Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    Maybe you should have thought of said buggering-up effects before you went crying to the moderators about me and got me punitively delayed. There was a time, a few weeks ago, when all I had to do was wander off-plantation for a minute and you’d have an expletive-laden convulsion about how uppity I was.

    Consequences of your actions:

    It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it, Bradley? You strut around acting the prat and boastfully claiming you can post anywhere – get moderated. And now this is *my* fault?

    GFY, Bradley.

    ;-)

    Let me know when you figure out why you are wrong about the evolution of TCR.

  2. #2 BBD
    April 1, 2013

    - Most of the energy (>90%) that has accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 is now in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).

    – The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has *only* been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century.

    Some of that stored energy will contribute to *future* atmospheric warming *additional* to the direct response to the increase from 395 – 550ppmv CO2.

    – That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C. Not 1.2C.

    You either don’t understand the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response or you are pretending not to.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    April 1, 2013

    Dominic:

    It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it, Bradley?

    Well, anecdotally it certainly seems that way. But let’s look at the hard data just to make sure:

    1. you and your coreligionists bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many arguments and begged Tim to give me my own thread—YOUR FAULT

    2. Tim gave me my own thread—TIM’S FAULT

    3. you bitched and moaned to the moderators when I wandered off-plantation—YOUR FAULT

    4. they punitively quarantined me—THE MODERATORS’ FAULT

    Proportion of times it was my fault: 0.0 %
    Proportion of times it was someone else’s fault: 100.0%

    There you go. Science says yes, it’s always someone else’s fault. Of course, we both know that doesn’t fit your worldview so you’ll just deny the science. Sticking your head in the sand won’t change the facts though!

  4. #4 David B. Benson
    April 2, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Cannot adapt to 6 K; die from hydrogen sulfide poisoning. H2S is expressed under any
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
    (which happens now off the coast of Namibia and is barely repressed in the Black Sea). At 6 K warming anoxia sets in.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    April 2, 2013

    David, that’s thought-provoking, thank you. I’ve read the wikipedia article but let me ask about your own analysis: if we rapidly liberated as much CO2 as possible as quickly as possible, then at what atmospheric concentration—ballpark figure, in ppm—do you expect we’d bring about (or at least “lock in,” pending eventual equilibrium) 6 degrees of warming?

  6. #6 David B. Benson
    April 2, 2013

    Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.

    Richard Feynman

  7. #7 David B. Benson
    April 2, 2013

    One time I was in the men’s room of the bar and there was a guy at the urinal. He was kind of drunk, and said to me in a mean-sounding voice, “I don’t like your face. I think I’ll push it in.”
    I was scared green. I replied in an equally mean voice, “Get out of my way, or I’ll pee right through ya!”

    Richard Feynman

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    April 2, 2013

    Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

    Attributed to Richard Feynman

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    April 2, 2013

    OK, this is all good fun, but could you please answer my question, David? Namely:

    If we liberated as much CO2 as we could as quickly as we could into the atmosphere, then at what concentration—a ballpark estimate in ppm—do you think the climate would be committed to 6K of warming?

    From your previous comments I gather this must be about 2 x ECS in your view. So two doublings, right?

  10. #10 Wow
    April 2, 2013

    That question makes NO SENSE, bray.

    “if we liberated…as quickly as we could…what concentration..committed to 6k warming”.

    The “as quickly as we could” makes no sense whatsoever, it’s completely redundant. And “as quickly as we could” is nonsense in what climate sensitivity would be to CO2.

    Therefore we have to ask you what you mean.

    6k warming over what? Pre-industrial temps? Then two doublings over pre-industrial CO2. Current temps? then two doublings over current CO2.

    Both answers are ridiculous, though, since you’ve already been told what the best guess for climate sensitivity is several times, so why the hell are you asking?

  11. #11 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    You are a jester, Brad. Proportion of problems caused by your behaviour: 100%. 100% your fault. Except from within the bubble of your self-regard and delusion.

    When are you going to have the good grace to admit that you have been wrong for a long, long time now about the evolution of TCR to equilibrium?

    It’s bad form (ie evidence of bad faith) to refuse to admit error.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    April 2, 2013

    BBD,

    That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C. Not 1.2C.

    Sigh. Yes, I understand the rules of Wangernumb, Dominic. I understood them the first time; that doesn’t mean I agree with them. The most objectionable thing about this New Math is the way it lets you “carry forward” the effects of past CO2 increases and blame them on future increases. This cheap trick—which not only the eminently-reasonable David Benson but even fanatics like Bernard have enough sense to refrain from using—is achieved by subtracting apples from oranges. You compare the GATA at 395ppmv out of equilibrium with that at 550ppmv in equilibrium. No doubt the resulting “response” stimulates a pleasingly urgent feeling of frisson in one’s political loins, but it’s not science. It’s creative accounting with Kelvins.

    But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the consensus is wrong and your New Math really is the way of the future. It’s Wangernumb! Well and good. It should be the simplest thing in the world for you to solve this “problem”: assuming ECS = 2.5K / 2xCO2, what will be the temperature response to an increase from 395 ⟶ 400 ppm? Are you ready for a 400 ppm world, Dominic? :-) ;-) :-| :-(

    What are you finding so goddamn difficult all of a sudden?

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    April 2, 2013

    Proportion of problems caused by your behaviour: 100%. 100% your fault.

    Upon deeper palpation of the Conscience Area of my frontal bones…. I think you may be right. At the end of the day. In a way.

    The whole spiral of antisocial activities and revolving-door punishments that’s ultimately led to my languishing here, stripped of human rights in this concentration thread for reviled minorities, was set in motion by my own choices. It would be all too easy to blame you, the illiberal Dominicans, the rabid dogmatists—and I’m sure the average person who read the historical data would instantly cast you as the villains:

    1. you and your coreligionists bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many arguments and begged Tim to give me my own thread

    But isn’t that just a way of letting me off the hook? After all, none of this would have happened had I not persisted in confounding, humbling and correcting everyone who dared debate me in the first place. This tragedy started when I made that decision, all those weeks ago, to come in here, to come into your sacred space, kick asses and take names.

