Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013
    If you were a ‘lukewarmer’ then, does that make me a ‘lukewarmer’ now? OK.

    No. Why the hell would it?

    Er, maybe because his position in 2011 was the same as mine?

    Seriously, Wow, what compels you to answer questions on other people’s behalf and inject your ignorant and inapposite opinions into conversations you’re quite obviously not following?

    Go away, troll.

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2013

    “My “skepticism” comes from the work of people like Oreskes, Mann and Marcott and the practices of the IPCC.”

    Your denial (no quotes).
    It is strange to hit Oreskes while you should take on the vast documentation she and Conway cite in their book. You should take on Heartland Institute and such.

  3. #3 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    What error?

  4. #4 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    And Brad, claiming that Marcott is broken is ignorant fuckwittery.

  5. #5 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    Or perhaps “fuckwittage”. I leave the choice to you.

    What error?

  6. #6 BBD
    April 9, 2013

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

    Remember?

    What error?

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013

    cRR:

    It is strange to hit Oreskes

    Why?

    while you should take on the vast documentation she and Conway cite in their book. You should take on Heartland Institute and such.

    That’s a false dichotomy if ever I saw one. Whether or not Oreskes deserves to be “taken on” has no contingency on whether or not HI deserves to be “taken on.” If they’ve both told lies then they should both be “taken on.” Have they? Your comment neglects to mention any lies told by the HI, but if you know of any examples, please share them (or better yet, “take on” Heartland yourself). I happen to know Oreskes is a liar—I’ve read her lies—and since she tells her lies in service to the alarmist narrative, they matter. (It’s not clear why any lies told by the HI would have any bearing on the climate debate, at least for me, since I’ve never got my climatic information from them.)

  8. #8 BBD
    April 9, 2013

    You aren’t a scientist, Brad. You are a poseur.

    What error?

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013

    And Brad, claiming that Marcott is broken is ignorant fuckwittery.

    I didn’t claim that.

    But now that you ask, Marcott and his co-authors are dishonest demagogues. (In climate science terms, they’ve found a balance between being honest and being effective!) Compare their statements to the press with their FAQ at RealClimate. Anyone who does so cannot help but notice that “the scientists” knowingly misled the media. This is almost de rigueur for the alarmist “side” though, isn’t it?

    People notice this. People stop trusting. People stop believing. Thus the supposed Faustian exchange of honesty for effectiveness is literally counterproductive—charlatans like Marcott wind up being neither honest nor effective. They drive the public away from alarmism.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    April 9, 2013

    BBD:

    You aren’t a scientist, Brad. You are a poseur.

    What error?

    The error of insisting my answer (1.2K) was wrong. It wasn’t wrong. It was right. And I’m not the only person who’s pointed this out to you. Why would you voluntarily keep returning to this subject, BBD? I don’t understand what you hope to achieve thereby.

  11. #11 BBD
    April 10, 2013

    Come on, Brad

    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?

    Yours, perhaps?

    ;-)

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    April 10, 2013

    What error?

    I just told you!

    What part of comment #10 don’t you understand? Tell me, and I’ll try to rephrase it in shorter words. Help me help you, BBD.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    April 10, 2013

    Keyes at #99:

    My “skepticism” comes from the work of people like Oreskes, Mann and Marcott and the practices of the IPCC.

    My “skepticism” comes from my interpretation of the interpretations of deniers & delayers [1[ of the work of people like Oreskes, Mann and Marcott and the practices of the IPCC

    [1] and downright obfuscaters who also like to engage in the type the of word games that I do

    Helicopters that have lost their tail rotors show less spin than you. You truly are another Delingpole.

    It seems that you still do not understand the work of the IPCC.

    Richard Lindzen BTW has been mentioned many times here, probably in this thread and a number of open threads. That you have never heard of Richard Lindzen demonstrates not only you arguing from ignorance but also your overbearing arrogance by not paying proper attention to the replies of others.

    For your education, and this is just a starter, If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it. which you so clearly need.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    April 10, 2013

    Lionel,

    It seems that you still do not understand the work of the IPCC.

    Please elaborate.

    That you have never heard of Richard Lindzen demonstrates not only you (sic) arguing from ignorance but also your overbearing arrogance by not paying proper attention to the replies of others

    That I’ve “never heard of” the world’s foremost atmospheric scientist is a figment of your imagination. What inspired you to synthesise that factoid, Lionel? Did your incredulity about my incredulity cause you to misread the following sentences, perchance? (Hint: I use the past tense because I’m recounting my 20s.)

    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.”

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    April 10, 2013

    Lionel,

    For your education, and this is just a starter, If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it. which you so clearly need.

    What a bizarre post you’ve linked me to! Its whole premise is so silly, only a truly religious mind could accept it. Rabbi Rabett wants us to believe Roger Revelle was never a denier in spite of the facts that:

    - Professor Revelle made his anti-alarmist views known on a number of occasions, e.g. in Omni in 1984:

    I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21%. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can’t absolutely say. … Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants … you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates. … People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes … .

    - in 1991, Professor Revelle co-authored an article with his friends, the prominent deniers Chauncey Starr and Fred Singer, titled “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap,” in which they argued that there was no evidence to justify a war on carbon dioxide

    - the rumour that Revelle was actually an alarmist was the invention of Justin Lancaster, who has grovellingly conceded the falseness thereof! To quote Laurence Solomon:

    One year later, with Al Gore running for vice-president in the 1992 presidential election, the inconsistency between Gore’s pronouncements — he claimed that the “science was settled” then, too — and those of his mentor became national news. Gore responded with a withering attack, leading to claims that Dr. Revelle had become senile before his death, that Dr. Singer had duped Dr. Revelle into co-authoring the article, and that Dr. Singer had listed Dr. Revelle as a co-author over his objections. The sordid accusations ended in a defamation suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore’s academic hit man…

    Here is Justin Lancaster’s apology—you and Eli should read it, twice if necessary:

    The late Professor Roger Revelle was a true and voluntary coauthor of the article entitled “What To Do About GreenhouseWarming: Look Before You Leap,” along with Professor S. Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. The article was published in April 1991 in the inaugural issue of Cosmos, the journal of the Cosmos Club of Washington, D.C. I retract as being unwarranted any and all statements, oral or written, I have made which state or imply that Professor Revelle was not a true and voluntary coauthor of the Cosmos article, or which in any other way impugn or malign the conduct or motives of Professor Singer with regard to the Cosmos article (including but not limited to its drafting, editing, publication, republication, and circulation). I agree not to make any such statements in future. I fully and unequivocally retract and disclaim those statements and their implications about the conduct, character, and ethics of Professor Singer, and I apologize to Professor Singer for the pain my conduct has caused him and for any damage that I
    may have caused to his reputation. To the extent that others, including Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D., Edward A. Frieman, Ph.D., and Walter H. Munk, Ph.D., relied on my statements to make similar statements and insinuations, I also apologize to Professor Singer.

    I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation costs to resolve this matter.

    /s/ Justin Lancaster

    Dated April 29th, 1994.

    Surely, surely, you’re not going to persevere in peddling a grubby libel long since disavowed by its own author, are you Lionel?! I mean, I trust you do have the rudimentary interpersonal competence to realise that this kind of episode does nothing whatsoever to help your “side.” Right?

    Crap like this, and worse still your endorsement of it, can only bring climate alarmism into disrepute.

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    April 11, 2013

    Over on the April thread, bill lays out the anthropogenist counterargument to the rival theory of cosmoclimatology:

    And, seriously, Svensmark? You’re cracking me up!

    LOL.

    It’s ad hominems all the way down with you people, isn’t it?

    You’ve gotta love bill’s “argument” (of sorts). It really does preserve in amber the fundamental “logic” of the alarmist movement as a whole, doesn’t it?

    We Should Listen to What the Scientists Are Telling Us!

    Unless They Tell Us Something Else, In Which Case They’re Cranks and Should Be Ignored!

  17. #18 Wow
    April 11, 2013
    What error?

    I just told you!

    What part of comment #10 don’t you understand?

    What part about comment #11 don’t you understand?

    Of the three of us, I’m the only one who even once rubbed your face in your error

    Your comment #10 had nothing about BBDs “error” that you claim to have rubbed his nose in.

  18. #19 Lionel A
    April 11, 2013

    Keyes. Here at #99 you wrote:

    I hadn’t even heard the name “Richard Lindzen.”

