Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:
I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!
Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:
global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs - so I was spot on so far!
As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo. Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):
The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.
The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific). Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.
Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.
So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do. If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.
But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina. Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:
Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.
Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted. I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.
- Log in to post comments
@lotharsson
When the European scientists can come up with a lot lot more than just 5 datasets with a total observation length greater than 113 years (over half of which are proxies) and which are representative of the conditions across all the oceans, not just in a few spots. then I;d be happy to agree that OA is a 'proven scientific fact'.
Until then I'm happy to argue my point with anybody at all. It has not been so established. Maybe one day it will be - maybe it won't. But there just ain't enough data to tell.
@BBD
'The dodging is now *painfully obvious*.'
What am I 'dodging' and why does it matter so much to you?
If you mean the three irrelevant questions about my irrelevant beliefs, then take your pick from
NNN
YNN
NYN
NYY
YYN
YYY
I think that covers all the possibilities. But if this is some True Believer initiation rite where only those with the 'correct' answers are Inducted into the Craft - or some other unscientfic bollocks, then you can play your silly little game without me.
You're still welcome to come to the pub, but I have better things to do.
@lionel a
'But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do.'
And there's me thinking that scientists got their ideas from observational data, not websites.
Silly me....Deltoid science must be different from conventional science like Chemistry or Physics
Much more faith and credential- based. perhaps. A renaissance of the old idea that because Aristotle was clever geezeer so we can just rely on what he said.. No need for any actual observations. A word from On High is enough.
You have over-stepped the bounds of civilised discourse Latimer. Blatant dishonesty is not acceptable.
@BBD
"Stick to the science then. There’s enough referenced here."
Thanks BBD, glad that at least one of the Deltoid regulars realises that the output of "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not science. I was starting to think that you were ALL barmy.
;)
Latimer 'Slippery' Alder,
You have explained precisely zilch and thus have not answered BBDs questions as I am sure he will point out shortly.
Whatever there are some more pointers, as if you have not had enough already, in this article The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission where the following response was posted to comment 8, my emphasis:
So you don't care for the RS and other sources that supply what you were asking for - tough. You have been proven evasive. Watch and mark casual visitors.
As a counter to evasiveness and dishonesty I will re-post the dodged questions on this page. This is the fifth time they have been posted on this thread.
1/ Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.
- Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.
3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
GSW
Stick to the science. Stop trying to distract.
I suggest others ignore the more obvious trolling.
It is not possible to understand basic chemistry and to not understand why ocean acidification is a reality.
Ergo, either Latimer is even more of a failure than suspected, or, he is dishonest.
Considering Latimer asserted temperature wasn't the main driver of CO2 uptake by the oceans, we have clear evidence that he is a failure.
Hmm. Wildly inappropriate scare quotes, unilateral redefinition of "science" and "real science", continuous and blatant avoidance of direct questions...
This playbook reminds me of someone.
@vince whirlwind
'Considering Latimer asserted temperature wasn’t the main driver of CO2 uptake by the oceans, we have clear evidence that he is a failure'
I did? Where? Co2 solubility is driven by a number of things and temperature is one of them. Where did I say it wasn't?
@bbd
' Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe?
I have no opinion as to what *will* happen. The measurements have not been done. That is why - like a good scientist - I will wait for the oceanic level data to confirm the effect you expect. (or not)
This is beginning to take on a religious tinge. I'm told that various churches have similar sets of things you *must * believe. But since I am not a believer in any sort of religion - including Deltoidism - why people get so worked up about it escapes me.
And I'm pretty sure that out there in the wild blue ocean the little CO2 molecules aren't going to change their interaction with the seawater they find one iota because you or I or anybody else believes or expects or hopes that they will do one thing or another. They'll do what they do - and we'll only find out what that is once we've measured it.
That's science.
@vince whirlwind
'It is not possible to understand basic chemistry and to not understand why ocean acidification is a reality'
In case I have missed it, please lay out the 'basic chemistry' that shows this.
Hint - it's more complicated than CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3.
JeffH,
Your comments are more of same.
Unlike your cringing however, I am laughing.
You are suffering from what I call HUB syndrome.
The acronym means Head Up Bottom:-)
You want people to respect you and pay attention to you and you think you can win that by sneering at other people who you perceive are getting more attention.
You use words like mediocre, nutter, right wing, anti environmental, deny/denier/denialism/climate change denier, j, crank, in the pay of, etcetera.
You are convinced there are two hands or two sides and that one wears a white hat (your side of course!) and one wears a black hat.
Really scary people like Matt Ridley are deeply and suspiciously involved.
You and the people you deem are on your side are the ONLY ones who care about and understand the environment.
That's why you think it's OK to use analogies with paedophilia and holocaust deniers because in your HUB syndrome these people are evil enemies of 'the environment'.
You seriously need to get 'out there' where you think there is the 'massive anti environmental movement'.
IOW Latimer offered you good advice :-)
It is not as scary 'out there' as you seem to think JeffH.
@lionel a
'Response:You have this backwards. A pH LESS THAN 7 is acid. So 8.14 is more acidic than 8.25. Also, it is a logarithmic scale. A small change in the numbers is actually quite large in the chemistry. pH 7 is 10 times more acidic than 8. pH 8.14 is about 30 percent more acidic than pH 8.25 (because 10^8.25/10^8.14 = 1.3). – eric ]'
Yep. Learnt that stuff when I was abt 13...more than 40 years ago. It's just a restatement of the definition of pH. No argument with any of it.
But why do you wave it around s if its some sort of trump card.
And if it really is new news to you ...this is very worrying, for it makes me wonder just how much else of the discussion has passed you by........
And its worth pointing out that acid/alkali are a bit like a see saw. A pH of 8.14 is still overwhelmingly alkaline in nature (about 200 times more alkaline ions than acid). But at 8.25 the ratio is nearer 300. Concentrating only on the relatively few acid ions rather misses the point. Both solutions will react with alkaline chemistry. Both will neutralise acids. Both will turn litmus blue - not red.
You only change to acid chemistry when the pH is less than 7 i.e when the acid ions begin to outnumber the alkaline. There is no realistic prospect of that happening in the forseeable future, even if observation proves that 'ocean acidification' is actually occurring.
"That is why – like a good scientist – I will wait for the oceanic level data to confirm the effect you expect. (or not)"
Problem is, Latimer, you're not a scientist in any way, shape or form. You're not even close. So stop trying to give people the impression that you know what you are talking about. You don't. You're full of you-know-what.
As I said earlier, its accepted now amongst the vast majority of scientists that the oceans are absorbing a huge amount of the extra atmospheric C02 and as a result are becoming more acid. Of the 1500 or so articles I found on the Web of Science that pop up under the key words "ocean acidification", you'll be hard to find a single one which does not agree that there is a strong link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and declining marine pH levels. I linked AAAS sties as well as others.
If you are just too dumb or arrogant or whatever to accept this overwhelming consensus, then that is your problem. Like other deniers - and the word suits you to a tee - you appear to want to wait until 'all the data are in' whenever the hell that is. Earth and environmental scientists know that if we wait until that point then growing concerns become intractable. In other words, its too late to do anything and the consequences become disastrous. There are those who still think there is not a relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion. Some of them are prominent AGW deniers. If society had waited to deal with CFCs until everybody danced to the same tune, then I don't even want to think of the potential ramifications.
You are a waste of time and space, and clearly belong with the other brainless hordes who populate the anti-environmental blogs. I find it hard to admit this here but I though that Jonas was a pretty lame debater; you are even worse. Since when did I use analogies to do with pedophilia you moron? In your dreams. I make no apologies in referring to you and people like you for what they are. The fact that you - with a basic chemistry degree and no publications - appear to think that you know more than a huge number of the world's experts in the area of atmospheric and marine chemistry takes remarkable hubris. But then again, deniers act like big men on web logs. You'd be cut down to size in a scientific arena.
Just go away. And take your stupidity with you.
@lionel a
Here's some O level stuff to help you.
http://simplechemconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/o-level-chemis…
Be sure to click on the scale to see it enlarged. Remembering that ocean pH is about 8.1 (varies a bit according to geography).
And try the questions to check your understanding.
Latimer
That's it?
I really don't need to say anything else. Thread bookmarked for reference.
Bye for now.
Actually I apologize to Latimer. Sorry. I meant Chameleon. Stupid cow. Arrogant idiot. Even Jonas hasn't stooped to her depths. The reason she's pissed is because she can't answer a single point I make. She thinks she's witty, smart, on top of things, when its clear to see that she hasn't got a clue about anything she discusses. I don't know from under which slimy orifice Chammy crawled but I wish she'd go back there with her CAP`S and witless humor. Go away!
PS If you think Ridley's so great, then you ought to read some of his 90s columns in the Telegraph. He used some pretty choice words to describe environmentalists.
Finally, the wicked witch of the south says this:
"You seriously need to get ‘out there’ where you think there is the ‘massive anti environmental movement’."
I have been out there, dopey. Just because you don't know a bloody thing doesn't make it wrong. Read a little, dammit! Learn something for once! Monbiot certainly was correct. When her vapid ignorance is laid bare, she comes out baring her teeth. I repeat: you are an anti-environmental denier. Otherwise, you wouldn't defend every Tom, Dick and Harry on this site who downplays AGW or its symptoms. Its you who ought to get out more. Contrary to the saying, ignorance is not bliss.
@jeff h
'Of the 1500 or so articles I found on the Web of Science that pop up under the key words “ocean acidification”, you’ll be hard to find a single one which does not agree that there is a strong link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and declining marine pH levels'
I'm sure I'd find that all of them *state* that there is a strong link. But very few of them provide any data to back up this claim.
You may have missed our littel crowdsourcing exercise earlier thsi week when e actually went and looked for the published data itself. Not just what other people said about it..but for the actual confirmatory data.
It is surprisingly scant. - Only collected in 5 locations (one of these only by proxy) and only for short periods (< 20 years).
You can try it yourself. Take any one of your 1500 papers, and try to trace back to the original source. If you find it not to be one of the original five we've found (see earlier in this thread for details) then I'll be very surprised.
So now we can see how a 'consensus' can be arrived at with hardly any actual work being done. Somebody publishes results that may just be interpretable as 'ocean acidification' (eg Hawaii). Another paper referneces it as fact. Number 3 chimes in. Paper 4 sees three papers all saying OA is real and adds its own voice.......it snowballs.
Within a few publishing cycles, you have a huge consensus that OA is real and that it is a big problem. Indeed there are 1500 papers that say so! Every 'scientist' agrees.
