Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    You YET AGAIN quote only part and apparently the only part you’ve read out of a statement you “respond” to.

    The full statement was:

    MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans

    Really? When you opined “Start here:” you linked to this:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    Apparently, all this time you’ve been demanding that I read the shit you point me to, you haven’t bothered reading it yourself…

    Please read ALL OF IT.

    Get a grown up to help you with the words you don’t like to see.

  2. #2 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    To drive the point home, you DID NOT READ this bit:

    MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans

    Really? When you opined “Start here:” you linked to this:

    The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.

    Do you see it now? Or are you only going to quote “Do you see it now?” because that’s the only bit you’ll let yourself read?

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    Vince,

    I think I can say on behalf of everyone here that we’d be fascinated to see this “initial admission that [I] hadn’t” read ‘Merchants of Doubt.’

    I don’t suppose it exists though, does it Vince?

    No? Pity.

    Oh well, I guess the closest thing to a dignified next move for you would be to change the topic and pretend you never said it. Let’s all pass over in embarrassed silence the fact that you just got your internal psychodrama mixed up with historical reality, blurted out a transparent untruth and made a goose of yourself. Try not to beat yourself up. The embarrassment will fade… in time.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    Dear Friend,

    How many fucking times do I have to teach you this? Just because it took you 13 hours to listen to the CD set of ‘Merchants Of Doubt,’ it doesn’t follow that an experienced reader can’t knock the book off in much less time.

    The key is not to subvocalise—or if that’s too big a word, let me put it like this: try not to move your lips as you read. Even a developmentally-delayed dropout like you will find itself reading at 250, 300 or even 350 w.p.m. in no time just by following this one WEIRD tip the audio-book industry doesn’t want you to know!

    ROFL

  5. #5 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Wow

    You are being an idiot.

    The problem all along has been that you haven’t read what MacKay actually wrote.

    Had you RTFR as I repeatedly suggested (see # 61) you would have noticed that MacKay begins – like any good scientist – by questioning his initial assumptions.

    You ignored what was written even though I took the trouble to quote it for you, rather than simply provide a link.

    Here it is again:

    1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct? What is the average consumption of Britain? We’ll look at the official energy-consumption numbers for Britain and a few other countries.

    2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential? We’ll compare the estimates in the green stack with estimates published by organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the Centre for Alternative Technology.

    I have now also emboldened relevant sections of the quote in an attempt to punch it through your bony head.

    Had your bothered to RTFR for just over one page you would have come to this:

    Our estimate of a typical affluent person’s consumption (figure 18.1) has reached 195 kWh per day. It is indeed true that many people use this much energy, and that many more aspire to such levels of consumption.
    The average American consumes about 250 kWh per day. If we all raised our standard of consumption to an average American level, the green production stack would definitely be dwarfed by the red consumption stack.

    What about the average European and the average Brit? Average European consumption of “primary energy” (which means the energy contained in raw fuels, plus wind and hydroelectricity) is about 125 kWh per day per person. The UK average is also 125 kWh per day per person.

    Now FFS read the rest of it. I cannot do it for you. If you had done this in the first place, you could have avoided making such a tit of yourself in public.

    As we know (because I told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference) MacKay used 125kWh/d/p in the five energy plans he presents later in the book.

    What you are doing here is simply crude strawmanning. But you were wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.

    Now, as you also know, because I have told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference, your claim about offshore wind makes exactly no sense at all. Mind you, shrilling that MacKay is shilling for Big Nuke is completely insane, so this relatively minor in comparison.

    This nonsense could only have been written by an energy illiterate who has not read the fucking reference:

    Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.

    From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.

    I set you straight in detail at # 78. Oddly, you don’t actually mention this above. But once again, you were completely wrong.

    It is very clear that you do not understand this topic and are not competent to argue it. It is equally clear that you have not read the reference and you are wasting my time.

    Sort yourself out and admit your repeated errors which are demonstrated in black and white above. It’s too late to stop you making a prize pillock of yourself, but frankly, you deserve the embarrassment.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    March 16, 2013

    BBD,

    This is barely English:

    Wow,

    You are being an idiot.

    Replace the present continuous tense with the simple present, however, and you’ve got yourself a sentence!

  7. #7 Lionel A
    March 16, 2013

    BBD

    I have just started reading through the very interesting David MacKay document but would like to direct further comment to the March Open Thread where I think any further discussion could be continued.

  8. #8 BBD
    March 16, 2013

    Lionel A

    Sure, I’m happy with that.

  9. #9 Wow
    March 16, 2013

    Of course you’re happy, just like Bray is happy when someone pretends he’s got something right.

  10. #10 David B. Benson
    March 17, 2013

    Brad Keyes & chameleon — The best global temperature is that in which modern (industrialized) agriculture originated. After a return to that of course slow changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    David:

    bill — There are many forms of denialism.

    ON BK’s thread chameleon asked for my opinion regarding electric power.

    What denial[ism] have you witnessed on this thread, David, other than Wow’s nuclear denial[ism]—or is that what you were alluding to?

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    By the way David, I always enjoy your contributions so could you please make them here and not on the March 2013 “Open” Thread, where I’m apparently not allowed to respond to you?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    The moderators seem to be cracking down on me for getting uppity and wandering off-plantation.

    I risked further punitive censorship tonight by posting the following on the March open thread, where Wow is being puerile even by his purulent standards. It’ll never see the light of day there but I thought you might like to read it:

    Mods,

    far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?

    #63
    Wow
    March 16, 2013
    And you really shouldn’t call Anthony Watts a paedo child sex trafficer like that, it’s a libellous claim, Olap!

    #64
    Wow
    March 16, 2013
    Even if it could be true.

    Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    David,

    thanks for this (characteristically!) polite, honest and committal articulation of your POV:

    Brad Keyes & chameleon — The best global temperature is that in which modern (industrialized) agriculture originated. After a return to that of course slow changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.

    It raises more questions than it answers, however—which is not necessarily a bad thing. ;-)

    1. At what global temperature did modern (industrialised) agriculture originate? Approximately? Or, since that might not be known, perhaps I should ask: what year’s climate are we talking about, approximately? How far back in time is the reference point?