    Yes Mr Jelly, for discussing with you is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall, that is exactly what I picked up on and you are making assumptions as to my meaning for it is clear that you were not aware of the track record of one Richard Lindzen when you began arguing from ignorance.

    As is clear from your next post #15 where you wrote:

    Surely, surely, you’re not going to persevere in peddling a grubby libel long since disavowed by its own author, are you Lionel?

    I would go and recheck on that one Brad, for that information is out of date.

    Over to you, I have lots on my plate right now certainly too much to waste any more time with a waster like you..

    Admit it Brad, your knowledge here is both narrow and shallow in time and if you spent more time reading up on the science, how it has been done and on the long history of the denial machine (modelled on tobacco, CFC, asbestos and acid rain propaganda) then you would not find us so hostile.

  19. #20 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    Aye, when it comes to “the three little monkeys”, Bray is a master.

    Doesn’t check up on denier “science” so that he can hear no evil, see no evil and hear no evil from the denier side.

    Except he somehow “knows” how the actual scientists are abusing science. But ONLY that. Nobody else.

  20. #21 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    Brad

    Your error was to misunderstand the way TCR evolves towards equilibrium. Everybody here – including you – knows perfectly well what you did.

    Your absolute inability to admit that you screwed up over the basics because you are clueless is hilarious.

    Just admit your error, Brad! Then the mockery will end!

    Until then, we will continue to laugh at you for being an obviously dishonest fuckwit…

    ;-)

  21. #22 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    Marcott misled nobody. The only people who got fooled are the morons like you who

    - didn’t understand (or even read) the paper

    - know fuck-all about paleoclimate anyway

    - are victims and dupes of liars like McI and Watts

    Fuckwittery or fuckwittage? You didn’t choose how your stupidity should be described so I’ll pick…

    Fuckwittery, I think, on balance.

  22. #23 BBD
    April 11, 2013

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

    Although there’s a case for fuckwittage, isn’t there? It’s a tough call.

  23. #24 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    # 16 Brad

    Don’t make an even bigger prat out of yourself than you already have.

    Actually, too late. You just described “cosmoclimatology” (aka the Svensmark hypothesis) as a “rival theory” to the standard position. It is neither a rival, nor a theory.

    We know you are clueless. There is no need to advertise the fact at full volume.

  24. #25 Lionel A
    April 11, 2013

    cRR Kampen

    bradthing #15, forget it.

    Bet he cannot and won’t. After all he knows he is right without bothering to track down the full story.

    And he quote Laurence Solomon to boot.

    Stop it Keyes. You are cracking me up. With your ignorance increasingly on display.

  25. #26 David B. Benson
    April 12, 2013

    This is the final century of human history. By century’s close enough coal will have be burnt to start an
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

    The End.

  26. #27 Lionel A
    April 12, 2013

    We Should Listen to What the Scientists Are Telling Us!

    Indeed WE do.

    Unlike you we do not use the interpretations of agenda driven, and basically dishonest if not simply confused, intermediaries from which to interpret further.

    Also, we have been studying this topic long enough to be able to winnow out those few scientists who are barking up the wrong trees, or just barking.

    Svensmark has rebutted again and again, over the last 20 years Lindzen has not managed to produce one study which has withstood the test of scrutiny over time – and yet he still calls for low climate sensitivity. This latter of course appeals to you as demonstrated in your posts here.

    I expect you to deny that latter using nothing better than more seismic semantics and rhetorical sophistry.

    There is a description of why Svensmark’s conclusions WRT GCRs and climate are suspect in this book (amongst many others of course),:
    Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach by William James Burroughs and I suggest you find a copy and read it note the implication in the title of ‘Multidisciplinary’.

    That is why it takes a body like the IPCC to review all relevant input from a vast body of knowledge. All you and your ilk have achieved is nit-picking for you cannot challenge the main body of the science, incomplete as all science is at any moment in time with caveats acknowledged.

    And there is plenty rebutting Lindzen if only you would ‘open your eyes’ and look with honesty. You need to do so much homework across the board.

  27. #28 BBD
    April 12, 2013

    You need to do so much homework across the board.

    Starting with the basics, eh Brad?

    ;-)

  28. #29 Brad Keyes
    April 13, 2013

    Lionel:

    I hadn’t even heard the name “Richard Lindzen.”

    Yes Mr Jelly, for discussing with you is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall, that is exactly what I picked up on and you are making assumptions as to my meaning for it is clear that you were not aware of the track record of one Richard Lindzen when you began arguing from ignorance.

    This criticism, while fallacious, is quite revealing.

    What it reveals to me is that, in your mind, the “track record” of CAGW deniers like Professor Lindzen constitutes a reason to believe in CAGW. Therefore I shouldn’t have dismissed the idea without first doing some research into the background of the distinguished scientists who shared my incredulity.

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense, of course! CAGW is either a good hypothesis or it isn’t, and if there’s no evidence for it then it makes no difference whatsoever if the scholars who recognize this fact are all genocidal liars. (Not that there’s anything to indicate that they are—though I think they’d need to be, in order for your worldview to be true.)

    When it dawns on you that CAGW is make-believe, which aspect will appall you most: the fact that Thousands of the World’s Leading Scientists™ were wrong, or that a tiny but vocal minority of industry-linked contrarian cranks were right?

    Surely, surely, you’re not going to persevere in peddling a grubby libel long since disavowed by its own author, are you Lionel?

    I would go and recheck on that one Brad, for that information is out of date.

    LOL. Well, naturally: Justin Lancaster, the liar who slandered the eminent scientist S. Fred Singer, has since retracted his retraction of his slander—but what does that make him? “Credible” is not the word that springs to mind, at least not to my mind. Does it spring to your mind, Lionel?

  29. #30 David B. Benson
    April 14, 2013

    #29: In which we learn that Brad Keyes is completely delusional.

    Also uses adjectives incorrectly: notorious lying does not make one eminent.

  30. #31 bill
    April 14, 2013

    S. Fred is certainly a fellow after Prince Pseud’s own heart…

  31. #32 Brad Keyes
    April 14, 2013

    David

    —you’re haemorrhaging respect by saying things like:

    “Brad Keyes is completely delusional.”

    In your defence, you may not know what delusionality entails, so let me put it in layman’s terms: a delusion is a disconnect between data and belief. A delusion, by its very nature, is incorrigible—the psychotic patient doesn’t change his mind no matter how much information is presented to him.

    So your insult is hard to justify. But perhaps you wouldn’t come across so churlishly and childishly if you specified the delusion[s] you believe I expressed in my comment.

    My disbelief in CAGW cannot, almost by definition, be delusional, since CAGW has yet to occur. If it ever does occur, then anyone who still refuses to believe in it will indeed merit some kind of psychiatric diagnosis.

    Or is it my description of Richard Lindzen as “distinguished” that you consider delusional? Lindzen’s prominence in academia—at MIT, no less—and his extensive list of credentials, awards and publications led me directly to that adjective. If I reproduced that extensive list here, and you still begrudged Lindzen the epithet “distinguished,” then it would be you, not I, who was exhibiting delusionality.
    “Also uses adjectives incorrectly: notorious lying does not make one eminent.”
    Another bizarre indictment. The conspicuous reality, which readers can verify for themselves at a glance, is that nobody has supplied in this thread a single example of Fred Singer lying. Again, I would have to be psychotic to persist in calling him “eminent” in the face of a list of examples of infamous behavior on Singer’s part. But there is no such list, as far as I know. Even you fail to provide a single example of Fred Singer lying. Why? It looks bad. Bad for you, I mean—not bad for Fred Singer.

  32. #33 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    “What it reveals to me is that, in your mind, the “track record” of CAGW deniers like Professor Lindzen constitutes a reason to believe in CAGW”

    Well, according to you, “the track record” of the scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann constitute a reason to believe in the denialism of the likes of Linzen.

  33. #34 Lionel A
    April 14, 2013

    What it reveals to me is that,…

    Ah, another interpreter of interpretations who relies upon revelations. Now there’s a surprise.

    LOL. Well, naturally: Justin Lancaster, the liar who slandered the eminent scientist S. Fred Singer, has since retracted his retraction of his slander—but what does that make him? “Credible” is not the word that springs to mind, at least not to my mind. Does it spring to your mind, Lionel?

    Did you just describe Justin Lancaster as a liar?

    Are you aware of the circumstances that forced Lancaster to bow under threats from Singer acting the bully?

    If not then that is another indicator of your neophyte rank WRT all issues surrounding the science of climate change and of its attempted suppression and, failing that distortion by the usual suspects. It seems that you are not familiar with the ranks of those latter.

