April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 GSW
    April 14, 2014

    @BBD

    “I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

    I can’t trump that BBD, brilliant!
    ;)

  2. #2 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    And raising the HI again? Are you mad? The people who – funded by the infamous “Anonymous Donor” – were solemnly proposing to create a curriculum for school children that was packed with climate change misinformation?

    Are you sure you want to talk about this? Because I cannot imagine a single reason why since it is an excellent illustration of my exact point.

    I get the sense, GSW, that you are simply flailing around with your pig’s bladder on a stick because you don’t know what else to do. Careful you don’t trip over it and end up on your arse.

  3. #3 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    I can’t trump that BBD, brilliant!

    I don’t want you to trump it; I want you to prove that it is incorrect.

    And I know you cannot do that.

    But I *can* provide evidence. See eg Brulle (2013) or any of the links Jeff posted upthread. You really should read the material people here link, GSW. You could then avoid making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public.

  4. #4 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    “I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

    Donors Trust. Why does it exist unless my statement is true and correct?

    Answer me, GSW. Why does Donors Trust exist?

  5. #5 chek
    April 14, 2014

    I’m afraid BBD that being morally bankrupt means that Griselda can’t tell the difference between one side promoting solutions in accordance with the best scientific evidence available, and the other side – Griselda’s – lying and distorting and misrepresenting the science as well as manipulating elected officials to maintain the status quo.

    You might as well hold a Rembrandt up to a blind man and ask their opinion.

  6. #6 GSW
    April 14, 2014

    @BBD

    For goodness sake BBD do I have to spell everything out for you:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

    “conspiracy theory noun: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”

    Your #96 reads

    “I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

    and guess what? you ideated it
    ;)

  7. #7 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    GSW

    The problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language. As I have patiently (for me) explained to you several times now, conspiracist ideation is a fantasy process which goes well beyond matters of fact.

    Since I only deal in matters of fact I cannot be guilty of conspiracist ideation.

    You *still* seem incapable of understanding the meaning of conspiracist ideation.

    Please try again.

  8. #8 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How?

    It is not.

    It is simply a matter of fact.

    The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact.

    Do you understand this yet?

  9. #9 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.

    Do you understand this definition now?

  10. #10 chek
    April 14, 2014

    While you’re waiting for more disingenuous piffle from Griselda, they understand only too well. That’s why all the evasion.

    The galactic-scale of offence taken at Lewandowsy’s papers has shown us that cranks do not like to be told they’re cranks or that they’re recognised as cranks.

    Griselda has many, many more moments of shoe-gazing to do before daring to look your question in the eye and respond with a plain answer.

  11. #11 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    While you’re waiting for more disingenuous piffle from Griselda

    :-)

    The galactic-scale of offence taken at Lewandowsy’s papers has shown us that cranks do not like to be told they’re cranks or that they’re recognised as cranks.

    Oh yes. I suspect the climate crankery and the sense of self are closely intertwined, hence the savage reaction when the whole stinking mess is tonged out of the midden and held up, dripping foully, for public inspection.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    April 14, 2014

    Meanwhile in the world of reality GHGs have continued to rise

    THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

    Increases in the abundance of atmospheric greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are mainly the result of human activity and are largely responsible for the observed increases in global temperature [IPCC 2007].

  13. #13 BBD
    April 14, 2014

    Looks like nobody from STW is going to come over and give me the Mary Whitehouse treatment for potty-mouth.

    But then they wouldn’t, because that is the difference between confected outrage and the real thing.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    April 15, 2014
  15. #15 Stu 2
    April 15, 2014

    On a reading of the recent posts here and the ensuing semantic argument, I decided I might check up the definitions of conspiracist and ideation:
    conspiracist
    noun
    1.
    a person who believes in or supports a conspiracy theory. ; plural noun: conspiracists
    1. a group or organisation which believes in or supports a conspiracy theory.
    &

    i`de•a′tion, n.

    i•de•ate (ˈaɪ diˌeɪt)
    v. -at•ed, -at•ing. v.t.
    1. to form an idea, conception, or image of.
    v.i.
    2. to form ideas or images; think.