    It’s bad form (ie evidence of bad faith) to refuse to admit error.

    Well, consider me shriven and repentant. I’m the Saddam in this atrocious chapter of climate history, and I know it. You believers were the innocent Kurds, going to your Friday prayers, flying your kites, getting in the occasional hockey-stick fight and otherwise minding your own business. You never asked for this. You never signed up to be guinea pigs in a test of rhetorical WMDs. And now you’re a nation of women, children and old men. All your men of fighting age are gone. Their blood is on my hands. (Okay, fine, technically speaking most of the blood and brain matter is on my clue bat, hey shut up, it’s an allegory!)

    I’m a bad person.

    This has been a real wake-up call.

  14. #14 Lionel A
    April 2, 2013

    Or with Keyes:

    Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably not even wrong.

    , addition from Wolfgang Pauli.

  15. #15 David B. Benson
    April 2, 2013

    Solve for X:

    6 = 2.5ln(X/280)/ln(2)

  16. #16 BBD
    April 2, 2013

    Best hope we don’t get too close to 1000ppmv, let alone 1478ppmv. It could be catastrophic.

  17. #17 bill
    April 2, 2013

    IIRC there was a recent paper/discussion examining the paleo record that identified 2 CO2 ‘switches’ for the cryosphere – one at about current concentration that gives a lesser melt eventually amounting to several metres, then a looongish ‘steadyish-state’ gap until a little past 1000ppm, at which point we’re locked in to the full ‘start redrawing your globes’ calamity.

    Anyone else recall that?

  18. #18 chek
    April 2, 2013

    For anybody still in any doubt, “Brad’s” psychopathic leanings and general loss of touch with reality are pretty well exposed here. (h/t Bill)
    That Cook-Lewandowsky paper on conspiracy nutters really lit some short-burn fuses!

    “And remember: when they do it, it’s a conspiracy.
    When we do it, it’s a well-orchestrated, well-funded behind-closed-doors campaign implicating Big Nicotine, Big Oil and the Murdocracy and going all the way up to the White House, employing a tiny but vocal cabal of Jewish tobacco scientists who travel through time promoting FUD by exaggerating minor typos in the science, which are then amplified into pseudo-scandals by the dog-whistling of the right-controlled hate media with perfect timing so as to derail international will on climate change, lung cancer, gravity, evolution or whatever the corporation-threatening Science of the decade happens to be. Not a conspiracy.

    That, by the way was our philosophin’ Mr Rational “Brad” here, not some methed-up street nutter.

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    April 3, 2013

    David,

    Solve for X:

    6 = 2.5ln(X/280)/ln(2)

    Thanks David—just double-checking.

    For those without calculators, X = ~1478ppmv; this is the concentration at which, if ECS = 2.5K, the climate is committed to 6K of eventual warming (relative to the previous equilibrium, which we enjoyed back when CO2 and temps were at Amish levels). Warming on such a scale has been associated with anoxic events…. which sound rather catastrophic, I must admit.

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    April 3, 2013

    chek wades out of his depth:

    For anybody still in any doubt, “Brad’s” psychopathic leanings and general loss of touch with reality are pretty well exposed here. (h/t Bill)

    ROFL… jawohl, Herr Doktor!

    Verbum sapienti: when you can’t differentially use the words psychopathic and psychotic in a sentence, that’s a pretty strong clue that you ought to leave the pop-psych wankery to seasoned psychonanists (like Bernard J).

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

    bill — If current concentrations are maintained then, from paleodata, SLR will be about 20–40 meters. That’s enough to redraw the maps.

  22. #22 BBD
    April 3, 2013

    BK

    Sigh. Yes, I understand the rules of Wangernumb, Dominic. I understood them the first time; that doesn’t mean I agree with them.

    You understand less than you think you do.

    Now you misrepresent David B. Benson, who sees what you apparently cannot:

    Brad Keyes — Your formula is fine provided you wait long enough for equilibrium to be reached, a millennium or more. At that time scale the way you do sums is fine.

    And a few comments later:

    Brad Keyes — More precisely, start with 285 ppm to compute what the equilibrium temperature will be if concentrations are held constant at, say, 400 ppm. After waiting the required millennium then increase to, say, 580 ppm; wait another millennium for equilibrium.

    Ponder these statements. Compare with what I say. Then have a little re-think.

    What are you finding so goddamn difficult all of a sudden?

    The TCR to another ~4ppmv is an irrelevance here. Keep your pointless misdirections to yourself and admit your fundamental error. TCR vs ECS. 1.8C not 1.2C.

    The longer you persist with this, the worse it will get.

    No doubt the resulting “response” stimulates a pleasingly urgent feeling of frisson in one’s political loins, but it’s not science.

    You are are mistaken, Bradley.

  23. #23 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    “which we enjoyed back when CO2 and temps were at Amish levels”

    You bigoted little fuck.

  24. #24 BBD
    April 3, 2013

    I meant to quote your misrepresentation of Davd B. Benson above. Here it is:

    The most objectionable thing about this New Math is the way it lets you “carry forward” the effects of past CO2 increases and blame them on future increases. This cheap trick—which not only the eminently-reasonable David Benson but even fanatics like Bernard have enough sense to refrain from using—is achieved by subtracting apples from oranges.

  25. #25 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    A quote from a UKIP MEP: “There are no independent scientific institutes in the world which have not conceded that there has been no global warming for 15 years. That’s a matter of fact, not opinion.”

    Isn’t that an appeal to consensus authority?

    Bray. ATTACK!

  26. #26 BBD
    April 3, 2013

    What you say in that short paragraph reveals how bizarre your perceptions really are:

    You find the correct distinction between TCR and ECS ‘objectionable’ and a ‘cheap trick’. You call it ‘creative accounting’ and, most tellingly of all, ‘not science’.