    If you are aware of Lancaster’s circumstances then you are no better than S Fred. In other words ‘a piece of work’.

    Of course as far as you are concerned ‘neophyte’ and ‘a piece of work’ are not mutually exclusive as this sorry thread amply demonstrates.

  34. #35 Brad Keyes
    April 14, 2013

    Did you just describe Justin Lancaster as a liar?

    Yes. Lancaster’s own signed retraction concedes that his defamatory claims about Singer had been falsehoods, apologises for them and promises never to repeat them. (A promise he has since broken. Is that the behaviour of an honest person?)

    Are you aware of the circumstances that forced Lancaster to bow under threats from Singer acting the bully?

    You mean the circumstances under which Lancaster, with the full support of the Vice President’s office, repeatedly and admittedly lied about Singer, ignored requests and advice to stop lying, and ultimately left Singer with no choice but to initiate legal proceedings against him for defamation? You mean the circumstances under which Lancaster, himself a lawyer, with the continued full support of the Vice President’s office, was represented pro bono by the Boston law firm of Goodwin Procter and Hoar? You mean the string of damning discoveries that emerged in the course of the trial and forced Lancaster’s attorneys to phone Professor Singer and say that their client was ready to sign a full retraction and apology for his defamatory claims? Yes. I’ve read about all these circumstances from both sides. Have you? They restore some of my faith in the legal system. Or as Singer puts it:

    “More positively, my experience shows that an individual sci- entist depending on the due process of the country’s legal system and the independence of the news media (or at least some of its members) can oppose the politically powerful.”

  35. #36 Brad Keyes
    April 14, 2013

    Wow:

    Well, according to you, “the track record” of the scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann constitute a reason to believe in the denialism of the likes of Linzen.

    Obviously. When the scientific proponents of a theory conduct their research without a shred of probity or good faith, that’s obviously a reason to entertain serious doubts as to the truth of the theory. Well, this is obvious to me. Perhaps you’re happy to believe things on the authority of dishonest scientists; I’m not.

    And no, the converse is not true. The burden of evidence is not symmetrical in science, as you’d know if you’d gone to college and learned how science works. That’s why it’s a comical waste of energy when you rave about how deniers don’t have a theory of their own, or can’t prove that climate change is harmless, or won’t reveal who funds them, or aren’t angels. So what? LOL… what confused arguments you make when you don’t know how science works!

  36. #37 BBD
    April 14, 2013

    Now Brad is pretending that he didn’t screw up and then lie about it.

    He’s pretending that we don’t know he’s a dishonest clown.

    He’s fooling nobody!

    ;-)

  37. #38 Brad Keyes
    April 14, 2013

    What are you going on about this time, Dominic?

  38. #39 BBD
    April 14, 2013

    Singer, in an article he wrote for the misleadingly-titled American Thinker:

    The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean.

    That’s three lies in two consecutive sentences.

  39. #40 Lionel A
    April 14, 2013

    Did you bother to read at cRR Kampen’s link here?
    And yes I have read both sides, and given Singer’s record I know who not to believe. Singer and his other half Candace Crandall , given that latter’s penchant for creative writing, something you know much about given YOUR record here.

    Now, was this quote from Singer supposed to be irony, for that i9s what it most certainly is:

    “More positively, my experience shows that an individual sci- entist depending on the due process of the country’s legal system and the independence of the news media (or at least some of its members) can oppose the politically powerful.”

    given the influence fossil fuel funding has on the way the truth about just about anything about this topic is buried and also the very fact that Singer could have buried Lancaster, who was at a critical junctures in both family and career, with legal fees with Singer being bankrolled by black money as far as needed.

    Some lawyers may have the highest ethical principles but others not so much. Where those representing Exxon to achieve what is reported at this heading ‘Because ‘Bitumen is not Oil,’ Pipelines Carrying Tar Sands Crude Don’t Pay into US Oil Spill Fund (I have no more links available this post so you will have to do some walking) tells me that those lawyers belong to the ‘not so much’.

    It matters not which argument is presented you turn it inside out. Your brain needs a rewire.

  40. #41 Lionel A
    April 14, 2013

    On Singer-Revelle-Lasncaster

    Keyes, you should have a look at this article which has some helpful replies to dispell some of that darkness that surrounds you The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story.

    You are barking up the wrong tree as a recent comment from Justin Lancaster (if the same and not an impersonator) makes absolutely clear . Be careful if considering reading the blog itself as it is created by someone not only conspiracy impaired but of poor visual taste.

    I will quote Lancaster’s statement in case it falls into a memory hole for it already appears that items relating to this particular aspect (e.g. Singer in Rolling Stones’ list of Climate Killers) have been vanished where not even Wayback works. It seems that the tools are working feverishly to disappear anything that could be used in a Delingpole style trial.

    “Utterly fascinating”??!! Why? I showed S. Fred Singer’s sworn testimony to Mr. Gelbspan in the 1990s, in which Singer admits that he wrote the Cosmos article with his cronies and that Revelle’s only contribution to the writing of the article occurred upon review of the galley proofs. Those proofs have notations in Revelle’s handwriting that evidence he thought warming in 21st century would be in range of 2-3 degrees Celsius, completely inconsistent with the language in the published article. Revelle’s participation was manipulated and then further abused after his death. I’ve not a shred of doubt that this was engineered and executed for the specific purpose of undermining Al Gore’s influence on the AGW issue. The article was read into the Congressional Record and then spoonfed to Admiral Stockdale for the VP debate.

    Justin Lancaster
    March 1, 2013

    Note the date. Now you go find the Cosmos Galley proofs. If you cannot I can.

    OK. I ain’t going to piss about like you do here you are .

  41. #42 BBD
    April 14, 2013

    And what does our self-styled Master Of Science™ do? Why, he makes a prat out of himself (again)!

    Perhaps you’re happy to believe things on the authority of dishonest scientists; I’m not.

    One has to smile. Okay, snigger.

  42. #43 Lionel A
    April 14, 2013

    Perhaps Keyes could name these alleged ‘dishonest scientists’ and by whose interpretation he has interpreted this state.

    After all Keyes keeps wittering on about honesty, bizarre indictments and much else. Maybe whilst looking in the mirror, or through it like Alice.

  43. #44 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    “Perhaps you’re happy to believe things on the authority of dishonest scientists; I’m not.”

    It’s easy for him, though: he just is a contrarian. Gets attention.

  44. #45 David B. Benson
    April 15, 2013

    Delusion
    an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder: the delusion of being watched from
    http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/delusion

    I stand by my characterization.

  45. #46 David B. Benson
    April 15, 2013

    Nor does Brad Keyes understand why we
    http://eyes4earth.org/dont-kill-the-messenger/

  46. #47 David B. Benson
    April 15, 2013

    Nor why SInger is notorious:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Second-hand_smoke

    But it could be he actually believes what he said, so I don’t know whether or not he is lying. I don’t have a word for
    lying-or-delusional.

  47. #48 cRR Kampen
    April 15, 2013

    #46, lying and being paid for it. In deciding cases like this, there are two choices: lying, or being deluded. If one S. Fred Singer wants to be respected as a scientist instead of being done away with as being demented of outright dumb, then we simply KNOW he’s a liar. So what people like that want to be called is, within these only two options, their choice.

  48. #49 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Lionel,

    I suppose you’re moved by this kind of excuse:

    “I conceded then in the maw of the SLAPP suit brought against me by energy-industry-backed interests, but in 2006 I fully and unequivocally recanted the earlier retraction and published the evidence that supports the truth of my original statements that brought this matter to light.”

    It certainly presses all the ideological and emotional buttons: rather than admit he was sued by a human being defending his scientific integrity from vilification, Lancaster pretends he was sued by “energy-industry-backed interests” and further dehumanises Singer with a zoomorphic metaphor (“maw”).

    Lancaster was in the very maw of the interests! The poor diddums. He did what he had to do—what any man at a critical family and career juncture would do—to survive The Maw!

    Yeah right. I regard Lancaster’s backflip as exactly what it is: the tergiversation of a lying loser who cried uncle as soon as his attorneys saw how damning the evidence was.

    He says:

    “Revelle’s actual, participatory, authorship cannot be demonstrated beyond a single review of the galley proof, a lengthy session for Roger at a time when his physical ability to pay attention for many minutes was severely eroded.”