    As GSW pointed out @ # 2; this comment here by BBD does indeed fit the definition :
    “I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”
    Much of what Jeff Harvey writes on the previous page also fits that definition.
    So perhaps both sides of this enviro/climate/political debate are engaging in some conspiracist ideation?

  16. #16 Lionel A
    April 15, 2014

    2stupid
    The identification of persons or organisations engaged as conspirators is dealing in established fact and not theory.

    The identification has been carried out by John Mashey, Robert J Brule and others.

    That is your illogical fallacy on display right there.

  17. #17 chek
    April 15, 2014

    I can only presume that deniers are 2Stupid to understand the difference between established ‘fact’ and unsubstantiated ‘theory’. Across multiple fora they all display the same elementary fallacy that ‘conspiracy’ = ‘conspiracy ideation’.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    April 15, 2014

    Stu 2, it is quite often the case in English that the phrase of the form “A B” formed from word “A” and word “B” has a specific meaning beyond that implied by either A, B or their individual meanings combined.

    (And speaking of recent context, pretending that this is not the case is one of Mr. Keyes’ favourite ruses.)

  19. #19 Lionel A
    April 15, 2014

    Further to my #12 above and as BBD has mentioned them several times, here is a page on Donors Trust .

    Be sure to enlarge and examine the main graphic in detail. This is what the blowhards like Keyes are tring to blow smokescreens around. Who knows, he may even work as a solicitors clerk within associated machinery.

  20. #20 Ian Forrester
    April 15, 2014

    Chek, i really like your use of the terms “Keyster” and “Keysterism”. It is obvious that Keyes hasn’t a clue as to what they mean. This is hardly surprising since he hides his brain up his arse.

  21. #21 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    2Stupid

    You are, inevitably, wrong and for the usual reasons: a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part. Go back and read what I wrote again. It is crystal clear. Do not create confusion where none exists. Do not claim that there are errors in my use of language where none exist. That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember?

  22. #22 chek
    April 15, 2014

    With all due regards to Abbot & Costello, Ian!

  23. #23 chek
    April 15, 2014

    O ffs Lou Abbott, of course.
    No!, No! Bud!
    Bud Abbott.
    Why you…

  24. #24 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    As GSW pointed out @ # 2; this comment here by BBD does indeed fit the definition :
    “I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

    Brulle (2013).

    Donors Trust.

    Matters of fact are not theories. Read the words, Stupid.

  25. #25 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    Read the previous page, Stupid. Don’t be so lazy. Read the links, Stupid. It will save pain later.

    Remember what happened with Abbot & Pierrhumbert, Stupid. You don’t want a repeat of that.

  26. #26 Ian Forrester
    April 15, 2014

    Chek, I was thinking of this meaning:

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

  27. #27 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    Keister was what I though chek had in mind.

  28. #28 GSW
    April 15, 2014

    Salvete, Slime mold!

    How bideth the giant conspiracy ideation slug? Your place in the great circle/tree of life manifested itself yet?

    http://www.shigen.nig.ac.jp/shigen/image/newsletter/200803_5el.gif
    ;)

  29. #29 chek
    April 15, 2014

    Yes, I was alluding to the more old school version, recalled from old movies, combined with an ’80′s onwards fashion for the ‘-ster’ name suffix.
    But I’m very pleased to see Ian’s definition offers the correct spelling and retains the general meaning.

  30. #30 chek
    April 15, 2014

    Are you aspiring to be the dullest fuck ever, Griselda?
    Or what?

  31. #31 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    Oh, this is old school.

    ;-)

    keister

    keis·ter
    [kee-ster]
    noun Slang.
    the buttocks; rump.
    Also, keester.

    Origin:
    1880–85; earlier, as underworld argot, handbag, suitcase, safe; of obscure origin, but words meaning “chest, box” are frequently adduced as sources, e.g., kist1 , German Kiste, Yiddish kestl, etc.

    Plus ça change…

  32. #32 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    #26

    When you ain’t got an argument and you just got thumped, what do you do?

    Oh…

  33. #33 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    You take your bullshit to another blog and repeat it as if nothing had happened.

  34. #34 GSW
    April 15, 2014

    @BBD

    “You take your bullshit to another blog and repeat it as if nothing had happened.”