    Then you claim that the effects of past CO2 increases are being ‘blamed’ on future CO2 increases. But there is no cheap trickery involved. No false accounting. No pea-and-thimble blame-game. Just correct distinction between TCR and ECS. Correct scientific understanding of the topic.

    You are in such a mess here. But the way in which you persist in being wrong is illuminating. As I said to you a long time back, denial has warped your perceptions.

  27. #27 BBD
    April 3, 2013

    BK

    1. you and your coreligionists bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many arguments and begged Tim to give me my own thread

    But isn’t that just a way of letting me off the hook? After all, none of this would have happened had I not persisted in confounding, humbling and correcting everyone who dared debate me in the first place. This tragedy started when I made that decision, all those weeks ago, to come in here, to come into your sacred space, kick asses and take names.

    You have won no arguments with me, Brad.

  28. #28 Wow
    April 3, 2013

    “1. you and your coreligionists ”

    delusion.

    “bitched and moaned about how I was winning too many argument”

    delusion.

    “and begged Tim to give me my own thread”

    delusion.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    April 3, 2013

    Wow:

    “which we enjoyed back when CO2 and temps were at Amish levels”

    You bigoted little fuck.

    Huh? Against the Amish?! Oh, relax. It’s not like they’re reading this.

    ;-)

  30. #30 cRR Kampen
    Gouda/NL
    April 3, 2013

    @Brad ‘Dayum’ Keyes, to keep the Rabbet Hole clean I’ll respond to your 9:47 comment here.

    First, I might feel raped by you. Otoh I gave you the benefit of the doubt in order to lure you into my artillery sights which would happen if and only if you are a climate revisionist, which you are and today so stated clearly. You see, in our gentlemen’s exchange at Rabbet’s you tried to lead me into believing we were actually on the same side in the CAGW-debate ì.e. the realists’ side. Rabiately independently minded as I am, I took some time sussing you out while temporarily blocking out the storm of comments by those who already knew you (but me, probably less so). You showed up under the barrels in close to no time, though as a climate revisionist you are relatively clever. Like a rat of sorts. Still, I dare say you could learn dayumed much from one McIntyre in this respect.

    Second, yes, I shot a flare at those whose company I feel honoured to be allowed to enjoy, simply because it is my experience that these wise people often still do not fully understand what they are up against. They tend to think they are dealing with trolls, or, at their least naive, they think they are dealing with ‘merchants of doubt’ and believe they can negotiate with such ‘merchants’. What they need to understand is that they are debating with fascism. The kind of fascism that abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking. The kind of fascism that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death). The kind of fascism that will destroy the planet just for the fun of it. The kind of fascism that has rape for culture.

    Third, I am a True Believer for I am the Founder of the Pi Sekt. We believe the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle is a transcendent number and we kick out those who say otherwise without trial or comment – like True Believers do.

    Fourth, dessert will be served. Cold.

  31. #31 chek
    April 3, 2013

    And without their delusions they’d have nothing at all.

    Like “Brad” thinking his psychotic outburst (just a joke? Nope, the “Jewish tobacco scientists” ‘persecuted’ by Naomi Oreskes invented by “Brad” says categorically not) referenced at #18 excuses his sly, manipulative, psychopathic traits.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    Wow:

    A quote from a UKIP MEP: “There are no independent scientific institutes in the world which have not conceded that there has been no global warming for 15 years. That’s a matter of fact, not opinion.”

    Isn’t that an appeal to consensus authority?”

    Yes.

    You’re learning!

    ATTACK!

    With pleasure.

    The argument conveyed in that quotation is NOT VALID!

    It ought to be based on how many data sets are consistent with a remission of global warming, not how many institutes acknowledge the remission. As it stands, the argument is a matter of opinion, so the last sentence is precisely wrong.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    To be redundantly clear, I’m asserting that this sentence:

    That’s a matter of fact, not opinion.

    is precisely wrong. The antecedent claim was an appeal to consensus (and therefore opinion) par excellence.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    Lionel A:

    One for Keyes to ponder over after his rant on the Rabett about death threats against climate scientists, or as Delingpole has it ‘alarmists’:

    The Australian publishes James Delingpole’s call for climate “alarmists” to face court with power to issue death sentence.

    ‘Shome mishtake shurley’ as Connery, Sean, might say except I think he is in the denial camp.

    What’s wrong with calling for Climate Nuremberg Trials?

    Your guys have been fantasising about it, in print and on air, for years. Well then. Bring it on. Our guys would like nothing better. Everyone’s happy.

    Right?

  35. #35 BBD
    April 4, 2013

    Yes Brad. Let’s talk about *anything* except your errors.

    Then we can move on to not talking about all that sneering by the Master Of Science™ at my supposed thickness.

    How excruciatingly embarrassing that must be for you now. And *infuriating* too. Knowing that I am laughing at you. I know how you hate to be laughed at, Bradley.

  36. #36 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    ” “Isn’t that an appeal to consensus authority?””

    Yes.

    You’re learning!”

    Yes, we’re learning that you only whine about SOME people using consensus authority.

  37. #37 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “What’s wrong with calling for Climate Nuremberg Trials?”

    Yup, what’s wrong with wanting dellingpole, watts, monckton, yourself, et al up for crimes against humanity.

    You’re learning.

  38. #38 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    ‘sfunny, though, you deniers always going on about suing the scientists for telling you things you can’t accept but when it comes to it, you’re just not able to find anything that works outside your echo chamber, or in the case of mad lord monkgish, running away.

  39. #39 Wow
    April 4, 2013

    “The argument conveyed in that quotation is NOT VALID!”

    Hang on, when the climate scientists and the rest of the sane portion of humanity do an “appeal to consensus”, you berate this as “PROOF” that AGW science is wrong.

    Yet when deniers do it, it’s “Oh, that’s not valid”.

    NO.