    2. How rapidly would you like us to return to that year’s climate, if you had a magic wand with which you could cause global cooling?

    3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?

    4. If “the current warming is far too rapid,” would it not be reasonable to assume that rapid cooling is equally undesirable, and that you’d therefore prefer us to return to the ideal year’s climate very, very slowly (if you had the magic wand I just postulated)? And by “very, very slowly,” I presumably mean even more slowly than the current so-slow-it’s-virtually-imperceptible rate of temperature change.

    5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed two examples (just paraphrasing from memory—and I hope I’m doing so accurately): more frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves. Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single factor: the instantaneous “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves, are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?

  15. #15 FrankD
    March 17, 2013

    I learned in a half-dozen classes to read with complete comprehension and retention (as complete as “normal”, anyway) at about 500 words per minute, with good comprehension and retention at about 700 wpm, and okay at 1300 wpm. And by okay, I mean better than the comprehension one would get by “skimming” the page using “slow reading” techniques.

    Frankly, its hard work, and that top speed is really only useful for a few pages before the comprehension and retention falls away to the point of being useless. Reading for pleasure, I prefer to loaf along at 350 wpm and enjoy the process as well as the content.

    MoD has around 150,000 words (~340-odd pages x ~450 words per page), so one would need to read at about 650 wpm to get through it in four hours. I’ve only read snippets, but it seems to be written in a fairly straightforward style without any challenge to comprehension. A sustained 650 wpm is too much like hard work for me, but its entirely possible for a less lazy reader.

    I have very little interest in who has actually read or comprehended Merchants of Doubt. For mine, most of the opera on this thread have been Wagnerian in their dullness, but we have been offered a few interesting divertimenti. People who choose to spend more time here that I do might find their investment more profitable if they did not simply deny what they find unlike at first glance, and concentrated on substantive errors by their antagonists. Just sayin’.

    We now return you to our regularly scheduled rancour.

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    David,

    Let me try paragraph 5 again:

    5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed three examples: more frequent extreme weather events, excessively hard rainfall that damages crops and erodes soil, and heat-waves causing human deaths. (I’m just paraphrasing from memory—but I hope I’m doing so accurately.) Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single variable: this year’s “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “of course slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, crop-ruining rainfall and fatal heat-waves are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?

    6. To simplify, but hopefully not to oversimplify, I think I detect some incoherence—or at least fuzziness—in your beliefs. (Don’t take this criticism personally; the irony is that I’m picking on you because you’re much clearer, not less clear, than your fellow believers!) Which of the following, exactly, is your position:

    a. we’re warming too fast

    b. we’re too warm

    c. both

    ?

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    FrankD—

    I agree on all counts.*

    Thanks.

    You could be part of the solution if you stuck around.

    *On reading speed, I think you approach the nettle without quite grasping it. Namely: it’s a misconception that reading speed is inversely related to comprehension and retention.

    To take this myth to its reductio ad absurdum, one would have to believe that the uneducated cowboy in the Western, the guy who can only read the “Wanted” poster by painfully sounding it out letter by letter, is the character who understands and remembers it better than anyone in town! Of course the truth is exactly the reverse. If you could take in a whole sentence, or better yet a whole paragraph, at a glance, then you’d see the structure of the argument rather clearly indeed. I’d go so far as to say that was the key to grokking serious texts.

    The only catch, as mentioned by FrankD, is that this skill is hard work.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    bill,

    And, at the risk of attracting the attention of the auto-moderator, here’s an interesting piece on the (un)holy alliance between AGW denial and creationism – sorry; ‘Intelligent Design’ – targeting the school room.

    Or, 20th century Creationism hybridizes with its 21st Century equivalent…

    Try advancing this conspiracy “(un)holy alliance” theory bullshit Down Under and see how far it gets. Sadly for you, the best-known, best-loved intellectual scourge of the Creationists here in Australia is Ian Plimer—who was a televisual darling of the secular left until he made the doctrinal faux pas of questioning CAGW.

    You may be interested to know that Lionel A flattered me not long ago with a comparison to Richard Dawkins:

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

    Funnily enough, I get this quite a bit. 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 royal 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. (Of course I’m only human and often lose my patience… like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: we should take a minute to thank our local literalist, fundagelical, Truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argumentation. The day we’re made speechless by the sheer fatuity of our interlocutor’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, I think. By forcing us to enunciate, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function, with their muddled questions and confused objections.

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

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    March 17, 2013

    Wow, you are doing great! ;-)

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    B-b-b-but Olaus!…

    Fellas, Revkin believes that

    “Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been dissecting the Marcott et al. paper and corresponding with lead author Shaun Marcott, raising constructive and important questions.”

    What a nerve! But let’s hope for the best!

    … why would the Affirmative side be worried?

    Science can only be done by actual scientists, not septuagenarian squash bloggers! If you don’t believe me, ask noted science virgin Vince Whirlwind!

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    The above comment is faceti–, er, ironic sarcastic.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    bill,

    Apparently you feel both entitled and competent to tell other people what to discuss and what not to discuss on an open thread:

    You know, I did suggest, right at the start, it was a good idea not to mention the war.

    This debate has been banned at various other blogs, or confined to specific threads and allowed no leakage. There’s a good reason why. See above.

    David BB – here’s a hint. The above, and the similar result on the other thread, are the entirely predictable outcome on attempting to force this (off-)topic into discussion.

    So enlighten us, birdbrain: what is the (on-)topic of an open thread?

    I suspect the “good reason why” BBD and Wow aren’t allowed to have this debatewar on most threads of most blogs is that just by having it, they remind the world that 1 in every 2 believers is an irrational, intractable, intransigent fanatic.

    Might I suggest we return to fighting deniers?

    Knock yourself out, bill.

    Just bear in mind, as a little birdie once said:

    if you wish to label anyone who disagrees with you in this matter a ‘denier’ that’s up to you, but, again, if you wish to make any converts to your cause you’re going about it in an odd way to my mind.