    Well BBD, I’d be very surpised if the meaning words had changed overnight -But then there are few things one can be truly certain of; death, taxes and your continued ignorance of absolutely everything.

  35. #35 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by “sceptics” been proven to be true, as in ‘not imagined’?

    Come on, GSW, play the game.

  36. #36 BBD
    April 15, 2014

    What is the difference between an imagined conspiracy and a real one? Why does the phrase conspiracist ideation even exist?

    What does it mean?

    From an SkS article by Cook and Lewandowsky:

    Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation

    Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:

    1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.

    2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.

    3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.

    4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.

    5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.

    6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.

  37. #37 Stu
    April 16, 2014

    Oh for fuck’s sake, as if on cue Stu2 comes in with a dictionary and a distinct lack of anything that can be described as a fucking clue.

    Guys, you don’t get it! The only way to last as a denialist troll is to evade the issues permanently. Your dungeoned idol knew that much, at least — he just weaseled away from anything substantive.

    You’ve now dipped your toes into actual issues several times and came out looking like complete, utter, abject morons. I repeat: you are too fucking stupid to have these grown-up discussions. Just confine yourselves to drooling and smileys. Much safer that way.

    By the way, the outrage over how the Heartland documents were obtained is absolutely precious. Who cares what’s in them? THEY FIBBED TO GET THEM! THE HUMANITY!

    Somehow, I’m reminded of certain service records, a fairly recent US election and Dan Rather. This should come as no surprise, guys. If people happily re-elect a proven deserter because, erm… KERNING!, this is easy grist for the lunacy mill.

  38. #38 bill
    April 16, 2014

    I’m always astonished that someone as bone-stupid as GooSeyW can be so smugly convinced that he’s scoring points. You ain’t, doofus! You’re just another tedious DK posterboy… but in your jejeune little mind you’re a legend in your own lunchtime.

    Pathetic. And so, so boring.

    It’s notable that shub disappeared when the risibility of his position became so obvious even he couldn’t keep dragging himself on. But our resident hypertrolls are just too thick to ever comprehend how daft they truly are – which is a mercy for GooSey, of course, because if he could really understand what a mind-numbing fool he appears…

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    April 16, 2014
  40. #40 Stu 2
    April 16, 2014

    BBD @ # 32.
    If I read Jeff Harvey’s comment @ # 40 previous page & your comment @ # 67 previous page, they match up rather well with the Cook & Lewandowsky section you copied.
    BTW much of the speculation here about why the RF paper was refused publication also bears a remarkable resemblance to your copied piece. Especially but not exclusively point 2.

  41. #41 Lionel A
    April 16, 2014

    Whilst the 2Stupids of the world continue with their inane posture there is further evidence for climate change from the genetic adaptation of a small attractive butterfly the Brown Argus.

    In the UK this butterfly was thought to be in decline in southern England where it laid its eggs on the favoured rockrose plant. As the country further north has\warmed so this butterfly has moved into places previously too harsh and changed its food plant species to geranium.

    Scientific tests by putting individuals of each type Northern and Southern Brown Argus under cover with both food plants has revealed that the northern Brown Argus has genetically adapted to use the geranium in preference to rockrose with its southern relative choosing the reverse.

    British butterfly defies doom prediction to thrive in changing climate. Why do sub-editors feel the necessity to string words such as doom, defies and prediction together in this way?

    Good news for the Brown Argus sure but this does not mean that other invertebrates will be able to evolve to cope with a rapidly changing climate.

  42. #42 FrankD
    April 16, 2014

    I notice that bastion of scientific rectitude, the IPA, have dispatched Pat Michaels to Oz to ring the bell to get the woofers salivating. I couldn’t help but notice that Pat doesn’t mind a bit of the old conspiracy ideation – after all he is the author of “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.

    Woooo, the unnamed “they“, scary! Or, calling card of someone in tinfoil millinery

    I also notice the IPA have their own book called “Climate Change: The Facts 2014″. Apart from Dr Michael’s no-doubt stellar contributions, it is co-authored by Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, Rupert Darwall, Nigel Lawson, Alan Moran, Mark Steyn, John Roskam and Willard Anthony himself, so I presume the use of the word “fact” in the title is some new usage the kids have these days, like when “bad” meant good. Either that or they are trying to tap the burning irony as a new fuel source…

  43. #43 FrankD
    April 16, 2014

    On second thoughts, maybe the IPA are trying to assemble a critical mass of stupid, whose infinite density will open a wormhole to another planet, allowing them to escape when they’ve fucked this one up.