    If you’re going to ATTACK like you’d said you’d do “With pleasure”, it would be “The ‘skeptic’ position is falsified by them using an appeal to consensus”.

    Go on.

    Say it.

    The self-averred ‘skeptics’ who claim the IPCC wrong and AGW not a problem/ending/never was there/whatever todays meme is are invalidated in their arguments because this bloke used an appeal to consensus to support that position.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    BBD:

    Then we can move on to not talking about all that sneering by the Master Of Science™ at my supposed thickness.

    If I sneered at you, then that’s worth talking about.

    If so, I apologise for it; but you know how things get in the heat of debate. We all make facial expressions we regret later.

    On Tara’s blog I’ve gone out of my way to argue that your faulty math was not a result of stupidity, dishonesty or lack of overall education, but rather was a perfectly sensible approach for a non-scientist to take:

    http://tarascienceblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/375/#comment-556

    My plea for cognitive empathy, reflection and tolerance ends with one of my favourite sayings. It reminds us that logic itself is (virtually if not actually) “subjective:”

    One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    April 4, 2013

    #34.

    That’s real funny Brad. For a failed stand up comic.

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    Yes, we’re learning that you only whine about SOME people using consensus authority.

    Bullshit.

    We’re learning, much to your chagrin, that I’m scrupulously fair. If you draw a logical faux pas to my attention in the climate debate, no matter which “side” made it, I’ll call it illegitimate without pulling punches.

    By the way, the same goes for a moral faux pas. I denounced the 10:10 video about detonating children. I denounced the Heartland billboard about Ted Kaczynski. (Ross McKitrick got it right when he described the billboard as fallacious, puerile and offensive, I think.)

    This is because I have integrity.

    The average punter mightn’t know enough about science, climate science or “The Science” to come to an informed verdict on the debate for themselves, but they do have the social intelligence to tell the difference between integrity on one hand, and zealous deletionist decline-hiding data-secreting pal-reviewing literature-gaming consensus-stacking character-assassinating death-cheering truth-stretching doubt-omitting scary-scenario-offering truth-versus-effectiveness-balancing on the other hand. And when they hear “scientists” speaking in a way that more befits image consultants, they know something has gone badly wrong. They may not know exactly what it is, and they may want to place a bet each way (by making token gestures of greenhouse propitiation, switching off at Earth Hour, buying that solar water heater they were always going to buy anyway, etc.); but they know better than to sign up to any meaningful sacrifice unless and until their suspicions are allayed.

    People aren’t as stupid as you hope, Wow.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    Wow,

    Sometimes I wonder whether you read my comments at all, or do you just skip them the way I skip most of yours?

    Hang on, when the climate scientists and the rest of the sane portion of humanity do an “appeal to consensus”, you berate this as “PROOF” that AGW science is wrong.

    No I bloody well don’t. I denounce the argument as scientifically invalid. Do you even know the difference between “it’s wrong” and “it’s invalid,” Wow? Don’t be shy. If you don’t know, just ask. We all know you never went to college, but this is important stuff to grasp if you want to become a less idiotic citizen.

    Sure I also go a bit further. I also point out that true scientists would never knowingly make use of a scientifically invalid argument. Not only can it achieve nothing epistemologically (by definition), it’s also prima facie unethical, because it’s guaranteed to mislead non-scientists into assuming the argument is meaningful.

    Therefore an argument from scientific consensus tells us nothing whatsoever about nature, but it does tell us about the standards and ethics of the people making it. And what it tells us is not good!

    Oh, one last point: I consider the AGW theory to be correct. How many million times do you need this explained to you, Wow?

    Yet when deniers do it, it’s “Oh, that’s not valid”.

    When deniers do it, it’s not valid.

    It’s embarrassing. Not only is such an argument evidentially worthless, but just by making it, denialist consensualists lower themselves to (or at least towards) the level of the believalist consensualists.

  44. #44 Brad Keyes
    April 4, 2013

    Lionel,

    That’s real funny Brad. For a failed stand up comic.

    You find the post-War Nuremberg investigations into crimes against humanity funny? Please share the joke with the rest of the class.

  45. #45 David B. Benson
    April 5, 2013

    Boring.

  46. #46 bill
    April 5, 2013

    Be careful what you wish for, Bradley.

  47. #47 chameleon
    April 5, 2013

    Common moderator/s! ?????????
    You’re actually letting the faithful look silly! I’m laughing but it probably isn’t fair to BBD et al.
    I can see what they write but they can’t see what I might insert in the meantime.
    I have got rather sick of it but quite obviously Brad K hasn’t!
    You are actually disadvantaging your regulars.
    Release Brad K from moderation at his own thread AND if you don’t mind. . . PLEASE release me.
    THERE IS NO SOCK! ! !

  48. #48 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    David B. Benson

    Over.

  49. #49 cRR Kampen
    April 5, 2013

    Let me stress once more: I consider the AGW-theory to be correct.

    But within the herd of elephants and wolves there is one cat whom you should NOT visualize as being pink. Moreover in this catastrophic association we all know climate sensitivity to carbontwooxide is nil whereas a temperature rise of sorts is agreeable, NOT catastrophic.

    But let me tell you, AGW is correct, because I have integrity! Which no-one can say of IPCC, Lambert, Mann, Hansen and all those other fraudulent climate scientists who should be tried before Nuremberg NOW and not post-war!

    Don’t think of pink elephants, ever!

  50. #50 cRR Kampen
    April 5, 2013

    O and then there is the swallow thing. Well known it is that one swallow doeth no summer make, so a million swallows CERTAINLY make no summer!

  51. #51 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “Moreover in this catastrophic association we all know climate sensitivity to carbontwooxide is nil”

    Fair enough.

    What do you think the climate sensitivity to the greenhouse gas CO2 is, though?

  52. #52 cRR Kampen
    April 5, 2013

    O Wow, please. Don’t be shy. If you don’t know, just ask. We all know you never went to college, but this is important stuff to grasp if you want to become a less idiotic citizen.