    Be that as it may – you’re doing it again. This conversation really can serve no purpose anymore – if it ever could.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    OH, AND BILL:

    I fully support the anti-rancor policy of both Luke Skywalker and FrankD. Why can’t we just get along? But if South Africa has taught us anything, and it probably hasn’t, it’s that reconciliation goes hand-in-hand with truth. So we need to be clear:

    You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.

    (Falsely, obviously.)

    This puts you in a trilemma. A real trilemma, logical and ineluctable. Not just a moral one, not a matter of a pinion—so don’t try to wing it because you don’t have a prayer.

    You must (and I use the metaphysical “must”) do one of the following:

    1. produce some evidence against Chameleon

    2. contritely admit you were wrong

    or

    3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    CHEK:

    You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.

    (Which is false.)

    This puts you in a trilemma.

    You must (and I use the metaphysical “must”—that is, you necessarily will) do one of the following:

    1. produce some evidence against Chameleon

    2. contritely admit you were wrong

    or

    3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    BBD:

    You falsely accused
    —me of using a sock-puppet.
    —everyone else of falsely accusing me of using a sock-puppet.

    This puts you in a trilemma.

    You must (and I use the metaphysical “must”—that is, you necessarily will) do one of the following:

    1. produce some evidence against me and against everyone else you accuse of having accused me

    2. contritely admit to me and / or everyone else that you were wrong

    or

    3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    Sorry guys, but I don’t make up the rules of logic.

    I just enforce them.

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    Lionel:

    How many Delingtrolls are there to a Euro I wonder?

    How many Deniers are there to a Sou?

    LOL… Now I’m just being cruel—asking a warmist, of all people, a question about the Middle Ages!

  28. #28 David B. Benson
    March 17, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Too many questions. First on electric power generation denial. There are many in denial of the most cost effective solutions; I don’t particularly find it where (with one notable exception).

    As for suitable global temperature, about 0.8 K cooler than now would be appropriate. To obtain that requires removing over 500 gigatonnes of carbon from the active carbon cycle (while not adding any more). That feat will require some time, centuries at best.

    Slow changes in the future might then be either up or down (a bit) depending upon the future understandings of climatologists, ecologists and agriculturalists.

    If I missed a question, please ask again.

  29. #29 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “Sorry guys, but I don’t make up the rules of logic.

    I just enforce them ON OTHERS.”

    FTFY.

    And apparently ignore them for yourself. Then again, deniers have to grow a second face otherwise they can’t keep their bullshit going.

  30. #30 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.

    (Which is false.)

    Which you know how?

    The owner of the blog (who gets the IP address of the poster when they post) said that chubby had.

    So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?

    ANSWER: YOU DON’T.

  31. #31 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    “You falsely accused
    —me of using a sock-puppet.”

    Nope, he didn’t.

    You really don’t do this “reality” thing do you.

  32. #32 BBD
    March 17, 2013

    Bradley

    You were taught by Tim Lambert?! It’s a small world ;-) (Page 38 # 87:)

    [BBD: TL is accusing you, BK, of using a sock]

    [BK:] 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.

    And:

    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!

    You assert that you are falsely accused of sock-pupptery. You claim that only I think this is the case:

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

    It has been mentioned. Bernard J provides an illustrative example on the February open thread:

    And I still don’t believe that you’re female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong. And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too, and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk. There’s also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.

    Shouls we pull down your bloomers and check Chameleon? Or is it Keyesmeleon?

    But for me, the most interesting part is the moderation. All your comments appear in a block. Apparently you are in moderation just like Chameleon, whose comments also appear in a block, as far as I can tell at the same time as yours, although without time-stamped comments it’s hard to be certain. Chameleon is in moderation because she is either a sock or using one. The obvious inference is that TL has put *you* in moderation because you are either a sock or using one. Perhaps we have this back to front and she’s the real brains behind the operation and you are a toe-rag?

    ;-)

  33. #33 Wow
    March 17, 2013

    ” the best-known, best-loved intellectual scourge of the Creationists here in Australia is Ian Plimer—”

    You mean Ian “The Sun Is Made Of Iron” Plimer?

  34. #34 chek
    March 17, 2013

    So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?
    ANSWER: YOU DON’T.

    There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty.

  35. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    Brad Keyes
    March 17, 2013

    Sorry guys, but I don’t make up the rules of logic.

    I just enforce them.

    …by making appeals to (false) authorities and false attributions by quoting nonsense from Anthony Watts’ crank website.

    You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you on your right arse-cheek.
    (Left arse-cheek already bitten by the similar unrecognised “science”).

  36. #37 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    BBD:

    I’ll take the absence of an abusive tone in your latest comment as contrition.

    But I don’t buy your conspiracy theory about a certain pair of commenters here. Not for a dollar. Not for a cent.

    All your comments appear in a block. Apparently you are in moderation just like Chameleon,

    Figured that out all by yourself, did you, BBD?

    :-)

    whose comments also appear in a block, as far as I can tell at the same time as yours, although without time-stamped comments it’s hard to be certain.

    The (non-conspiracist) explanation is fairly obvious.

    1. We live in the same timezone.

    2. Comments are released from quarantine in bursts.

    Chameleon is in moderation because she is either a sock or using one.

    So they said. Falsely. Once.

    They don’t even have the courage of their conviction, though, do they?

    As you indignantly pointed out, they keep allowing her (and me) to comment here.

    The obvious inference is that TL has put *you* in moderation because you are either a sock or using one.

    *Sigh.* I’ll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I’d been placed in moderation. Hint: it wasn’t for the same reason as Chameleon. It wasn’t at the same time as Chameleon. I’ve been in moderation about a week longer than her because certain moaning bitches bitched and moaned to the moderators about my terrifying incursions into the minor threads.

    Other than that though… great theory. You’d make a rad scientist, BBD.

    Perhaps we have this back to front and she’s the real brains behind the operation …?

    I’m flattered that you ever thought otherwise.

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

    It has been mentioned.

    Not to me it hasn’t.

    Bernard J provides an illustrative example on the February open thread:

    Forgive me if I haven’t read all the comments directed to other commenters on threads not dedicated to me. I wouldn’t have known Bernard J’s latest attempt at pop psychology (or is it meant to be linguistic analysis?) even existed had you not brought it to my attention. Thanks for the laughs, BBD. But seriously, what does any of this shit mean:

    And I still don’t believe that you’re female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong.