  44. #44 cRR Kampen
    April 16, 2014

    “Good news for the Brown Argus sure but this does not mean that other invertebrates will be able to evolve to cope with a rapidly changing climate.”

    Including those dependant on the Brown Argus visiting a particular flower, like parasites and the flower itself.
    Good news for this particular species, but a species stands never alone. What is described here, is an ecological instability. Same may easily give rise to plagues AND mass extinctions. Adstruction: http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/03/climate-change-sends-beetles-overdrive .

  45. #45 Lionel A
    April 16, 2014

    On FrankD’s revelation above here is Pat Michaels spewing forth at Forbes, you know that ‘scientific journal’ that deniers and liers for hire (DELIERS perhaps) now have to resort to to get published:

    Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?

    -

    Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.

    Is Garth Paltridge still a respected atmospheric scientist?

    He has his own entry at Sourcewatch – Garth Paltridge.

  46. #46 chek
    April 16, 2014

    That’s some stellar array of expertise that CCTF2014 has harnessed there Frank. It’s almost a black hole of goonery as it is. A few more like-minded souls and it would likely have imploded.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    April 16, 2014

    The CCTF2014 circus is well outed by Graham Readfearn

    Tax Breaks In Australia To Fund Climate Misinformation Book

    by now should not the antics of these propaganda merchants claiming charity status be classed as a fraud?

  48. #48 Lionel A
    April 16, 2014

    A few more like-minded souls and it would likely have imploded.

    Is Piers Corbyn NOT amongst the invited speakers? For shame then, I’ll not be going.

  49. #49 GSW
    April 16, 2014

    @All

    Brad has an update to an earlier post up at climatenuremberg(Getting denialistic about climate skepticism.)
    “BBD Goes Full Conspiracist”
    http://climatenuremberg.com/2013/12/11/bbd-goes-full-conspiracist/

    “But the patient himself, BBD, maintains a contrarian view. Although he is unqualified to do so, he argues he is healthy—and so, in accordance with our ‘False Balance’ policy, we have offered BBD space on ClimateNuremberg to lay out his alternative, crank reasoning.”

  50. #50 cRR Kampen
    April 16, 2014

    GSW, how do you know this? Are you Brad?

  51. #51 cRR Kampen
    April 16, 2014

    GSW, how do you know this? Are you Brad?

  52. #52 cRR Kampen
    April 16, 2014

    (oops, #51 not intended, while I don’t see how it happened)

  53. #53 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    Unfortunately, Brad is a sociopathic liar who made a stupid mistake and now will not admit it. Nor will GSW. Neither clown has yet answered the following simple question:

    Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by “sceptics” been proven to be true, as in ‘not imagined’?

    The answer is, no, of course not. Therefore the conspiracies were *imaginary*.

    So there’s nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there?

    “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.

    Obviously not.

    So Brad (like GSW) is stuffed. Unlike GSW, Brad is clever enough to realise this so he goes on the attack. But he knows, and I know, and everybody bar the morons who has read this knows who got their arse kicked. Again.

  54. #54 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    It’s interesting that the scum have decided to deny that there is any difference at all between imaginary conspiracies and matters of fact, eg Donors Trust.

    Can they really be that stupid, or is this simply a deliberate lie with the sole intention of smearing me?

    I think we know the answer to that one as well.

  55. #55 GSW
    April 16, 2014

    @cRR Kampen

    “GSW, how do you know this? Are you Brad?”

    No I’m not brad, the discussion, after a brief lull, is continuing over at the rabett’s:

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-mysterious-mr-revkin.html?commentPage=2

    Brad posted a link to his update from there.

  56. #56 Stu
    April 16, 2014

    It’s the standard Fox tactic: bleat your nonsense long enough, loudly enough, stupidly enough and obnoxiously enough that people who don’t have the time or inclination to look into details are turned off by the entire discussion and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Acting moronically and getting called on it is not a bug, it’s a feature.