    Sorry, let me be serious for a moment: I was just practising with picking keyesholes.
    Me, I think climate sensitivity for a doubling of [CO2] of 1900 values is 4-5° C (including H2O feedback) to be gotten about a century or two after that doubling has happened. So, three or four more to go. Yes, I am a bit on the ‘alarmist’ side on this, primarily because I think the Arctic amplifications (multiple) in mainstream modelling (resulting in around +3, +3.5° C) might imo be slightly underestimated.

  53. #53 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “O Wow, please. Don’t be shy. If you don’t know, just ask.”

    I did.

    What do you think the climate sensitivity to the greenhouse gas CO2 is?

    Or do you not know therefore you’re avoiding the issue?

  54. #54 Wow
    April 5, 2013
    Yes, we’re learning that you only whine about SOME people using consensus authority.

    Bullshit.

    Of course it isn’t, Bray.

    We’re learning, much to your chagrin, that I’m scrupulously fair.

    Now THERE is bullshit.

    As I said:

    Hang on, when the climate scientists and the rest of the sane portion of humanity do an “appeal to consensus”, you berate this as “PROOF” that AGW science is wrong.

    Yet when deniers do it, it’s “Oh, that’s not valid”.

    If this

    This is because I have integrity.

    Is true, then say it:

    The self-averred ‘skeptics’ who claim the IPCC wrong and AGW not a problem/ending/never was there/whatever todays meme is are invalidated in their arguments because this bloke used an appeal to consensus to support that position.

  55. #55 Wow
    April 5, 2013
    Hang on, when the climate scientists and the rest of the sane portion of humanity do an “appeal to consensus”, you berate this as “PROOF” that AGW science is wrong.

    No I bloody well don’t. I denounce the argument as scientifically invalid.

    The history of this threads 4000+ posts prove you a liar, Bray.

  56. #56 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    # 40

    On Tara’s blog I’ve gone out of my way to argue that your faulty math was not a result of stupidity, dishonesty or lack of overall education, but rather was a perfectly sensible approach for a non-scientist to take:

    You proceed to link to your own, often-repeated and incorrect strawman.

    There is no fault in the explanation of the way TCR evolves toward ECS. You remain wrong and you are *still* dishonestly claiming the fault is mine.

    This has gone beyond tolerable limits again. Your behaviour is contemptible. You are a liar.

  57. #57 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “You proceed to link to your own, often-repeated and incorrect strawman.”

    I.e. his only available M.O.

  58. #58 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    BK says:

    This is because I have integrity.

    Oh my sides.

  59. #59 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Wow

    Yup, he’s stuck. He can’t admit he’s wrong because too much of his ‘argument’ hinges on underestimating TCR (and because he’s an arrogant tosser). He’s also too heavily invested in his Master Of Science™ posturing to admit a basic lack of core topic knowledge.

    So he lies. And lies. And lies. In front of an unsympathetic audience. Sniggering is audible. Growing louder.

  60. #60 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    On the internet, everyone can see you pwned.

  61. #61 cRR Kampen
    April 5, 2013

    Wow #53, please read the second, larger paragraph of my #52. It answered your question and it is what I truly believe re climate sensitivity for CO2.

    Apparently I fooled you totally with my word salad of posts above. What I was doing there was mimicking Brad Keyes. What this elaborate troll does is to declare himself convinced of AGW theory and evidence and then he systematically smears every bit of it plus and most vilely climate science and scientists.
    It is demagogues trick: rule the mind by feeding it antitheses. Because antithese hypnotize, they are meant to stop thinking processes. Do not think of pink elephants. Arbeit macht frei and Jews were robber capitalists ánd communists at the same time et cetera.

    Okay?

  62. #62 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    “Wow #53, please read the second, larger paragraph of my #52.”

    Why? You never read my entire post #51. Otherwise you wouldn’t have sneered “just ask”.

  63. #63 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    He’s actually a troll, BBD.

    Maybe long before your time here.

  64. #64 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Wow, please, cRR Kampen is making a very good point about BK’s playbook. I’m sure he didn’t intend to ‘sneer’ at you. Nor, I think, is he writing in his first language, so it behoves us to make the extra effort to understand, and to be patient in the process. I would not wish to have to comment in German or Dutch (or any other major European language, come to that).

    :-)

  65. #65 BBD
    April 5, 2013

    Can we keep the focus on the egregious Mr Keyes?

  66. #66 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    If that’s a requirement, then you ought to be getting on crrtroll’s back, shouldn’t you.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    April 5, 2013

    Fight! Fight!

  68. #68 Wow
    April 5, 2013

    Well, reading to make a more exhaustive rebuttal and I’ve been poe’d.

    i’d pretend this was deliberate to show those who claim “it’s a poe” incorrectly what a poe *actually is*, but I don’t think that’ll work, really…

    Apologies crr.

  69. #69 David B. Benson
    April 5, 2013

    cRR Kampen‘s estimate of 4–5 K for 2xCO2 is about right for what is called Earth system sensitivity. It is determined by looking at paleodata from the Pliocene and Miocene.

  70. #70 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    If the Holocene does turn out to be something like MIS 11 (and why not, given the ~400ka orbital dynamics?) then the Lake El’gygytgyn cores give pause. Not our problem, certainly, but all that apparent non-linearity with added CO2?

    What then?

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    You disappoint, Wow. Normally it takes you several pages at least to realize the ideology you’re rabiately railing against is a figment of your own incomprehension, supplying us in the interim with 2 or 3 days of sustainable laughter.

    Well, reading to make a more exhaustive rebuttal and I’ve been poe’d.

    Hang on—are you admitting that the purpose of “reading” cRR’s comment was to come up with a more exhaustive rebuttal of it? So when you’re just attempting a regular, moderately-exhaustive rebuttal you don’t normally deem it necessary to READ the comment you’re reacting to?

