February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 18, 2013

    “Now I know that you don’t give a shit about your decendants Duff,”

    Probably hasn’t got any. They’re expensive and stops him from complaining that the taxes are going to educate other people’s kids, so why should HE pay for it?

    He doesn’t, of course, care about anyone else’s descendants either. Because he’s a sociopath.

  2. #2 Turboblocke
    February 18, 2013

    AGW isn’t “just for the grandchildren” anymore; it’s affecting us now: food prices, insurance costs, not to mention all the weird weather.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    February 19, 2013

    For those who remember a certain A. Scott over at Lewandowsky’s claiming that the surveys behind the LOG12 paper were totally flawed, and how he was going to “replicate” them – but didn’t understand the priming effect meant his methodology couldn’t – he appears to be providing more research material at the thread on the follow-up paper.

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    A Scott is doing it here, too.
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract

    He’s displaying some seriously obsessive behaviour.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    February 19, 2013

    Not only obsessive, but a tad…conspiratorial.

  6. #6 Karen
    February 19, 2013

    New paper demonstrates Arctic temperatures are not unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212004580

  7. #7 bill
    February 19, 2013

    ‘Karen’ you can’t even be relied upon to know what year it is!

    Can you point out the bit at the link that supports your claim? Because I just read everything available there, and, you know what?, it’s not there!

    That’s because this is your source, isn’t it, you cut-and-paste cretin!

    You really have no capacity to asses this stuff for yourself, do you? You just swallow it then regurgitate it whole…

  8. #8 Lionel A
    February 19, 2013

    Ah! Yes Bill. That ‘hockey shtick'[ – another home of propaganda and nonsense listed amongst all these found on another such blog ‘Global Warming Science’ (to which I refuse to include a live link), the list included here:

    Anthony Watts WUWT blog
    Steven Goddard / Real Science
    Tom Nelson blog
    GlobalWarming.org
    CFACT
    Tallbloke Talkshop
    Bob Tisdale SST blog
    No Frakking Consensus
    World Climate Report
    Hockey Schtick blog
    Science & Public Policy
    GWPF
    Foundry Energy/Environment
    Haunting The Library
    ICECAP
    C3 Headlines
    Clive Best
    Paul Homewood
    JoNova
    Roger Pielke Jr blog
    Roger Pielke Sr blog
    Climate Depot
    P Gosselin No Tricks Zone
    Roy Spencer
    Omnologos Climate
    CO2 Science
    Heliogenic Climate Change
    Climate Change Dispatch
    Climate Conversation
    Climate Audit – Steve McIntyre
    Hide the Decline
    Bishop Hill
    Digging in Clay
    The Air Vent
    Climate Realists
    Minnesotans For GW
    Inconvenient Skeptic
    Die Klimazwiebel
    Niche Modeling
    Climate Lessons
    Climate Skeptic
    Ice Age Avengers
    Lawrence Solomon blog
    Honest Debate
    Lucia’s Blackboard
    NZ Climate Science Coalition
    Climate Change: Happ/Wolk
    Climate Sanity
    National Post Deniers Series
    Global Warming Articles
    Warwick Hughes
    Reference Frame (Motl)
    Real CO2 (Beck)
    John Daly Climate Info
    AGW Heretic Blog
    Global Warming Hoax
    US Senate EPW Report
    Lucy Skywalker
    Gore’s Falsehoods
    Heartland
    Peer-Reviewed Papers
    NIPCC
    Climate Resistance
    Paul Macrae – False Alarm
    Jennifer Marohasy
    Coleman’s Corner (KUSI)
    Global Warming Quiz
    Skeptic GW Summary
    Global Cooling
    OISM – Petition and Paper
    Independent Summary for Policymakers
    RealClimate.org
    The Green Agenda

    Now that inclusion of ‘RealClimate.org’ second from bottom puzzled me until I hovered over the link and saw that the name was a spoof for ‘populartechnology.net’ which looks like more trash.

    Gavin and co at the genuine RealClimate site should fall on this like a ton of bricks.

    Make note all you members of The Wendy Club, including the following:

    BK
    chameleon
    PentaxZ
    Karen
    Bolt4PM
    David Duff
    Olaus Petri
    GSW
    janam
    spnangled drongo
    Jonas N
    A N Other

    citing any of those sources is going to bring opprobrium down on your heads.

  9. #9 lord_sidcup
    February 19, 2013

    I happened to be looking at the numerous links between right-wing think-tanks, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and the University of Buckingham earlier when I came across this summary of a ‘Seminar on Climate Change’ held at University of Buckingham 3 years ago:

    Dr Bob Bradnock, Senior Visiting Fellow at Kings College London, gave a seminar on 14 October entitled “Climatic Change: A Threat to the Future?”. He began by disappointingly stating he was not really an expert on climate change, but then disarmingly pointed out that, such was the complexity of the subject and the range of disciplines needed to be fully expert, no one else was either.