    Can’t you see that in this sentence, Lancaster gives the whole game away? This sentence concedes that Revelle’s “actual, participatory authorship” can be demonstrated. As indeed it has been. Revelle knew what the article was going to say; he spent “a lengthy session” reviewing it and contributing improvements, but without disagreeing over the key claims or conclusions; and at no stage did he ask his co-authors to remove his name from it. All this happened during a period when Revelle was lucid and vital enough to maintain a busy speaking schedule and to author his own book on ocean temperatures—as his secretary’s affidavit reminds us. The idea that Revelle, “the leading global warming scientist and science statesman of the 20th century, with an impeccable reputation for scientific objectivity” was some sort of delirious and suggestible geriatric who didn’t comprehend what he was putting his name to is demeaning and incredible.

    Revelle’s name is on the Singer, Revelle, Starr article.

    Lancaster admitted, in writing, that Revelle was a true and voluntary co-author, and that any suggestion to the contrary was a false and regrettable slur on Singer’s and Starr’s good names.

    Lancaster’s name is on Lancaster’s confession.

    Case closed.

    QED.

    Lancaster’s childish urge to reopen the case, 15 years later, by insisting that he’d had his fingers crossed when he retracted his claims is pathetic. You seem to believe him, for whatever reason, when he says he was lying when he confessed to lying about the article; I don’t. I think his confession was true. I think he’s lying when he claims to have been lying when he confessed to lying. That’s what liars do.

    Singer could have buried Lancaster, who was at a critical junctures in both family and career, with legal fees with Singer being bankrolled by black money as far as needed.”

    What are you going on about? Lancaster was represented by a Boston law firm pro bono. (Not surprisingly, as he was expressly doing the bidding of a powerful Senator and future Vice President of the United States of America.)

    The trial cost Singer, not Lancaster, a great deal of money, for which Lancaster apologised in his formal retraction:

    “I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation costs to resolve this matter.”

    I don’t suppose there’s any point asking you what and whose and how much “black money” you imagine was reimbursing Professor Singer for the expense of dragging Lancaster through the courts, is there, since you’ve already immunised yourself against the question by calling the money “black.” In other words you have no idea if the money even existed, do you, and certainly no evidence, but that’s OK, because your assertion was impossible to verify by its very nature! Ho ho. Well weaseled, old chap.

    (I must remember these cheap rhetorical kluges in case I ever need to defend an insupportable opinion one day.)

  49. #50 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Lionel,

    It seems that the tools are working feverishly to disappear anything that could be used in a Delingpole style trial.

    LOL. That’s some impressive ideation there, mate!

  50. #51 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    # 38 Brad Keyes

    Still maintaining the dishonest pretence that you didn’t screw up horribly over the basics?

    Why? Nobody is fooled by it.

    We all know what I am talking about :-)

    If you continue to pretend – dishonestly – that you don’t know what I am referring to then I will re-post the relevant comments. Repeatedly.

    I seem to recall your dishonesty and evasiveness forcing me to do this on several previous occasions!

  51. #52 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    And Brad, why no mention of # 39 and # 42?

    You are continuing to make a prat out of yourself.

    Even the clueless can see this, so long as someone else does the complicated stuff for them:

    Satellite tropospheric temp, SST, OHC; trend 1978 – 2000

  52. #53 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    David:

    Nor why SInger is notorious:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Second-hand_smoke

    But it could be he actually believes what he said, so I don’t know whether or not he is lying.

    Excuse me? Lying, David?

    I can’t help but notice that you fail to mention what part of Singer’s reply to the EPA paper was false. Presumably you can’t actually put your finger on any particular falsehood in Singer’s argument, but deem it sufficient simply to say that he was arguing against a report that alleged second-hand smoking was causing an epidemic of deaths. Let me guess: it’s immoral prima facie to disagree with such a claim, right?

    With all due respect, bullshit. You’re going to have to do a lot better, David. You appear to have no evidence whatsoever that Singer wrote anything untrue, and your link provides no such evidence. From where I sit, and until you can say why this isn’t the case, the EPA paper (now discredited, thanks to Singer and others) was joke science, a disservice to epidemiology and an insult to the real victims of tobacco (smokers). The vulgar sentiment whereby it’s morally excusable to exaggerate and fabricate evidence against a known evil like Big Tobacco is irrational and anti-scientific nonsense. That way madness lies.

    If Singer’s work forced a correction in public-health thinking, then Singer did a good thing for humankind. He did the most a scientist can ever do.

    I repeat: there is no excuse for sloppy epidemiology. Once we allow the public-health literature to be contaminated by fictions, no matter how well they align with our gut ethics, only bad things can happen. The true burden of disease is inevitably obfuscated; mortality is attributed to the wrong factors; preventative funds are misallocated; public health initiatives are falsely aimed; people die.

    There is nothing noble about noble corruption. Not in science, anyway.

    And just to be clear, though I find it mildly appalling that this clarification should even be necessary, I fully share S. Fred Singer’s abhorrence for cigarettes. The sourcewatch character assassination you kindly linked me to points out:

    In December 2010 [Singer] wrote in American Thinker that he is nonsmoker who finds second-hand smoke an unpleasant irritant that cannot be healthy; he also wrote that his father, a heavy smoker, died of emphysema when relatively young.

  53. #54 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    Keyes,

    Can’t you see that in this sentence, Lancaster gives the whole game away? This sentence concedes that Revelle’s “actual, participatory authorship” can be demonstrated.

    How the hell can you assert that emphasised when we see in the below also emphasised:

    Revelle’s actual, participatory, authorship cannot be demonstrated beyond a single review of the galley proof, a lengthy session for Roger at a time when his physical ability to pay attention for many minutes was severely eroded.”

    Your assertions here are a gross inversion of reality. Either through continuing ignorance or mendacity.

    from #50

    LOL. That’s some impressive ideation there, mate!

    So, shredders, and their electronic equivalents, are a figment of my imagination!

    You are a condescending twerp as David was recently reminded with your use of

    …so let me put it in layman’s terms: a delusion is a disconnect between data and belief.

    , this clearly from a Master of Knowledge in every field of human endeavour, or rather one who thinks he is.

    You sure know ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ [1]. NOT.

    I have noticed, as have others, that many documents are vanishing from easy access, this is fact and nothing to do with theory.

    [1] I recall a book of that title, as a kid I noted a ‘sailor’ aboard ‘HMS Prince of Wales’ reading such a book in the film ‘Sink the Bismark’, maybe you should look out a copy of that book ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ by Dale Carnegie.

  54. #55 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    BBD:

    “And Brad, why no mention of # 39 and # 42?”

    Because my world doesn’t revolve around you, BBD.

    But since I’ve got nothing better to do right now, let me satisfy your longing for attention:

    #39:

    I agree, Singer is lying-or-delusional, as David B. Benson would put it. In a word, “wrong.”

    As far as I know, all up-to-date satellite records show a rise from 1978 to 2001 in the metrics mentioned. I don’t really follow that part of Singer’s argument; just a few paragraphs earlier he mentions that there was global warming from 1970 to 2000, so the paragraph in question doesn’t seem to develop any particular idea. It looks almost like an unfinished draft. One has to wonder if the editor was asleep on the job.

    #42:

    You’re lying-or-delusional, as David B. Benson would put it. In a word, “wrong.” You do know what the word “self-styled” means, right? I didn’t style myself “Master of Science™.” You came up with that epithet. I’m a BBD-styled Master of Science™, not a self-styled Master as you falsely assert.

    But don’t beat yourself up about it, BBD—everyone is lying-or-delusional about something, sometimes, occasionally, as David B. Benson would put it. Errare humanum est. :-)

    If you continue to pretend – dishonestly – that you don’t know what I am referring to then I will re-post the relevant comments. Repeatedly.

    I seem to recall your dishonesty and evasiveness forcing me to do this on several previous occasions!

    Oh, nobody here doubts your threats of spamming this thread with monotonous trivia. We believe you. You’ve proven time and time again your freedom from the normal psychosocial constraints against boring everybody in a ten-mile radius. What was that perfect phrase David B. Benson came up with when you last suffered—or indulged—one of your OCD episodes… “incredibly tedious”? “Unbearably tedious”? “Unbelievably tedious”?

  55. #56 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Oh, Lionel, you forgot the ™.

    You’ll please address me as Master of Knowledge™.

    One of the things I Know™ is that Justin Lancaster is a trained attorney, on top of being an obscure scientist. (He even tried to represent himself against Fred Singer at one point, confirming the truth of a well-known adage, before a high-flying Boston law firm stepped in to represent him pro bono. Did I mention this was on a free, or so-called pro bono, basis? Which makes rather a meal of your short-lived suggestion that he disingenuously apologised and confessed because he couldn’t afford to keep contesting the lawsuit!)

