tyndall+Centre,+and+Professor+of+Climate+Change+at+the+University+of+East+Anglia+(UEA),+prepared+climate+scenarios+and+reports+for+the+UK+Government+(including+the+UKCIP+98+and+UKCIP02+scenarios,+and+reviewer+for+UKCP09),+the+European+Commission,+UNEP,+UNDP,+WWF-International+and+the+IPCC,+and+was+co-ordinating+Lead+Author+for+the+chapter+on+‘Climate+scenario+development’+for+the+Third+Assessment+Report+of+the+IPCC,+as+well+as+a+contributing+author+for+several+other+chapters

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    March 14, 2013

    Forrester at #46:

    Here is the context for the cherry pick [Brad] made re Mike Hulme:

    “Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to “identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much”.

    
“This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.”

    Reading this, I get an overwhelming sense of deja vu—almost as if I’d quoted THAT ENTIRE PASSAGE AND MORE just a few hours ago. On this very thread.

    In fact, if I didn’t know better, I’d almost think a certain Forest Troll had just embarrassed himself with a premature aspersion on my integrity.

    The Mike Hulme quote is from an opinion piece in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    Damn, if only I’d thought to point that out before Forrester did!

    In, say, comment #28.

    On this page.

    Just for example.

    That would have shown him for the mendacious Untermensch that he is!

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD throws in his lot with a mendacious forest-mongoloid:

    The reason why Bradley’s links don’t work is because he never went to the primary documents and his actual source does not supply them (wonder why?).

    ROFLMAOABOTR.

    Readers interested in the anthropology of lying bush-cretins are invited to click on the links provided at comment #28 and speculate as to why BBD and his forest familiar say they don’t work, don’t refer to primary sources, don’t give adequate context, etc.

  58. #58 chameleon
    March 15, 2013

    Bill,
    When it is no longer in moderation: see above :-)
    HOW DOES ONE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN?
    WHAT IS THE POINT OF ARGUING THAT I DIDN’T DO SOMETHING I DID NOT DO?

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Lionel:

    As I discovered earlier but forgot to mention through distraction and short term memory leakage (due to medics).

    Hopefully things are getting better (you didn’t answer last time I inquired)? What have they got you on, if (and only if) you don’t mind my asking?

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Oh—and bill—accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry: evidence,* please?

    *Ask your friendly neighborhood scientist if you don’t know what this means.

  61. #61 Craig Thomas
    March 15, 2013

    Bill, don’t forget, in Brad’s little world, those science-denying crank blogs are run by “climate-affirmers”.

  62. #63 chameleon
    March 15, 2013

    Very unlikely DavidB
    Our policies seem intent on using up all those transport systems re your earlier link.
    :-)

  63. #64 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD:

    And ask yourself a very pertinent question. How did I get from where I was in 2011 to where I am now?

    
Well, let’s retrace the inspiring, meteoric trajectory of your personal growth:

    In 2011 you:
    - associated with non-alarmists and debated alarmists politely and in good faith
    - identified Mann, Jones et al. as “activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public” in the name of “catastrophism”
    - realized that the Hockey Stick “was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick,” that the various ostensible corroborations of their finding recycled the same skewed proxies over and over again, and that “This is not correct scientific practice.”
    - recommended Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’
    - understood that, while the contrived fabrication of the graph itself obviously “doesn’t ‘falsify’ AGW,” this wasn’t the point. Rather, “it is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable” and “reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.”
    - called Stephen Schneider out on the “breathtaking intellectual arrogance” that lay behind his “self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism”

    In 2013 you:
    - associate with alarmists and biliously harangue non-alarmists as crypto-political liars and/or self-deceiving fools
    - quietly try to decouple climate science from the likes of Mann and Jones
    - exhibit no interest in what you once called “the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick”
    - absent yourself from all discussion of Montford’s book
    - pretend that the HS is irrelevant
    - make no comment on Schneider’s ethical innovations
    - in short, appear to have taken up the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism with breathtaking intellectual arrogance

    How do you think I achieved that?

    I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD.

    More of a dereliction.