    He said that the climate has been changing throughout history and we can only be uncertain of the likely changes in the future. Our present interglacial warm period is just that, unusually warm, and the climate panic of thirty or forty years ago was about the earth becoming much colder. Rising CO2 levels do serve to increase global temperatures, but the dominant factor, solar radiation, is itself unpredictable. The earth’s orbit may be affecting climate over millennia.

    Although the ‘average’ global temperature appears to have risen between the 1970s and 1990s, there has been no rise in the last decade, despite the continuing rises in CO2 in the atmosphere. Many other mechanisms, including the effect of the oceans and the clouds and the unknown positive and negative feedbacks in the system, mean that the level of certainty insisted on by the global warming / climate change consensus, with its talk of ‘climate change denial‘, is highly suspect.

    In his discussion of whether warming might be raising sea levels, particularly in the Maldives and Bangladesh, Dr Bradnock mentioned that sea levels are actually 180 metres higher in South Africa than Sri Lanka. The land area of Bangladesh is growing, not falling; the shoreline in the Maldives appears to be going down relative to the land. Altogether, a lot to think about for both climate change proponents and opponents.

    http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/latest-news/seminar-on-climate-change/

    I count at least 20 thoroughly debunked denier talking points crammed in there. Unbelievable.

  10. #10 lord_sidcup
    February 19, 2013

    A whistle-stop tour of the incestuous world of the UK science deniers.

    The executive director of the think-tank the International Policy Network is Julian Morris – Visiting Professor in Economics at the University of Buckingham. The following people associated with the GWPF are also linked to the University of Buckingham – Benny Peiser, Prof Sir Alan Peacock, Dr Terence Kealey, Philipp Mueller, and Indur Goklany.

    Nigel Lawson and Matt Ridley from the GWPF both have honorary degrees from the University of Buckingham.

    Julian Morris has written articles with Indur Goklany and they are both associated with the US think-tank the Reason Foundation.

    Julian Morris is on the editorial board of science denier vanity publisher Energy and Environment,

    In 2010 the International Policy Network gave James Delingpole the Bastiat prize for ‘journalism’. One of the judges that year was Matt Ridley.

    Julian Morris is also an advisor to the Institute of Economic Affairs as is Alan Peacock. Michael Hintze is a trustee of the Institute of Economic Affairs and has given money to the GWPF.

    And so it goes on and on.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    February 19, 2013
  12. #12 lord_sidcup
    February 19, 2013

    How could I forget, Ross McKitrick was Visiting Professor of Economics at University of Buckingham in 2009.

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    February 19, 2013

    .. and Terence Kealey was also a judge when Delingpole got the Bastiat prize.

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Benny Peiser currently has an office at Uni. Buckingham, I think.

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    February 19, 2013

    Lotharsson said about A. Scott:

    Not only obsessive, but a tad…conspiratorial.

    Obviously, he’s just there to provide more material for Lewandowsky’s research.

    Which makes me wonder…perhaps A. Scott is a Lewandowsky sock puppet – fits with the “fraudulent survey responses” in the first paper, don’t you think?
    It’s all starting to make sense…..

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    Just looking at Buckingham Uni – their course in “Global Affairs” seems to be at the centre of this dodginess.

    So it’s not science-based, but based on politics.

  17. #17 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    So it’s not science-based, but based on politics?
    :-) :-) :-)
    ROFL!
    And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?
    Science based?
    Chuckle :-)

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    February 20, 2013

    It’s all starting to make sense…..

    LOL!

    (Don’t tell anyone – no-one else is supposed to know!)

  19. #19 chameleon
    February 20, 2013

    Speaking of politics as opposed to science.
    It has been an interesting 24hours in Australia.
    The Greens have decided to withdraw their partnership with Labor and the latest polls are not indicating any good news for the Labor Party either.
    Of course the ‘other side’ is perfectly capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory :-)

  20. #20 lord_sidcup
    February 20, 2013

    And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?

    A demonstration of your confusion between science and policy responses to science.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2013

    Just want to test something…

    “NikFromNYS” is seriously undermedicated.

    And Firefox rules…

  22. #22 Lionel A
    February 20, 2013

    chameleon:

    And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?
    Science based?
    Chuckle :-)

    Perhaps your moniker should be changed to chuckle-head.

    Whatever, you appear to have trouble grasping that political actions to counter the the destruction of our habitat , from excess use of fossil fuels to slash and burn agriculture and from overfishing to overexploitation of forest resources should be informed by science.

    There are some indicators that this is so but unfortunately we have the likes of you who wish to not only continue polluting the planet but also the discussions on the science and the political discourse which follows. It is the likes of you who delay concerted action on tackling many of the planetary problems we face.