    With his training in the forensic arts, it must have been child’s play for Lancaster to contrive the sentence that’s so successfully deluded you, Lionel:

    Revelle’s actual, participatory, authorship cannot be demonstrated beyond a single review of the galley proof, a lengthy session for Roger at a time when his physical ability to pay attention for many minutes was severely eroded.

    Now, I do appreciate that if you read only the words you put in bold, they must imply to you that Revelle’s authorship cannot be demonstrated. But what you don’t know is that you’ve just fallen for a couple of classic verbal tricks that go back (at least) to Cicero.

    1. Lancaster’s phrasing tacitly shifts the burden of proof from his own defence, where it belongs, to the plaintiff’s case, where it doesn’t belong. It isn’t up to Singer, or anyone else, and it never was up to anyone else, to prove Revelle’s true and participatory authorship of the article. This is a red herring. Lancaster is the party that had repeatedly and prominently impugned Singer’s and Starr’s integrity by bruiting the meme that Revelle had been manipulated into allowing his name to be associated with the article “over Revelle’s objections.” The only party under any obligation to prove anything is, therefore, Lancaster.

    2. Lancaster’s phrasing also obfuscates the fact that he had no defence. You’d understand this if you kept reading—don’t just look at the words in bold. Keep going. Heck, I’ll make it even easier for you—let me rearrange the sentence, without doing violence to the semantics, in such a way as to reveal even to the most docile and brachyopic reader that which Lancaster would prefer remained hidden:

    Revelle’s actual, participatory, authorship can only be demonstrated by a single review of the galley proof, which he annotated in a lengthy session at a time when his physical ability to pay attention for many minutes was severely eroded.

    Clear now?

    I have noticed, as have others, that many documents are vanishing from easy access, this is fact and nothing to do with theory.

    Yeah, and I’ve noticed that my comments at SkS-controlled sites have a tendency to go down the memory hole a few minutes or days after I submit them. I’m hardly alone in noticing this. Other skeptical commenters have had their entire contributions deleted. This is fact, not theory.

    Speaking of which, I’ve also noticed that I keep losing pens. This is evidently a common experience.

    And socks. I always wind up with an odd number of socks. I don’t know why. I just know it’s true. Other people report the same baffling phenomenon.

    Have you noticed this too? You’re not going crazy. What would be crazy, though, is if you attributed these data to a big conspiracy. Like when you claim documents are disappearing because the forces of Denial are doing a last-minute shred in anticipation of a big tobacco-style, Delingpolesque Trial of the Century. We’re not. I hate to break it to you, but we lack that kind of basic organisational capacity. We couldn’t organise a chook raffle, to tell the truth. Your conspiracy theory be crazy. You crazy, L-dog.

  56. #57 Jeff Harvey
    April 15, 2013

    “…regrettable slur on Singer’s and Starr’s good names”

    Since wheh has Fred Singer had a ‘good’ name, Brad? IMHO the guy’s as greasy as they come. His association with some of the most sordidly anti-environmental groups and think tanks just lends weight to that.

    Now I rarely write in to your thread, but that comment was so utterly naive that it demanded a riposte…

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    April 15, 2013

    This Sourcewatch article sums up Fred Singer’s ‘good name’:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

    Next thing you know Brad will be telling us that Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, John Negroponte, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfotize, Donald Rumsfeld and a coterie of other neocons all have ‘good names’. From there we will go to a list of thugs and tyrants the US supported, all of whom had ‘good names’: Pinochet, Suhartu, Montt, the Shah, Marcos, Mbutu, and a rogue’s gallery of others.

  58. #59 Jeff Harvey
    April 15, 2013

    and please excuse the spelling gaffes, although ‘Wolfotize’ sounds better than ‘Wolfowitz’!!!!!

  59. #60 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Speaking of emphysema, this might be a good time to remind you people that when Justin Lancaster defamed Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr, he did it out of loyalty to a guy who said:

    “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco…I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.

    This psychopath kept selling tobacco long after his own sister died, in front of his eyes, from lung cancer. This psychopath was still selling tobacco just 2 short years before he was sworn in as Vice President of the United States of America. This psychopath has never scrupled to blacken the name of his critics with spurious links to Big Tobacco. Oh, and this psychopath retains the admiration and loyalty of some of your favourite whores in the climate-science world.

  60. #61 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    Brad

    Something is troubling me. You claim to have read and understood Merchants of Doubt. Much is written therein about S. Fred, none of it complimentary. In fact there are twenty-four (24) references under “Singer, S. Fred” in the index. Twenty-four.

    Either you lied about having read this book, or your reading comprehension is abysmal.

  61. #62 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    Here’s another pretty picture for you:

    Tropospheric T (UAH; satellite) and SST; trend 1978 – 2000

  62. #63 BBD
    April 15, 2013

    Lest we forget:

    The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean.

    Here’s S. Fred churning out the same lies about a year previously, also in American Drinker:

    But the main reason I have remained a skeptic is that the atmosphere, unlike the land surface, has shown no warming during the crucial period (1978-1997), either over land or over ocean, according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons.

    Given the evidence, S. Fred has no basis for remaining a “skeptic” at all!

  63. #64 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    BBD:

    While we ponder this, let’s return to the more fundamentally interesting question of what a warm “MWP” really means for fake sceptics.

    What it really means for CAGW deniers—indeed for anyone capable of logical reflection—is that we’ve been warmer within civilised memory and the world didn’t come to an end. If anything, we flourished. And therefore the historically-literate citizen has no reason to lose sleep over global warming.

    No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have. They’re terrified that if such a vision of history is allowed to become mainstream, the public will get the wrong idea and stop panicking.

    And no, contrary to your frivolous “reasoning,” the reality of a globally warm MWP would not be a problem for the people you call “fake skeptics.” Such a reality would not imply the climate was more “sensitive” to carbon dioxide than anyone thought! You cannot be serious. Use your brain for half a second, BBD. A second, max. If you still don’t get how fallacious this whole line of argument is I’ll explain it to you. Slowly.

    Finally, it’s not at all clear that the MWP would have to be a global, synchronous occurrence in order to have the aforementioned ramifications*. Suppose for the sake of argument that the Northern hemisphere enjoyed warmer-than-present temperatures from 1100 to 1200, whereas the Southern hemisphere enjoyed warmer-than-present temperatures from 1200 to 1300. Then it remains a trivially obvious truth that, no matter what country you live in, it’s been warmer within the last 800 years at most. Your local ecosystem didn’t collapse. Your local human civilisation, which is supposedly so fragile that it requires a razor-thin range of temperatures, survived. So we have empirical proof that we can safely afford to be warmer. No matter where you live, the experiment has been performed; the results are unequivocal and reassuring.

    * Unless I’m overlooking something, there would only be one material difference between a synchronous, global MWP in both hemispheres and a “staggered” MWP. Namely, that in the former scenario global sea levels would be expected to be higher, all things being equal, due to thermal expansion. Please tell me if I’m missing something here.

  64. #65 cRR Kampen
    April 15, 2013

    #56, ‘to wolfotize’. It sounds like some despicable act. Is this the term for Keyes’ methodology?
    Jeff Harvey’s excellent usual suspects rogue list in #55 includes what I call the neoconpolitburo, that is today instrumental in keeping a certain concentration camp on Cuba operative. Least of their disgusting record. Between them they’ve had their gleeful hand in killing millions, if not dozens of millions (actually some genocide scholars consider Reagan the greatest single killer of the century, yes, including Stalin, Hitler, Mao).
    At least Montt is before court.

  65. #66 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    Keyes oh slipper one,

    Maybe you should read this from ‘1991 S. Fred Singer was the primary author of a paper in the journal Cosmos‘, and fetch some more documents whilst there.

    Cosmos Myth articles you should already have seen but do go fetch the original Cosmos article and also the pre-dating Revelle Singer article ‘What to do about greenhouse warming‘ published in ‘Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 24, No. 5, 1990. (Hint see OSS articles for linky) where we also find these pertinent words:

    It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. “Look before you leap” may stil be good advice.

    Which is a clear attempt to delay taking any action to combat the effects of rising GHG emissions until we have done more research.

    More research‘ is a common theme from the delayers and deniers such as Singer and guess what, since 1990 much, much more research in many disparate fields is telling us that GHGs are having the strongest influence on rising temperatures with all the negatives which will ensue from that fact.

