April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    April 9, 2014

    *ahem* That should be:
    The The top three articles’ comments

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    #100, thanks chek – I even tried to reconstruct the link from the page source but nothing doing : )

  3. #3 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    Ah yes. I went through the sinking mentioned in #94 done by BBD in the second article on today’s page there.
    My that prof has garnered evidence of virtually mathematical power in those threads alone. Also I’m sick of the abuse done on him. If vomiting blood is not ebola.

  4. #4 chek
    April 9, 2014

    I’d hazard a guess he’s now up there with Mike Mann and Phil Jones in the denier hate-osphere

  5. #5 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    And the attack on Lewandowsky will ultimately do the deniers as much damage as the attack on Mann. It shows them for what they are.

  6. #6 chek
    April 9, 2014

    Ignorant arses for one thing. Notice how they keep confusing ‘conspiracy’ with ‘conspiracy ideation’?

    Like the von Stauffenberg plot was merely an Austrian house painters ‘ideation’. Fucking clots the lot of them.

  7. #7 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    Which is I would love them to proceed and invest.

    Meantime, the way they help the prof’s research is quite impressive, for a change… Also total public attention gathered is equal to sunlight turned onto what squirms beneath rocks, moss and manure. Yes, Lewandowsky is prime target like Mann now.

  8. #8 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    Ignorant arses for one thing. Notice how they keep confusing ‘conspiracy’ with ‘conspiracy ideation’?

    Funny you should mention that…

    The really funny thing is the absolute disregard for factual consistency exhibited by FG. He either doesn’t care that he is obviously lying at times and then exposing himself as dishonest, or he doesn’t really grasp what kind of impression this behaviour makes on third parties.

  9. #9 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    cRR

    Which is I would love them to proceed and invest.

    Me too. But I qualify this by saying that I do not treat the embuggerance it will cause Lewandowsky and co-authors, or Frontiers, or USW lightly. Even though the journal might have avoided this by not backing down initially to the threat of barratry. Now it looks weak, and that encourages the mob. Or class action, as I should say.

  10. #10 chek
    April 9, 2014

    FGit is a puppet who thinks he’s a real boy.
    It’s all beyond his paygrade (if he were getting paid, which he’ isn’t) or the payout I believe he’s truly dreaming of (for the next five minutes).

  11. #11 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    Third comment below ‘The analysis of speech’ surprised no little:

    Jonathan Cook at 13:39 PM on 9 April, 2014

    The link to Graham Readfearn is broken. Plus I think you need to take a holiday Stephan, these posts about your retracted paper are increasingly erratic.

    While my impression was like Sou’s in comment #23:

    Sou at 04:39 AM on 10 April, 2014
    Wow, how easy was that? Almost too much material for Recursive Fury II. (Human nature has a dark side.)

    Top article, Stephan. Some people are weird, in a not nice way. It seems to be the same “small number” of people.

    Real Cook? Real Sou, I gather.

  12. #12 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    #8, same qualification /w gusto.
    The journal, though, is all but done for, I think – a tough punishment but imo quite adequate. We need men, not whimps.

  13. #13 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    Bang, now I wonder who I shot at.

  14. #14 chek
    April 9, 2014

    “We need men, not whimps.”

    “Give me a hundred men like Katherine Hayhoe!”

    (modelled after Galland’s quote to Goering during the BoB campaign 1940 )

  15. #15 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    Those men exist, all of them run Hotwhopper : )

  16. #16 bill
    April 10, 2014

    ‘Real Cook’ – um, there’s not some confusion with John Cook here, is there? I rather wonder about this,um, coincidence…

  17. #17 bill
    April 10, 2014

    Also, Stoat deals with li’l Mikey, Potty-Training Casualty beautifully on that thread…

  18. #18 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    April 10, 2014

    he doesn’t really grasp what kind of impression this behaviour makes on third parties.

    I think that’s it. On an entirely different subject yesterday, I came across one of those blokes who maintains that everyone is always out to take advantage of others. He honestly, sincerely, truly did not understand all the people who said that just wasn’t so – not just for themselves but for other people they knew. He just dismissed them as dishonest about their own motivations or being oblivious to others’ nefarious intentions.

    I’m pretty sure FG is blessed(?) with the same lack of comprehension of others’ motivations as well as attributing his own inconsistencies to absolutely normal human behaviour. No need to reflect on what others might perceive or even misperceive about what he says or how he says it. I think it is largely a mystery to him why anyone would challenge him, on either the details or his motivations. People who see things differently obviously must have some weird way of looking at the world.