    Only males use wrong usage?

    And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too,

    What, females are renowned for their stylistic constancy? Has Bernard ever met one, I wonder?

    and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk.

    How can someone’s “usage and style” be inconsistent with their own quirk? Is Bernard J deliberately stultifying his own remarks to obscure the complete lack of a case here? I don’t remember him ever being quite this moronic.

    There’s also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.

    Ah, the tag-team “appraoch”! But isn’t that a well-documented denier trope? ;-)

    And pray tell: what subject matter “dissonates,” exactly?

  37. #38 chameleon
    March 18, 2013

    BBD?
    No doubt this will languish in moderation BUT?
    WTF are you claiming?

  38. #39 chameleon
    March 18, 2013

    Yep it is in moderation.
    Moderator/s, if your aim is to lose me as a commenter, you are about to succeed.

  39. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    Brad asks,

    What denial[ism] have you witnessed on this thread, David, …

    Let’s start with Page 1, post #8:

    Brad says,

    Vince points out that I’m “a pathetic liar” …
    Have I ever claimed to be good at lying? No.

    and:

    a certain deltoid pretended the Hockey Stick reconstruction of historical temperatures had been “confirmed” as “correct” by the BEST stud.

    That’s two examples right there, and it took no time at all to find them.
    Considering I only looked through the first ten posts on the first page of this thread, I could, from that rate of denial make the projection that 40 pages at 100 comments per page could be expected to contain around 800 examples of Brad Keyes’ denialism.

  40. #41 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    What in fuck’s name are those meant to be examples of, Vince?

  41. #42 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Oh, and Vince:

    I think I can say on behalf of everyone here that we’d be fascinated to see my “initial admission that I hadn’t” read ‘Merchants of Doubt.’

    I don’t suppose it exists though, does it?

    Pity.

    It’s amazing how pathetic a liar you are, given all the practice you’ve had.

  42. #43 David B. Benson
    March 18, 2013

    Civilian nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/rdresults.aspx?id=27569&ExampleId=62
    I make it about 70; somehow many different planners, economists and engineers have come to the definite conclusion that some NPPs are the best balanced way for them to provide electrical power.

  43. #44 chameleon
    March 18, 2013

    Yes David B,
    The same applies to hydro power worldwide.
    Best and balance (ie logic) seems to be sadly MIA in the current Australian political climate.
    The concept of sensible risk management and planning seems to be overly obstructed by a political misuse of the ‘precautionary principle’.
    I wish you could see my comments in a reasonable timeframe but apparently because BJ doesn’t believe I am a female my comments have to wait approx 24 hours in moderation.

  44. #45 chameleon
    March 18, 2013

    BBD,
    the comments appear in blocks BECAUSE they languish in moderation for up to 24 hours!

  45. #46 David B. Benson
    March 18, 2013

    Mandelbrot found that price changes in financial markets did not follow a Gaussian distribution, but rather Lévy stable distributions having theoretically infinite variance. from
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoit_Mandelbrot
    long before (and far better than)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb#Praise_and_criticism

  46. #47 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Wow,

    I don’t know or care what Ian Plimer’s nickname is, which element of the periodic table he thinks is at the core of the sun, or why you would think that was relevant.

    Well: you are insanely unintelligent, so that might explain it.

  47. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    David, I’d suggest expert lobbying an a compliant subsidy-providing government would be the prime factors behind every one of those projects.

  48. #49 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    David,

    thanks for your answers!

    You covered most of it! I think I have a better idea now of what you’d like to see happening, how fast it could be safely achieved and how much decarbonization it would take.

    When was the climate 0.8K cooler than it is now, in your view? I.e. what’s the ideal or target year to which you’d support a return, in climatic terms?

    And I’d still like to know:

    3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?

  49. #50 BrokenWow
    March 18, 2013

    “There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty.”

    But it would be proof that they ARE socks.

    A double-fork conundrum for Bray!

  50. #51 Wow
    March 18, 2013

    “There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty.”

    But it would be proof that they ARE socks.

    A double-fork conundrum for Bray!

  51. #52 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Wow:

    “You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.

    (Which is false.)”

    Which you know how?

    Because I asked her.

    The owner of the blog (who gets the IP address of the poster when they post) said that chubby had.

    They mentioned no evidence for the charge and they don’t even appear to believe it themselves.

    So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?

    Because I asked chameleon.

    ANSWER:

    BECAUSE I ASKED CHAMELEON.

    “You falsely accused
    —me of using a sock-puppet.”

    Nope, he didn’t.

    YES HE DID. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE HE ADDRESSED TO ME, IF YOU CAN BRING YOURSELF TO READ IT, AND THEN LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME HE DIDN’T ACCUSE ME OF SOCK-PUPPETRY, WOW. YOU REALLY DON’T DO THIS REALITY THING, DO YOU? YOU ARE BECOMING EXTREMELY TEDIOUS (H/T DAVID B. BENSON). YOU’VE ALSO MADE ME leave my caps lock on!

  52. #53 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    chek:

    “So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?
    ANSWER: YOU DON’T.”

    There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty.

    And that is for me to secretly own the blog.

    You got me, chek. You’ve exposed the Great Conspiracy.

    My real name is Eustace B. Geographic III, better known at my old Yale stomping-grounds as That Party Legend who Deflowered the Bush Twins, and my family owns this blog. I’ve been moderating with my left hand and commenting with my right, playing you believalists and denialists off against each other for years like the chumps you are, while pa and his old college buddies raked in the wind-turbine dollars hand over fist!

    And it was all going so well until the humblest and simplest of cretins, chek, saw through it with that special perspicacity unique to the retarded and feeble-minded.

    You may marvel that anyone could be evil enough even to consider the use of sock puppets and other non-conventional discursive weapons, but if so, you’re a fool. You misunderestimate the thoroughness of my ethical dissolution. To playboys like me and Olaus (of the dish dynasty), you workaday muggles are little more than meat-puppets who exist for our amusement and profit.