    You are either one of those small minded individuals so prominent in ‘The Wendy Club’ and who use the sources outlined in my comment above which was held up in moderation, failing to understand that these are propaganda sites worked by shills of the vested interests that are trying to control the populations thought processes and actions or are you another tool for those vested interests?

  23. #23 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    And of course the comment re the carbon tax for this Feb thread is what?

    A rhetorical question pointing out that deniers were all alarmist about the consequences of the tax yet have been absolutely wrong about it. Yet still whine on about how bad the carbon tax is, demonstrating their denial of evidence and facts inconvenient to their ideology.

  24. #24 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    You’ll notice that “Git Says Whut?” ran with that meme of lolicons.

    chubby is like the sycophant of the school bully, standing behind the big lummox and then leaning out from behind to say to the kid being bullied “Yeah, right!” and waving their fist like they’re actually capable of using it.

    You know, actual scum.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    February 20, 2013

    Oh, dear.

    I’ve been skimming Brad’s thread every day or two for the unintentional comedy, but maybe not for much longer. Brad’s recent “contributions” have skidded into the realm of tragicomedy – or maybe just tragedy – with his delusional comparison of his scientific expertise being on a par with that of John Cook, his bigoted slur against John Cook, his remarkably misguided invocation of “$90 billion”, his slanderous misrepresentation of Schneider, and even his sad belief that Brad gets to decide who is “welcome” to comment on his jail thread – never mind his rampant projection.

    And after all his shucking and jiving, IIRC he still hasn’t backed up a single contrarian scientific claim with any robust evidence. Hmmmmmm…….

    And as to his other obsession, perhaps next time he alleges that ClimateGate shows that climate science is corrupt, someone might ask him which peer-reviewed papers were retracted as a result. Then place bets on how fast he throws out a dissembled smokescreen and a series of changed subjects!

  26. #26 Wow
    February 20, 2013

    About the only continuing use for Bray’s idiocy is when he continues to claim this is HIS thread and that he’s been requested especially to “aid” everyone’s understanding here of the “facts and truth”.

    This is entirely what happens when the deluded moron is given publicity and no consequence.

  27. #27 Turboblocke
    February 20, 2013

    China to introduce a carbon dioxide tax…
    China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, according to a senior official with the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

    The government will collect the environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon dioxide emissions,…

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    February 20, 2013

    That’s ‘cos the Chinese are in on the communist/fascist UN world government takeover bid. Obviously.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2013

    Monckton is currently lying his arse off on Tasmanian ABC radio.

    It’s the biggest Gish gallop ever, and he has a new twist on his “no warming for 15/16/23 years.

    I’ll link to the mpeg later…

  30. #30 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    WhyTF does our ABC use our taxes to give a platform to cranks?

  31. #31 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    if you have a comment about Brad K then show some intestinal fortitude and make the comment where you can legitimately engage on this blog.
    The only word I can think of to describe your behaviour re Brad K starts with C and ends with D.
    What’s the point of making that comment here?
    If you move accross to the correct thread, you may get some decent traction and decent engagement.
    At the moment you are just thumping your own chest.

  32. #32 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Lionel,
    get a grip!
    I am neither your enemy nor an enemy of the environment.
    Your accusations re ‘the likes of you’ are baseless and counter productive.

  33. #33 chek
    February 21, 2013

    If you move accross to the correct thread, you may get some decent traction and decent engagement.

    P.T. Barnum used to give his groteques similar jobs.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2013

    if you have a comment about Brad K then show some intestinal fortitude and make the comment where you can legitimately engage on this blog.

    Grow up, chameleon. This transparent attempt at primary-school level manipulation won’t work.

    For one thing, your argument is based on a false assertion. I’ve more than adequately demonstrated “intestinal fortitude” via precisely the mechanism you espouse – legitimate attempts to engage with Brad.

    For another, the fact that Brad doesn’t actually want to legitimately engage in a good faith discussion is obvious to just about everyone here except you, so the result of further “engagement” that you hold out as some sort of prize is an illusion.

    Thirdly, as Brad has demonstrated, he is perfectly capable of reading comments here and responding on his jail thread which provides yet another reason your claims are moot.

    You sure pack a lot of wrong into one sentence!

    The only word I can think of …

    We are familiar with your frequent invocation of the fallacious argument from personal ignorance. No need to further demonstrate it.

    What’s the point of making that comment here?

    To discuss current phenomena on the blog, and to discuss denialist tactics being used here. One may legitimately discuss these things without confining oneself to the thread on which the denialist is confined.

  35. #35 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    Your argument and your comments are about BradK.
    Of course you CAN make them here.
    You CAN go to any deltoid thread wherever you choose and make comments about Brad K.
    But why not go to the relevant thread despite the fact that you correctly point out that you CAN say it here?