But the actula data n which this edifice rests is very very scanty.
But - like a good scientist - you shouldn't take my word for it. (Nullius in Verba). Make your own observations. Check the literature trail. You;ll find some pointers earlier here. But don't take them as gospel either.
Do let us know how you get on. I think you'll be surprised.
Cheers.
PS : 'Since when did I use analogies to do with pedophilia you moron?'
I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else? Please explain.
Latimer:
JeffH,
Downplay?
Is that a new definition for denialism?
PS I don't have an opinion about Matt Ridley the person.
nor Humlum the person nor JeffH the person nor Marohasy the person nor Mann the person nor Flannery the person.
I don't PERSONALLY know any of them
I read their comments and their research and their references
.
@jeff h
'You’d be cut down to size in a scientific arena'
It is extremely easy to show that I am wrong. You can 'cut me down to size' by linking to the many hundreds of time series of pH data taken at geographically dispersed places across the oceans.
And I they are there and they show 'ocean acidification', then I am quite happy not to object to people saying that it is 'an established scientific fact'.
Whoever it was who said I had lousy search skills will be vindicated, you can eat crow, my invite to the annual Deltoid convention will be revoked. And you can all spit on my name as much as you want for ever and a day. Perhaps you'll burn a virtual effigy of me on a daily basis.
All these delights can be yours
Just show the data. That's all the argument is about.
Is it there? I say no it isn't. Lots say 'yes', but never quite seem to be able to locate it..
Will you be the one to find it?
typo - I meant 'you can crow'.
BTW JeffH,
Those comments from MR last century were about the POLITICS which has an 'ism' on it like lots of other political movements and/or theories.
They weren't about the actual environment.
Enviromentalism and denialism and capitalism and communism etcetera are POLITICAL and SOCIO/ECONOMIC terms.
Latimer, look it up yourself. I have provided links; others here have provided more. You want us all here to do your homework for you. Have you logged into the Web of Science before? Ever types in the relevant keywords? Moreover, if you are the next Galileo (good Lord, there are enough of them amongst the climate change denier ranks these days) then why haven't you taken your perceived wisdom to the big world? Why aren't journals like Nature, Science, Global Change Biology etc. replete with Latimer Alder papers proving that the scientific community has got it wrong?
And while you are at it please explain why every major scientific body in every nation on Earth agrees that oceans are under threat from C02 mediated acidification. Omigosh! There is a huge conspiracy! Tell me it ain't so!
PS You act just like our infamous Jonas over in his own thread. Your views are at odds with the scientific community by and large. Another storm in a teacup. Another denier blog immigrant wading in here with his penny farthings of wisdom. Have you ever written to a scientist (or spoken with one) who works in the area and asked on what empirical evidence they base their opinions? Or are Curry, Watts, et al. it?
@lionel a
This is getting silly
1. Yes. I know that pH is a log scale. That;s what 'eric' was trying to point out to you. And me with my discussion of ratios. It is about the first thing a physical chemist learns about pH. So each time the pH varies by 1 unit, the ionic concentration varies by 10. Elementary - but so what?
2. You got yourself into a hole wrt effects on the biosophere
I did? Where? Since I don't remember having made any discussion of effects on the biosphere, I'm struggling to recall this
3. 'Studies of acidification have been done'
So you keep saying. But where are they? Bleating that 'they're there somewhere' doesn't establish your point. Any more than 'I had my ticket when I boarded' satisfies the ticket collector if you can't find yours on the train. The whole essence of my argument is that - no matter how many people assert that these studies have been done - it is proving incredibly difficult to track down the actual data. Its a sort of urban myth. 'everybody knows' it is there...but none can actually put their finger on it
Same as I asked Jeff H. Prove me wrong. It'd be so easy to do.
@jeff h
'Latimer, look it up yourself.
I have. I've looked extensively. I can't find it. Lost and lots of people assure me it is there...but can't actually lay their hands on it when asked to produce it. Are you just another? I had hoped for better.
And now you are withdrawing from the easiest thing in the world. With your superior skills and the backing of the consensus, this should be the work of only a few minutes.
Game Set and Match to the Deltoids. Humiliation for the 'New Galileo' (nice epithet, but far above my abilities I fear).
And I explained the evolution of the consensus that you are all so fond of without invoking any conspiracy...I see no reason why you need to do so either.
The ball is in your court.
@jeff h
You refer extensively to 'Jonas'. I have no idea who (s)he is so your point is lost on me,
Chameleon's comedy routine just gets better and better:
"I don’t have an opinion about Matt Ridley the person.
nor Humlum the person nor JeffH the person nor Marohasy the person nor Mann the person nor Flannery the person.
I don’t PERSONALLY know any of them. I read their comments and their research and their references"
You - let me get this straight - read their comments and research their references? (To my wife: Pass me the barf bag puh-lease).
Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science. Most deniers don't. A good number of them are shills - right wing ideologues who write columsn for the corporate media, or are 'adjunct scholars' on think tanks and the like. Mann is guess what? A real, bonafide scientist! And guess what also? You do not posses the academic background or qualifications to be able to say that his science indeed any science pertaining to the environment and climate- is bad science (or good science for that matter). If you think you do, then its time to send you to Dunning and Kruger so that your mental state can be evaluated.
I would be shot down in seconds if I was to wade into an area that is related to mine at some level of organization - such as the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning - and draw conclusions that countered the prevailing views in the field. I certainly defer to the vast majority of experts in climate science and atmospheric and marine chemistry who agree that the human-mediated increase in atmospheric C02 is reducing marine pH levels. I've already shown that every major scientific body agrees on this point. The along come some laypeople who have not studied the field and lo and behold - they read the evidence in blogs for heaven's sake - and then argue as if they are now bonafide experts that the real experts are wrong.
Talk about hubris! I have learned as a trained scientist to exhibit caution when venturing beyond the boundaries of my won field to be very cautious. You clowns don't do that at all. Read a few blogs, maybe give a cursory look at a few papers and bingo! Instant expertise. And expertise at odds with the real experts.
Unbelievable. This is beyond a farce. I can only be thankful that you armchair experts make no dent in the peer-reviewed literature or in decisions reached by National Academies.
PS I also think its a very dishonest thing to accuse me of calling climate change deniers and anti-environmenalists (who do exist) pedophiles. I have never ever done that in my life. Its a blatant lie and pushes the boundary of debate well over the line. Its clear you don't know much about the link between public policy and advocacy. But when your ignorance is exposed, resorting to this kind of behavior is the lowest of the low. And your Holocaust denial barb is equally nauseous. That reference - to Stuart Pimm and my review of Lomborg's error-riddent tome in Nature - has been intentionally misquoted and distorted by the far end of the political right so often that I have lost count. Trust you to do the same with it. Shows your colors in full.
@jeff h
'Have you ever written to a scientist (or spoken with one) who works in the area and asked on what empirical evidence they base their opinions? Or are Curry, Watts, et al. it?'
I've read the journals. And followed up on the references to 'ocean acidification'. If the 'scientists' are basing their views on a hidden stash of data, I haven't been able to find it and they haven't published it.
Nothing to do with Curry or Watts IIRC. Just one of my own interests.
This thread has now had over 1000 comments. Getting on for half are about this topic. If the supporting data was easy to find and generally available surely one of you great scientists would have been able to find it by now?
While one hates to distract from the troll non-scientist - still arguing from his heroic ignorance, one notes - and his genitally-fixated monkey, Adelaideans can see James Balog's 'Chasing Ice' at the Mercury.
Having seen it last night I was struck by the realization that what we're really experiencing is a phenomenon only indirectly related to rising seas: we are drowning in an ocean of morons.
Whether they're pontifical dissemblers, venal Free Market™ zealots, febrile Brownshirt thugs, Alzheimersy old fools, or simply thick as the proverbial 2 short planks and thereby incapable of knowing it, they're the real problem.
Latimer won't follow links and if he does he won't read what's there.
The only references he admits knowledge of are to crank blogs like WUWT and Curry's.
Thus he establishes a successful platform from which to argue his logically fallacious argument from ignorance.
We've tried to educate you , Latimer, but you just don't want to learn.
All you want to do is stay in your little bubble of contrarianism.
There's an eastern european pretending to be an old scientist over at Ill Considered on scienceblogs who is doing the same thing.
I think it is the current crop of idiot graduates looking for a job at the denialist ho-down (spelling deliberate!).
As Joan would say: you're too stupid to find it and far too stupid to know.
Do you ever consider that if everyone else has found it and you haven't, then maybe the problem ISN'T with the entire rest of the world?
Or is your ego just unable to take that sort of thinking?
She's not even a half-wit.
You are dodging this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Which you continue to dodge.
Why is it so important to you that you dodge answering the question?
I will tell you, since you are too stupid to understand.
It is because you can't answer.
You do not understand what you're saying, you're just "discussing" because you want to be a twat.
Look, seriously, I know expecting coordinated behaviour at Deltoids is like herding cats, but can we agree not to respond to the troll until he does answer BBD's question?
That's answer directly and unequivocally: a mode so novel for him that it may even constitute a refreshing experience.
I suggest he'll simply disappear if he has to do so, because the game will, indeed, be up.
Or he'll post a blizzard of posts hoping to get a reaction.
Or one of the other whores for scores will jump in and blather for pages and pages, demanding attention.
But just in case he wants to answer the questions, they're here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
While we're waiting, Greg Laden on Distinguished Professor Michael Mann:
JeffH,
I did not say you PERSONALLY said it.
The prevailing attitude here at deltoid however is that it was an acceptable and valid analogy.
I am relieved that you don't appear to agree with that.
I also think what you call the 'other side' are just as guilty of the same hyperbole and use of inappropriate psychological comparisons.
Also JeffH, Marohasy does indeed have a science pedigree and a public persona which is quite googleable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Marohasy
as does Humlum:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
as does Ridley:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley
As do many others who you claim are 'nutters' or 'mediocre' or 'shills' or whatever.
They were easier to google than you.
That doesn't mean anything profound BTW, it was just an observation.
The difference is that they have chosen careers outside of academia.
That does not automatically make them less reliable or suspicious JeffH.
Some of them are even 'self employed' which means they are not pressured to 'publish or perish' or to fulfil a specific job description.
They're not particularly concerned about pay grades or levels or promotions or whatever.
That doesn't make them better or worse or any
'less widely read' than anyone else BTW.