    Whatever Walter Munk and Edward Frieman,

    explained that the Cosmos paper hadn’t been written by Revelle at all. “S. Fred Singer wrote the paper,” they explained, suggesting that “as a courtesy, [Singer] added Roger as a co-author based upon his willingness to review the manuscript and advise on aspects relating to sea-level rise.” [100]

    MoD page 195.

    And you should research the circumstances at the time Revelle supposedly reviewed Singer’s work, for that is how it should be looked upon.

    And you have completely screwed up the Lancaster legal funding bit at transposed that to Singer. Why do you do this, be wrong so often.

    But here you are still playing word games and bending arguments inside out whilst having the gall to complain about me using ‘cheap rhetorical kluges‘. Projection much.

  66. #67 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    …and a rogue’s gallery of others.

    As anybody who has read John Pilger will understand but I doubt Keyes’ bubble stretches that far. I could suggest a few others to. Whilst on US invasions of other lands, by armed forces or corporations, the invasion of Grenada in 1993 was a farce.

  67. #68 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    Here Keyes, I’ll fix this:

    Lindzen’s prominence in academia—at MIT, no less—and his extensive list of credentials, awards and publications led me directly to that adjective..

    for you:

    Lindzen’s past prominence in academia—at MIT, no less—and his extensive list of credentials [many have a long list of credentials but are they any longer relevant], awards and publications led me directly to that adjective, in spite of the fact that, in-particular when he addresses a lay audiencehe engages in advocacy and denigrating other scientists whilst at the same time not having advanced the science in any significant way for nearly 20 years.

  68. #69 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    I am so pleased that Keys keeps opening doors so that we can provide debunks of his ill informed opinion expressed in malformed argument so here is some more on Lindzen, hint Mr Keyes, these are just a few ‘rabbit hole’ entrances of the many one could chose:

    Lindzen Keeps It Complicated — And The Wall Street Journal Laps It Up! in this article There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming ,

    on a different WSJ article.

    Keep it up Keyes, roll up, roll up so that we can see your moles.

  69. #70 Lionel A
    April 15, 2013

    And another thing just in more EXXon obfuscation – snake oil it is.

    And for those linked to this black stuff see this web I created awhile ago with a little help from the host. I have a few others.

  70. #71 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Lionel,

    you proffer the testimony of a third and a fourth party, Walter Munk and Edward Frieman, as if their version of events were some kind of independent corroboration of Lancaster’s story. It isn’t. They had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the writing of the article. They were merely propagating the idea Lancaster had given them. Legally, this kind of reduplicative and inane psittacism is called “hearsay.” It should be self-explanatory why hearsay is not admissible as evidence. (Of course, one can trust Naomi Oreskes to stoop to using such crap as evidence, but no self-respecting person would do so.)

    Perhaps you missed the part of Lancaster’s grovelling retraction in which he apologised for getting Munk and Frieman mixed up in his web of falsehoods:

    I fully and unequivocally retract and disclaim those statements and their implications about the conduct, character, and ethics of Professor Singer, and I apologize to Professor Singer for the pain my conduct has caused him and for any damage that I may have caused to his reputation. To the extent that others, including Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D., Edward A. Frieman, Ph.D., and Walter H. Munk, Ph.D., relied on my statements to make similar statements and insinuations, I also apologize to Professor Singer.

    Lancaster thus accepted responsibility for Munk and Frieman’s statements, and for the fact that they were false. It’s logically abortive beyond belief for you now to attempt to use their utterances, decades after Lancaster himself declared them to be false, in a bid to argue that Lancaster’s original story was true all along!

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    April 15, 2013

    Lionel,

    the irony of your criticism of Lindzen is unbeatable:

    in-particular when he addresses a lay audiencehe engages in advocacy and denigrating other scientists

    OMG! LOL…

    Look at Michael Mann’s twitter account FFS. The guy cannot go two sentences without engaging in advocacy or smearing other scientists. Get over it, Lionel. This is how climate scientists talk. This is what climate science has come to.

  72. #73 David B. Benson
    April 15, 2013

    The Nation this week has a great review of A Man of Misconceptions: The Life of an Eccentric in an Age of Change. It is about Athanasius Kircher, but is I read it I immediately thought that Brad would fit right in as his understudy; 17th century and all.

  73. #74 Brad Keyes
    April 16, 2013

    Lionel:

    And you have completely screwed up the Lancaster legal funding bit at transposed that to Singer. Why do you do this, be wrong so often.

    So I guess Lancaster was suffering acute confusion when he apologised for costing Singer all that money:

    “I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation costs to resolve this matter.”

    Why do you do this so often, Lionel—choose to believe in counterfactual alt-history events instead of actual, documented reality?

  74. #75 Bernard J.
    April 16, 2013

    Keyes.

    A few days ago you repeated your claim that you “consider the AGW theory to be correct“.

    I’m curious – if you accept the science, why do you not accept the empirical evidence that indicates that long-term climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is greater than the 2.5 C that you persist in using to derive resultant temperature increases? Specifically, what is the scientific case upon which you base your usage, and what is your qualification/experience/understanding that leads you to accept the material on which you rely?

    And following on from the matter of climate sensitivity, why do you not accept the empirical evidence that indicates that ecological sensitivity to temperature increases will result in the loss of many species and ecosystems should temperatures progress much beyond two or three degrees Celsius? Specifically, what is the scientific case upon which you base your opinion, and what is your qualification/experience/understanding that leads you to accept the material on which you rely.

  75. #76 David B. Benson
    April 16, 2013
  76. #77 Jeff Harvey
    April 16, 2013

    Brad opines: “What it really means for CAGW deniers—indeed for anyone capable of logical reflection—is that we’ve been warmer within civilised memory and the world didn’t come to an end. If anything, we flourished. And therefore the historically-literate citizen has no reason to lose sleep over global warming. No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have”

    ALWAYS HAVE. Now there’s a non-sequiter. How long is ‘ always’? Well, if one delves into the history of the MWP, its since M & M published their error-fileld 2005 tome. And the deniers have been using this as their holy grail ever since. AGW was on the scientific radar long before anyone made a fuss about the MWP. But, as the evidence for AGW grew, the denial community needed beating stick – a handle so to speak – to camouflage this evidence. They used MBH 1998 for this purpose and then started churning our various nonsense arguing that it was warmer during the MWP. Of course, many proxies, verified by the NAS in the United States have shown that it was certainly nowhere near as warm during that time as it has been during the last 30 years. And Brad conveniently forgets that during the alleged MWP human impacts on the biosphere were a fraction of what they are now. Our species had not so utterly ravaged so many natural ecosystems as we have done over the past century, adding a suite of additional stresses that are exacerbated by AGW.

    So there you have it. Brad’s essentially benthic understanding of environmental science (and scientific history laid bare for all to see.

    Brad, you have been categorically debunked. Take a hint: leave with whatever tiny shred of dignity you may have left. You cannot win a scientific debate. That is clear in your comments and the rebuttals. Its long over.

  77. #78 BBD
    April 16, 2013

    # 55 Brad

    Summary: you fancy yourself a Master Of Science™ but are in fact an ill-informed and posturing prat who flatly refuses to admit your basic errors. So you will be justly and continuously mocked.

    I’m glad to see that you aren’t quite insane enough to defend Singer’s lies about there being “no atmospheric warming” 1978 – 2000. But let’s keep in mind what you said earlier:

    Perhaps you’re happy to believe things on the authority of dishonest scientists; I’m not.

    You are spending a lot of time on this thread defending a dishonest man. Yet you spend a lot of time elsewhere pretending that climate science is corrupt “because Phil & Mike”. You seem either confused or dishonest.

    If you are capable of understanding the basics, you will eventually come to realise that Lindzen, S. Fred, Spencer and the rest of them are serial misrepresenters and/or liars. Then, perhaps, you might begin to grasp why nobody except deniers pays them any attention.

    You might at last begin to realise what an absolutely colossal arse you have made out of yourself over the course of the last several thousand comments.

  78. #79 BBD
    April 16, 2013

    # 64

    No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have.

    This is standard denier framing. It is also a lie. Where did you get this from?. You will need several verifiable sources. Be careful ;-)

    As for the rest of what your write, are you feigning Teh Stupid to distract from the mockery? Or are you really this fuckwitted?

    Such a reality would not imply the climate was more “sensitive” to carbon dioxide than anyone thought!