  57. #57 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    GSW

    Re your fantastically funny comment at Eli’s, you do realise that Brad must have been reading this thread because he has posted most of it at RR now don’t you?

    So your remark about paranoid imaginings on my part may be among the most stupid you have ever made.

  58. #58 GSW
    April 16, 2014

    @BBD

    “Brad must have been reading this thread because he has posted most of it at RR now don’t you?

    You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD ;) I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection. So what new conspiracy are you preparing to ideate from these newly discovered set of “facts”?

  59. #59 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    Brad

    Getting into bed with a moron like GSW makes you look, if possible, even worse. Opportunistic and vicious and dishonest are an unlovely combination.

    Do, please, feel free to reproduce this observation on you blog.

  60. #60 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD

    What are you talking about, idiot?

  61. #61 chek
    April 16, 2014

    What you have to realise BBD is that being too stupid to see their own stupidity, what stupid does for entertainment is go to stupid’s blog and crow about how stupid the stupid over there is being. Without realising that you’d have to be stupid to do that.
    Plus it saves them feeling stupid about what they haven’t understood because their own crank version makes them feel that anyone using the stupid hereonin as used by stupid must be as equally stupid as the stupid.
    Hence the smug stupid from Griselda and Brad, caught in a world of stupid they succeed in making even more stupid as long as you’re as stupid as them.
    But if you aren’t well stupid is as stupid does and reads.

  62. #62 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    From Eli’s:

    GSW said…

    @BBD

    “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”

    Remember BBD, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.
    ;)
    16/4/14 3:55 AM

    So an orchestrated smear campaign then.

    Thanks for being so frank about it. Brad’s just denied this over at Eli’s, so you two need to synchronise brains. Except that’s going to present a problem, what with you involved, eh, GSW?

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    April 16, 2014

    You know, one would think that Brad Keyes (or whoever the hell he is) is some prominent well known scientist who has views that are profoundly influential in terms of science and policy, at least based on the number of blogs in which he pops up.

    The truth, it turns out, is quite different. He’s a nobody, a schmuck with apparent delusions of grandeur who nobody in the scientific world has probably ever heard of (me and a few others excepted).

  64. #64 GSW
    April 16, 2014

    @BBD

    “What are you talking about, idiot?”

    Don’t you read books BBD? It’s a very well known quotation from a book by Joseph Heller.

    “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”
    ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

    Ask for copy at the book shop when you’re getting your dictionary.

  65. #65 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    So why did you use it if not to indicate that this is a concerted smear campaign?

    That was the question I asked you. So answer it.

  66. #66 GSW
    April 16, 2014

    @jeff

    There’s one there for you as well jeff:

    “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With [Jeff Harvey] it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.”
    ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

  67. #67 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”

    ?

    ;-)

  68. #68 chek
    April 16, 2014

    The Griselda guide to the re-defining of humour.
    Find something nasty, put it in the same sentence as your target.
    And that’s it folks.
    No language skill, no clever inversion, no word play, no allusions, no parallels, just plain dumb spite… which is what Griselda does, everytime. But then anything requiring or pertaining to intelligence is off-limits for obvious reasons.

    You can see why the admiration for Jonarse and the Keyster know no limit for Butthead and his Beavis.

  69. #69 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    Hopefully the silence indicates that GSW has finally realised what he has done.

  70. #70 bill
    April 16, 2014

    GooSey, you know what I said about you being an idiot?

  71. #71 bill
    April 16, 2014

    I’ve just realised, upon re-reading his posts and sort-of shrinking my mind to fit; GooSey is indeed so daft that he doesn’t know what ‘a Catch 22 situation’ is!

    You could not make it up!…

  72. #72 chek
    April 16, 2014

    But then Griselda could well be a Major Major type who wouldn’t get it even after it was explained in all caps..

  73. #73 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    Brad, at Eli’s, unsynchronised with his new BF:

    Relax! ClimateNuremberg is asking you this out courtesy. We’re not out to get you.

    Emphasis added for fun.

  74. #74 BBD
    April 16, 2014

    bill

    As we know to our cost, GSW is too stupid to understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a matter of fact. Brad isn’t, so one has to assume he’s just pretending that he doesn’t.