I don't know any of them PERSONALLY, but if I have to guess I would say that some of them are highly charismatic and pleasant to be around and some of them aren't.
That is not important or relevant.
Some of the most brilliant minds in History were vilified as whackos and nutters by their peers.
Your comment here is once again more of the same:
"PS I also think its a very dishonest thing to accuse me of calling climate change deniers and anti-environmenalists (who do exist) pedophiles."
Climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists (who do exist)?
You need to be a little more honest about your use of 'anti- environmentalists' JeffH.
That is a POLITICAL term and has precious little to do with the ENVIRONMENT.
Because the POLITICS and POLICY platforms of 'environmentalism' (note the 'ism' on that term) are being questioned does NOT mean that the people who are questioning the POLITICS are therefore automatically anti the 'environment'.
That is 'utter tosh' JeffH.
The issue is about political ideologies and socio/economic policy platforms.
Science and statistics can certainly inform social policy but they are not a prophetic political instrument and it's becoming painfully evident that is a mistake to abuse them in that manner.
The good work of committed people like you is being shamelessly misused by BOTH HANDS or BOTH SIDES.
Unfortunately people are being caught up in the rhetoric and the 'academic pissing contests' in their attempts to protect their predictions.
I would once again recommend the book written by the nobel prize winner and academic Daniel Kahneman "Thinking Fast and Slow".
It is a current bestseller and easy to find.
Kahneman explains why we are NOT the paragons of reason that we assume ourselves to be.
Type type type.
Chameleon, Marohasy was in the paid employ of the IPA.
You know the IPA doesn't do science, doesn't fund research, doesn't publish science, right?
Do you know what it does do?
Ltmr,
Yr: "Ths s bgnnng t tk n rlgs tng.."
'm lvn' yr crrnt, vrts btt-kckn' rp thrgh Dltd-lnd, Ltmr, s t s wth th grtst rlctnc tht rspctflly dsgr wth yr bv stmt f th Dltd trgh-hggrs.
By tht, mn, Ltmr, thr s n "rlgs" mpls, n th lst, prmptng th crbn-hypcrt, prst sql f th th lttl c-pggs n ths blg. Rthr t s ll bt n nstnctv (nd wll-fndd) lrm, n thr prt, tht thr shbby, lttl CGW hstl, n whch hngs thr bscn, txpyr rp-ff swll-rtn, s n prl .
Th prf? ny n cn prdc th prf--jst chllng th Dltds rnnn' thr snts hr t st th xmpl n crbn strty FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL! Y knw, lk, dr ths blg's nvr-crps t prctc wht thy prch, nd ll. Y knw, lk, dmnd tht Jff Hrvy (Dltd's lph, r-mls/pr dm prkr), fr xmpl, t ttnd ll hs fms, grnshrt cnfrncs v vd-cnfrnc (nd nsst hs gd-cmrds d lkws) s s t spr s h-pll ll ths nn-stp, chkng lds f C2 l' Jff cpsly spws n th crs f hs ncssnt, lttl, xcs-fr--txpyr-fndd-bddy-bddy-bzy-bng-bng-gd-tm-GHG-blw-t jnts. Y knw, tht srt f thng.
"LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL N CRBN STRTY!!!???" xclm ths blg's hmbg-phlc, slckr, Phlsphr-Kng wnnbs n hrrfd ncrdlty, whl cltchng thr prls-bfr-swn. Fllwd by ths frs rjndr: "NK! NK! SHRK-SQL! SHRK-SQL! N WY! CRBN STRTY S FR Y DSPSD HLTS, Y STPD, PPTY, NSBRDNT PSNT PN-SRF, NT YR BTTRS, LK S! NW JST SHT-P, F Y KNW WHT'S GD FR Y, ND FRK-VR YR CRBN-TXS S S SMRTY-PNTS STY-MSTRS WTH TH CRDNTLS CN KP R CRBN-GLTTN, GD-TMS RLLNG!
ls, Ltmr, my b s bld s t sggst y ls md mstk n skng th Dltd wrds t mt-nd-grt vr br?-- mn, lk, ths blg's mrry drv s mr nt th slp-bckts nd gd, plsy-wlsy wllw n th md srt f dl nd ll.
thrws, th bv qbbls sd, y'r th MN!, Ltmr!
Can we perhaps get the freak disemvowelled, Tim? Ta if so.
I could make a whole bunch of observations about Latimer returning to his vomit, but y'all can imagine them - it's just a combination of new and old variations of "lies", "denial", "really, that shopworn denialist misdirection?", "intellectual cowardice - called it, and now self-admitted", and "you raising that strawman again?"
The whole schtick is a bog standard high proofer denialist gambit which denies all methods for inferring ocean acidification except the one that he deigns to bless, and even then even denies the existing results of that method by excluding the entire middle ground between "no data and no existing theory therefore no reasonable inference" and "lots of data and well-confirmed existing theory therefore an overwhelmingly strong inference".
I will reiterate the chorus asking Latimer to actually answer BBD's questions, but it's clear that he cannot allow himself to. (Brave, brave Sir Latimer! And nobly cheered on by such ... er ... competent ... individuals!)
Answering BBD's questions is inconsistent with his "awww, shucks, we don't really know enough about that" stance and with his claim to have chemistry capabilities and to have investigated the area well enough to know what he's talking about. And he couldn't admit any of that to himself, even if it's obvious to the rest of us.
Vince,
Yes at one stage in her life Marohasy worked for IPA.
The Institute of Public Affairs.
And I googled them for you here:
http://www.ipa.org.au/
So what?
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever with the JeffH accusation that she has no science pedigree.
Here:
" Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science."
A simple google check actually says otherwise.
BTW, is there something underhand or illegal about the IPA?
This is the first time I have ever looked them up but I can't see what is actually so incredibly baaaaad or scaaaaarrrry about them.
Like many other such websites and organisations from all sides of politics, they tend to overstate and rather deliberately abuse all manner of statistical research.
The ACF here:
http://www.acfonline.org.au/?gclid=CNu_k5rZgrUCFQcipQod6iMAog
Are a similar kettle of fish
And then we have others like
Getup:
http://www.getup.org.au/
or in a diferent manner again the AEF:
http://aefweb.info/about.php
Which I believe Marohasy is affiliated with?
Do you have a problem with these types of organisations Vince?
I'd point out the usual bullshit and miscomprehension in chameleon's latest set of rants - and her blatant denial of her own words to Jeff claiming that she did not say them - and that "downplay" is most definitely part of the practice of denialism - and that her obsession with arguing that it's all politics is counter-factual - but really, by this point, haven't we seen pretty much all of it before?
Better trolls, please. These ones are stuck in a write-only loop.
@Stu:
"I wonder what Freud would make of Brad's infantile gonad fixation."
Really? This topic again?
If you really need to talk about sex, Stu, please be accurate. I think I noted the fact the resident nards appear underdeveloped—infantile is your word.
@Lotharsson alleges against me the supposed denialist flaw du jour and says,
"Which, come to think of it, was one of heroic Latimer’s grand failings. Ain’t that a coincidence."*
BBD seems to think he's discovered another similarity:
"Skip, skip, skip…
Just like Latimer."
All right guys.
I am, in fact, Latimer.
And I may as well admit I’m also
- the smile of a child
- the ASIO agent who sells you coffee
- second and subsequent rainbows after a summer shower
- the dulcet yet Slavically-inflected switchboard operator “Valentina” who instructs you at night, via any dental prostheses and/or craniotomy plates you might have, to do those …deeds
You’re right about me. (A first, Lotharsson!)
I guess a conspiracy theorist really is like a stopped clock.
*And yes, that was my emphasis Lotharsson, just to save you the effort of indicting the whole "denialist" world with conspiring to misquote believalists, and us the effort of reading it.
OH!!!
Hello there Lotharsson!
I was wanting to let you know that you were correct and that Brad was definitely playing semantics with you.
No question at all about that.
It was actually rather fun to read BTW.
He is easily your equal in that particular regard.
If there was a prize for the number of times one can write the many different forms of the word 'deny' in a single comment I think you may just edge out JeffH for that prize with that last comment above @ #49
I notice you're trying to play semantics with me again too re downplay vs denialism.
Brad obviously enjoys that game and he has a delightful sense of humour to boot.
Have you forgotten that I find it a waste of time?
And Lotharsson,
What about the point of contention that has been raised here re 'scientific pedigree', particularly pertaining to Ms Marohasy?
JeffH definitely wrote:
” Um, Maharosey has no pedigree is climate science or any science.”
We can ignore the incorrect spelling of the name as that was probably just a typo :-)
I reported, when asked, that:
I’ve "contributed" less damage to science than Michael Mann.
@Wow then screams:
Citation needed.
@I politely decline, in a calm voice:
Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.
@Wow howls:
Except you’ve made a POSITIVE claim.
Apparently you don’t know the difference between + and -,
before failing to spell a simple, one-syllable name correctly.
Listen, Wow.
Surely even h. deltoides has enough cranial volume to calculate that my remark was logically interchangeable with the negative statement that I haven’t done as much damage to science as (let alone more damage to science than!) Michael Mann.
Look around: your tribesmen appear to have had much less difficulty parsing it than you. Tell me, do you often find yourself cast in the role of cave idiot?
Chameleon, ssh! :-)
Ixnay on the e're-having fun at their expense-way.
A large part of the hilarity is precisely that they're so gosh-darned serious about putting us "denialists" in our place.
You often hear that cults are absolutely, violently humorless, but now we have a front row seat to the confirmation of that!
Don't spoil it! ;-)
@wow
'You are dodging this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Which you continue to dodge.'
I gave my answer here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-….
Sorry if it doesn't conform to the Accepted Version of 'Deltoid Science'
But I arrived at it strictly according to the first principle of mainstream science.
'Experiments and Observations Rule OK'
@bill
'but can we agree not to respond to the troll until he does answer BBD’s question?
If that remark was directed at me, I answered BBD's question last night
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Though why this has become such a 'cause celebre' among you all baffles me.
Is there some hidden tribal significance to one of the questions? A deep-hidden motif of Believerism?
OH!
And I'm assuming of course that the 'is' was a typo too :-)
But just so we're clear, I'll do a little 'nuancing' for JeffH so you don't have to worry about it Lotharsson.
I think he meant to write: (corrections in capitals)
Um, MAROHASY has no pedigree IN climate science or any science.
:-)
BTW I'm not therefore automatically defending everything that Ms Marohasy has or hasn't said or where she has or hasn't worked or whatever she has or hasn't.