  64. #65 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    bill,

    On second thought, accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry might make a warped kind of sense from your POV. After all, you do belong to a movement in which actual psychologists give paranoid suggestions like this

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

    All the best, Stephan

    … but remember—in normal, secular society anyone who wrote the above (to an imaginary correspondent, no less) would score 5mg of haloperidol and a straitjacket.

    Whoever came up with the saying the lunatics are running the asylum, they were obviously thinking about climatism.

    :-)

  65. #66 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    BK

    Your # 41 was insubstantial, evasive tripe. Try again.

    According to you:

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

    1/ Why not? You have the ECS estimates and and the graphs showing the relationship between RF and OHC and GAT. We have had weeks of evasion. Please now explain your reasoning.

    2/ Unless you have access to information not available to the rest of the world, you are apparently in denial. If you cannot answer (1), then explain your motivation. Is it politics or fear that has caused to to flip into denial?

    3/ Why do you state that emissions reduction is “an incredibly stupid idea”?

    I’ve been asking you these questions in one form or another for weeks without ever getting satisfactory answers.

    What are you hiding?

    Why are you being so evasive?

    This rhetoric can only be characterised as a disingenuous, jesuitical and ultimately see-through bid to downplay or dissimulate the fact that you’re a poopy head.

    Tripe.

    Answer the questions.

  66. #67 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    David B. Benson

    It’s a great shame that several decades of hysterical misrepresentation by ENGOs and grassroots activists have made the only proven, scalable low carbon baseload technology we have impossibly expensive and politically toxic.

    I wish it were otherwise, but these are the cards on the table.

  67. #68 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Why is the sock at # 50 still posting?

  68. #69 bill
    March 15, 2013

    I’d be interested to see how many are likely to take Geoff’s dietary representations seriously, despite the fact they’re every bit as logical and thunk-through. Prediction? Zero.

    Maybe the Chinese will prove Gen 4s will work, be safe, won’t cost a fortune, don’t have a galactic opportunity cost, won’t be a massive boondoggle, will be able to be effectively cooled etc. etc..

    The market simply isn’t interested in them – they’ll have to be a social!st or quasi-social!st enterprise if they do happen.

    However, you may recall there was this place called Fukushima, and that very same blog called what happened there wrong over and over and over. My cat could currently run a successful NIMBY campaign to keep one of those away from any neighbourhood or regional centre in Australia. People think windmills are killing them, remember? ;-)

    John Quiggin’s place is good for this debate when he allows it to run occasionally. Other than that I can only say I think your hope is only somewhat justified and is almost certainly wholly Quixotic.

  69. #70 bill
    March 15, 2013

    And I’d still like an explanation from the socker.

  70. #71 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    bill

    There’s a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ and the 40-year old obsolete junk at Fukushima. Using this as an argument against modern nuclear is profoundly illogical.

    All the credible projections of the evolution of the energy mix come up with the much the same numbers: roughly 25% renewables and 25% nuclear by mid-century if we go flat out for both. The other 50% is *still* FF and that’s still too much. But without nuclear, it rises to ~75%.

    We cannot afford to sideline nuclear on ideological grounds. It’s energy pragmatism or CO2. Everything must stay on the table, like it or not.

  71. #72 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    We still have the same people, BBD.

    The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they’ll not be safe.

    Secondly, the reactor design at Fukishima was touted at the time as a “safe modern design”. Just like the “new safe modern designs”.

    Third, those “new safe modern designs” have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.

    Nuclear, even if safe, has a lead-time of 10+ years and a required operational time of 30-40 years minimum. Given we aren’t sure if the infrastructure will remain stable over the next 50 years and that locations for a nuclear power station are usually near shores for water cooling (how much sea level rise have we dialled in for the next 50 years?), we cannot afford to choose nuclear power.

  72. #73 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “I do not intend to waste my time arguing that I didn’t do what I didn’t do.”

    And then you go right on and do it?

  73. #74 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Lionel:

    Like this example Wow: Dawkins v Wendy Wright … BK is now sailing very close to this wind.

    Shucks. Funnily enough, you wouldn’t be the first person to make that comparison. I suspect it’s because we’re both triple threats: top-notch verbal and mathematical IQs plus patrician good looks—though Dawkins is somewhat full of himself whereas I have, if anything, the opposite problem (not arrogant enough).