  53. #54 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Something very interesting just happened on the minor thread.

    Someone’s just posted what purports to be a “Highly recommended video that meticulously shreds Monckton’s performance in his 2011 debate with Richard Denniss:” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0

    What’s the big deal? Well, it now appears that the climate movement has elected to do to the rules of debating what it did to the rules of science several years ago: misunderstand, misrepresent and change them. And for the same apparent reason: the rules were too hard. It was impossible to win under the normal rules. They kept losing.

    As you may know, the point of a debate is that Richard Denniss gets a chance to shred his opponent Monckton’s performance, if he can, in front of a live audience. The point is not for Denniss to fail miserably and leave it up to a video editor and production crew to shred it for him. 2 years later!

    Can we look forward to Monckton’s team putting together a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Richard Denniss’ performance in the highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton’s performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?

    Can we then expect a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton’s performance in the video meticulously shredding Denniss’ performance in the video meticulously shredding Monckton’s performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?

    It’s Climate Debating! Kind of like climate honesty, climate finance, climate ethics and climate science.

  54. #55 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Meh. Watched it. I’d built it up into something much cooler in my mind. I doubt this idea has more than 1 or 2 sequels left in it. Monckton may not even bother countering this with a video of his own. Sorry for overhyping it guys.

  55. #56 Wow
    March 18, 2013

    “And that is for me to secretly own the blog.”

    Or be chubby AND bray. Thereby proving that both of you are sockpuppeting.

  56. #57 Wow
    March 18, 2013

    ‘sfunny how bray whines on about the Great Conspiracy by Mann and Jones to “hide” the evidence of faking their work but gets all bent out of shape and complains of others that he strawmans into making a statement of conspiracy against him.

    Those two faces of JAnus are talking shit again.

  57. #58 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Wow,

    how bad is your memory, exactly?

    Mann and Jones used the decline-hiding trick SEPARATELY—Mann used it in Nature, and Jones used it for his WMO presentation—no conspiracy necessary.

    Of course, the email in which Jones admits this was sent to 4 recipients, none of whom filed a complaint about what Jones had done. This is prima facie a conspiracy of silence. There has never been a non-conspiracist explanation for that email and I doubt there ever could be.

    Anyway Wow, I was hoping you’d tell me what you think of my advice to the mods:
    _________________________
    Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?

    #63
    Wow March 16, 2013
    And you really shouldn’t call Anthony Watts a paedo child sex trafficer like that, it’s a libellous claim, Olap!

    #64
    Wow March 16, 2013
    Even if it could be true.

    Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.

  58. #59 chek
    March 18, 2013

    “Brad”, you ceased having anything of even mild interest to say weeks ago. But you continue with your act anyway, in the face of yawning boredom and no return on time invested on this side.

    Maybe it’d be better for you to continue the discussion with your hairdresser.

  59. #60 BBD
    March 18, 2013

    Bradley

    It’s richly amusing to watch a sly, dishonest man getting angry about being accused of sly dishonest behaviour. If (and this is the really rich bit) you are actually *innocent* and Chameleon is your significant other, it makes no difference. I simply enjoy the spectacle of you being frustrated and angry. This is how you make other commenters here feel all the time with your endlessly morphing arguments and refusal to answer straight questions.

    Suck it up!

  60. #61 BBD
    March 18, 2013

    @ 38 chameleon

    I’m suggesting that you are either a sock created by Bradley, or you are his significant other.

    Do, please, enlighten us all.

  61. #62 BBD
    March 18, 2013

    Bradley

    *Sigh.* I’ll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I’d been placed in moderation.

    I did indeed miss it. Please provide a link.

  62. #63 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    BBD,

    you can’t say this:

    If (and this is the really rich bit) you are actually *innocent* and Chameleon is your significant other, it makes no difference. I simply enjoy the spectacle of you being frustrated and angry.

    and then expect either of us to lift a finger to help you solve your little mystery. By your own admission, you’re not interested in the truth but are purely driven by spiteful obnoxiousness.

    I’m taking a Fuck You approach to all future questions about my and/or chameleon’s personal lives.

    I suggest you do the same, chameleon.

    Still, I must admit your detective powers are a sight to behold, BBD:

    I’m suggesting that you are either a sock created by Bradley, or you are his significant other.

    So you’ve narrowed it down to either:
    – chameleon doesn’t sound like a female
    or
    – chameleon is my wife

    Damn, if only the Keystone Kops of the Norwich Constabulary had had access to your brainpower they would have cracked the Purloined CRU Letters case in no time and the whistlehacker would be behind bars!

  63. #64 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Bradley

    *Sigh.* I’ll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I’d been placed in moderation.

    I did indeed miss it. Please provide a link.

    It was a couple of weeks ago on the Feb thread. It was a comment under my name that simply said “Brad has been placed in moderation due to multiple violations of the rules.”

    Either believe me or go find it yourself.

  64. #65 Wow
    March 18, 2013

    ” “You falsely accused
    —me of using a sock-puppet.”

    Nope, he didn’t.

    YES HE DID”

    NO HE DIDN’T.

  65. #66 chek
    March 18, 2013

    “Brad” enough of this.

    Do as BBD bid you a long time ago and lay out your self justification for your denial. That is, in terms of the science, and not those nasty warmist blogs that inevitably find out you’re not a fwend and proceed to treat you like shit of Olap’s calibre. At least that would give us a good laugh.

    Otherwise your future looks like endless content-free braying cries for attention. And nobody needs that.

  66. #67 BBD
    March 18, 2013

    Horrible but true: Bradley has inflicted himself on Tara’s blog and is now replicating the Branglina Thread: ‘there’s no such thing as scientific consensus or there is but it’s made of puppy dogs’ tails and Vegemite’ etc.

    Alien mind parasite!

  67. #68 Lionel A
    March 18, 2013

    BBD WTR Bradley at Tara’s,

    It’s interesting that you use pharmacology as an example. Perhaps you didn’t know that it’s the paradigmatic example of evidence-based, not consensus-based, medicine.

    Bradley really needs to get hold of a copy of Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.