What is evident however is that she does have a science pedigree.
I believe that she has even conducted research which has been peer reviewed and published in science journals.
As regular readers will know,
I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.
Now I (honestly, hand-on-heart) considered such a boast to be about as remarkable as claiming "I have fewer anthopogenous body parts in my freezer than Jeffrey Dahmer," yet our favorite selective skeptic Lotharsson somehow finds a way not to believe it!
So you assert.
But you assert a lot of stuff and demonstrate very little.
Sorry, but WTF?
Let me get this straight: despite the facts that …
1. I didn’t initiate the silly ritual of exchanging credentials in the first place,
2. I wouldn’t have bored you with my life story had Jeff Harvey not (politely) asked me about it,
3. I’ve not once attempted to construct any argument from any of my biographical data
and
4. I’ve repeatedly told you that my backstory is of no more value than yours for the purpose of scientific debate,
… you actually think I’ll be inclined to go the extra mile to assure you that I haven’t done as much damage to science personally as your favorite Nature-tricking, method-omitting, algorithm-withholding, data-secreting, Nobel-lying, speaking-fee-denying, vexatious-litigating dendrophrenologist hack, Mann?
Jebus* H. Christ.
No.
If you don’t like it then I permit you—nay, encourage you—to indulge in whatever paranoid fantasies you like about my many, many years of occult machinations to subvert science.
In fact, let me strongly hint that I, “Brad Keyes,” a low-profile university student with no police record, have (from behind what Bill D. Byrd might call “the cloak of obscurity” if he didn’t have such difficulty with polysyllables) masterminded every bit as much—heck, more!—injury to the progress, integrity and good name of the scientific enterprise than that Fauxbel-winning mediocrity par excellence, Mike “Mystery Method” Mann. I am the author of half that is criminal and most that is unsolved in the world of “science.” Including his half. The scandals for which that pudgy upstart is blamed? Me. The fact that more and more members of the public now rate scientists as more pompous than politicians and 40% dodgier than personal-injury lawyers? I bet you thought that was thanks to Mann and his mates. No, it was culpa mea, maxima fucking culpa mea.
As Omar Khayyâm put it during his lesser-known AA rhyming period (Richard Burton trans.):
Well well, what matters it?
Go ahead, believe that shit.
And to think that, had the dice of my humor landed differently today, I might just as well have acted the innocent and even referred you to the peer-reviewed “evidence” to prove it—and all you journal-struck automata would have had no choice but to believe every word!
Yeah, that’s right. You ask for “citations,” which (in the bad-faith tradition of your kind), is of course a request for the opposite. You’re really asking me to say I have no evidence.
Mora. You think your stiff-kneed manoeuvres are unanticipated? You obviously haven’t heard about the high-impact multi-institution collaborative review which I funded specifically to look at the question of the comparative damage to science attributable to Brad Keyes versus Michael Mann and which, mirabile dictu, significantly “exonerated” yours truly. Look it up (surely you can do some of your own homework) and weep, rubes.
*Sorry Wow, did I take in vain one of the many, many names more sacred to you than Science itself? I meant nothing by it. I just said it to offend you—promise.
@lotharsson
'The whole schtick is a bog standard high proofer denialist gambit which denies all methods for inferring ocean acidification except the one that he deigns to bless'
You guys are making this all far more complicated than it is.
I am quite happy for you guys to 'infer' anything you like about anything you like. As long as you make it clear that you are arguing using inferences - not actual data.
If you say 'we infer that Ocean Acidifcation is taking place' I have no objections. An inference is just an untested hypothesis and its not an unreasonable one to suggest.
But where you are wrong is if you say 'Ocean Acidification is a 'proven scientific fact' without having collected the observational data to show that it is so.
That is it. That is my only point here and I have argued it consistently all the way through this little discussion.
Many of you have read into it some sort of ideological significance that just ain't there.
It is the simple basic definition of science..'
Experiments and Observations Rule OK'.
If you know of another way to do 'science' then please let us all know.
Because IMO without that essential prereq you're doing philosophy or semantics or theology or comparative religion or politics or a whole host of other things. But you ain't doing science.
"If you know of another way to do ‘science’ then please let us all know."
Latimer, you obviously haven't heard—the very engine of science (the epistemology at its heart) has been unrecognisably overhauled!
Yep, by the lovely Ms Oreskes, who (in addition to redefining neutral pH as 6.0) has also revealed unto us that everyone from Socrates to Feynman was on the wrong track the whole time, since...
"what counts as knowledge = the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts."
Apparently, like all world-changing discoveries, this just happened one day, in the course of routine climate "science" meta-rhetoric.
Sure, this news can seem like a downer to change-fearing denialosaurs like us. After all, I thought science was doing a pretty good job for the last 250 years or so. (Didn't you?)
But look on the bright side. (My climate psychologist has put me on some amazing meds that have really helped me do that.)
Oreskeism means no more faffing around with hard and unforgiving entia like evidence, observations, hypotheses, and most importantly: no more living in constant fear of that embarrassing event called "falsification."
Nope. Knowledge, along with truth itself obviously, is now as simple as whatever "ideas" you can convince a majority of primates of the same size, age and university credentials to vote for!
@wow
'Do you ever consider that if everyone else has found it and you haven’t, then maybe the problem ISN’T with the entire rest of the world?'
Well, when I started my little quest for the observational data in about 2010 while having a discussion with an ardent catastrophist (I believe it may have been Fred Moolten who BBD will remember) I did wonder if I was somehow missing a big chunk of the big picture on 'ocean acidification'.
It did indeed seem to be remarkable that if I want to see some observational demonstration of 'global warming' then I can look at a number of different datasets held by a number of different places (GISS, HADCRUn etc).
They contain data going back hundreds of years in some cases, cover a fair chunk of the globe's surface and are updated and published for all to see on a regular basis., My estimate (details on request) is that there are 150,000+ observation years of data, covering 3000+ locations and consisting of between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 individual observations.
We may argue about the details of the data and how it has been collected and processed, but there is no argument about the fact of its existence.
But when it comes to looking for observational OA data the story is very very different. I first started looking because every review paper I saw just showed the same pH graph of some pretty ropey observations (only 100 datapoints, six year gap in the middle) made at Hawaii. That these seemed to be the only data there was was a bit troubling. We know already that seawater varies pretty widely around the world..(look at a global pH map to see this) and so measuring a supposedly 'global' phenomenon from just one site is about as good as trying to measure 'global warming' from just my back garden thermometer.
A bit more tracking down showed the data from the Canaries and BATS (Bermuda) as well. To which we can add Tatoosh Island (Washington State). Some believe that we should add a fifth dataset of proxy-determined estimates as well.
But nobody has yet shown that there is any more observational data of 'ocean acidification' than those five data source I have listed above.
Its a total of 113 observation years, taken over five sites only and with a total of fewer than 30,000 observations. Please take just a second to compare and contrast these numbers with those I gave above for 'global warming'.
This week, on this very blog and with the help of your co-blogistas we did a little exercise looking for more data.. And we didn't find any.
You can shout and scream ad stamp your feet until you are blue in the face that I am to stupid to find it or too ignorant to know it and that I'm not a climate scientist or am a denier or whatever torrent of unnecessary abuse springs so easily to your lips...but none of it changes anything unless you can come up with more data.
Saying 'it must be there' and 'everybody else has found it' - but without actually producing it - seems to be the new party line here. All you have to do is produce it to prove your case and then you would have secured tangible evidence of at least one of the awful sins you accuse me of - having lousy search skills.
But the longer the stream of accusations goes on - without the data - the more evidence that I am right is accumulating. More and more people are looking for it - .no doubt all coming at the quest from slightly different angles - and more and more aren't able to find it
Will you be the one to uncover it - and so have the satisfaction of a public triumph?
@brad keyes
Thank you for your remarks about Oreskeism.
I will be sure to draw them to the attention of all the little molecular and ionic beasties joggling about in the air and sea.
I'm sure that they will in future be able to arrange matters so that the overall outcome of all their individual interactions adheres with the expectations of 'the fellowship of experts'.
Though one wonders how they got on for the millions of years before such a fellowship existed. Perhaps they just did their own thing?
And the coming into existence of 'the fellowship' was a sort of Schrodinger's Cat moment - nature changed her ways because enough 'experts' thought she should?
Somehow I'm not so convinced.
@mike
'Also, Latimer, may I be so bold as to suggest you also made a mistake in asking the Deltoid weirdos to a meet-and-greet over a beer?'
Nope. No mistake. Happy to meet anybody over a beer. Just so long as they are prepared to share views (however divergent) in a civilised way.
I'm reminded of a remark by a very senior Met Office guy who steeled himself to come to a public lecture by a leading sceptical commentator and then joined us all in the pub afterwards. After a convivial evening with views robustly but politely exchanged he remarked 'if only we'd done this a lot more ten years ago we'd all have been spared a lot of grief'.
And it also banished a few stereotypes. As two unknown guys walked in I immediately identified the neatly dressed, 3 piece suited well groomed commuter as a Deep Sceptic and the unkempt. dishevelled, ponytailed and bearded one as the True Believer.
But - like many predictions based on inadequate data - I was wrong. The dishevelled guy was the Sceptic and the commuter type the True Believer.
Do you expect anyone other than you to believe that? (Ok, we'll make exceptions for your acolytes. They are clearly persuadable via simple counter-factual assertions.)
So you'll argue your point with anyone. Well, except...
You seem to have missed the other 2 questions which have been repeatedly posed, particularly the 3rd one which still appears to apply even if you bravely assert "I have no idea what will happen" in response to #1. So you won't argue your point on those fronts.
So you'll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts. Well, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons. You most certainly won't argue your point with those "anybodys" or rebut their reasons - you'll simply assert they are wrong on the basis that your argument is correct.
So you'll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong. Well, and except for in the literature - you won't argue your point there either, even though if you're right you're sitting on a significant contribution to science.
So you'll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature. Well, and you won't argue your point against the points made by other scientists who say you are wrong for reasons other than the only methodology you deign to consider. You won't argue those points based on their data and methodology.
So you'll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature, and except for the scientists who don't confine themselves to the only methodology you'll deign to notice. Well, and except for anyone wanting to discuss the best inference from all the evidence to whatever confidence level is appropriate. You won't debate that position relative to your point because you refuse to offer any best inference, let alone a confidence interval.