    When you think you’re absolutely normal as well as 100% right, what’s the problem?

  19. #19 cRR Kampen
    April 10, 2014

    #17, you diagnosed psycho-/sociopathology there. That bloke unknowingly projects his character on everyone. I have kind off an eye out for that type.

  20. #20 cRR Kampen
    April 10, 2014

    erratum, I have kind of an eye out for that type (reserve the ffing ‘f’ something else)

  21. #21 cRR Kampen
    April 10, 2014

    Bradthing fell through again (well observed by Sou) over at the psych.

  22. #22 chek
    April 10, 2014

    He’s an idiot. A wordy one, but simple nonetheless.
    A bored third rate rural solicitor’s clerk would be my guess.

  23. #23 BBD
    April 10, 2014

    Fuck but I loathe “Brad Keyes” aka “Darrell Harb” etc. One of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    April 10, 2014

    #22 thanks BBD for reminding dnftt, though the thing had to be sunshined. Crikey.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    April 10, 2014

    cRR @#20

    Bradthing fell through again (well observed by Sou) over at the psych.

    at psych?

    Sorry, first baby steps on ubuntu after a day of mayhem with Windows of various flavours. Ubuntu not properly configured yet had to gohunting for @ and #, and Firefox lurks behind app’s stack on screen.

    Manyana.

  26. #26 BBD
    April 10, 2014

    cRR #23

    Thanks for that. He’s the perfect troll – sucks you in, every time. Let’s hope the moderators at STW wake up to what is going on fairly soon.

    Lionel A

    Brad is running a sock called “Darrell Harb” at Lewandowsky’s blog at Shaping Tomorrow’s World.

  27. #27 BBD
    April 10, 2014

    cRR

    See now that the troll is trying to hook you back in…

    :-)

  28. #28 BBD
    April 10, 2014

    And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck, there’s a good chap.

  29. #29 craig thomas
    April 11, 2014

    Keyes is an idiot:

    He says, “consensus is an opinion”.

    He works so very hard at not getting it.

  30. #30 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    #26 BBD, simply doesn’t work with me… I use trolls sometimes to make points for others, and I wished to make a point yesterday. I quit direct response yesterday anyway.

    At some point I sit back watching the troll undo himself during a rattle of increasing incoherent posts, my job done once more – I pull back the moment he needs me :)

  31. #31 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    He loves me, he loves me so, he loves me…

  32. #32 Olaus Petri
    April 11, 2014

    Fellas, latest news from the Frontiers:

    “The retracted Recursive Fury paper has created quite a blogger and twitter storm. A sensational storm indeed, with hints to conspiracy theories, claims of legal threats and perceived contradictions. It has been fury – one of the strongest human emotions – that has (perhaps understandably at first sight) guided the discussion around this retraction. Not surprisingly though, the truth is not as sensational and much simpler.”

    :-)

    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

  33. #33 chek
    April 11, 2014

    Translation: Some paranoid delusional subjects didn’t like light being shone under their rock, and furthermore were too chickenshit to stand by their previously published statements.

    On a similar note, I often think that the disclaimer at the end of movies should read: “This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely their own fault”.

  34. #34 chek
    April 11, 2014

    However it does raise the question of how study can be made of delusional ravings, even in a simple effort to map their origin and propagation, if text can be searched across the internet at a click. That capacity has already had major implications for detecting plagiarism.

    I’m not sure what the answer is, if people refuse to take responsibility for what they utter online, other than to say “tough luck, but those were your words”..

  35. #35 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    #33 chek, this sounds interesting, but I’m somehow not understanding what exactly you are trying to bring up. I must lamely ask you to rephrase.

    For now I only got to thinking whether the question is not so much how study can be made, but how and if it can be published.

  36. #36 GSW
    April 11, 2014

    @Olaus

    Thanks for the link Olaus. From your quote, the article continues:

    ” …..Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.”

    and

    “Post-publication review is facilitated by the Frontiers’ commenting and social networking platforms. This process may reveal fundamental errors or issues that go against principles of scholarly publishing. Like all other journals, Frontiers seriously investigates any well-founded complaints or allegations, and retraction only happens in cases of absolute necessity and only after extensive analysis.”

    So the Lewandowsky paper was “unethical” then. More “blog” abuse masquerading as a scientific paper, and with the sks mob involved, that’s not going to come as a surprise to anybody.