    I’m also the veteran of my share of wars of attrition with the creationist “mind.” Unlike Dawkins, though, I outgrew the great sport of hick baiting in my early twenties—around the time I learned you can’t win an argument by sighing and condescending. It’s no longer my apostolic mission to make stupid people confess their stupidity.

    Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that I let anyone get away with scientifically-illiterate thinking; regulars around here know I don’t suffer that $#!1 gladly! But I part ways with Dawkins here: by resolving to hate the illiteracy, not the illiterate. (To be sure, I’m only human and often losing my patience… but like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: take a minute to thank your local fundagelical, literalist, truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argument. The day we’re dumbfounded by the sheer fatuity of our disputant’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, in my opinion. By forcing us to clarify, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function with their muddled questions and baseless objections.

    This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA

  74. #75 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    No, Wow. See # 71. You are ignoring the hard numbers. We cannot afford *not* to have nuclear.

    Intelligent siting and slightly longer inflow/outflow pipes on the cooling loop solve the SLR problem without much fuss.

  75. #76 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    I’m not immune to the ‘cheese-paring bastards at the top’ argument. Not at all. But do you realise that this:

    The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they’ll not be safe.

    Is *countered* by this:

    Third, those “new safe modern designs” have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.

    Finally, this is not worth much rebuttal:

    Secondly, the reactor design at Fukishima was touted at the time as a “safe modern design”. Just like the “new safe modern designs”.

    You are asking us to accept that over four decades of R&D and build-out experience count as nothing. Which is absurd.

    I reiterate: 50% FF by mid-century vs 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.

    Carbon or nuclear.

  76. #77 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    More BK deliberate twisting:

    On second thought, accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry might make a warped kind of sense from your POV.

    No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.

  77. #78 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    BK

    Please try to remember that TL can see your IP. Or perhaps these technical details are over your head?

  78. #79 bill
    March 15, 2013

    We still have the same people

    Absolutely.

    Let’s just say I’m genuinely skeptical of the claims that perfection has now been achieved because, as Wow points out, that’s what GE said at the time.

    But that’s hardly the point. My cat could almost certainly defeat any project in Australia by wandering into town with a Fukushima postcard tied around its neck – the ACF has plenty of people more articulate and persuasive than my cat.

    And plenty of perfectly sane people are highly skeptical of both the economics and the actual capacity to make any meaningful difference in a timely manner.

    I’ll also add that if we ever built reactors I’d bet that Australia’s CO2 output would immediately skyrocket because a far-from-altruistic public would happily believe the whole Greenhouse problem had just been solved – ‘we’re getting/we’ve got nukes now, remember; me for a bigger SUV!’ – aided and abetted in their cornucopian delusions by the deniers, many of whom love nuclear because it’s an plutocrat’s dream and keeps the world just the way they like it!

    But that’s just a hypothetical because in Australia it’s simply not going to happen. Wishing for things that can’t happen is just too stressful…

  79. #80 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    bill

    You choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.

    You reject 50% FF by mid-century, complete with the *reduced* infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in the full-spectrum option.

    You choose emotive argument over hard numbers.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the facts stay the same.

  80. #81 bill
    March 15, 2013

    I’ll add that that thread at Joe Romm’s seems like the ideal place to be discussing this – certainly more appropriate than here. I notice, for instance, that DBB is over there.

    And there’s certain aspects of human behaviour that ain’t ever going to be,um, flawless. Technologies that require something approaching human perfection always strike me as being ahistoric, to say the least… ;-)

  81. #82 bill
    March 15, 2013

    BBD – one, I suggest you take it over to Romm’s where it may make some difference.

    Two: you know, that’s rather my point to you – the fact is that in this country nuclear power is dead (if it was ever alive!). That’s a social reality that no amount of ‘being right’ is likely to change. You can hold me responsible for this personally if that helps. Prove me wrong, by all means, but I don’t suggest starting here.

    Hell, we’ll happily export the stuff, of course, even to people who won’t sign the NPT, but – whaddya know? – even the Roxby expansion just fell in a hole! Nearly as big as the one it was going to create…

    And all because I’m skeptical… ;-)

  82. #83 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    bill

    Sure. Wrong thread, and you are entitled to your opinion, as I have said above.