So you'll argue your point with anyone, except on a couple of fronts, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong, and except for in the literature, and except for the scientists who don't confine themselves to the only methodology you'll deign to notice, and except any debate about best inferences and appropriate confidence levels. Well, and ...
It's a really good thing you didn't choose debating your point as a career. Skewering strawmen with their hands tied behind their backs doesn't pay much.
@lotharsson
Saying things many times doesn't make them any truer...
As to BBD's questions 2 and 3, they both follow on from 1 having a definite answer.
Which I confess I cannot give. There has not been enough real world data collected for me to give an opinion.
Why do you have so much difficulty in accepting this simple statement?
@lothrssson
'Well, and except for those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons. You most certainly won’t argue your point with those “anybodys” or rebut their reasons – you’ll simply assert they are wrong on the basis that your argument is correct'
If they can come up with the observational data that proves their case, I'll happily concede.
Please draw their attention to this blog - or ask TL to start another thread and we can do it in public in the open right now. Bring it - and their data - on!
(Warning I will be away from blogging from Monday lunchtime (72 hours from now) for three days. Apart from that my time is pretty much yours bar a social engagement this evening)
@lotharsson
' those European scientists who say several of your claims are wrong and claim to have good reasons.'
Since I have only made one claim - that there is not enough observational data to demonstrate that OA is a proven scientific fact - it is difficult for me to guess what constitutes the 'several' in your remark.
Please explain.
Latimer:
"Until then I’m happy to argue my point with anybody at all."
Lotharsson:
"Do you expect anyone other than you to believe that?"
Lotharsson, please don't take offence at what I'm about to say. And try to suppress the high-school debate instinct for half a minute.
It's your immediate, reflexive resort to personal denigration as in the exchange I’ve just quoted (which is literally a random example) that can't fail and haven’t failed to push passing readers in the direction of gravely doubting the claims of the catastrophist camp to which you belong, particularly when said passersby haven't yet have come to a firm view on the climate for themselves.
The amusing part (though not so funny for the human race, I suppose) is that on the slim chance that you're actually right about the climate, your unrelenting, robotic nastiness is so repellant that you're only making popular "action on" climate change less feasible than it already is, one passing reader at a time. You're hurting your own side and, assuming for the sake of argument that it's identical with the side of the Earth, you're hurting said planet!
Surely that's occurred to you or, failing that, been pointed out to you at some point.
(In fact I know it has. I've seen people valiantly trying to get this through to you.)
One has to wonder why you keep at it. Seriously mate, you'd achieve more "for the climate” (as hard as it is for me to type that with a straight face) by forgetting to pay your ADSL bill next month.
I hold out no particular hope that I'll be the one who finally gets through to you, but please believe that I'm well-meaning. You've always done your utmost to be a prick, but I can't help believing there's some bizarrely misdirected decency behind it all. A long way behind it, perhaps, but still—I think you're salvageable, and it's in that spirit that I send this comment forth, rolled up in a bottle upon the tossing waves of cyberspittle.
As for my own contribution to the cruor and saliva on this blog, though I won't deny enjoying it, I'm not exactly proud of myself for doing as the Romans do, even if somewhat more victoriously than the mean Roman. I really should take a shower and relocate. Like I said to Latimer yesterday in a slightly but not completely different spirit, it would be nice to see you in the outside world, hopefully a better person than you seem here and now.
Oops, I mangled the syntax of that last sentence, but hopefully it's obvious that I wasn't having a go at Latimer there.
Yes, I know. I keep pointing that out to you and you keep repeating unsubstantiated claims.
Ah, my mistake! An answer of "I don't know and I'm unwilling to submit a best guess either" to (1) does mean that you don't need to answer (2) or (3).
So I think we're in agreement that you really don't have much to claim, other than "I reject almost all of their methodology and data and assert on that basis that their conclusions are unsubstantiated".
Although I'm sure you wouldn't put it that way.
FIFY.
So in other words you will not do so unless and until they conform to your notions of valid data. You still haven't been able to give a fair account of why they come to their conclusions, which strongly suggests you don't know or don't comprehend - and certainly can't rebut them. As far as I can tell you simply reject all methodologies except one you specify, (perhaps) reject (or de-emphasis) any conclusion bearing any of a whole swathe of confidence levels between "no fucking idea" and "very very sure", and positively assert that there is insufficient data to be quite sure acidification is occurring - despite having had it demonstrated that you were not competent to find various caches of relevant data, and that your speculations as to why acidification might not occur are apparently severely uninformed.
I'm guessing you haven't read their FAQ. Or you can't remember what you claimed. Or maybe you just can't count.
You've claimed that "neutralisation" is the correct term, and "acidification" is not.
You've speculated that buffering and the effects of certain types of rocks may be sufficient to stop acidification due to rising CO2. They call bullshit on that claim.
You claim that it's plausible that continuing acidification won't occur with continuing CO2 concentrations. They call bullshit on that claim.
And that's apart from "acidification is already occurring".
Exactly the same kind of crap the shit-for-brains insisted in order to deny Continental Drift for decades right up until the 80's.
That statement reveals you to be utterly inept.
Your knowloedge and understanding of Ocean Acidification is not based on any personal expertise, it is quite simply based on ideology and denial.
One organisation that does have the expertise you lack, says this:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/
So, the experts say it's real, and one failed chemistry student who gets his "information" from crank blogs disagrees.
Being in the business of analysing data for a living, it takes me all of about 50 nanoseconds to decide with 99.9% confidence that Latimer can safely be ignored in favour of those who purvey honest, expert advice on this issue.
How many times do you have to drop an apple out the window before you accdet that gravity is real?
Your argument is a nonsense, and the relevant authorities directly contradict your obviously uninformed opinion.
As for Brad, he must surely be used to personal denigration in all aspects of his life by now?
@lotharsson
'So in other words you will not do so unless and until they conform to *scientific* notions of valid data.
Corrected that for you.
You can infer and expect and imply and hope all you like. But until you go out and actually measure it, that's all you've got. Inferences, expectations, implications and hopes.
Fair enough...but don't misrepresent them as 'proven scientific fact'. They're not.
@vince whirlwind
' this uptake has caused rapid and unprecedented changes to ocean chemistry, reducing pH of surface waters and leading to a series of chemical changes collectively known as ocean acidification'
And if and when they can show that the data on which the statement 'reducing pH of surface waters' is widely and soundly based on many different sites over a long period of time, then I'll be content that this is an accurate statement
@Johnny Drama:
"As for Brad, he must surely be used to personal denigration in all aspects of his life by now?"
No, I manage to reserve it for wankers like you. You'd be surprised how nice I am to nice people.
@Latimer:
‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’
@Drama:
That statement reveals you to be utterly inept.
Argh. I'm trying to quit this place and you go and leave low-hanging stupidberries like this dangling in the wind. For the love of God think before you type, Drama!
Gee, Jennifer Maharosy is Director of Environmental Policy at the neoliberal/neoconservative think tank Institute of Economic Affairs. I wonder if her denial has anything to do with her own far right political views or is it just a coincidence?
Come on Chammy. You can do better than this. Maharosey is a shill. If she wanted to come across as being an independent thinker, she wouldn't touch a right wing think tank with a mile-long barge pole. But these deniers just can't help themselves. I just wonder what cozy little earner being on the payroll of a think tank is.
Brad and Latimer: neither of you has managed to explain why the vast majority of the world's scientists, along with every Academy of Science in every nation, agrees with the IPCC conclusions including the threat posed by ocean acidification linked with greenhouse gas emissions.
Can't answer that little tidbit can you? Oh yeh - let me guess- there's a vast left wing/UN orchestrated conspiracy in which all of these bodies and the scientific community are joint conspirators. They've pulled the wool over the eyes of the corporate media as well as governments the world over.
I'd also like to ask why, Latimer, you haven't published your stunning rebuttal in a major scientific journal. If you can prove that the evidence linking atmospheric C02 and declining ocean pH levels is bogus, or at least unproven, then you can join Maharosey and get paid big bucks by a whole coterie of right wing free market advocating think thanks.
Yet you deniers/downplayers never address these relevant questions. You act all holier than though, as if these debates are confined to a few blogs. On blogs, you are all big men or women, standing up for the integrity of science. You can ridicule Mann, Hansen, Santer et al. with impunity. You don't have to defend your 'science' at a conference venue or in the peer-reviewed literature. That''s why none of you (including shills like Maharosey) stick to the blogs. She knows damned well that if she threw her kindergarten-level understanding of science into the broader scientific arena, it would be shot down immediately. On her own blog she can write whatever garbage she likes because she doesn't have to defend it from bonafide experts. Besides, like Bjorn Lomborg, her intended target audience are laypeople like you, brad, Chammy, (I won't include Mike because he's a bottom feeder) and SD. YOu all want to believe in the tooth fairy and people like Maharosey, Nova, Delingpole, Watts, McIntyre, Curry etc. are playing the tune for you. Not for the scientists with years of expertise in the field.
General observation.
For a bunch of people who claim to be 'scientific' many of you don't seem to have the faintest idea of what science is and how it progresses.
it is driven by observations of the real world. Not by the qualifications of 'experts' or the 'consensus' of the Great and the Good.
And yet you all seem to have an absolute terror of actually looking at data...preferring instead to spray quotations around with the implicit idea
'this guy is an 'expert' so he must be right'.
I've asked you many times to describe what you think science is and how it is done. But the best that you can come up is this pitiful appeal to authority
'So, the experts say it’s real, and one failed chemistry student who gets his “information” from crank blogs disagrees' ('Vince Whirlwind')
I don't get my information from 'crank blogs'. I get it from the published literature - as you should know by now if you have read and understood anything I have written over the last three days. Indeed you (VW) were kind enough to assist in the crowdsourcing literature search effort on Tuesday
And if you happen to be passing this way (SE England) and can drop the 'attitude' for a bit, I'll be happy to show you both my Bachelor's and Master's degree certificates in Chemistry. You can then ring the University - and if you like my old thesis supervisor - to confirm. He's over 70 now but still hale and hearty as an Emeritus Fellow.
And this is where your lack of knowledge of science lets you down. For even if I were a complete impostor..with no qualifications at all and no background, it wouldn't affect the discussion about the existence of the data one little bit.
It ain't there, nobody has been able to produce it and no amount of shouting and screaming about 'me' will change that.
'Science by consensus' isn't a topic I recognise. Nor 'science by qualifications' And nor, to the best of my recollection, does Mother Nature.
Final point: when you two guys write up your rebuttal for Nature Climate Change, I'd be interested in reading the draft.