  75. #75 bill
    April 16, 2014

    Oh, GooSey really likes ALL CAPS, that’s why he’s now Bradley’s NUMBER ONE FAN.

    Poor old Jonas must be rolling in his thread…

  76. #76 chek
    April 16, 2014

    No. El Keyster isn’t quite as stupid as he appears.

    He is however clueless and completely marinated in denier theology and a vile, maniplulative personality and given to or taken by a false and thus laughable sense of grandeur.

    But no, he’s not dumb as a shitpost like Olap and Griselda

  77. #77 Stu 2
    April 17, 2014

    Bill @ # 71.
    Here you go
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

    “A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22″ have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.”

    That’s reasonably straightforward don’t you think?
    Considering GSW commented thus:
    “You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD ;) I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection.”

    I think GSW does indeed understand the meaning of a Catch 22 situation and perhaps you might need to brush up or explain what you think it means?
    BTW.
    The scrapping over semantics and definitions here and at other places is becoming outright Orwellian at the moment.
    While language is somewhat organic and it does grow and adapt with us and therefore new terminology is a part of our language; basic and agreed definitions do still matter.
    Otherwise none of us would be able to communicate via the spoken and written language at all.

  78. #78 bill
    April 17, 2014

    Pid, now you’re defending our resident nong! Methinks your desire to contradict distorts your reading comprehension.

    I know exactly what a Catch 22 situation is. When BBD asked ‘what are you talking about, idiot? with regard to doofus’ claim he was in one, here’s the reply.

    So, what, a Catch 22 situation is where just because they say you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you? No, it ain’t. BBD ain’t in one.

  79. #79 Stu 2
    April 17, 2014

    Bill.
    Read the definition and then read GSW’s original comment.
    That is a Catch 22 situation.

  80. #80 Stu 2
    April 17, 2014

    Also Bill. I am not defending any person – I am pointing out the meaning of a Catch 22 situation.

  81. #81 bill
    April 17, 2014

    Oh, and on your account, BBD could only be in a Catch 22 situation if he – BBD – had just expressed some desire for Brad to comment here. That’s why he has no idea what GooSey is on about.

    And it’s not a ‘quotation’, it’s a term that has become popularised as a flip way of describing an inescapably self-cancelling dilemma. What GooSey gives by way of explanation, on the other hand, is a quotation.

  82. #82 chek
    April 17, 2014

    I am pointing out …

    Best not, eh?
    The one thing you, Keyster, Olap and Griselda can be sure of is that you’re not the smartest in the room.

  83. #83 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2014

    GSW (gormless), I guess you’d know all about mediocrity eh? But then again, maybe not. I don’t think you even reach that high in terms of intelligence… so my advice for you is to strive to attain mediocrity, although it may well be beyond you.

    I guess me calling out Keyes hit a nerve with gormless and his ultra right wing views. But if one compares what he and I have achieved in our careers, then I think I can safely say that I know who is in front. That’s well enough for me. If I am mediocre, then I am happy with that. As I said, this places gormless way down the totem pole.

  84. #84 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2014

    Stu2: get a life.

  85. #85 Craig Thomas
    April 17, 2014

    For Stu 2′s benefit, the term “Catch-22 situation” has nothing to do with the quotation GSW provided.

    What it *has* to do with is the kind of situation described in the book (from Wikipedia)
    “…any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in making the request and thus cannot be declared insane.”
    and
    “”They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”
    “What law says they don’t have to?”
    “Catch-22″.”

  86. #86 GSW
    April 17, 2014

    @jeff

    “If I am mediocre, then I am happy with that.”

    Yes, I expect you probably would be.

    @rest

    One more Heller quote:

    “[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”
    ― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

    You could do it as a crowd source project, get your dictionaries out, discuss the entriy for each word, then get the meaning completely arse about tit when you put them all together – as usual.
    ;)

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    April 17, 2014

    GSW projects again. News at 11.

  88. #88 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    April 17, 2014

    Best not, eh?
    The one thing you, Keyster, Olap and Griselda can be sure of is that you’re not the smartest in the room.

    The thing that really gets up my nose is that not a single one of them is as stupid as they pretend to be.