  83. #84 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Bradley didn’t like getting caught out (# 55) over the Hulme nonsense did he?

    Note all the frantic attempts to cover his sorry arse that followed ;-)

  84. #85 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Bradley

    WRT this:

    I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD.

    More of a dereliction.

    If you weren’t hopelessly sunk in lies and denial you would get the point, which is that research modifies POV. Unfortunately, you reject new information and cannot modify your POV, which is why I mock you. Stunted thing that you are.

  85. #86 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Almost missed this:

    What “we all know” is that your cluelessness about my politics is rivalled only by your ignorance of the future of the climate, you pompous twat.

    It will get warmer. If emissions exceed ~550ppmv, average global temperature will probably exceed 3C.

    Since you refuse to admit what you really are, we are obliged to make certain (minor) assumptions. If you don’t like those assumptions, feel free – no, feel very strongly urged – to set the record straight.

    Why you refuse is puzzling, unless of course you are hiding something from us.

    Over to you, Bradley!

  86. #87 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD:

    No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock.

    Uh, no.

    No he’s not.

    That would make TL insane. TL may be a lot of things, but last time I met him he was lucid and oriented.

    (Excuse the digression: wouldn’t it be a bit redundant to impute that a “toe-rag” was a sock? Have you ever considered proof-reading, BBD?)

    And so are the rest of us.

    Suuuure. That’s why this is the first anyone has mentioned the accusation to me, right?

    Let’s get this straight. For more than 24 hours everyone else has been accusing ME of puppetry by the oblique literary device of writing the following things TO CHAMELEON
    “You used a sock”

    “Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.

    Yes indeedee you betcha.”

    “Oh – and Chebbie – sock-puppetry; explanation, please.”
    …and by moderating her comments.

    But it was you, BBD, of all the deltoids, who first had the razor-like intellect to think of addressing the accusation to ME, the actual suspect, and not to a random bystander of a different sex.

    Gotcha.

    LOL!!! :-)

    Please try to remember that TL can see your IP. Or perhaps these technical details are over your head?

    Thank you so freaking much for that refresher, BBD. Cos, you know, when I think of Tim Lambert, I merely think of the UNSW lecturer who gave me 97.0 in a subject that wasn’t mainly about Internet protocols! It never even occurred to me that he might *also* be into computery, technical stuff and know all about IP addresses and shit. What a Renaissance man.

    Hey—just thinking aloud here—but maybe, just maybe, that’s why he’s NOT ACCUSING ME OF USING A SOCK.

    It’s impossible to take you seriously any more, BBD.

    The domestic you’re having with reality is too rich even for the other Deltoids’ taste. When they won’t even back you up, that ought to tell you something, dude. Time to adjust your meds ‘cos, 10 to 1, you’re in the grip of a florid psychosis.

  87. #88 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    Oops:

    This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA

    FTFM. :-)

  88. #89 chek
    March 15, 2013

    Comedy Quote of the Month from – who else – but “Brad”, of course.

    #64 I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD. More of a dereliction.

    The bastion of scientific integrity “Brad” is referring to is Andy “Bishop” Montford.

    Oh my sides. I think I need a lie down.

  89. #90 Wow
    March 15, 2013
    The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they’ll not be safe.

    Is *countered* by this:

    Third, those “new safe modern designs” have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.

    No, because the overruns are why it WILL take 10-20 years to build these new designs BECAUSE the designs were *designed at the time* to be safe, but when it comes to putting the metal up, the designs weren’t as foolproof as thought.

    Here’s a programming example.

    You design a program. Perfection. Foolproof. State that this design is complete. Everyone believes you.

    Then when you start writing the program, you say “Hang, on, this bit needs changing”. Then more changes are needed. And each change means that you’re further away from the original design.

    If that original design were perfect, you’re no longer designing to it.

    But you implement it eventually, and now it runs.

    And a few users find bugs.

    And some failure modes.

    And it turns out that you weren’t actually that competent at programming or design as you asserted earlier.

    So back to nuclear: each plant is now going to be years late (no reduction in CO2 *now*) and much more expensive (meaning less money spent on other carbon-free alternatives in the meantime). And the designs still haven’t been tested, and their failures at implementation mean that you have no proof that the designs ARE safe.