I am worried that I will be waiting until hell freezes over (no pun intended). Our most infamous denier - Jonas N on his own asylum thread - behaves in exactly the same way as you Latimer, with the exception that you are more polite (good on you). But what he does is make big claims at rebutting the AR4 conclusion in the IPCC/2007 document, arguing that the 90% figure is not based on empirical observations. He's been pounding the turf with this nugget for more than a year, in the meantime suggesting repeatedly that Hansen, Mann, Trenberth etc. (as well as me) aren't 'real scientists', even though old Jonas has no scientific background whatsoever and has never published a paper in any format anywhere.
I also ask him why he doesn't write up his stupendous arguments and share his wisdom with the world in a peer-reviewed journal. Like you, he then defers, obfuscates, and switches. He claims that he doesn't need to do this because the whole world realizes (or should) that he's right.
Truth is Latimer and Brad, you won't win any scientific arguments here. Its you who has to prove the world's most esteemed scientific bodies are wrong, and not the other way around. I said the same thing to Jonas. His only riposte was that the decisions of these National Academies may have been reached without full consultation of the membership. No proof provided, but that was/is his escape valve. What's yours?
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3180/22-4_fee…
OK Latimer. Go through this 2009 article point by point and tell us all here where the authors get it wrong. I suggest you keep copious notes, because you are going to need it for your rebuttal in the scientific literature.
Wait - you are writing a rebuttal aren't you? If not, why not?
Remember Latte's "All Froth, no Coffee" mantra: YOU MUST DISCUSS.
Pointless discussion, because Latte isn't doing a discussion for any other reason than to discuss.
Like Joan, Latte isn't even a denier. They're merely trolling.
If it weren't for the fact that the denier blogs will banhammer anyone not toeing the party line and nobody on their side will even blink an eyelid, they'd both be trolling the denier blogs under different socks.
Conclusion of study:
"The oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO from the atmosphere is decreasing 2 the pH and lowering the CO32– concentration and CaCO3 saturation states of aragonite and calcite in the upper ocean. Ocean acidification is expected to result in a pH decrease of ~ 0.3–0.4 units rela- tive to pre-industrial values by the end of this century".
Given the number of studies cited in the article, I am satisfied with this. End of story.
"Brad and Latimer: neither of you has managed to explain why the vast majority of the world’s scientists, along with every Academy of Science in every nation, agrees with the IPCC conclusions including the threat posed by ocean acidification linked with greenhouse gas emissions."
Jeff,
1. It's MAROHASY. To put it another way, it's MAROHASY.
2. In rê "the vast majority of the world's scientists":
No, I can't possibly explain why something you've simply imagined is true is true.
A more interesting (and literally infinitely more tractable) question is how and why a scientist, such as yourself, came to believe a completely unevidenced and prima facie unlikely rumour like that in the first place. Maybe it's because of Lolita, but I must admit to a prejudice that entomologists are pretty bright. So I bet if you turn your net inwards, as it were, you can catch some interesting answeroids at the very least.
And since you're comparatively extremely polite, I'm all ears.
3. Nor do I have any insight into the "thinking" of decorticate, decerebrate, anencephalic entities like Academies of Science. (Contrary to what we were told in childhood, there is such a thing as a stupid question, a good example of which would be any question about the psychology of things that lack nervous systems.)
The reason for the horde of obvious idiots is because Joan's shitting over this blog isn't working any more, so they've had to recruit (or sockpuppet) new idiots to bury the science blogs under their crap and force people to leave out of disgust.
Tim, as long as he's left out of it, doesn't give a monkeys.
@jeff harvey
'I’d also like to ask why, Latimer, you haven’t published your stunning rebuttal in a major scientific journal. If you can prove that the evidence linking atmospheric C02 and declining ocean pH levels is bogus, or at least unproven, then you can join Maharosey and get paid big bucks by a whole coterie of right wing free market advocating think thanks'
Let's get the crap out of the way first.
1,. No idea who 'Maharosey' is. The relevance to this discussion has passed me by.
2. I'm not very interested in 'big bucks' however funded. So I think I'll decline that offer thanks.
I spent my commercial career in 'Big Bucks Land' in IT . Been there, done that, got many Tshirts and I'm delighted to be out of it - hopefully for ever.
Up until the start of this discussion earlier this week I just had a sneaking suspicion that all was not well in the land of acidification data. But as the week has gone on - and more and ,more people have tried ever more semantic and abusive and weird ways to defend 'the consensus', the more my suspicions are confirmed.
Because the counter to my simple observation ' there is not enough observed data to claim that 'ocean acidification' is a proven scientific fact' would be so simple - to produce the data - that nobody has yet done so simply reinforces my idea that it isn't there.
As to writing a paper for a 'learned journal', I'd need some help from an experienced hand. Would any of you guys like to volunteer? The other slight difficulty I see is that it would need to prove a negative - that the data isn't there. I can't recall reading many papers that do so, since publishers and reviewers are mostly more interested in new positive results rather than negative ones. Again, some guidance from an experienced author would help. Any volunteers?.
"Final point: when you two guys write up your rebuttal for Nature Climate Change, I’d be interested in reading the draft.
I am worried that I will be waiting until hell freezes over (no pun intended). "
I don't know Latimer's career situation but since I'm neither a climate scientist nor a Master's Squash champion with an interest in climate science, I'm not gonna be the one who brings you in from the cold there pal. My advice: dress for the next few Solar Minima.
As an aside, you were "arguing" a lot better (if that's what you're attempting) yesterday. Lift your game Jeff.
Yawn.
More shit in the ocean.
"Its you who has to prove the world’s most esteemed scientific bodies are wrong, and not the other way around."
a. What exactly do you presume I disagree with these brainless torsos about?
(Just in case you were confused, I think I "confessed" at one point to being Latimer, but that was what we Aussies call taking the piss. We're 2 different people.)
b. If there is some disagreement then, technically Jeff, it's precisely "the other way round."
That's their job, to the extent that mindless bodies can have jobs.
@jeff harvey
'OK Latimer. Go through this 2009 article point by point and tell us all here where the authors get it wrong. I suggest you keep copious notes, because you are going to need it for your rebuttal in the scientific literature'
Too easy.
The article you refer to only cites four sets of observational data of pH change and only shows a graph of one. And just about every other review article just shows the same set
But thank you for citing the article, It is an excellent illustration for my case. The most respected and widely cited review articles do not cite more than a handful of datasets. And they are all the same handful.
And I'd ask you once again to read what I have actually written...not just to leap into some woolly thinking 'he's a 'denier' so he must be arguing a and b and c' and go charging off after imaginary red herrings. Its a waste of both of our time s - yours to worry about it in the first place, and me to rebut the unfounded accusations afterwards.
All is eerily calm on the Liquid Lothario front. Dare I hope that my heartfelt overture (or the even more affecting recent messages from Latimer that I've just spotted) may have caused you some quiet reflection, son of Lothar?
If only that, it was worth it. We really don't have to be cunts to each other if you choose otherwise. (Excuse my Shakespeare.)
Addendum - end of para 4
'...the same handful. And it is beginning to look as though the reason these same datasets are the chosen few is because that is all there is.
There's no need for me to 'make copious notes' about the rest , since that is the only point I am making.
Latimer
You claim (this page: # 57; # 58) to have answered the questions I asked you (for the fifth time) here. Your response was:
The questions were:
1/ Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.
- Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.
3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if pH is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Obviously, you did not answer the questions. You evaded them.
I do not accept your claim of uncertainty (# 67) that we are unsure about (1), as there is ample evidence that average ocean pH is >8.1. Nor do I accept that a trained chemist can be agnostic about (2) and (3).
In order to be agnostic you must *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the fundamental theory underpinning the chemistry involved. You must further *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the exhaustive experimental confirmations of the theory that have been carried out under laboratory conditions.
How can you - a trained chemist - do that?
Please explain your reasoning by answering all three questions that I have repeatedly asked you here.
@Wow:
Yawn.
GO TO BED.
Hey, vince, please read up on the history of continental drift, 'cos you're a bit out of line.
- -- -
‘Experiments and Observations Rule OK’
Exactly the same kind of crap the shit-for-brains insisted in order to deny Continental Drift for decades right up until the 80′s.
- - - - - -
Whilst I appreciate that Latimer is wrong on many things, continental drift isn't really the way to combat him. What actually happened was that at the time, the ruling paradigm of what went on was that the continents were masses of light rock which sort of floated/ scooted across the dense heavy basalt which underlay the oceans. Remember 100 years ago they didn't have our drilling capabilities.
So what Wegener proposed was that these continents were scooting about under certain gravitational and other influences. However he neglected to actually calculate or got it totally wrong, and basically there was no way that they could possibly move in that fashion. Most people accepted that continents could move, but not in the way he proposed. Some agreed it did appear that Africa and S America etc had been joined together once, and the evidene was pretty good for that, but his theory of how was rejected because it couldn't work.
By th 1930's or so work was going on on the idea that continents moved around the earth due to upwelling plumes of hot magma from the core.
Thus by the 60's when they found the Atlantic ridge and such, everything was in place for it all to fall into place.
Maybe it's an american thing, but my lecturer at uni in the 90's in Scotland had learnt his geology in the 60's or so, and had no problems at all with modern continental drift and it seems British geologists were converted rapidly.
The real reason "Experiment and observation rule okay" is total mince is because theory is also necessary for successful science.
It's actually more like a giant ffeedback circle of observation, theory, experiment, observation, theory and so on.
And one of the tests of a useful theory is that it makes predictions which can be tested and builds on top of previous known theories such as the absorption of gases by liquids.
@Latimer:
For a bunch of people who claim to be ‘scientific’ many of you don’t seem to have the faintest idea of what science is and how it progresses.
Latimer, this has to rank (in the annals of brilliant understatement) alongside that comment at WUWT[?] wherein you tentatively nominated a certain shoulder-themed gladiator pit as "the pettiest and nastiest corner of the climatosphere" or words to that effect. (I wish I could find it again—you nailed the superlatives.)
¡Chapeaux bas, maître!
@guthrie
'And one of the tests of a useful theory is that it makes predictions which can be tested and builds on top of previous known theories such as the absorption of gases by liquids.'
Sure. Absolutely agree.
And when the theoretical predictions of 'ocean acidification' have been thoroughly tested by experiment, then we'll all be happy. (or not as the case may be).
But it hasn't yet been done. Five very short (<20 years) datasets isn't enough to confirm that the theory is right. Anymore than five short (<20 year) datasets of back garden temperatures would be enough to confirm global warming.