    The Frontiers post was authored by Henry Markram
    Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers. Bio here:

    http://www.frontiersin.org/people/henrymarkram/74/profile

    “Henry Markram is a full professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland. He was born in the Kalahari desert in South Africa in 1962, finished school at Kearsney College (1980), studied medicine and neuroscience at Cape Town University (1988), obtained a PhD in neuroscience at the Weizmann Institute (1991), completed postdoctoral work as a Fullbright Scholar at the NIH (1992) and as a Minerva Fellow at the Max-Planck (1994). ”

    Seems to know what he is talking about too. Cheers Olaus.
    ;)

  37. #37 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    Skipping the day at the psych.
    If moderation doesn’t rid the troll, I’ll have to surmise this is for the purpose of the prof’s research and might want to add some evidence. The Wow-way.

  38. #38 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    #35, good to hear you have a problem with that, ”…..Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.”, you can fo now.

  39. #39 chek
    April 11, 2014

    cRR, yes, sorry for my sloppy sentence.

    You’re correct that the study could still be done.
    But publishing it would be a nightmare, with need to redact or modify quotations somehow so that they couldn’t be traced to their owners by third parties.

  40. #40 GSW
    April 11, 2014

    @cRR #37

    I know, Frontiers appear to be accusing the paper authors, Lewandowsky, Cook and the others of “abusing science” and who would argue.

    Frontiers could have been a little more careful with the peer review – a “special” journalism student was never going to cut it as a reviewer on a cognitive psychology paper. Frontiers are not entirely blameless here themselves..

  41. #41 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    #39 GSW, are you new to the discussion?

  42. #42 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    #38 chek, crystal, thanks. Ultrarelevant, unfortunately, once more in history.

  43. #43 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    It can never be that samples from the internet have to be used without giving the names or nicks they are posted under, plus source links.

    Otoh I see a problem with nicks whose real id’s have been outed by e.g. hackers or dishonest people who are in the know. Also even with those who post under nick while their id is common knowledge given free by e.g. the author in other sources on internet.
    This looks like a dangerous AND distracting puzzle. There is a danger for free speech & internet involved as soon as legislation is considered.

    Apparently the names of peer reviewers and editors cannot be disclosed anymore, either.

  44. #44 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2014

    “… with need to redact or modify quotations somehow so that they couldn’t be traced to their owners by third parties.”

    I’m having a bad day (citations cannot be traced to a certain with this wording. Newspeakery. : ) )
    It has finally sunk in what you’re saying here.
    Well, it can’t be done. Writings on internet on places anyone can visit and read are public property.

  45. #45 BBD
    April 11, 2014

    The Frontiers statement is absurd. They are finished.

  46. #46 BBD
    April 11, 2014

    Fuckwits should note that so far three editors have resigned in protest over this. Anyone who thinks the journal has a case simple hasn’t got the first clue. They would have been better advised – far better advised – to stick to the truth: they caved in under the threat of legal action. A wrong call, but everything that they have done since to hide this fact has made the situation progressively worse.

    As I said, they’re scuppered now.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    April 11, 2014

    Well, it can’t be done. Writings on internet on places anyone can visit and read are public property.

    And have been especially since Wayback.

    And Keyes by sock I smell a rat. Thanks for the pointer BBD I have been otherwise distracted, one such was another load of bafflegab and obfuscation from David Rose in the Mail now answered at SKs.

    Rose is a walking bulls***ing serial cereal hazard and conspiracy ideationist.

  48. #48 chek
    April 11, 2014

    The usual suspects like flies to shit in the comments to the Frontiers statement

  49. #49 EFS_Junior
    United States
    April 11, 2014

    Problems with IRB review of social science

    “While the federal regulations and Belmont principles were formulated with biomedical and social-behavioral research in mind, the enforcement of the regulations, the examples used in typical presentations regarding the history of the regulatory requirements, and the extensiveness of written guidance have been predominantly focused on biomedical research.

    Numerous complaints by investigators about the fit between the federal regulations and its IRB review requirements as they relate to social science research have been received. Broad complaints range from the legitimacy of IRB review, the applicability of the concepts of risk as it pertains to social science (e.g., possibly unneeded, over-burdensome requirements), and the requirements for the documentation of participants’ consent, i.e., consent forms). Social scientists have criticized biomedical IRBs for failing to adequately understand their research methods (such as ethnography). In 2003, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities often do not constitute “human subject research” as defined in the regulations and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules.[15]

    Other federal agencies supporting social science have attempted to provide guidance in this area, especially the National Science Foundation. In general, the FAQ assures IRBs that the regulations have some flexibility and rely on the common sense of the IRB to focus on limiting harm, maximizing informed consent, and limiting bureaucratic limitations of valid research.[16]”

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

    So, at least in the USA, bloggers (social media) are not “human research subjests” the wy they are in the clinical/medical context.