    Misrepresentation *and* comprehension failure. Here is what I actually wrote:

    Since there is no evidence for any *major* change in forcings, a warm “MWP” means that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. Highly.

    Then we shift up a gear into the unquestionably dishonest:

    Suppose for the sake of argument that the Northern hemisphere enjoyed warmer-than-present temperatures [...] So we have empirical proof that we can safely afford to be warmer. No matter where you live, the experiment has been performed; the results are unequivocal and reassuring.

    How about that? One minute we are “supposing, for the sake of argument”; the next we have empirical proof that is “unequivocal and reassuring”. Do fuck off with your nonsense, Brad.

    Here are a few points to consider:

    - Even hemispheric warming during the “MWP” points to a moderately high climate sensitivity

    - Modern warming will continue until the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is stabilised and a new quasi-equilibrium T is reached

    - Even with effective emissions reductions policy we are on course for a future very considerably warmer than the present

    - The regional and asynchronous “MWP” tells us nothing about that future. Your claim is false.

    - There is no evidence that the regional and asynchronous “MWP” was – even hemispherically – a match for late C20th average temperatures

    - You are engaging in the usual denialist false equivalence:

    No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have. They’re terrified that if such a vision of history is allowed to become mainstream, the public will get the wrong idea and stop panicking.

    Standard denialist framing and standard denialist lies. GOTO top, and get busy with those references!

  79. #80 Jeff Harvey
    April 16, 2013

    “If you are capable of understanding the basics, you will eventually come to realise that Lindzen, S. Fred, Spencer and the rest of them are serial misrepresenters and/or liars”

    Well said, BBD. When Brad suggests that these people have ‘good names’ it makes me wonder on what planet he is on… Planet Mungo perhaps.

  80. #81 Brad Keyes
    April 16, 2013

    BBD,

    you persist in your determination to see disagreements where they don’t exist.

    How about that? One minute we are “supposing, for the sake of argument”; the next we have empirical proof that is “unequivocal and reassuring”. Do fuck off with your nonsense, Brad.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. The empirical proof I was referring to is obviously conditional on the supposition. This is clear to any normal reader from the context. You asked us what a warm MWP would mean for CAGW deniers, and I told you—as a CAGW denier. That’s what it would mean: empirical proof that we can safely afford to be warmer than we are now. If you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question. :-)

  81. #82 Brad Keyes
    April 16, 2013

    Were you intending to cough up some evidence for this opinion at some point?

    Lindzen, S. Fred, Spencer and the rest of them are serial misrepresenters and/or liars

    Or are we just supposed to take your word for it? I don’t know or care much about Spencer but I’d be gratefully surprised if you could list a series lies told by Singer, and by Lindzen, and by “the rest of them.”

  82. #83 Lionel A
    April 16, 2013

    Keyes, are you being deliberately obtuse:

    “I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation costs to resolve this matter.”

    That any legal proceeding may have cost Singer some, but not personally, does not mean that Lancaster did not incur costs. When the disparity in funds available at the time to each side is considered it is little wonder that Lancaster had to fold.

    Shit, I have been in a similar position myself when a developer tried to claim a part of my plot for his building project. That because of a well de-marked ditch within my property I had a good case, along with all others along the same side of the road didn’t amount to much in the end as even if wee had won our case there was no guarantee of winning costs. Any such costs would have had to be covered by a re-mortgage so where would my wife and four have ended up – on the f**** streets.

    Lancaster was not suffering from ‘acute confusion’ as you put it but acute shortage of funds, the expenses of a newly growing family and having only just graduated a lack of a position with little chance of getting one with a lawsuit overhanging. That you persist in having it otherwise tells me what sort of person you are, but then this just fits in with what we all have already seen here.

    Sorry but you are coming across as a right tosser, and there I could have chosen from a wealth of salty epithets where even you could have learned some new words.

    As for third and forth parties Munk and Frieman, that is on the record.

    Why do you do this so often, Lionel—choose to believe in counterfactual alt-history events instead of actual, documented reality?

    Now you are deluded, or just plain shape shifting lying. Why are you so selective about documentation.

    As for Mann being equated to Lindzen. Get a grip. Your world view is inside out and arse backwards. So let us see Mann’s twitter feed. What, exactly, has Mann been saying. I’ll bet there isn’t an ad hominem in Mann’s vocabulary. If Mann is pushing back against Lindzen’s lack of recent scientific track record (and his denegration of other scientist) then that is Lindzen’s problem because Lindzen has been doing this for years.

    Have you bothered to read Lindzen’s presentations to that London audience, and the earlier, almost identical one to a US House Committee hearing back at the end of 2010?

    I suggest you do before you accuse others of avoiding documented reality.

  83. #84 Lionel A
    April 16, 2013

    Argh!

    As for third and forth parties Munk and Frieman, that is on the record.

    Why do you do this so often, Lionel—choose to believe in counterfactual alt-history events instead of actual, documented reality?

  84. #86 Lionel A
    April 16, 2013

    Sigh!

    Keyes @ #16 produces this exchange, Keyes only in blockquotes

    Over on the April thread, bill lays out the anthropogenist counterargument to the rival theory of cosmoclimatology:

    And, seriously, Svensmark? You’re cracking me up!

    LOL.

    It’s ad hominems all the way down with you people, isn’t it?

    For somebody who preens himself on his word power (swallowed issues of Reader’s Digest at a guess) Keyes demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of the true meaning of ad hominem.

    As for Svensmark, he is a real fumy guy with his deperate attempt to blame warming on GCRs. His stuff has a similar reputation to that of Lindzen’s Iris speculation – not proven and not likely to be. Indeed just in is this
    It’s getting hotter – despite cooling from cosmic rays
    .

    Go figure.

  85. #87 Bernard J.
    April 16, 2013

    Another point of curiosity for me…

    Brad Keyes, do you support KarenMackSunspot’s protestations about his error on Fahrenheit vs Celsius?

  86. #88 bill
    April 17, 2013

    It’s not the sun. It’s not cosmic rays. It’s not magical undersea volcanoes. It’s not magical ‘natural cycles’, man. These arguments are an utter waste of time.

    The records aren’t faked. The scientists aren’t a cabal. They aren’t Communists. They aren’t anti-Capitalists. They aren’t in it for ‘the money’ – one of the most pot/kettle ironic accusations in human history, I might add. They aren’t – of all the frigging godawful toxic drivel – anti-semites. These ‘arguments’ are simply contemptible.

    There is only one arena in which there is any debate – ECS – and the Denier case gets weaker every day. It’s not helped by the fact that there are virtualy no active scientists involved in it, of course.

  87. #89 Lionel A
    April 17, 2013

    bill

    There is only one arena in which there is any debate – ECS – and the Denier case gets weaker every day. It’s not helped by the fact that there are virtualy no active scientists involved in it, of course.

    Indeed, and if Richard Lindzen would use his ‘cleverness’ by engaging in an honest search for answers rather than busying himself with public propaganda advocacy then moves forward would be a little more rapid.

    Lindzen on the other hand has, and others have, spent the last 20 years or so making sure that the science is at best slowed (alternatively halted or even driven backwards) because of the time wasting need to counter the fake science they advocate.

    Some hypotheses that turn out to be false can provide useful information on what not to do, or what to ignore. Much of the work of the now-faux scientists, especially when they write in the WSJ, Forbes and their ilk, is most certainly counter-productive excepting of course in the books those who pay these pipers.

    Keyes too needs his ‘instrument’ re-tuned.

  88. #90 Brad Keyes
    April 17, 2013

    Lionel,

    “As for third and forth parties Munk and Frieman, that is on the record.”

    “On the record”? What are you saying: that their hearsay is somehow more credible because it’s written hearsay, not spoken hearsay? I disagree. What magical epistemological system are you using? The fact which you seem to have trouble accepting is that they got their belief second-hand, from Lancaster, and if Lancaster was telling them a lie—as he admits he was—then they were merely repeating a lie. If this is the case, as Lancaster’s confession implies, then Munk and Frieman’s testimony is worthless; it has zero evidentiary value. Why did you bring it up?

    “That any legal proceeding may have cost Singer some, but not personally, does not mean that Lancaster did not incur costs. When the disparity in funds available at the time to each side is considered it is little wonder that Lancaster had to fold.”