  36. #36 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2013

    But why not go to the relevant thread …?

    This is not a difficult concept, and has been explained to you before – the Brad thread is not the only “relevant thread” unless I wish to speak to Brad.

    I don’t. I’ve done plenty of that and now I have other priorities.

    This thread is sufficiently relevant, and I find it a better choice under the current circumstances. For example this thread reaches a different audience and has a much much higher signal-to-noise ratio (due primarily to a distinct lack of Brad’s trademark “engagement”. And yes – those were scare quotes.)

  37. #37 chameleon
    February 21, 2013

    Nope,
    You’ve got basically the same people commenting here Lotharsson.
    In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don’t you?
    But that’s OK.
    You are indeed correct that you CAN comment here.
    It’s also correct that Brad K CAN’T comment here.
    I still think your behaviour is a bit questionable despite the fact that you CAN do it.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2013

    Chameleon, it’s not hard for everyone else but you to understand.

    The Brad thread is not about Brad per se; it is to prevent Brad contaminating the other threads. If I want to talk to Brad it’s appropriate to go there. If I want to talk about him in a place where his crap doesn’t overwhelm the discussion, I can’t do that there so I do it here.

    The fact that you can’t understand this doesn’t change the facts.

    In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don’t you?

    Thank you for reinforcing my point about the poor signal-to-noise ratio on the Brad thread.

    Oh, wait…you didn’t mean to do that?

  39. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    Brad’s an idiot. He’s now asking for Hockey Sticks not made with tree rings. *Precisely* something I’ve posted in response to his nonsense before.

    Clearly, he is not capable of integrating information incompatible with his world view. He just ignores it.

    Has he offered any opinions on ocean acidification? Or was that not on his script, do you think?

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2013

    He’s now asking for Hockey Sticks not made with tree rings.

    This is the same guy who confidently asserted that Mann was not just scientifically corrupt but a criminal, yet he is deeply ignorant of most of the relevant evidence about Mann’s work and the work of those who claim to have rebutted it – and that’s after I pointed him at a whole bunch at Lewandowky’s and other people have pointed him at a whole bunch here. The same goes for his ECS position and for the implications of a couple of degrees or more of warming.

    He appears to be merely regurgitating what he read at denialist websites – which he claims he can’t learn anything from because it’s not challenging his beliefs – but then doesn’t learn anything significant from places that do. So I think this is probably an accurate diagnosis:

    Clearly, he is not capable of integrating information incompatible with his world view.

    (And that extends to his belief that he’s “running rings around his opponents” with respect to the science.)

    Either that diagnosis, or he’s just not particularly competent when it comes to scientific evidence.

    Ironically, a certain John Cook tends to point out that information that challenges a belief system can end up reinforcing it, depending on how it is presented. Cook bases this claim on 3rd party scientific research (that, even more ironically, Brad would probably deny is scientific because he only deigns to recognise the “physical sciences”.) That might explain Brad’s animus towards Cook.

    I reckon Dunning and Kruger would have a field day with this one.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    For another, the fact that Brad doesn’t actually want to legitimately engage in a good faith discussion is obvious to just about everyone here except you

    Oh, don’t worry, it’s obvious to chubby too.

    Chubby doesn’t care.

    Chubby just wants to pretend that you’re a coward for not engaging someone whose brain never engages into reality so that she can pretend you’re a bad person.

  42. #42 bill
    February 21, 2013

    The ATM for Climate Denial.

    Suzanne Goldenberg (the Graun) discusses Donors’ Trust on DN!

  43. #43 bill
    February 21, 2013

    Brad’s an idiot.

    There really isn’t any more to it than that.

  44. #44 Lionel A
    February 21, 2013

    Chuckle-Head:

    In actual fact I think there are over 2,000 more comments at the BradK thread and if we count the number of times it has been mentioned here as well; I think the traffic is probably way higher than here don’t you?

    You could share Brad’s epitaph. ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width.’

  45. #45 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    I think you meant “thickness”.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    chubby’s claim is no different from”EAT SHIT! A BILLION FLIES CAN’T BE WRONG!”.

  47. #47 bill
    February 21, 2013

    And, by the same logic, Lance Armstrong is the greatest sportsman in history…

  48. #48 Wow
    February 21, 2013

    Heck, since Bray is referencing this thread, by chubby’s measure, does this make this thread more important?

  49. #49 Vince Whirlwind
    February 21, 2013

    …and, McDonald’s sells better food than my favourite local,
    http://www.yourrestaurants.com.au/guide/thai_fusion/

    If there’s any possibility of displaying a logic Fail, Chameleon is all over it like a rash.

  50. #50 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Following on from my post at #29 above, here’s the audio containing the interview with Monckton. The piece starts at just after 18 minute into the file.