  50. #50 GSW
    April 11, 2014

    @BBD

    “They [Frontiers] are finished.”

    I think you are overreacting BBD. There are some lessons here for Frontiers certainly; don’t accept papers from shysters:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shister

    Don’t let Elaine McKewon review papers:

    http://uts.academia.edu/ElaineMcKewon

    I still can’t get over some genius thought a “special” journalism student was an appropriate choice for reviewing a cognitive psychology paper; don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to a point of view, but she was so obviously out of her depth (ethics issues, her background’s in prostitutes? go figure), it’s no wonder it’s all gone”tits up” now.

    Being positive though, Frontiers will tighten up their review processes and the journal will be better for it.
    ;)

  51. #51 chek
    April 11, 2014

    Griselda barfed up this gem: “I still can’t get over some genius thought a “special” journalism student “, once again showing he has no idea how much original research graduate students actually do, nor comprehension of their abilities. But smug innuendo is good enough in amongst the cranks. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that she’s female sticks in a few under-educated craws too.

  52. #52 BBD
    April 11, 2014

    Barry Woods, again, and again, and again. The man is a great, soft sack of tiresome victimhood who is completely incapable of understanding that he did this to himself.

    Nik from NYC is good though: in one comment he demonstrates that he hasn’t read Marcott13, doesn’t understand the first thing about it, gets his ideas from idiots and liars, is a conspiracy theorist to the core and an anti-vaxxer to boot. Not bad going for a couple of paragraphs.

  53. #53 chek
    April 11, 2014

    NFNYC is a quality crank.
    Utterly impervious.

  54. #54 BBD
    April 11, 2014

    As others have pointed out, the behaviour of the cranks seems to be a determined and concerted attempt to vindicate Lewandowsky and co-authors.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2014

    #39 GSW, are you new to the discussion?

    cRR wins a shiny new Internetz.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2014

    I was also fascinated by one of the cranks at STW (responding to BBD pointing out Donors Trust, IIRC) demonstrating an apparent complete conflation of climate science with any and all businesses that are predicated on the implications of the science.

    Sharp thinkers, these mostly are not.

  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2014

    GSW, isn’t it cure whenever the religious buffs, especially BBD, decide that something “is finished”. :-)

    Frontiers seems to have indentified the core problem with the Loo-paper though. That there is a large quantity of people in academia:

    1. That believs there is actual substance in the 97% figure.

    2. That there is a well funded and coordinated attack against climate science.

    :-)

  58. #58 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2014

    “1. That believs there is actual substance in the 97% figure”

    We believe it because there is. An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that humans are driving climate change and that we need to take actions to mitigate the potentially serious consequences. This isn’t remotely controversial – except to uneducated laymen like Swedish meatball who have never been near an academic science lecture in their miserable lives.

    2. That there is a well funded and coordinated attack against climate science.

    Again, totally uncontroversial. Its a huge industry, climate change denial. There’s proof for it everywhere, not least in literally thousands of sources. Climate change denial is part of a well funded anti-environmental movement. The fact that meatball thinks there isn’t such a thing shows how utterly deluded and out of touch he is.

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2014

    The this from gormless:

    “Don’t let Elaine McKewon review papers”

    That doesn’t stop totally incompetent unqualified twits like him and meatball acting as if they are referees of studies or papers they don’t like. Its part of the stinking hypocrisy of the anti-scientific, anti-environmental crowd. They smear qualified scientists all the time, and act as if they are qualified arbiters of scientific research in any number of fields.

    This takes us back to old Dunning-Kruger: the less someone knows about something the more they think they know. Meatball and gormless aren’t qualified to judge a pile of fresh dog shit. But that doesn’t stop them acting as if they are experts in anything to do with climate or environmental science, and to overrule the views of the majority of qualified scientists. That’s the reason they are (1) anonymous and (2) stuck on blogs. Its one blessing. Nobody knows who the hell they are or cares in academia. Yet they act like silverbacks on here.

  60. #60 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2014

    And out of the shadows steps the high priest himself, topped off with a silly hat no less. :-)

    Mr Bicorne, my views on AGW are also captured by the 97% figure. Go figure….while eating a Curry:

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/11/curry-versus-trenberth/#more-15205

    She explains to anyone without bicorne-ears why the 97% figure says nothing wrt sceptical views.