    Now that does not mean that I am a fan of alternative medicine, far from it and I could suggest some take downs of that stuff Acupuncture included.

  68. #69 BBD
    March 18, 2013

    Lionel A

    Good book. But first Bradley needs to stop pretending that there is such a thing as ‘consensus-based’ science per his strawman misrepresentation of climatology.

    Science is *evidence-based* as we all know. Including the science of physical climatology. Brad is playing word games because that’s all he’s got. Hence the repeat of his trick over at Tara’s. Obligate tactics for someone arguing the indefensible and bereft of a scientific case.

  69. #70 chek
    March 18, 2013

    What a loathsome reptile “Brad” is.
    Repeating his one now broken riff but hoping for a different outcome.

  70. #71 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    BBD,

    Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?

    One of the facts you explained (rather well) was

    the point about the Hockey Stick. Which is that it 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.

    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.

    I reiterate that I agree this doesn’t ‘falsify’ AGW. Obviously. But it reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.

    This is not correct scientific practice.

    So far so good.

    But if you know the IPCC’s actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:

    Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?

    This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?

    Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.

    Thank you. I’m aware of that.

    I know it does—on some things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.

    But this is not one of those topics. The truth of your statement:

    This [conduct by the IPCC et al.] is not correct scientific practice.

    does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.

    It was a statement of principle.

    A principle you apparently hold rather cheap. :-(

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    March 18, 2013

    Wow,

    “[BBD] falsely accused
    —me of using a sock-puppet.”

    Nope, he didn’t.

    YES HE DID. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE HE ADDRESSED TO ME, IF YOU CAN BRING YOURSELF TO READ IT, AND THEN LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME HE DIDN’T ACCUSE ME OF SOCK-PUPPETRY, WOW. YOU REALLY DON’T DO THIS REALITY THING, DO YOU? YOU ARE BECOMING EXTREMELY TEDIOUS (H/T DAVID B. BENSON). YOU’VE ALSO MADE ME leave my caps lock on!

  72. #73 David B. Benson
    March 18, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — In the case of Vogtle 3 & 4 the utility prepared a detailed report and convinced the state utility commission that these Westinghouse AP-1000 were the most beneficial choice. The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV) but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee).

    In many of the represented countries the electric generators, grid, etc. are state owned.

  73. #74 David B. Benson
    March 18, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Approximately the first half of the 19th century.

    Earlier I posted threes links which point out that decade by decade, the warming is relentless; there has been no pause since the 1950s.

  74. #75 Wow
    March 18, 2013

    “The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV)”

    Uh, nope.

    Insurance: paid for. Shortfall from accident: paid for. About 7.1Bn dollars a year, the benefits are worth.

    “but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee).”

    But if the fee were really substantial and a fair deal, then there would be private underwriters who would take it on, right?

    Except they don’t. Refuse point blank.

    Indeed EDF requires a deal that would cost 100Bn, and guaranteeing a spot price for 40 years or they won’t do it.

    I don’t think the prices are what you remember from ages and ages past, which would have been figures that the CFO and marketing department would have had, not the science department.

  75. #76 David B. Benson
    March 18, 2013

    Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance. Private insurance doesn’t attempt to compete with the federal government for those loan guarantees nor flood insurance.

    That said, I don’t know of a single country in which the actual entire cost of the electric utility (or utilities) is bourne solely by ratepayers. For some reason the politicians always stick in their oar at the expense of taxpayers. If someone knows a country in which that (largely, not entirely) is not the case I certainly would like to learn of it.

  76. #77 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    David, the USA has legislation transferring the risk from nuclear power stations to the taxpayer. The liability assumed by the industry is capped at a very low level.

    Maybe have a look at the losses incurred by the Japanese economy as a result of Fukushima and tell us how much (or how little) of that is being covered by Tepco or its insurance?

    And I’m sure it doesn’t need to be pointed out that this externalised cost of risk has no equivalent in any of the renewable technologies: it is in effect a subsidy to nuclear that is not available to renewables.

  77. #78 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    The government of Ukraine has been trying to raise the $1 billion necessary to cover the cost of sealing the Chernobyl reactors. Meanwhile Byelorussia spends a two-figure proportion of its GNP every year in addressing nuclear cleanup issues.

    If the Nuclear industry isn’t an economic proposition without avoiding the costs of insuring its activities, then any positive comment about its economic viability is based on a lie.

    The free market has decided the risk associated with the nuclear industry is uninsurable. That’s good enough for me to reject it as a valid proposition.

  78. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    March 18, 2013

    Meanwhile, Yucca mountain has cost the taxpayers $100billion and has abjectly failed to provide any kind of solution to the nuclear industry’s waste problem.

    Over in the UK, a similar amount is being spent by the taxpayer on decommissioning.
    More interestingly, the UK High Court found in 2007 that the nuclear Industry and its government puppets had broken the law in publishing dishonest information in the pro-nuclear 2006 government Energy review.

    If nuclear were a valid economic proposition, its supporters would not find it necessary to be dishonest to the point of breaking the law.

    Bottom line is, nuclear is dangerous, it’s dirty, and it is fundamentally dishonest.

  79. #80 chameleon
    March 18, 2013

    BBD @58,
    I am suggesting you’ve just lost any chance of any credibility!
    You’re suggestions are completely unsubstantiated RUBBISH!
    What a pity.
    You were actually starting to discuss something useful and practical re future energy needs.
    Now you’ve returned to pointless and counter productive name calling and paranoid suspicions about others.
    And no doubt this comment will languish in moderation yet again.

  80. #81 David B. Benson
    March 19, 2013

    Yucca Mountain characterization has cost taxpayers about US$8 billion. See
    http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2011/pdf/nv110427ym.pdf
    Other than a place for otherwise unusable military radioactive materials it is a bad idea as once through nuclear materials can be further beneficially used in a fast reactor such as the GE-Hitachi PRISM. The problems in the UK are due to overly hasty bomb plutonium making; nothing whatsoever to do with civilian power reactors.

  81. #82 David B. Benson
    March 19, 2013

    Ten Times More Hurricane Surges in Future, New Research Predicts
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130318151519.htm
    with 2 K warming.