    Never having been sued or sued anyone, perhaps I’m showing my forensic naïveté here, so you’ll have to explain to me: how was Lancaster under financial duress when he wasn’t the one who brought the lawsuit in the first place, he ostensibly thought he was in the right, he was represented pro bono, and he was doing the personal bidding of one of the most powerful players in Washington (i.e. the sociopathic tobacco merchant who was at that moment campaigning for and destined to win the White House)? It would seem to me that Lancaster had only one thing to fear—losing the case on its merits and being held accountable for libelling Singer—and that by the time the discovery phase was completed, his team of attorneys could see the inevitable verdict and therefore advised their client to retract and apologise for his statements unconditionally.

    “Have you bothered to read Lindzen’s presentations to that London audience, and the earlier, almost identical one to a US House Committee hearing back at the end of 2010?”

    Yes, I read the 2010 speech. From memory, I think I quite liked it. I certainly didn’t notice anything egregiously untrue therein. Perhaps you can tell me what was so infamous about it?

    “And, seriously, Svensmark? You’re cracking me up!”

    Lol… If this sneering on your part wasn’t an attempt at dismissing an argument on the basis of its author/originator, then pray tell, what was it? I trust that you’re aware that such is the dictionary definition of an argumentum ad hominem.

  89. #91 bill
    April 18, 2013

    Svensmark is wrong, Bradley. Get over it.

  90. #92 Bernard J.
    April 18, 2013

    What magical epistemological system are you using?

    Could be, perhaps, the same unexplained “magical epistemological system” that you rely on for your claims of a mildly negative or even a positive biological response to rapid global warming of 2 and more degrees Celsius?

    You have yet to detail the source of your belief in this matter.

  91. #93 David B. Benson
    April 18, 2013

    IEA: World has stalled on clean energy
    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_World_has_stalled_on_clean_energy_1704131.html
    The world’s governments are failing on almost every level to clean up their energy systems and must intervene to support nuclear power, said the IEA, noting that only renewables and electric vehicles are ‘on track’.

  92. #94 Lionel A
    April 18, 2013

    I wrote the following in an earlier post.

    “And, seriously, Svensmark? You’re cracking me up!”

    Upon which Keyes, following another smokescreen of words, emerged briefly to shoot this off.

    Lol… If this sneering on your part wasn’t an attempt at dismissing an argument on the basis of its author/originator, then pray tell, what was it? I trust that you’re aware that such is the dictionary definition of an argumentum ad hominem.

    Only an ad hominem if taken out of context which is that it is Svensmark’s hypothesis that is so worthy of mirth being fit for little else seeing as he persists in pushing his week arguments which ignore relevant facts.

    As for Lindzen, I have pointed you at numerous sources and here is the trick, to use a much maligned term when it means nothing more than a useful technique, go follow links within the sources I have cited and read more. Same thing goes with Svensmark and his work. If you were not such a neophyte here then you would know about this. There are plenty of resources to truly educate yourself and get out of this wilful ignorance hole that you are digging.

    What use know loads of words if you fail to put that knowledge to sensible purpose. Your feet of clay are showing, the more you prevaricate with bluster and word fogs then the more you reveal your true colours.

  93. #95 BBD
    April 18, 2013

    # 81 BK

    You asked us what a warm MWP would mean for CAGW deniers, and I told you—as a CAGW denier. That’s what it would mean: empirical proof that we can safely afford to be warmer than we are now. If you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question.

    You either did not understand the question or have deliberately avoided answering it honestly. Let’s try again.

    The evidence from the isotopic archives suggests only a minor change in solar output during the so-called “MWP”.

    How do we get a global, synchronous MWP as warm as, or warmer than the late C20th (for which there is no evidence), with only *minor* forcing change unless the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation?

    And what implications does this have for those who handwave an improbably low sensitivity to GHG forcing?

    How do you square that circle? That is the question I asked you. Answer it.

    Deniers who peddle the lie that “the MWP” was global, synchronous and as warm/warmer than the present must address this problem head on. From your # 64 it is clear that you are among their number, so you’ve got your work cut out. Let’s see your moves, smart boy.

    ***

    You parrot another denier lie:

    No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have.

    I asked you to provide your sources for this lie and as usual, you have dodged the question. Where did you get this rubbish from? Answer the question.

    ***

    # 82 BK

    Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

    No, you are supposed to get off your arse and do your homework. If you want to dispute the science you must improve your level of topic knowledge and quality of argument significantly. At present, you are just an ill-informed denialist making a noise.

  94. #96 Brad Keyes
    April 18, 2013

    BBD:

    The evidence from the isotopic archives suggests only a minor change in solar output during the so-called “MWP”.

    How do we get a global, synchronous MWP as warm as, or warmer than the late C20th (for which there is no evidence), with only *minor* forcing change unless the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation?

    1. Maybe the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (early faint sun paradox notwithstanding)—but is this the same thing as highly sensitive to GHG forcing? (It’s not a rhetorical question, I want to know.)

    2. Maybe the climate is a function of variables of which you’ve never thought and/or we don’t have a record going back to the Middle Ages. Your entire paradigm of climate as an epiphenomenon of a small set of well-known forcings could be a bad guess. Maybe, as one Climategate author famously put it, “we know fuck-all” about it.

    And what implications does this have for those who handwave an improbably low sensitivity to GHG forcing?

    I don’t know such people.

    How do you square that circle? That is the question I asked you. Answer it.

    Square what circle? Whatever paradox you’re referring to goes away as soon as you let go of the conceit that the behaviour of the climate system is predictable from a handful of well-constrained quantities.

    In response to my request for some data to justify your opinion that several highly-accomplished climate scientists are serial liars and/or misrepresenters, you said

    No, you are supposed to get off your arse and do your homework.

    but I’m afraid that’s not how civilised discussion works, BBD. You made the accusation; it’s incumbent on you, not me, to pony up with the evidence for your claim, if any evidence exists therefor.

    If you want to dispute the science you must improve your level of topic knowledge and quality of argument significantly.

    But I don’t want to dispute “the science.” In so far as that maladroit phrase has a referent, I agree with it. As always, I’d be very keen to lay eyes upon the Holy Grail of alarmist discourse, if it exists: “the science” demonstrating that AGW will be net-catastrophic.

  95. #97 Brad Keyes
    April 19, 2013

    BBD:

    You parrot another denier lie:

    No wonder that the alarmists hate the MWP and always have.

    I asked you to provide your sources for this lie and as usual, you have dodged the question.

    An alteration in your presumptuous and pugnacious tone, which is that of an overzealous convert, would improve compliance rates with your demands. Luckily for you, I’m a generous disputant and willing to edify you with just one of the pieces of evidence: an email from Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, which reads

    Of course he and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective…

  96. #98 Bernard J.
    April 19, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    Are you going to go back to Eli’s to discuss the ecology of polar bears in response to benign global warming?

    The curious would like to know.

  97. #99 Jeff Harvey
    April 19, 2013

    “As always, I’d be very keen to lay eyes upon the Holy Grail of alarmist discourse, if it exists: “the science” demonstrating that AGW will be net-catastrophic”

    Brad, some of your posts come off as being well thought out and written – at least until your write the utter tripe above. Its like there is a sensible veneer shattered by illogical inner demons.

    Using your logic, we should not worry whatsoever about the mass destruction of tropical forests until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the effects will be, in your own weasel words, ‘net catastrophic’. Let me throw other examples in: acid rain, ozone depletion, wetland loss and eutrophication, loss of biodiversity, et al et al et al. Until all of these processes are deemed as leading to ‘net catastrophic’ outcomes, using your inane logic we ought to proceed along the same trajectory. Business-as-usual.

    Your logic is seriously flawed, because you seem to insist that the serious repercussions must be verified completely – in other words 100% proof – before remedial actions are taken.

    Now, Brad, you seem like a fairly sensible guy (at least your veneer that I alluded to earlier) but methinks that you are arguing for the sake of it. As an alternative scenario, the other side of you – the one that wrote that insidiously stupid remark I cut-and-pasted above – is the real you. So will the real Brad Keyes stand up?

    If you want to debate the possible scenarios for inaction on AGW, you cannot possible ignore other human-mediated stresses and their possible outcomes. But by doing so you lose any credibility. You are arguing in circles and making yourself look ever more foolish by doing so.

  98. #100 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    # 97

    This illustrates the dangers of taking stolen emails out of context rather well. MBH knew then, and we all know now, that there was no such thing as a global and synchronous MWP. That misconception arose from obsolete work (eg Lamb).

    If only you knew what you were talking about and paid less (zero) attention to denialist liars you wouldn’t be so vulnerable to confusion over the basics.

    You have been *tricked*. Wake up.