    That would explain a few things! LOL

    Here’s the curious part though, Wow (and I’m confident that cRR will take note of it).

    Even when you hadn’t read cRR’s comments properly (if at all), even BEFORE you understood so much as which “side” he was on, you already saw fit to allege this about him:

    He’s actually a troll, BBD.

    Maybe long before your time here.

    Since your own comments up to that point had demonstrated such an encyclopedic unfamiliarity with cRR Kampen’s work—to the point of thinking he was a denier like me!—the obvious question is: where the hell did you get this allegation that he’s a veteran troll?

    There is only one answer consistent with the facts in evidence. The answer is: you made it up out of whole cloth.

    Strage bedfellows you’ve got there, cRR.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    BBD,

    evidently still fixated on his comfort topic (ECS), writes about me:

    He’s also too heavily invested in his Master Of Science™ posturing to admit a basic lack of core topic knowledge.

    BBD, cover your ears. There are plenty of topics in science on which I lack the basic, core knowledge!

    That’s the thing about being trained in the scientific method (which, incidentally, only makes me a Jack of Science™). And you can unblock your ears now.

    They teach you how scientists think about everything, but they don’t cover what scientists think about everything. Science is a method, specificly a system of acquiring knowledge of truths about nature; it’s not a laundry-lift of knowledge[s]. I have very little “core topic knowledge” in cosmology, for example. I would have been taught all about it if my science degree had been in Astronomy / Astrophysics, but otherwise that kind of thing is left up to the individual to acquire; I’ve never been very interested in outer space, so I never researched it. As a consequence, I know how science works but I have no idea how galaxies work. Most scientists are in exactly the same boat, mutatis mutandis.

    Moving on: you repeatedly tell me I’m wrong about the temperature increase attributable to 395➞550ppmv. Not only am I wrong, in your opinion, but I should be embarrassed to think I’m right. Pray tell then, if I should be embarrassed—without ever having professed to be a climate scientist—then how humiliating do you think it is for Bernard J and David B. Benson to agree that I’m right? (I thank them again for their honesty and integrity in that matter.)

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    Nor is it a laundry-list of knowledge[s].

    ;-)

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    Wow,

    your understanding of logic is no better than Lotharsson’s:

    If you’re going to ATTACK like you’d said you’d do “With pleasure”, it would be “The ‘skeptic’ position is falsified by them using an appeal to consensus”

    The invalidity of an argument doesn’t falsify its conclusion.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    cRR:

    What I was doing there was mimicking Brad Keyes. What this elaborate troll does is to declare himself convinced of AGW theory and evidence and then he systematically smears every bit of it

    Other than the A, G and W bits.

    plus and most vilely climate science and scientists.

    You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.

    Most climate scientists are A-OK with me.

    The lying anti-scientists constitute a tiny, necrotic focus within climate science. This zone of corruption is surrounded by a larger, indurated, hyperaemic, silent zone—the so-called “accessory zone,” or “zone of complicity.”

    It is demagogues trick: rule the mind by feeding it antitheses.

    Name one antithesis I’ve fed you.

    Because antithese hypnotize, they are meant to stop thinking processes.

    This doesn’t even rise to the level of pop psychology. What are you going on about?

    Do not think of pink elephants.

    That’s not an antithesis.

    Let me guess: everything you know about psychology you learned from Inception, right?

    Arbeit macht frei

    That’s not an antithesis.

    and Jews were robber capitalists ánd communists at the same time et cetera.

    Ugh. This nonsense is not even tangential to the debate, it’s completely non-intersecting. Whom are you quoting, and why?

  76. #76 cRR Kampen
    April 6, 2013

    Wow #68, thank you. You have warned me I have to be very careful with that kind of sarcasm – it is dangerously easy to be misinterpreted. O well, actually I enjoy that kind of risk a bit :)

    David re sensitivity, yes, I used paleoevidence to arrive at my conjecture. E.g. what is recently found from Greenland ice cores for temps during last optimum (~115,000 yrs ago) Thank you for the term.

  77. #77 cRR Kampen
    April 6, 2013

    @Wow, I owe you one explanation still, about “Don’t be shy etc” in #52 – that I copy/pasted from #43, third paragraph. Expecting that would be recognized ;)

    BBD, it appears I can be equally mystical in my first language, Dutch. Style. But I lived 4 years in Australia as a child so there are Brit memetics grown in my brain.

  78. #78 cRR Kampen
    April 6, 2013

    #67, q.e.d.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    April 6, 2013

    cRR,

    In your attempted parody of me, you write:

    Arbeit macht frei and Jews were robber capitalists ánd communists at the same time et cetera.

    So you’ve gone out of your way to associate CAGW disbelief with Judenhass, ethnic cleansing and concentration camps.

    But when a disbeliever invokes Godwin’s Law, you call him “paranoid”:

    Watts forb[ade] ‘to deny’ because he thinks that verb is related to Shoah denial, did I mention something about paranoia?

    Gosh, I wonder where Watts got that idea from?

    :-)

    Can I? Can I? Was not I, once, a ‘climate revisionist’ who used to blame the sun? “A little cough from the sun and it’s 50 K hotter here” was my conversationstopper then :)

    Huh. Interesting that you were once a “denier,” if not entirely surprising—for you do exhibit the clichéd enthusiasm of the overcompensating convert.

    But what made you blame the sun, cielo? Well, let’s go through the smorgasbord of theories you’ve proposed as explanations of “climate revisionism.” (I hope I haven’t missed any.)

    Please pick the explanation[s] that applied to you when you were a “climate revisionist”:

    – you were a cryptopatriot
    – you were a fascist who abhorred knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
    – you were the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
    – you were the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
    – paranoia was part of your syndrome, but what it was really about was this: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!”
    – you were charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather

    Second question: what motivates Freeman Dyson’s “revisionism”? Pick the explanation[s] that apply:

    – he is a cryptopatriot
    – he is a fascist who abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
    – he is the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for his own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
    – he is the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
    – paranoia is part of his syndrome, but what it’s really about is this: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!”
    – he is charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather

    Thank you for your explanatory concerns,

    “Brad Keyes”

  80. #80 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    Let’s talk some more about Brad’s errors.