  82. #83 chameleon
    March 19, 2013

    David B,
    Hats off to you for your insistence in talking some sense re future energy needs!
    May I suggest you apply similar common sense re the concept of a ‘climate utopia’.
    Also, IF THE EFFING MODERATOR/S WILL LET ME COMMENT IN SYNCH(!!!!!!!!!) I will happily further discuss the political roadblocks in Australia with you (re future energy needs).

  83. #84 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Vince, you’re back!

    Wonderful. This gives me a chance to ask you something:

    We’d all be fascinated to see my “initial admission that I hadn’t” read MoD. A simple quote of, or link to, the admission would be fascinating.

    I don’t suppose it exists though, does it?

    Pity.

    It’s amazing how pathetic a liar you are, with all the practice you’ve had.

  84. #85 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    David:

    Brad Keyes — Approximately the first half of the 19th century.

    Great.

    To test the benefits of this proposal of returning to a first-half-of-the-19th-century climate, could you nominate a decade in the first half of the 19th century in which the climate was preferable to that of the current past decade (2003–2013)?

    Earlier I posted threes links which point out that decade by decade, the warming is relentless; there has been no pause since the 1950s.

    Yep, I saw that post.

    Is this by way of an affirmative answer to the question:

    3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?

    ?
    Thanks for taking the time to answer!

  85. #86 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Wow, chek, Vince,

    you guys seem to think Anthony Watts is a “climate change denier” because, among other things, he “denies the temperature record.” (If I’ve unfairly included one of you among these 3 musketeers, just say so—I apologise.)

    Now that Michael Mann himself has admitted this allegation is false and issued a retraction—see https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann: “Apparently #AnthonyWatts not denying instrumental record of warming, so I withdraw the claim.“—do you still make it? Or are you at least as honest as Fauxbel-Prize claimant Michael Mann?

  86. #87 chameleon
    March 19, 2013

    BradK @ 54,
    Walter Starck calls that ‘an academic pissing contest’.
    I think it’s a fairly apt (but rather crude) description.
    It has got totally out of hand in the ‘climate debate’!!! (IMHO)
    And @ 64
    If I was married to you I would need to be prosecuted for polygamy :-)
    I also suspect from some of the things you have said here that we are not from the same generation or from the same area :-)
    Despite the deltoids’ paranoid refusal to beieve me, I am indeed female I am happily married,
    (not to you however :-) ) I have 3 beautiful children and I am a resident of rural inland Australia.
    David B,
    I note you have graciously offered to continue your discussions about future energy requirements here and not at the March thread.
    As I said in an earlier comment (WHICH IS STILL IN EFFING MODERATION!!!!)
    If the moderator/s can get past pandering to the stupid unsubstantiated rantings of paranoid and misogynist/misanthropic/alarmist people like BJ, BBD, Chek, Wow and Bill, I will be happy to advance this discussion.
    While I suspect that our perspectives are somewhat different, I do respect your courage of conviction and your method of engagement.

  87. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    March 19, 2013

    I’ll look forward to the renewable industry being given an additional $10 billion to match the $10billion spent on the now-abandoned and worse-than-useless Yucca Mountain project then.

  88. #89 David B. Benson
    March 19, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
    is quite a decent overview. A discussion of liability and insurance for the civilian nuclear industry is included.

  89. #90 David B. Benson
    March 19, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — It is only abandoned until Reid is no longer senator. And only US$8 billion has been spent so far. Chalk that up as part of the so-called national security budget; the military waste does have to be kept away from the environment for a very long time.

  90. #91 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Sorry—Norfolk Constabulary.

  91. #92 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    God help us.

    Sou’s back with her unique brand of unfunny paranoia.

    You don’t have to write to the authors to ‘prove’ climate science is a hoax.

    I hate to ruin a good story but, as we all know, there’s not a single denier out there trying to ‘prove’ climate science is a hoax. Sou is getting her private cinemascope reality confused with external, shared reality. What’s new, eh?

    And I’m afraid, dear readers, that’s an ongoing theme in Sou’s latest comment…

    All you have to do is mention the name of a climate scientist

    Really? That’s all I have to do to win the prize and ‘prove’ climate science ‘is’ a ‘hoax’? ‘Thank’ you for telling me, Sou—you’re a really ‘useful’ addition to the human species! I don’t tell you that often enough. Just thought I’d mention it, so that you feel ‘appreciated.’

    or say you’ve stolen some emails or mention you are sending an FOI demand, and the whole edifice of climate science crumbles to the ground (in Wattsville or CA-land).

    I have to ask, Sou—does anyone but you think “the whole edifice of climate science” is at stake, in question, at issue, in contention or under attack?

    Anyone at all? On the planet? In the blogosphere?

    Second question: in your hallucinations, who is it that claims they’ve stolen some emails? You do realize that Peter Gleick—who stole printed documents, NOT emails, by the way—is one of your guys, right?

    BTW – guess who was the one millionth poster on WUWT? None other than poptech! Couldn’t be more fitting if they tried.

    Is there a punchline coming up? Sometime soon?

    Oh, okay. That was the entire, ahem, joke.

    Clap.

    (Almost as good as winning the most ‘popular’ anti-science blog or getting a lifetime achievement award from the denier bloggies!)

    Ah, the good ol’ most ‘popular’ anti-science blog award. Which you just made up. Hilarious, hilarious stuff.

    Did you really think that limp turd of a gag deserved an exclamation mark, Sou?

    Hang on, I thought it was tree rings and modern thermometers that deniers hated.

    Well, don’t you feel stupid?

    Have they moved onto hating alkenones now?

    Nope.

    What about ice cores and speleotherms – saving them for another day I suppose.

    Nope.

    And there we have it. Thanks for that, uh, contribution to the …conversation, Sou.

    I can’t resist noting, in passing, that your return to this blog coincides with that of Lotharsson, who also can’t tell a joke to save his life and just happens to have a rather similar pseudo-scientific bee in his bonnet about harmless, everyday carbon dioxide and how it’s going to bring about the end times, the destruction of the Second Temple and the return of the Messiah. BBD, did you notice the remarkable timing too? Does it provoke any husband-and-wife / ventriloquist-and-dummy theories you’d like to share with us?