    They deliberately choose to ignore facts and knowledge and to follow wherever their personal preferences lead – even if that’s to downright nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense.

    Just like all those idiots who claim that speed limits and stop signs have no reason or logic behind them except governments collecting fines. They do have stirrings in the back of their minds that these things are well-founded which they choose not to listen to. Nevertheless, they’re the ones who kill and maim themselves along with others by acting in accordance with their own preferred ignorance.

  89. #89 Craig Thomas
    April 17, 2014

    “[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”
    ― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

    This reminds of opening up an edition of The Australian at an airport on Tuesday – Graeme Lloyd was setting off the IPCC published opinion against some Lomborg quotes.

    Lomborg, FFS, and Graeme Lloyd is so professionally defective he fails to question himself about the suitability of using the opinions of a man who was found by his country’s top science body to have been scientifically dishonest.

  90. #90 bill
    April 17, 2014

    Note, Pid, that even after you valiantly struggled to give him an (albeit tenuous) out, he still has no idea what just happened.

    How many times have GooSey and Oily been warned that trying to be a smartarse in a second language is just a primrose path to fail, as the young folk do say?…

  91. #91 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2014

    GSW #55, roger that.
    Meantime, brad seems quite interested in ‘Merchants of Doubt’. I wonder what evidence is in that book, or referred to, that makes him that interested.
    We know more every day.

  92. #92 chek
    April 17, 2014

    His thing on MoD was that it’s anti-Semitic, because Oreskes picked on people with names that ‘sounded Jewish’.
    When it comes to low-lifes, you really have to lower the bar a long way down to accommodate the Keyster.

  93. #93 cRR Kampen
    April 17, 2014

    #92 chek, well, one would need to have an eye out for that. I didn’t notice. I don’t care, really. But perhaps a Hebrew word for ‘pleasantness’, e.g. ‘naomi’, might irk him a little bit, especially after a recent (unsurprising) DNA revelation on the descent of Eva Braun, or just because of ‘pleasantness’.

    Nah, it’s a vehicle. There is something more concrete in the book. Maybe his real name.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    April 17, 2014

    John Mashey has provided a very useful link on the ‘Frontiers Expert Panel’ to a blog post explaining the organisation that is Frontiers:

    “Recursive Fury:” the reasons of Frontiers’ blunder and at Eli’s is a post describing another similar business model:

    Frontiers of Amway.

  95. #95 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2014

    GSW, As I said, if I am mediocre, then that makes you positively benthic. In terms of science, you don’t reach up to my shoelaces, if that. You’re a twit through and through whose world is a sordid combination of right wing pundits, anti-environmental blogs, and sheer stupidity. The fact that you write in here, where you and your views are loathed, is proof positive of that.

  96. #96 bill
    April 17, 2014

    Channeling GooSey for a moment: Ha Ha Ha, I don’t know who this ben is who you think is really thick, Jeffie, but Ha Ha Ha I’m actually really smart so the jokes on you, Ha Ha, smiley, smiley, smiley.

  97. #97 GSW
    April 17, 2014

    @jeff

    “GSW, As I said, if I am mediocre, then that makes you positively benthic.”

    That isn’t what you said Jeffrey, you said if you were mediocre you’d be happy, and I imagine you would – everyone should have a goal in life. Ha, Ha,
    ;) ;) ;)

  98. #98 BBD
    April 17, 2014

    Have you worked out the difference between matters of fact and conspiracist ideations yet, GSW?

    Do let us know when the penny drops.

  99. #99 BBD
    April 17, 2014

    I bet Brad will think twice before supporting your rubbish again, GSW.

    From my comment at Eli’s:

    “The original discussion arose from GSW’s confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.

    You have both made utter clowns out of yourselves. And not for the first time, as veterans of the Brad thread will recall.

  100. #100 chek
    April 17, 2014

    Griselda, why not get one of them there university compiled dictionaries off the Keyster and look up the word “context”.

    Then who knows? You might progress enough to eventually understand it to some degree and evolve beyond your usual Butthead level of understanding.

    The only reason a smiley-using fuckhead like you thinks you’re being smart is because you’re a fuckhead, as is now shown plainly at the Rabetts by you’re being a dumb little follow-my-leader fuckhead..