    It’s worthwile keeping some evidence of Brad’s rather… odd attidudes front and centre, as he likes to hide his mistakes behind lots of diversionary waffle laced with lies (eg # 40).

    Let us return to this fascinating statement by Brad ‘explaining’ why he rejects the standard scientific understanding of the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response. It provides insights into the rather… odd way Brad thinks:

    The most objectionable thing about this New Math is the way it lets you “carry forward” the effects of past CO2 increases and blame them on future increases. This cheap trick—which not only the eminently-reasonable David Benson but even fanatics like Bernard have enough sense to refrain from using—is achieved by subtracting apples from oranges.

    So, according to Brad, correct understanding of the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium is:

    objectionable
    New Math
    cheap trick
    apples and oranges

    Woo! Brad doesn’t like the *correct explanation* for the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium response at all!

    Instead of seeing the consequences of ocean thermal intertia in the behaviour of the forced system, he sees a “cheap trick” which is used to “blame” future TCR on past forcing. I think I hear a bat-squeak of paranoia…

  81. #81 BBD
    April 6, 2013

    While we wonder who is doing the “blaming” and why, Brad carries on:

    You compare the GATA at 395ppmv out of equilibrium with that at 550ppmv in equilibrium. No doubt the resulting “response” stimulates a pleasingly urgent feeling of frisson in one’s political loins, but it’s not science. It’s creative accounting with Kelvins.

    Of course we compare the current, transient response with the future, equilibrium response. How else do we estimate how much warming will result if CO2 is stabilised at (purely for example) 550ppmv? I pointed out that the current response is transient, not equilibrium, right at the outset. I now believe BK simply didn’t understand what I meant. He’s done some frantic catch-up reading but it’s too late; he has said far too much.

    In Brad’s odd world, we have to stabilise CO2 at 395ppmv and *wait* until the climate system reaches full equilibrium, *then* we can start adding more CO2 until we get to 550ppmv… That, apparently, is ‘real science’ – at least according to Brad (see above – the emphasis is Brad’s own). Frankly, this is more than merely odd; it’s bollocks.

    But if you don’t agree, our self-appointed Master Of Science™ will sneer that you are incapable of scientific reasoning and so forth.

    Looking back, we see that according to Brad, the correct understanding of the evolution of TCR toward equilibrium is:

    political [woo!]
    it’s not science [double woo!]
    creative accounting

    Let’s add these interesting descriptions to the previous list:

    objectionable
    New Math
    cheap trick
    apples and oranges
    political
    it’s not science
    creative accounting

    Wow. And all from just two short paragraphs. This is where Brad has gone galloping instead of simply admitting his obvious error. So *why* doesn’t Brad just demonstrate some integrity and start chewing the crow?

    I believe that he can’t admit he’s wrong because too much of his ‘argument’ hinges on underestimating TCR. He’s also too heavily invested in his Master Of Science™ posturing to be able to admit that he has completely failed to understand how TCR relates to ECS despite repeated explanations. The thought of being publicly exposed and ridiculed as a poseur and a comical prat is intolerable to him.

    So he lies. And lies. And lies. In front of an unsympathetic audience. But the sniggering in the auditorium has now become outright laughter. What is poor Brad to do? How do you get out of a mess like this? The two paragraphs quoted above provide the answer:

    And I looked, and behold a spavined horse: and his name that sat on him was Gish, and Brad followed with him.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    April 7, 2013

    Wow:

    On the internet, everyone can see you pwned.

    Gosh. I guess David B. Benson, Bernard J and I are just going to have to live with the shame of not getting the same answer as a mental midget like you, Wow.

    We’ll survive. Somehow, we’ll survive.

    BBD:

    But if you don’t agree, our self-appointed Master Of Science™ will sneer that you are incapable of scientific reasoning and so forth.

    Oh come on. David, Bernard and (for the most part) myself have been nothing but gracious in vindication. Of the three of us, I’m the only one who even once rubbed your face in your error, which I only did because you keep banging on about it!

    You’re boring the readers, Dominic.

    If you’re really intent on prolonging the torture, you could at least answer the question I’ve been asking you for a couple of weeks now. Assuming an ECS of 2.5K and a current CO2 concentration of 395ppm: if a 550ppm world would be 1.8K warmer than today, how much warmer would a 400ppm world be?

    Are you ready for a 400ppm world? ;-)

  83. #83 BBD
    April 7, 2013

    You are still wrong, Brad.

  84. #84 Brad Keyes
    April 8, 2013

    BBD,

    Don’t you mean:

    You are still wrong, Brad, Bernard and David.

    ?

    Now that I have you here, let me ask:

    1. Assuming an ECS of 2.5K and a current CO2 concentration of 395ppm: if a 550ppm world would be 1.8K warmer than today, how much warmer would a 400ppm world be?

    2. What motivated you to deny CAGW a couple of years ago? Please pick the applicable statement[s]:

    – you were a cryptopatriot
    – you were a fascist who abhorred knowledge, science, intelligent thinking
    – you were the kind of fascist that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death); the kind of fascist that would destroy the planet just for the fun of it
    – you were the kind of fascist that has rape for a culture
    – paranoia was part of your syndrome, but what it was really about was this: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!”
    – you were charging money for the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather

  85. #86 David B. Benson
    April 8, 2013

    Brad Keyes — Your question is overly convoluted. For a constant 400 ppm world the equilibrium temperature increase over ca. 1850 CE temperature is

    dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2)

    with an expectation that about 55–60% of that is ‘immediate’, i.e., within decades.

  86. #87 Brad Keyes
    April 8, 2013

    David—I agree totally; but I want to see what BBD says.

    And I want to know the increase over today, not over Amish times.

    :-D

    Thanks anyway!