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/mornings-on-demand-21012013.mp3

  51. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Uni. California study demonstrates links between pro-tobacco lobby/Tea Party/ Fox News/Climate disinfo/etc…:

    “‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party”

    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract

    Stanton Glantz:
    “Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry’s anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda.”

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    …the conservative media, including Fox News and the network of conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers, provided a unified forum to amplify these messages. The tobacco industry has played a part in building this network, both by working with Roger Ailes (who subsequently became Fox News CEO) and funding the National Journalism Center which ‘train[s] budding journalists in free market political and economic principles.’

  53. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    To think, The Australian is now an organ of disinformation working for a foreign political lobby.

    Might as well have them on the same rack as the “Green Left Weekly” and any other rags working for foreign political masters.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2013

    Whilst I’m posting audio, I will point out an audiovisual presentation given by Peter Stott and Linda Mearns when Peter was over for the recent Australian IPCC meeting.

    The direct link to the file seems not to work, so if one goes to:

    http://www.utas.edu.au/channel-utas/media/streaming-media-channels

    and looks for “Climate Change Science & Adaptation Challenges” it’s easily enough found. It’s currently the first, but it will descend in the list over time.

    John Ralston Saul’s talk is worth catching too.

  55. #55 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    WOW!
    You’re very funny!
    This comment of yours reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase from that quote from ‘someone’ (aka Cook) that you pasted a few days ago:
    “chubby’s claim is no different from”EAT SHIT! A BILLION FLIES CAN’T BE WRONG!”.
    :-)

  56. #56 Vince Whirlwind
    February 22, 2013

    Our resident halfwit does the TYPE! TYPE! TYPE! again.

  57. #57 bill
    February 22, 2013

    And also appears to be unaware of the meaning of the word ‘hyperbolic’ – or ‘paraphrase’, for that matter – that, of course, is no reason for her not to use it, since, in her world, reality is whatever you want it to be!

    But maybe I’m wrong; for those of us back down here on Earth, would you be kind enough to point out the link between a quote from John Cook and what you’ve just typed out? Ta.

    (I sense another ‘James Delingpole said’ moment coming on…)

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2013

    …would you be kind enough to point out the link between a quote from John Cook and what you’ve just typed out?

    I suspect she’s merely following Brad’s ever more desperate lead in (personally denigrating Cook and) putting words into Cook’s mouth.

    Cook wrote a piece about denial of the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. It explicitly indicates that there are two ingredients to scientific consensus. Firstly, a “consensus of evidence” – a metaphorical turn of phrase which is immediately explained by Cook, only for Brad to pretend that the explanation didn’t exist in order to attack a strawman. Cook cites an analysis of the strength of the “consensus of evidence” in the literature (and for variety, here is a more recent rough attempt). He explains that as the “consensus of evidence” piles up it almost inevitably leads to the second aspect of scientific consensus – near-unanimous agreement amongst the relevant scientists. Cook then cites polls that shows that the general public thought there was still significant disagreement amongst scientists about the simple question of whether global warming is happening.

    Brad argues that this is an attempt to revive an “argument from consensus” – about which he has a particular fetish – and from context he means within climate science because he talks about said argument being “banned” from science for 200+ years. Needless to say it’s obvious that the piece argues no such thing – firstly, the emphasis on evidence being the cause of near-unanimous agreement here, and secondly the subject being the denial by the general public of the scientific consensus. Ironically, said general public includes one Brad Keyes who denies the scientific consensus on a number of things, but denies denying them and utterly fails to scientifically back up his positions when challenged. The rest of Cook’s article discusses how general public denial of the scientific consensus has been cultivated – including at least one aspect that seems to fit Brad’s methods quite admirably. One suspects that Brad’s hissy fit about Cook helps to distract from Brad’s own denial and the parts of the article that discuss denial cultivation methods.

    So, back to chameleon. Given someone allegedly possessing a degree requiring basic comprehension skills has mangled what Cook was saying to suit his own purposes, it’s not surprising that chameleon has latched on to the concept of making unfounded allegations about him as well.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2013

    I should point out that Brad says he doesn’t deny AGW, which if correct probably means that he doesn’t deny that “humans are disrupting the climate” as per Cook’s piece. He merely denies the consensus on climate sensitivity and the severity of the consequences.

  60. #60 bill
    February 22, 2013

    He merely denies the consensus on climate sensitivity and the severity of the consequences.

    Which takes us right back to the point of Cook’s piece!