  92. #93 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    BBD,

    since you’re pretending not to read this question over at Tara “The Aim Was to Shame the Skeptic” Sparks’ site, I’m forced to repost it here in hopes that peer pressure will finally force you to answer it.

    Having been caught trying to do exactly, literally what I told TinyCO2 believers sought to do (namely, to pass off consensus as evidence), you rationalized:

    I see. So scientific consensus arises spontaneously in an evidential vacuum, does it?

    I responded:
    ––––––––––––––––––
    Obviously it can. Or it can arise in an evidential cornucopia. Or somewhere in between.

    The ONLY scientific question is: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? The existence or absence of a consensus means nothing to a scientist. We don’t have opinion polls in science. For 250 years, until Naomi Oreskes came along, the idea of ascertaining whether all scientists agreed on a particular theory about nature would have been despised and ridiculed, and rightly so. By me and every scientist I know.

    Tell me—since you’ve thus far refused to say:

    1. what evidence was there, prior to Marshall and Warren’s experiment, that gastric and peptic ulcers were non-infective in aetiology?

    2. what evidence was there, prior to Schechtman’s Nobel-Prize-winning work, that quasiperiodic crystals were non-existent, impossible, highly improbable, uninteresting and/or useless?

  93. #94 Wow
    March 19, 2013

    “Meanwhile, Yucca mountain has cost the taxpayers $100billion”

    May be a lot less, but EDF want £100Bn from the UK gov to buid a nuclear plant. And cleaning up and decommissioning in the UK is now over £60Bn.

    This isn’t just nuclear’s problem.

    Exxon? Cleanup is, what, something north of $20Bb? BP’s Deepwater error looks to be going north of that too.

  94. #95 Wow
    March 19, 2013

    “Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance.”

    David has, as usual, got it wrong.

    They purchase insurance for a fraction of losses, but an accident payout, as Vince says, is capped at some millions of dollars.

    It’s like insuring your house for $100 in case of accident then getting the government to underwrite the remaining $259,900 and claiming you’re getting your own insurance, not leeching of the taxpayer.

    In the USA alone, $7.1Bn a year is spent as subsidy to nuclear power.

  95. #96 BBD
    March 19, 2013

    # 80 Chameleon

    You mean you’re not a sock and not BK’s significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?

    Do tell.

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Lionel,

    thanks for the rec:

    Bradley really needs to get hold of a copy of Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.

    I’ll try to make time to read it, but you’ll be relieved to know I’m under no illusions about the scientific purity of the drug business as it operates in the real world. But I’m at a loss to see how this helps your case. On the contrary, it puts the imprescindibility of the scientific method into razor-sharp focus. The moment drug researchers behave less like scientists—even a little bit—and more like climate scientists—even just a little bit like them!—pharmacology ceases to work as a science and innocent people die. At Tara’s blog some wishy-washy self-styled denier is trying to convince me that pharmacology “ultimately relies on consensus,” but what she doesn’t grasp is that she’s talking about bad pharmacology. The kind that kills people for no better reason than “9 out of 10 doctors have been killing their patients this way ever since they got out of med school.” Good pharma relies on evidence and only evidence, because pharmacology in principle is a science.

    I anticipate your disagreeing with something I’ve said, but as long as we keep it on a “Lionel”-“Bradley” basis (or better yet “Brad”), it’ll be a pleasant and edifying conversation!

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Dominic:

    You mean you’re not a sock and not BK’s significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?

    Huh? What do I know about her that’s not public knowledge? (Someone had to tell me Chameleon was female, so that should be your tipoff that I didn’t know her socially. Same happened with Sou the first time I called “him” a strawman-erecting hypocritical weaselly bastard.) The only privileged knowledge I’ve ever let slip is that Chameleon didn’t sock-puppet. I know because I asked her. By email. (To which she had to ask, “what does sock-puppeting mean?!”) Not that the complete bogusness of the accusation wasn’t 97% obvious anyway—except perhaps to the more, ahem, conspiracist / paranoid ideators who might be among us. Present company excepted, of course. *cough.* Other than that, what would make you think we know each other privately or socially? I put my real name (cryptically) and email details in a comment—you all could have read it, solved it and been my inbox buddies right now. But by design, the encryption acted as a filter, so that only deniers had the IQ to work it out, and the only email friendship that blossomed from that point on was with the lovely, intelligent, overly-polite, frustratingly-honest, married Chameleon.

    “Is romance in the air?” Er, doesn’t she, like, have a husband? Wasn’t she forced to mention that fact in response to a prurient, lubricious and salacious insinuation from one of you unwashed raised-by-wolves ruffians? That kind of language may fly down at the construction site but up here, in the rarefied towers of the climate debate, the watchwords are respect, chivalry, courtesy and amiability AT ALL FUCKING TIMES, YOU BELIEVALIST NEANDERTHALS, is that understood? There may be ladies present at any moment, without notice, so elbows off tables and flies up, please, gentlemen.

  98. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    March 19, 2013

    I checked Wikipedia, David, and the figures given for Australia are way out of date and do not match current data that show wind as being virtually half the cost of new coal, and cheaper than gas even.

    I simply will not believe any of the Nuclear propaganda on there, as that industry is notorious for hiding costs, making wrong assumptions, and emitting bald-faced lies to support their uninsurable business activities that produce waste remains untreatable to this day.

    The evidence of law-breaking in relation to misinformation inserted by the nuke lobby into the UK’s 2006 government energy report characterises the trust that industry deserves from the taxpayer it intends to leach off: none whatsoever.

    If they can build a nuclear power plant without any kind of government subsidy and with full, uncapped insurance obtained via the free market, I will support them all the way.

    Obviously, it’s never going to happen. Virtually any method of generating electricity is cheaper than nuclear once you include a full, honest balance sheet with no slippery externalising.

  99. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    March 19, 2013

    Chameleon:

    And no doubt this comment will languish in moderation yet again.

    Oops! Slipped out of character there a bit….since when does a half-witted country-bumpkin unable to form paragraphs use a word like “languish” when “gets stuck” and “got blocked” are available?