    And the conspiracy you are mouth frothing about is only in your head, which you have proven times and times again.

    Good though that it’s dawning that studies based on imaginary figures and ghosts are good for nothing, scientifically that is.

  61. #61 bill
    April 12, 2014

    Oh, for God’s sake – ‘Climate Nuremberg’ – look who’s praising who here.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2014

    Compared with you, meatball, I AM a high priest…. and my professional scientific qualifications prove it. What are yours, by the way?

    OH! I FORGOT! You don’t have any!!! How rude of me to ask. I just thought that readers here should be reminded that you are a complete and utter idiot. As if they needed reminding.

    As for Curry,she’s one scientist against thousands. And my scientific qualifications match hers easily. You are so thick as to assume one dissenting voice makes a crowd.

    I got news for you meatball: it doesn’t.

  63. #63 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2014

    Sorry Jeffie, Curry is rather mainstream among real climate scientists. Among you unreal climate scientists, aka the acitivist cult distorting climate science, she might be fringe, but not wrt what real science says.

    The 97% figure is just number, you silly mad hatter. Please open the window an let out the delirious fumes you have been inhaling for the better part of your life. Let reality in Mr Bicorne.

  64. #64 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2014

    #59, bill, hey! I did win an internetz! Wizard hat tip.

  65. #65 GSW
    April 12, 2014

    @bill

    Thanks for the Jo Nova link bill, nice article.

    “Deniers are continually pressing for a scientific debate. Why? Because they can’t refute the political reality (that climate change necessitates a new world order). So they attack the weakest link—the science—instead.”

    Ha! ;)

    Brad Keyes appears to have his own blog now:

    “CLIMATE NUREMBERG”
    “Because we need a sort of Climate Nuremberg.”
    http://climatenuremberg.com/

    In case you don’t get it straight away, he’s having a go at the alarmist blogosphere, Deltoid like, and other sites, and quite amusing it is too.

    This post caught my eye:

    “Communication Dilemmas #1: Wishing Death on People Without Losing Them”
    http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/11/communication-dilemmas-1-wishing-death-on-people-without-losing-them/

    “Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.”

    Yeah, there’s behind this cheering on all natural disasters and that somehow they are good for the cause ;)

    “The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone.”

    Indeed, a few ideated megadeaths would help enormously.

    “Cognitive scientist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need:”

    which all seems to have triggered by cRR’s post here:
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=104&&n=219#3617

    “Knowing this, I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map. Because the sooner the lesson is learnt by early confrontation, the better one more population will be suited to anticipate and mitigate the vast weather and climate (+ related) disasters that lie in the immediate future and to lose all distractions on the way.”

    Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole?

    Brad’s blog has started well, makes the point and is entertaining at the same time.
    ;)

  66. #66 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2014

    #63 GSW – “Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole?”

    Climate revisionist.

  67. #67 chek
    April 12, 2014

    Griselda channeling Brad said “Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole? “

    And just how many Katrinas and Sandys and Haiyans and Gustavs and Fays per decade can the global economy afford?
    It’s not like the Earth is cooling down, so even more energetic weather systems can be expected in the future.

  68. #68 FrankD
    April 12, 2014

    Olaus at #55 says that the 97% figure has no substance.
    Olaus at #58 says that his views are captured by the 97% figure.

    Conclusion: Olaus’ thinks his own views have no substance.

    QED.

    At least its something we can all agree on.

  69. #69 chek
    April 12, 2014

    It’s no great surprise that Griselda promotes the Keyes social site for climate ignorami. But anyone sane would wonder why idiots prefer to listen to other uninformed, (not to mention unhinged) unleavened idiots when they could use the same time learning something real by actual, recognised experts.

  70. #70 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2014

    #65, chek, exactly the question I’m positing with some tanks around it.

  71. #71 Lionel A
    April 12, 2014

    Rich pickings indeed for future Recursion with this from bradsock on ‘The analysis of speech’:

    Meanwhile, for whatever reason, our friend Dr Kampen’s seemingly-banal remarks are proving to be of some interest to people outside STW.

    by blowing his own trumpet being worth its weight in socks.

    Foxgoose making out like a braying ass is another, and I note his ‘Foxgoose Foxgoose’ moniker elsewhere which could be another variable in the code.

    They just cannot help themselves.