And a quick calculation shows that if we did record just the daily max/min readings from each of those five thermometers for the twenty years we'd collect more observational data about temperature than we have for the entirety of 'ocean acidification'.
I'd just like to point out some of the scientific gibberish posted by Latimer Alder:
"No argument that if you increase the partial pressure of CO2 over a jar of pure water, you will end up with a solution of carbonic acid that will be slightly acidic. Basic physical chemistry.
This is comment reveals this person knows nothing about ocean acidification, nor ocean chemistry. Less than 1% of carbon dioxide taken up by the ocean exists in the form of carbonic acid. Only a contrarian studying contrarian blogs and not the scientific literature would make such a glaring error. Contrarians tend to think the oceans are chockful carbonic acid, but that is a fallacy.
" It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks."
This simply compounds Latimer Alder's previous misunderstanding. It is the change (reduction) in carbonate ion concentration (activity) that makes seawater corrosive to calcium carbonate (chalk) shell/skeleton-building marine critters, because the carbonate ion is a building block of the calcium carbonate shell.
Alkalinity (which is not technically the opposite of acidification) is supplied back to the oceans over long time scales (tens of thousands of years) through the chemical weathering of carbonate and silicate rocks, however it is the silicate weathering which draws down atmospheric CO2. Buffering, by the dissolution of calcium carbonates in the oceans, is unlikely to provide a 'get out of jail free card'. Not only do we have calculations, but we only need to look back at Earth past. Geologically-rapid increases in atmospheric CO2 were accompanied by ocean acidification. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is an example - the oceans acidified.
That's why we are now witnessing, today, the dissolution of calcium carbonate-shelled marine life. Tatoosh Island off Washington, USA, is an extreme example. Marine life is being dissolved away due to the incredibly rapid increase in corrosive seawater. Oyster larvae off Oregon and Washington have been killed by too corrosive seawater since about 2006, and now the Antarctic is beginning to show signs of corrosiveness.
So @guth, according to you, "the real reason" Latimer's dictum is "total mince" is that it's partial mince. Thanks for that... I suppose.
Nope.
You have your own private definition of what is scientific and what is not. It rejects conclusions based on evidence and methodology that you don't admit exists - and arguably aren't even aware of. That's not scientific skepticism. That's denialism.
Yep, and that's EXACTLY why science concludes that CO2 drives increasing acidification. You're only hanging on to your claim by ruling most of the previous observations and hard won knowledge out of bounds with respect to that phenomenon. You allege the scientists are wrong - that's an inescapable implication of your claim - but...
ROFL! That's a beautiful projection from the guy who shows no sign of knowing what the scientific case is for concluding that ocean acidification is occurring. How do you know they are wrong when you don't even know the reasons underlying their claims?!
But wait, it gets better still:
Now we're at IMAX projection levels. You flat-out refuse to give a fair account of the scientific case which you are rejecting, but you're accusing others of not knowing how science is done?! The hubris level is quite stunning.
Logic Fail.
But I'm sure you don't understand why.
FWIW I've always thought continental drift was a brilliant idea and explained so much that previous theories couldn't.
And careful matching rock-by-rock across the oceans provided a powerful demonstration that it was correct.
I'd note also that the 'consensus' of geologists a century ago was that this crazy guy was either bonkers or deluded for pointing out that Africa fits into America and that NW Scotland is ever so like NE N. America.
But today's 'consensus' is that you'd be bonkers not to believe it.
So what changed - and what made people change their individual and collective mind? The rocks are still pretty much what they were 100 years ago and pretty much in the same places.
The actual geology ain't changed.
What did?
"The actual geology ain’t changed.
What did?"
The consensus.
And, thereby, the actual geology. Expert agreement influences—nay, governs—plate movements. This is basic oreskeonics! What part of it are you not understanding, Latimer?
I'm not seeing the personal denigration in the quote you provided - unlike your own copious attempts over the last few days. And your "reflexive" is wrong too. I told you to stop relying on your mind-reading until you demonstrate some actual skill at it.
Tone trolling doesn't work. Especially from someone who enthusiastically engages in personal denigration, including vigorously and repeatedly jerking the Godwin lever yesterday - and even more so when the nastiness from the denialists is way worse than you see here.
Besides, wasn't the narrative from you lot that this was an inconsequential low readership blog off the beaten track? You can't keep your memes straight.
And this particular trope has been claimed here over and over again but I'm struggling to recall ANYONE turn up here who was genuinely undecided claiming it was a factor. It's ONLY people who are obviously already fairly deep into denialism who do. Like your good self. And Latimer. And chameleon. Interesting, no?
It is amusing, however, that you're admitting that many who oppose the scientific position do so for reasons entirely unscientific.
Ah, so you've chosen Option C. (Again, excuse my Shakespeare.)
That'll learn me to extend the benefit of the doubt.
@lotharsson
'You allege the scientists are wrong – that’s an inescapable implication of your claim'
No it isn't. You are suggesting something that isn't true.
Let me spell it out one more time.
We do not yet have enough real world data to say that ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact.
It is possible - quite rightly - to say that many scientists believe it is occurring, that they infer or imply or model that it is occurring.
And when we have collected a lot more data maybe it will be possible to say for definite that it is a proven scientific fact. Or maybe we won't. We don't know for sure until we have done the work.
That's it. That's my only point. Data rules OK! If you ain't got data you've only got theory.
If you think I ma arguing something more complex or significant than this then you have fallen into the trap I mentioned above of assuming a lot of imaginary stuff..
"No it isn’t. You are suggesting something that isn’t true."
More content free effluent thrown in the river.
Carpet-baggers used to do the same sort of thing to drive out settlers from land they wanted.
Teabaggers are doing it on the internet to drown out reason in a sea of shite.
"And your “reflexive” is wrong too. I told you to stop relying on your mind-reading until you demonstrate some actual skill at it."
Heck he needs to demonstrate some actual MIND!
Latimer
Skipping again.
You claim (Page 11: # 57; # 58) to have answered the questions I asked you (now for the sixth time) here. Your response was:
I have no opinion as to what *will* happen.
The questions were:
1/ Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.
- Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.
3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if pH is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Obviously, you did not answer the questions. You evaded them. And you have just done it again. We are now on Page 12.
I do not accept your claim of uncertainty (Page 11: # 67) that we are unsure about (1), as there is ample evidence that average ocean pH is >8.1. Nor do I accept that a trained chemist can be agnostic about (2) and (3).
In order to be agnostic you must *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the fundamental theory underpinning the chemistry involved. You must further *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the exhaustive experimental confirmations of the theory that have been carried out under laboratory conditions.
How can you – a trained chemist – do that?
Please explain your reasoning by answering all three questions.
@Lotharsson:
"I’m not seeing the personal denigration in the quote you provided"
Now you're just denigrating yourself.
Alternatively:
may I ask if you (actually, literally, clinically) are autistic or somewhere reasonably far along that spectrum? This is a genuine question, even if the ethical thing would probably be to ask you about it elsewhere. It would make sense of some idiosyncrasies of yours, not all of them bad.
Latimer:
False.
The relevant experts, (ie, not Latimer or any of the other faeces-flinging simians who hang around at Curry's place) say you are wrong:
..which is presumably why you prefer to deny information you are provided rather than learning from it.
"We do not yet have enough real world data to say that ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact."
Wrong. We do. Epic fail. If we didn't then it would the subject of intense debate amongst academics working in the field. It isn't. You can pontificate all you like, but science has moved on to the next questions:
1. How much will pH decline in the near to mid-term future as a result of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations?
2. What are likely to be the biological and ecological effects of this?
As for the link between increasing atmospheric C02 and lowering marine pH that's established. Done, No doubt. Scientists are now trying to address the 2 questions I posited.
Thus Latimer, you are more than a decade out of date. Uf you are so sure that the link has not been empirically proven, then may i suggest you take your wisdom to the Royal Society, the National Academy of Science, or to a major international conference on the issue. I can assure you though that the scientists you'd meet would ignore you. They are focused on effects and rate of change, not on the link. Not any more.
Again, the looong pause from Lotharsson.
Call me an incurable optimist (hell, call me a "denialist" of your irredeemability) but I think that's your soul trying to say in Morse code:
"I'm in here. Somewhere."
Good grief! First mind-reading and now this.
Mate, you've got far bigger problems than speculating about my psychology. (You might ask someone you trust for feedback on your own, for example. If it's someone you don't know point them to your sterling contributions to this thread, since you appear to think that it's sufficient evidence to speculate about someone's position or otherwise on the autistic spectrum.)
And look, you've just argued that my behaviour is turning hypothetical undecided readers off your specious caricature of "my camp" - and you appear to have no idea that, were that to be a valid argument, your own behaviour over the last couple of days would have driven them firmly away from whatever "your camp" is never to return.
Brad,
These 'torsos' you talk about don't reach their conclusions easily. They base them on a huge volume of empirical and theoretical studies. If Latimer is correct, then a lot of people who have spent many years in the field of marine chemistry must all be playing dumb. Or else, as I said earlier, they are all conspirators in some huge global plot.
I am sorry if I appear facetious, but I just don't take an undergrad and an IT specialist with a basic degree in chemistry very seriously. Sorry, folks, I tend to prefer the opinions of people with specialist training and years of expertise. For every Galileo who changes the course of science, there are tens of thousands or pretenders who fall by the wayside. That's how it goes. The lowering pH of marine systems and its link with increasing atmospheric C02 is basic chemistry, It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. As I said, science has moved on to explore possible consequences. The process is established.
Now if you can find some esteemed well published experts who disagree with this, then I am all ears. Shills don't count. By that I mean people on the corporate payroll. Also, I don't care how you spell Marohasy or Mahorasy or whatever. She's a paid up member of the denier club. Sells her soul to a right wing think tank. You can bet your bottom dollar she wouldn't be associated with them if her views were different.
Rampton and Stauber write quite elegantly about people like her in 'Trust Us - We're Experts'. How industry, anxious to recruit scientists to join them in denial, have managed to gainfully sign up a number of people on the academic fringe. Its a classic PR ploy that would have made Edward Bernays proud. Put the words in somebody else's mouth. Use third parties to deny various threats posed by economic activity. The tobacco industry mastered the art, and the fossil fuel lobby has learned a lot from them.
Ah Jeff, I thought you'd exited the pit.