  90. #91 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    No, Wow. See # 71. You are ignoring the hard numbers. We cannot afford *not* to have nuclear.

    We cannot afford to have nuclear.

    It won’t happen for 10 years JUST TO START.

    10 years where the money is pouring into nuclear and NOT into alternatives.

    And then the design has to now prove it works. Another 10 years.

    Then you have to build new plants in enough numbers, and that will take 20 years.

    And they all have to run for 40 years to make sense economically.

    So it is now 2100 and where you placed the power stations are now under 10ft of water.

    We cannot afford nuclear power. It delays use far far FAR too long.

  91. #92 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    PS post 71 was just assertion.

    Prove your figures because I call bullshit on them.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html

    And they aren’t the only ones with a plan for 100% renewable. Scotland and Germany are well on the way.

  92. #93 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    Wow

    10 years where the money is pouring into nuclear and NOT into alternatives.

    Please, read what I wrote again (# 71). You haven’t taken my point:

    All credible projections* indicate ~25% nuclear and ~25% renewables by mid-century if we go flat out for both.

    Both. This is the point.

    We can choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.

    Or we can choose 50% FF by mid-century, complete with the *reduced* infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in the full-spectrum option.

    Anyway, enough. Bill is correct above. This is the wrong thread.

    *Ecofys is not a credible projection.

  93. #94 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    “Please, read what I wrote again (# 71). You haven’t taken my point:”

    Your point seems to be that you assert a statement.

    I assert, and YOU MISS THIS POINT, that your assertion in #71 is bollocks.

    “All credible projections* indicate ~25% nuclear and ~25% renewables by mid-century if we go flat out for both.”

    Bull.
    Shit.

  94. #95 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    *Ecofys is not a credible projection.

    a) Why?
    b) I’ve already SAID they aren’t the only ones.

  95. #96 Wow
    March 15, 2013

    Another from Australia:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html

    Germany:
    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/the-german-grid-operators-plan/150/537/38742/

    And Scotland:
    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables

    though I fail to see why ecofys is not acceptable, unless the problem is the fact that they have a plan, not who they are…

  96. #98 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    One more thing. I believe the German renewables experiment is bordering on disastrous in terms of emissions, cost to consumers and damage to the German economy. However, I *know* the rubbish coming out of Scotland is just that: rubbish. You are being *excessively credulous*.

  97. #99 Brad Keyes
    March 15, 2013

    BBD,

    we’ve had the occasional difference of opinion, but as possessors of 3-digit IQs we probably have more in common than not.

    So I’m torn between sympathy and Schadenfreude as I watch you suffer the magical experience of “reasoning,” Wow style.

    Your point seems to be that you assert a statement.

    I assert, and YOU MISS THIS POINT, that your assertion in #71 is bollocks.

    Bull.
    Shit.

    LOL…

    If it makes you feel any better: I’ve had to wake up to this drivel every day since the black day I first heard of a certain pre-epsiloid blog.

  98. #100 BBD
    March 15, 2013

    There are various projection for nuclear capacity by 2050. They centre around 25%. The 2010 IEA Nuclear Road Map is a representative non-industry example:

    The IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 BLUE Map scenario (IEA, 2010) projects an installed
    nuclear capacity of almost 1 200 GW in 2050, compared to 370 GW at the end of 2009, making nuclear a major contributor to cutting energy related CO2 emissions by 50%. This nuclear capacity would provide 9 600 TWh of electricity annually by that date, or around 24% of the
    electricity produced worldwide. In BLUE Map, by 2050 nuclear power becomes the single largest source of electricity, surpassing coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar (Figure 6).

    Although reaching 1 200 GW of nuclear capacity in 2050 is an ambitious goal, multiplying the installed nuclear capacity by well over three times during a period of 40 years is certainly achievable from technical and industrial perspectives. Assuming that by 2050 all reactors in operation today will have been decommissioned, some
    30 units of 1 GW each would need to enter operation on average each year between 2010 and 2050. Similar rates of construction were achieved (albeit briefly) in the 1970s and 1980s, even though fewer countries were implementing nuclear programmes and industrial capabilities were less developed at that time.