  72. #72 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2014

    Meatball laments, “Sorry Jeffie, Curry is rather mainstream among real climate scientists”

    Incorrect. She is an outsider on the fringe. If she were mainstream, then ever scientific organization on the planet would espouse the same views as she does. But they don’t, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scientists, as well as the scientific research, shows that AGW is very real and potentially very serious for humanity.

    Again, given that you are an arrogant idiot, please tell us all what your profession is, how that relates to science and, if not, why you, of all people, has an insiders view of the views of the scientific community.

    The facts are these: you are not a scientist, have no links whatsoever to the scientific community, and thus make up your own ‘facts’ on the spot. I am a scientist and I know a lot more than you about the mainstream view on CC.

    Its just a shame that after a few relatively quiet and peaceful days on Deltoid you and your idiotic sidekick return with your willful ignorance. Why don’t you take same advice and ritually humiliate yourself on the denier blogs where you are in good company?

  73. #73 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2014

    Frank:

    You are correct, meatball actually believes that 97% of scientific evidence and 97% of the views of scientists support AGW denial. Now I don’t know whether this is some form of insanity or not (methinks it is) but if anybody wanted proof for a supposed conspiracy theory then meatball is the man to see. Remember, folks, that this is a guy (meatball) with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, no publications, no access to the online journals, no knowledge of any remotely relevant fields, erstwhile telling me, a scientist, that the prevailing wisdom in academia is on his side.

    Of course, as I have said many times, in a public venue debating actual scientists (I would gladly do this anywhere, anytime) meatball would be tarred, feathered and laughed into the intellectual abyss from which he emerged, but on a blog he can say that 97% of scientists believe the moon is made out of cheese and seemingly get away with it.

    For instance, when confronted with the facts (e.g. every major scientific organization on Earth and every National Academy verifies the existence and seriousness of AGW) he can use the Jonas slither: claim that the rank-and-file membership didn’t get to vote on it and thus claim that it isn’t representative of the general scientific view. Now, on an issue as important as CC and its implications, one would wonder why a few scientists in the upper echelon of every one of these major scientific organizations are AGW believers while most members are not (now THERE’S a conspiracy theory for you!) or that its some incredible statistical quirk that this happens across the planet; on the other hand, we would also have to wonder why, if there is so much scientific resistance to AGW that is somehow ‘suppressed’, that more scientists who are members of national academies are not speaking out against the statements released by their respective bodies. Are most of them terrified of speaking out, or else, as is true, do they for the most part support the positions of their academies?

    I have been or are a member of several major ecological organizations, and I periodically receive newsletters and bulletins from them. In discussing CC, AGW is taken as a ‘given’ by all of them. There are no exceptions. Discussions and articles in them which mention CC all take the position that it is largely man-made and that it is potentially very serious. One will find this in every newsletter and bulletin of every major scientific organization. The exceptions are on blogs and in think tanks, none of which conduct scientific research and many of which are on the corporate payroll.

    The bottom line is this: AGW is accepted by most scientists, across many disciplines. Meatball hasn’t got a clue and makes his facts up on the basis of a few denier blogs he visits. He’s not even an academic, for heaven’s sake, but an anonymous blogger. I have to admit that i question myself for even responding to his kindergarten-level antics and posts.

  74. #74 BBD
    April 12, 2014

    Brad’s blog has started well

    Brad’s blog has been around for a while, GSW. It started – and continues – as a means for him to have a go at me (amongst other things). Trouble is, nobody reads it. I think the stench of intellectual arrogance from Brad puts people off.

    Brad can’t get over the fact that whenever we meet, his nose gets metaphorically broken.

  75. #75 chek
    April 12, 2014

    I had a look for Keyes self-incriminating quote (to no avail) and then googled – the boy gets around and in almost every case to rubbish consensus as he understands it.

    It’s actually quite sad to see well-meaning, informed people obviously encountering it for the first time, trying to explain that consensus formed from observation and evidence is not the popularity vote Keyes insists it is and must be, every time. He refuses, for obvious reasons, to see the difference relying on tricksy semantics and assertion. Every time.

    I sincerely hope it’s not using his real name, as I really can’t see any use for a mini-Dellingpole wannabee who’s already exposed itself as a terminal and stubborn cretin at so many venues.