    Never met a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate yet who didn’t fetishize semantics and wasn’t happy to beguile the hours with pointless, quasi-mystical definitional disputes that I find pole-axingly dull (hence the loaded language!)*. I’m with Pinker – the words are all riding on our thoughts, and not vice-versa (with some symbiosis, certainly)…

    Brunning-Kruger appears to be asking us to believe that the Scientific method insists that there somehow cannot be a consensus, even when there clearly is one -one of those irrefutable facts they find so galling – and that it’s illegitimate to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what they’re doing have examined the evidence and concluded this is almost-certainly the situation we find ourselves in (because I’m always going to omit the key phrase!)

    One wonders how we could ever really know anything, then!

    Absurd! I mean, really – is that the best they can do? I blame Popper and Feynman, doubtlessly unfairly, for empowering these numpties.

    *My favourite all-time quote from an actual discussion with one – “the problem with Chomsky is that he assumes that there are facts”. Academeologists should be able to give an approximate date to that conversation from that one sentence alone!

  61. #61 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Brad argues that this is an attempt to revive an “argument from consensus”

    Though you’ll note he has a couple of times resorted to just such an argument from consensus and refuses to acknowledge that other deniers, such as chubby, use that precise argument several times.

    He’s in denial about their actions, not merely of the facts.

  62. #62 Scribe
    February 22, 2013

    THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

  63. #63 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    What unfounded allegations were those Bill?
    I don’t believe I made any allegations about Cook?
    I just wanted to know who the ‘someone’ was that Wow quoted.
    When we finally discovered (with your help) who that ‘someone’ was, my only comment was that his quals did not fit inside the definition that was discussed.
    Oh! I did also point out that the quote was lifted from an opinion piece which further disqualified it as per the discussed definition.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2013

    …has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office”…

    …which would require the 17 year linear trend on this graph to be flat or falling.

    Hmmm…

  65. #65 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    Oops!
    The question was for Lotharsson.
    My apologies Bill.

  66. #66 chameleon
    February 22, 2013

    Except that it was Bill who revealed the identity of Wow’s ‘someone’.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2013

    What unfounded allegations were those Bill?

    “Unfounded allegations” was my characterisation of your “…reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase from that quote from ‘someone’ (aka Cook) that you pasted a few days ago…”. The reason your comment drew a skeptical response is that readers don’t see how it “reads like a hyperbolic paraphrase of that quote”, which makes your claim look like an unfounded allegation. Feel free to explain how in your mind what Wow said is like a hyperbolic paraphrase of a measured statement about the two aspects of scientific consensus.

    You might also wish to attempt to rebut Wow’s characterisation of your own logic while you’re at it, seeing that currently seems to stand unchallenged by your characterisation.

    I did also point out that the quote was lifted from an opinion piece which further disqualified it as per the discussed definition.

    I also love the way you’re apparently totally on board with restricting what is “science” to Brad’s perversely limited definition.

    But I love even more the way you’re totally on board with retrospectively “disqualifying” from discussion in a thread created to confine someone who apparently has a grand total of zero science degrees, a piece about science by someone with two science degrees who appears to be engaged in still further scientific research. I love further that you do this on a basis that I don’t even recall being mentioned, and despite the piece appearing in The Conversation, a forum which is almost entirely dedicated to academics writing about the subjects of their expertise for communication to and discussion with the general public.

    It says so much about you.

  68. #68 chek
    February 22, 2013

    Oh wait, the Met Office didn’t say by way of ‘confirmation’ what The Oz claims Pachuri ‘acknowledged’.

    “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

  69. #69 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Yes, chubby you’ve said nothing. We know.

    Please use the appropriate number of words.

    PS I find it highly amusing that you’re here talking about the other thread when you find it “highly highly amusing” that people are here talking about that thread.

    You never look in the mirror, do you.

  70. #70 Lionel A
    February 22, 2013

    …which would require the 17 year linear trend on this graph to be flat or falling.

    Like down the up elevator. Do you get that chuckle-head?

  71. #71 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    I dunno, where is Duffer with his “flat lines mean nothing”.

    I guess it’s only a problem when people he disagrees with say it, huh?

  72. #72 Ian Forrester
    February 22, 2013

    I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth (of course we all know how dishonest the likes of Keyes and Monckton are).

    Are they suggesting that “measurement” is not a science? Measurement is surely the basis for all science since if we couldn’t measure we could not do experimental science.

    The history of science shows great confusion when researchers in one part of the world tried to compare their results with those in an other part. The biggest problem was the use of differing measuring scales and standards.

    Eventually consensus was reached among scientists by setting up a number of bodies (General Conference on Weights and Measures, International Bureau of Weights and Measures and International Committee for Weights and Measures) in 1875 to set international standards of measurement. Surely this is a “consensus”. With out it, science would never have achieved the world wide acceptance of scientific results that has allowed the technological developments of the past 100 years.

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

    They are to be despised.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    February 22, 2013

    They are to be despised.

    And doubly so when they use Feynman as cover and miss-characterise the words of Schneider and the work of others.