  87. #88 cRR Kampen
    April 8, 2013

    Still wondering what happened to the mirror when Delingpole gazed into it and found a Brad Keyes -> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100210866/an-english-class-for-trolls-professional-offence-takers-and-climate-activists/ .

  88. #89 Wow
    April 8, 2013
    On the internet, everyone can see you pwned.

    Gosh. I guess David B. Benson, Bernard J and I are just going to have to live with the shame of not getting the same answer

    Of course, there’s another class: self-pwnage, such as not knowing what pwning is, just demonstrated there.

    PS given the collapse of the corn farming in the USA, wheat farming in the USSR, lamb and potato farming in the UK and the everything farming in Aus, it seems like we aren’t ready for a 400ppm world.

  89. #90 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    David B. Benson

    Brad is being overly convoluted because he is trying to conceal the fact that he’s wrong.

    Incidentally, he has repeatedly insinuated that you *agree with* his odd ideas. # 82 is only the latest example of this. It would be useful if you objected to this behaviour. Then he might stop.

  90. #91 Lionel A
    April 8, 2013

    BBD

    Then he might stop.

    He cannot, like Delingpole he is too enamoured with his own wrecktoric.

  91. #92 Wow
    April 8, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder

    Exhibitionist behavior
    Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
    Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
    Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
    Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
    Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
    A need to be the center of attention
    Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
    Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
    Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
    Making rash decisions[4]
    Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
    Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
    Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]

    +++

    Several deniers, but mostly bray and joan seem to be entirely made of several of these tells.

  92. #93 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    Brad

    dT = 2.5ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.3C at equilibrium

    So although we’ll get to 400ppmv in a couple of years there will be ~0.5C ‘in the pipeline’ leading towards equilibrium. TCR, not ECS.

    See where you went wrong yet, Brad?

    And we aren’t going to stop at 400ppmv. Or 550ppmv, come to that. And once we get up into the 600 – 900ppmv range, even assuming a low value for ECS as we have done (purely to humour you), then there will be major warming.

    But I’m fed up with pandering to your pollyanna-ish crypto-denial. Let’s look at something more realistic:

    dT = 3 ln(800/280)/in(2) = 4.5C

  93. #94 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    2. What motivated you to deny CAGW a couple of years ago? Please pick the applicable statement[s]:

    You mean, why was I formerly a ‘lukewarmer’. Fear and denial, Brad. Fear and denial. Enabled by reading Lindzen and Spencer uncritically and without context.

    We live and learn, or at least some of us do.

    Perhaps at some point it will occur to you that the only reason I have spent so much time on you is because I was once as big a fool as you are now.

  94. #95 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    BBD,

    Don’t you mean:

    “You are still wrong, Brad, Bernard and David.”

    ?

    No. I mean *you* are still wrong Brad.

    Why do you keep pretending that others agree with your odd ideas when they obviously don’t? That’s misrepresentation. It’s dishonest and you should not do it.

  95. #96 David B. Benson
    April 8, 2013

    #93 BBD — Yes, that answers Brad‘s question.

  96. #97 BBD
    April 8, 2013

    David B. Benson & Brad Keyes

    Brad says:

    Oh come on. David, Bernard and (for the most part) myself have been nothing but gracious in vindication. Of the three of us, I’m the only one who even once rubbed your face in your error, which I only did because you keep banging on about it!

    You’re boring the readers, Dominic.

    What error?

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013

    BBD:

    But I’m fed up with pandering to your pollyanna-ish crypto-denial.

    Sorry, I’ll try to be more open about my denial. ;-)

  98. #99 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013

    BBD:

    You mean, why was I formerly a ‘lukewarmer’.

    If you were a ‘lukewarmer’ then, does that make me a ‘lukewarmer’ now? OK.

    Fear and denial, Brad. Fear and denial.

    Honestly? You were afraid of the effects of climate change? And that’s what motivated you to look for a way to discredit The Science™? And when you found it, did you feel relief from the fear?

    If this is an accurate recollection, then you were reasoning in a very silly and unscientific way. This is “motivated reasoning” (h/t Dan Kahan etc) par excellence. Notwithstanding your silliness, it must have taken great intellectual honesty to subsequently change your mind when you thought the evidence pointed towards the thing you feared. Even though you ultimately came to the wrong conclusion, I congratulate you for having the courage.

    Do you reckon your story would also apply to many, or most, other ‘lukewarmers’?

    I’d like to say I can relate to it, but I can’t. My “lukewarmism” comes from the opposite consideration, if anything: AGW may be real but it has never been remotely scary to me.

    So please be careful not to assume that I, or anyone else, rejects climate alarmism for the same reasons you once did.

    I’d be rather surprised if more than 1% of “lukewarmers” are adopting their position out of “fear and denial.” This is simply not how normal people think. No offence, BBD. It’s pathological (as I’m sure you’d agree); natural selection tends to make short work of individuals who “deny” the signs of what they “fear.”

    Enabled by reading Lindzen and Spencer uncritically and without context.

    Well, there’s your mistake right there.

    My “skepticism” comes from the work of people like Oreskes, Mann and Marcott and the practices of the IPCC. I knew CAGW was bullshit long before I was even aware that so many distinguished scientists agreed with me. I hadn’t even heard the name “Richard Lindzen.”

    Perhaps at some point it will occur to you that the only reason I have spent so much time on you is because I was once as big a fool as you are now.

    Or perhaps it will dawn on you that the only reason I spend so much time on you is that you were once as smart as me.

    The indictments you levelled against The Science™ at Bishop Hill are devastating. Ironically, because you’re not a scientist you don’t realize how good your arguments were. If you genuinely want to redeem me from my delusion then the first, minimal step is to tell me why those arguments were misguided. Why aren’t you doing that?

  99. #100 Wow
    April 9, 2013

    If you were a ‘lukewarmer’ then, does that make me a ‘lukewarmer’ now? OK.

    No. Why the hell would it?

Current ye@r *