  76. #76 GSW
    April 12, 2014

    @BBD

    Brad’s pretty bright BBD and I’m sure his nose, metaphorically or otherwise, is fine. You’re joining jeff in his fantasy league “triumphs” I see. Didn’t we work out you’d been banned from a few blogs and you didn’t know why? It was over on the Jonas thread I think where you:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/#comment-161948

    ” I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again.” and

    ” I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well”

    It was like listening to a later day Oscar Wilde, the wit and charm just oozes from you. Do keep us updated with your own personal ” Viereinhalb Jahre (des Kampfes) gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit” or whatever you’re calling it these days.

  77. #77 chek
    April 12, 2014

    It’s all projection by deniers Jeff. The 97% of IPCC aligned scientists are suddenly (and magically) their consensus.

    The same bi-polar switcheroo makes Curry and Lindzen the mainstream too, and never mind about the huge international effort by thousands of research scientists that produce the IPCC reports.

    You really need to have Olap and Griselda’s pointy little heads and little pointy monocorne hats to accommodate the thought process required, otherwise it just sounds like an insane equivalence to offer. I was going to say argue, but then they never argue because they don’t have any evidence to make any argument, just attitude they pick up from the FF industry-favouring blogs..

  78. #78 chek
    April 12, 2014

    Griseldsa, liars invite being exposed, otherwise people wouldn’t know they were liars. Don’t tell lies, is the motto, even if they’re lies you don’t understand devised for your convenience.

  79. #79 BBD
    April 12, 2014

    GSW

    Didn’t we work out you’d been banned from a few blogs and you didn’t know why?

    No, we didn’t. I’ve been banned from only one: Bishop Hill, and only for correcting the errors of other commenters ;-)

  80. #80 BBD
    April 12, 2014

    It was like listening to a later day Oscar Wilde, the wit and charm just oozes from you.

    You expect me to respond to the repeated iteration of ignorance and lies with charm?

  81. #81 chek
    April 12, 2014

    Shouldn’t you be kissing Keyster and his new blog elsewhere Griselda? What on Earth are you wasting your time here getting all prissy for?

  82. #82 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2014

    Yes cheek, the 97% figure is empty of controversial content. In your little conspiratorial and fabricating mind it isn’t, but in the awful reality it is. Learn to live with it, and the hiatus needless to say. ;-)

  83. #83 BBD
    April 12, 2014

    Olaus

    For the record:

    The strong scientific consensus (we need not go further than that) is that AGW is real, and potentially dangerous if CO2 emissions continue to increase.

  84. #84 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2014

    Hey BBD, the CO2-emissions are increasing, true, but accelarating global warming is lobal, even though Jeffie noticed it first hand. 15 years of no significant warming…

    It’s no fun being a portentologist of doom and gloom these days. :-)

  85. #85 chek
    April 12, 2014

    Olap, a dog standing on its hind legs and yapping little barks that, if you strain your ears just so, might sound like words is, for the first time, a PT Barnum style wonder. But even so, the dog doesn’t understand what the words it’s imitating mean.

    But you’ve done that little trick so often now, it’s just boring and conveying nothing except what a one-trick mutt you are.

  86. #86 chek
    April 12, 2014

    Put this down to one more try for the poor and afflicted.

    Olap, do you why your hiatus meme begins in 1998?

    You probably don’t, because reason isn’t important to you and you’d believe any old shit your pin-brain liked the sound of.

    But there is a reason – oh yes, indeedy there is.
    And the reason is this: 1998 saw a super El Niño (where stored heat exited the ocean) and caused a for the time, massive spike in surface temperatures, unprecedented in the modern record.

    We haven’t seen such an event since, because while all that ‘missing heat’ you deniers like to chuckle to yourselves about is being stored in the oceans, surface temperatures have been edging up to the level of that spike without needing an El Niño to boost them.

    Another super EL Niño is expected (ENSO is after all one of those natural cycles deniers like to witter about) and a corresponding boost to global surface temperature will ensue.

    That’s the point at which the denial industry will be stuck for answers and you, my little pointy head, will have a whole headful of new tunes to learn.

  87. #87 BBD
    April 12, 2014

    Olaus

    Essentially, what chek said. Until you understand the basics of physical climatology you will be confused by liars.

    You cannot determine the energy balance of the climate system from short samples of surface temperature variability. It’s just a fact that falls out of a basic understanding of physical climatology.

    So here’s me, understanding this, trying to explain it to you against your vigorous attempts not to understand what I am saying. Shockingly, we get nowhere. But that doesn’t mean that you are correct.

  88. #88 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2014

    For how long has the swedish crook been around?

  89. #89 chek
    April 13, 2014

    For too long, I’m sorry to report, cRR.