    The likes of Keyes are beyond contempt.

  74. #74 Stu
    February 22, 2013

    Ian, consensus does not exist in REAL science. I thought you knew.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 22, 2013

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner and one that is most detrimental to the future well being of present and future generations.

    We’ve done that.

    Oh yes.

    Big time.

    They are to be despised.

    Oh, yes.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2013

    Anytime a denier says “consensus is not science” they should be ridiculed and told that they are ignorant of the history of science…

    It was pointed out to Mr. Keyes much earlier that “scientific consensus” is practically synonymous with “accepted scientific theory”, and thus that pointing out accepted scientific theory – and the strength of the acceptance, and the strength of the underlying evidence – to the general public is a necessary and vital part of communicating science to the general public.

    The fact that he circled back to claim either or both of:

    1) that “argument from consensus” was being used (as he appears to imply) within the relevant branch of science in place of argument from evidence, despite zero evidence of this happening;

    2) scientists cannot legitimately point out the consensus when communicating science to non-scientists (and they certainly can’t legitimately assess the strength of the general agreement amongst the relevant set of scientists!);

    indicates either bad faith or difficulties with comprehension and logic – or both. (Based on some of his comments I still suspect he has difficulties separating (1) and (2) in his own mind.)

    One can certainly reasonably conclude that he is attempting to delegitimise the communication of certain subsets of science to the public, but there’s also a pretty good case based on examples where he has been asked for reasons/evidence for specific claims (and BBD’s doing it again right now) that he doesn’t know (and doesn’t want to know) the evidence underlying the scientific consensus in the areas relevant to his claims.

  77. #77 john byatt
    February 23, 2013

    Head vices on

    Graham Lloyd the Australian
    In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.

  78. #78 bill
    February 23, 2013

    Ho ho – the NYT has noticed the Lewandowsky affair, phases 1 and 2 –

    So, a paper about a tendency among this group to believe in conspiracy theories was met by … a conspiracy theory.

    Dr. Lewandowsky and his collaborators were taken aback, but not for long. As far-fetched ideas about the survey ricocheted around the Internet, they realized that manna was falling on them from heaven.

    And I love the sting of faint praise in the tail of the obligatory (at least in the liberal media – Fox and the Oz don’t bother!) ‘balance’ observation –

    Indeed, some of the strongest online reaction to Dr. Lewandowsky’s original paper came from intelligent climate contrarians who were offended at being labeled part of the tinfoil hat brigade. Whatever you think of their position on global warming, some of them have remarkable statistical skills and have made contributions, generally modest, to the scientific literature.

    The link’s to McI, so don’t go, it’ll only encourage him. ‘Remarkable’ is indeed a great choice of words! ;-)

  79. #79 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2013

    Fellas, I’m sure you already have discussed the views of the great railroad climatologist Pachauri:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#more-80326

    What on earth is wrong with him? ;-)

  80. #80 bill
    February 23, 2013

    another regurgitator… do you imagine anyone imagines there’s any content to be found at the end of that link?

    you’re as stupid as karen – scroll up to see her latest drive-by vomited imbecility, which fell with an almighty ‘clunk’, along with the usual brownish splat; your latest cretinism is no different

    do you ever despair of your inability to be any better? i suppose, in it’s own way, DK is a mercy; if you could really see just how galactically pointless and worthless you really are you’d die of the shame of it…

  81. #81 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2013

    Prey for the Germans Bill. The higher level of CO2 has not only created a hiatus, it seems that the five latest winters in Germany also have become colder:

    http://www.wetter.net/wetternews/wetter-der-fuenfte-zu-kalte-winter-in-folge–rekord-6615.html

  82. #82 bill
    February 23, 2013

    Who or what is prey for the Germans, pray?

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2013

    Keyes has really jumped the shark now.

    Ian Forrester argues against the proposition that “consensus does not exist in science” (my emphasis) which appears to be a reasonable paraphrase of one of Keyes’ positions despite Keyes feebly asserting it is not. Keyes ridicules this argument on the basis that “science is not consensus” (my emphasis). Hands up if you caught that sly redefinition? Now, hands up if you see the logical error in that “rebuttal”? (And this is from a guy who claims to have a philosophy degree, which normally entails some sort of competence at basic parsing and basic logic!)

    For good measure Brad bases some sort of wild conspiracy theory, complete with another bout of rampant projection, comprising an “alarmist edifice built on such an absurdly feeble basis” on what Ian didn’t say, and subsequently doubles down by expanding the list of people to which he imputes his false redefinition. They sure teach ‘em good how to raise a bunch of strawmen in them philosophisin’ classes!

    Speaking of parsing and logic, in response to my previous comment Brad has time to look up and quote an earlier response of his that does not address the comment in question – but he says he doesn’t have time to read all of the comments responding to him, let alone all of the references provided. Around and around the little denial loop he goes and never shall new evidence interrupt his mantra invocation.

    Brad’s also arguing that scientists have “systematically [overestimated] the threat of anthropogenic warming” on the basis of – wait for it – secondary textual analysis! This propensity to avoid primary sources in favour of secondary textual analysis which typically leads to a fallacious appeal to authority is a common logical failing for Brad. In this case he has avoided all published research on the question – including a recent paper that IIRC Brad was pointed to that finds the opposite, and evidence for the motivations for it which are illustrated by some of the scientists Brad cites.

    This is ROFL-worthy foolishness from the guy who (for example) is sufficiently incompetent at climate science that he implied that scientists were significantly overestimating the likely value of ECS – but didn’t seem to be aware of the evidence that strongly rebuts his preferred value (nor the evidence that pretty strongly supports theirs). This is also the guy who alleges there’s some sort of planetary thermostat based on his argument from personal ignorance.

    I admit I was wrong – the comedy continues unabated, and Brunning-Kruger is an exceedingly apt moniker.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2013

    another regurgitator…

    …who is tellingly slow off the mark, only regurgitating once the piece in question is highlighted by the reliably unreliable Mr. Watts, apparently entirely unaware that the central claim he is regurgitating is laughably trivially demonstrated to be false.

  85. #85 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2013

    Lothar, I do agree. Its the fault of Elders of fossil fuel that the hiatus came about (despite what the crystal balls are telling us). The German shamans have been stabbed in the back, for sure. ;-)

  86. #86 chameleon
    February 23, 2013

    Olaus,
    There seems to be a lot of backstabbing going on at the moment.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2013

    There seems to be a lot of backstabbing going on at the moment.

    …because “backstabbing” means making comments in public where everyone including the subject can read them, right?

    Oh, wait, you were referring to Brad’s tortured interpretation of Schneider’s words? Or maybe his putting words into Ian Forrester’s mouth? Or his determined missing of Cook’s point? Or his denigration of Mann and Jones based on his personal ignorance? There’s so much to choose from it’s hard to know which one(s) you mean.

  88. #88 bill
    February 23, 2013

    Olaus is obviously in a parallel universe on a parallel thread – hell, now we’re apparently getting bizarre acusations containing references to the Dolchstoßlegende, which says a lot about Olaus’ interests (and projections).

    Plus, appropriately enough, we can add ‘backstabbing’ to that ever-growing list; Words that Chebbie may well Type Out, but Does Not Understand.

    (And you forgot the smiley) ;-(

  89. #89 JohnL
    February 23, 2013

    @76 Lotharsson

    Thomas Jefferson stated:
    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
    This certainly applies to our present crop of idiots.

  90. #90 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    Lotharsson

    including a recent paper that IIRC Brad was pointed to that finds the opposite…

    Yes. I have made IIRC three precise references to that paper now with the latest copied here:

    Brysse, K., et al., Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environ. Change
    (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008‘

    Keyes is another classic ‘won’t look in case it pricks his bubble’ type.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    Sorry, omitted to remove trailing quote mark:

    Brysse, K., et al., Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environ. Change
    (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008

  92. #92 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2013

    Graham Lloyd the Australian
    In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth

    A parallel universe in which ice grows in summer.

  93. #93 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2013

    Dear Bill, here’s a clue for ya: the Elders-analogy is about lack of evidence for “the well funded right wing conspiracy against climate science” (and the data confirming “it’s worse than we thought!!!!) ;-)

  94. #94 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    You mean apart from all the information from Peter Gleick’s investigative journalism into HI? Or the other “think tanks” that have been shown recently to be nothing more than a front to shovel around slush money to “charities” that, just co-incidentally, lobby against restrictions to those funding parties?

    You mean no evidence if you exclude all the evidence, right?

  95. #95 Lionel A
    February 23, 2013

    OP

    Are you a Kochhead too?

    Looking from the inside out into the bright light is hard ain’t it?

  96. #96 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    If it’s from a Koch, Olap will swallow it.

  97. #97 chek
    February 23, 2013

    I count at least 16 words Olap apparently doesn’t know the meaning of. I say apparently because even Olap can’t be that stupid, no matter how long he’s been associated with Jonarse.

  98. #98 bill
    February 23, 2013

    He certainly don’t know the meaning of ‘projection’.

  99. #99 Olaus Petri
    February 23, 2013

    C’mon deltoids, the rapid global warming and the massiv well funded right wing conspiracy against cimate sicience, have something in common. Nobody seems to find any proof of their existance. :-)

  100. #100 Wow
    February 23, 2013

    Well, you sure proved chek wrong.

    You really DIDN’T understand any of those words!

Current ye@r *