  90. #90 chameleon
    April 13, 2014

    Of course this comment will not appear for days but I simply can’t resist.
    Look at all of you carrying on about Brad Keyes ????
    Yet you had him banned and/or corralled here.
    From people who claim they care about truth and ‘intellectual honesty’ ?????
    Would you call this even remotely fair?????
    You merrily throw insults and make snide, rude comments and he has no way to defend himself or to reply to your snide and thoroughly rude behaviour.
    But, on the other hand, if he discovers that you are discussing him here I have little doubt that he is ROFL & LOL and considering it a goldmine.
    :-) :-) :-) :-)
    BTW.
    Craig Thomas says:

    Keyes is an idiot:
    He says, “consensus is an opinion”.
    He works so very hard at not getting it.

    NOT GETTING WHAT?????????
    The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus) says:

    con·sen·sus
    [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA

    noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
    1.
    majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
    2.
    general agreement or concord; harmony.

  91. #91 Stu 2
    April 13, 2014

    Chek @ # 84.
    That will be an El Nino event & not incontrovertible proof of CAGW.
    Cherry picking is cherry picking & both sides of this debate are doing it.
    After reading the CN blog, it looks like you are playing straight into the trap that this Keyes character has laid.

  92. #92 chek
    April 13, 2014

    Nope, I ain’t gonna add a single click to The Keyster”s page count on his dumb – his consistent performances elsewhere confirming that – blog..

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    April 13, 2014

    Brad’s pretty bright…

    …if, by “bright”, you mean capable of spinning the most egregious fallacies and red herrings using a bunch of big words that impress people who aren’t capable of seeing the distinction between the bigness of the words and the validity of the argument.

    He’s also the kind of “bright” who can convince himself so thoroughly of something that’s just wrong that nothing will ever change his mind.

    Accordingly his alleged “brightness” has very little bearing on whether his claims are valid or not.

  94. #94 Stu 2
    April 13, 2014

    So are you Lotharsson.
    Come in spinner!

  95. #95 bill
    April 13, 2014

    Gee, Pid’s back!

    Except of course, Pin-dopey-o, that the next major El Niño will put paid entirely to the hiatus myth, which is a very big deal in your sad little world because you’ve little else to run with!

    How about dealing with Chek’s point that now, less than 2 decades later, neutral years are as warm as this hitherto unprecedented freak?

    And CAGW is a ‘I’ve drunk-the-kool-aid’ term, plonker, so deploying it rather jars with the whole faux-evenhanded schtick, don’t you think? See, let no-one say we’re not giving you useful hints here…

  96. #96 bill
    April 13, 2014

    D’oh! italic closure fail (after neutral) but meh!

  97. #97 Olaus Petri
    April 13, 2014

    There could be a happy ending fellas:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pvS72S0czE#t=239

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    April 13, 2014

    After my last two demolitions of meatball, he retreats back to his original vacuous position:

    “It ain’t so!!! It ain’t so! I know because I am a Dunning-Kruger acolyte who has never done any scientific study or research in my miserable life, so I, above all people, should know better than anyone what the prevailing scientific views are on CC!!!”

    ….and so on and so forth. This is the thrust of meatball’s arguments. He cannot prove anything because he has no relevant qualifications and is therefore incompetent. All he can try and do is attack those who are scientists who do the research, and feebly try and marginalize them.

    I’ve challenged him to explain why, if the vast majority of scientific opinion is on his side, that 100% of major scientific bodies have released statements of policy agreeing over the causes of AGW and of the serious threat it poses for humanity and nature. He won’t say it, but the only answer he can give is that there must be some vast conspiracy – exactly what Lewandowsky says in his excellent studies. Otherwise its impossible to explain why 97% of scientists and of the empirical evidence are on his side.

    I think this is partly what meatball actually thinks. the other part is purely pathological lying, with a tad of insanity thrown in for good measure.

  99. #99 Olaus Petri
    April 13, 2014

    Again Jeffie declares a “demolition” of me. :-) Hilaroius, since it comes from the guy who witnessed climate change first hand, and bragged about it. :-)

    A lot of things happens between Jeffie’s ears, but seldom in real life.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    April 13, 2014

    So are you Lotharsson.

    I doubt you can back that up as I tend to publicly change my mind when I’m shown to be wrong, but feel free…

    Or perhaps you were responding to “his alleged “brightness” has very little bearing on whether his claims are valid or not.” In that case, I totally agree that it also applies to me. My arguments stand or fall based on evidence and logic, not any allegations or otherwise of “brightness” on my part.