Do you anticipate having a break from interrogating Latimer and, if so, taking a look at #85 on the previous page? They are, I think, reasonable and pointed follow-up questions for you.
"Again, the looong pause from Lotharsson."
Again, Brad shows his psychopathy: the entire world must revolve around his needs.
Sad, really, really sad.
"Please explain your reasoning by answering all three questions."
Mind you, why the hell should he bother?
Even if he was only pounded with repeated requests to do so from everyone here, he can continue to ignore them.
Why?
Because the absentee landlord lets him.
Get in touch with Tim and get him to tell Latte to answer the damn question or get banned.
At that point he may (note, only MAY) actually answer.
But as it is, there's absolutely no need for him to answer.
I disagree, and so do most people here - and the scientists in question - as far as I can tell. I find that particular denial the most intriguing of all. You deny that you're implying that the scientists' statements are wrong? When they make claims that seem to be clearly at odds with yours?
Perhaps you'd care to moderate your earlier statement so that it's more consistent with this latest claim of yours. So we have:
1) You aren't disagreeing with the scientists who say that acidification is occurring.
2) You are claiming it's not "established scientific fact".
There's probably one one reasonable way out of this conundrum. Please specify how confident you think the scientists are who say "acidification is occurring". Feel free to use a probability estimate for some definition of "occurring", or a probability range on that occurrence, or an uncertainty interval around (say) the decadal trend rate of acidification, or some other scientific measure that you define sufficiently well and accompany with a suitable confidence interval.
Then define what confidence level you require for an "established scientific fact", and compare the two.
Bear in mind that you allege you're not disagreeing with the scientists...so presumably you will agree with the confidence interval you state that they place on the proposition, right? Or failing that, you'll start the task that you've ducked and weaved for 1100+ comments - that of showing how they reached their conclusions complete with confidence level, and why your estimate of confidence level is more plausible.
Over to you...
"You deny that you’re implying that the scientists’ statements are wrong?"
If he denies saying the scientists statements are wrong, HE IS AGREEING WITH THEM.
Lotharsson,
So I was wrong. My clinical empathy is known to get the better of me from time to time.
Just to take one example, when I said your petty nastiness was a "reflex," I was offering you an out.
Now that you assure me you can help being you—and I'll do you the courtesy of believing it—it should save me some time.
@bbd
'I do not accept your claim of uncertainty (Page 11: # 67) that we are unsure about (1), as there is ample evidence that average ocean pH is >8.1. Nor do I accept that a trained chemist can be agnostic about (2) and (3)'
Sorry that you don't feel able to accept my answers. But since our cathecism seems to have nothing much to do with the topic at hand, then that's all you're going to get.
If you'd care to explain in detail why you think this these are relevant and important questions about my views then maybe I'll reconsider. But I feel under on obligation to submit myself to an irrelevant interrogation from you or anybody else.
But on a far more interesting and pressing question...how do you think Middlesb'ro will get on in the Cup tomorrow. Will they make it to Wembley?
Sorry Jeff, that was a case of simultaneous postage—I realise you are responding to #85. Ta.
My clinical pathology is known to get the better of me from time to time.
FTFY.
"Sorry that you don’t feel able to accept my answers."
You replied, but not all replies are answers.
"Just to take one example, when I said your petty nastiness was a “reflex,” I was offering you an out."
Nope, there's no "out" needed because you CREATED the claim.
But then again, you think that if you insult someone then they should be grateful.
Another example of your dangerous pathology.
@lotharsson
Wow ...where are we today - at the Nit Pickers Jamboree?
'You deny that you’re implying that the scientists’ statements are wrong?
The statement that
'ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact'
is wrong. It has not (yet?) been proved. Further statements that assume that it is true are therefore not soundly based in proven science.
I have not given any opinions about any other statements by scientists. And I have no plan to do so at this time.
Note also that nothing above says anything at all about what may or may not be proven in the future
Again I sk you to please read what I have actually written, not what you think I might.should/could /have.
That the best you can do is nitpicking semantics, suggests strongly that we are not on the verge of the sudden breakthrough with the appearance of the missing data.
But more like hanging on with your fingernails before you have to admit the truth.
One hopes for other people's sake that Brad is not actually in training in a field where he can practice clinical anything, let alone a position that requires empathy.
Latimer,
Oh! You ducking and diving twisting and weaving sophist who mangles context.
Eric was not pointing that out to me, I brought it to your attention because you don't want to recognise the enormity of the problems that can arise from even a small log-scale change of pH.
But your refusal to take the presented evidence for the deleterious effects of pH change in the oceans on creatures sensitive to such is comment in itself. To still claim that there is no measurement of changing pH is therefore mendacious.
As for condescendingly throwing O-level chemistry at me - that in itself is a clear indication that you didn't even bother looking at sources that I have cited which explains the chemistry in detail. Or if you did and decided to insult anyway then that is once again a display of highly obnoxious mendacity.
It seems that you get a kick out of insulting others who do not merit such,
One has to resort to other sources to supply the theory as blog posts are not ideally suited for laying out chemical equations.
And yet still you repeat this silly mantra:
Well in fact we do, as has been pointed out to you time and again. How do you think the global charts of pH changes are drawn up - by rolling dice!
What is it with deniers that they continue to deny in the face of presented evidence and denying the existence of data underpinning the various OA studies is just another example.
And note the hypocrisy:
[1] So why present us with this
As for the Emeritus, hale and hearty he may be but if your are feeding off of his assistance then perhaps you need to contact those working in the field doing real research.
Sadly, for reasons of age and disability I cannot do this myself, heck even typing this is a struggle, so I have to rely upon the papers and research of others and I kinda trust their judgement over and above yours which are based upon nothing more than denial as described above and laced with a good deal of condescension and prejudice at that as exemplified by this statement of yours:
.
[2] So you don't understand the concept of consensus as applied to the findings of the many disparate branches of science which all support the conclusions WRT APGW, climate change and related problems such as OA.
@wow
'Mind you, why the hell should he bother?
Even if he was only pounded with repeated requests to do so from everyone here, he can continue to ignore them.
Why?
Because the absentee landlord lets him.
Get in touch with Tim and get him to tell Latte to answer the damn question or get banned.
At that point he may (note, only MAY) actually answer.
But as it is, there’s absolutely no need for him to answer.'
That'd be a really wise policy for a blog owner
'Answer the question or you will be banned' is the sure fire way to attract custom and readership (not).
And it still doesn't achieve your aim. If a contributor is banned they will never answer the question. If they hang around they might.
Double shoot oneself in foot!
Great strategic thinking wow man! Quite according to the standard I expect from you.
Keep it up!
Brad - the behaviour of Latimer is clear evidence that having a smidgen of correctness to start with can lead to going horrendously wrong later on, so the mince/ total mince thing is still sort of correct, although I could have phrased it a bit better.
JeffH?
I don't see 'shill' in Marohasy's quals.
You wrote she has no pedigree in science.
A simple google check says otherwise.
She also has published research.
It's clear that you don't approve of Marohasy but your statement re her quals is incorrect.
BTW are you and Lotharsson in some sort of competition that is about who can write denial/denialist/denier/denialism the most times in a sentence/paragraph/post?
I think you may have edged out in front :-)
Also? Is it some sort of scientific crime for a scientist to contribute to a 'think tank'.
I was not aware of that.
You are making claims far less certain than the scientists are making about ocean acidification.
It's a surefire way to get rid of mendacious trolling, and many people are attracted to sites where the signal to noise ratio is high. You can connect the dots from there, but will probably misinterpret them instead...
I'll live with the loss of the 1 in 10,000 chance which won't redeem the 9999 refusals we've already seen.
@Jeff:
“If Latimer is correct, then a lot of people who have spent many years in the field of marine chemistry must all be playing dumb.”
Let me guess, you’re debating ocean neutralization? I haven’t been following that threadlet.
With that disclaimer, what—hypothetically—would be “dumb” about paying off one’s mortgage?
“Or else, as I said earlier, they are all conspirators in some huge global plot.”
Again, as a question of logic—not of alkalinity—this argument has never struck me as remotely convincing.
Solo ad argumentum, let's say it were a GIANT SCAM!!!—what part of it would require anybody to conspire?
The difference between massively, plurally parallel mortgage-directed human activity and a conspiracy is gaping.
"I am sorry if I appear facetious, but I just don’t take an undergrad and an IT specialist with a basic degree in chemistry very seriously."
1. No, the word is "pretentious," but don’t apologise—I don’t forgive that.
2. Who are the “undergrad and IT specialist with a basic degree in chemistry,” anyway?
I imagine Latimer is meant to be the latter. But I didn't know entomologists[?] were in the business of looking down their noses at people who understand both software and chemistry. In which case, I may have to rethink my whole prejudice about students of the bug etc., based, as it was, on a grand total of 2 data points: the greatest prose stylist of the 20th century, and the sardonic cat with the ocular palsy who inferentially banged Clarice Starling, both of whom are rapidly appearing much cooler than you.
"Shills don’t count. By that I mean people on the corporate payroll."
But the government payroll is OK? Got it.
“The lowering pH of marine systems and its link with increasing atmospheric C02 is basic chemistry,”
That sounds more like Latimer’s alley, Mister ….Entomologist. (Right?)
“Rampton and Stauber write quite elegantly about people like her in ‘Trust Us – We’re Experts’. “
Sorry if I appear facetious, but that’s a stupid title for a book.
(Weren’t you going to try to link me to some of your own talks about Wise Use and so on, which are hopably much more un-silly than this dumbness, Jeff?)
Are you really the same Jeff H I promised to buy a round yesterday, calling him "a kind of anti-Michael Mann", or supreme praise to that effect? You’re breaking my heart with this weak-ass pre-scientific snobbery, man!
Finally, MAROBLOODYHASY.
@lionel a
'Eric was not pointing that out to me, I brought it to your attention because you don’t want to recognise the enormity of the problems that can arise from even a small log-scale change of pH'
Where have I made any remarks whatsoever on this topic? I've been familiar with the logarithmic scale of pH for over forty years. I know how it works. Your point is without foundation.
'But your refusal to take the presented evidence for the deleterious effects of pH change in the oceans on creatures sensitive to such is comment in itself. To still claim that there is no measurement of changing pH is therefore mendacious.'
No. Gamma minus. Circular argument.
You assume that the deleterious effects are due to pH changes and then try to use the presence of these changes to prove pH change is true.
'How do you think the global charts of pH changes are drawn up – by rolling dice!
If you look carefully you will see that such maps are based on models, not on observations.
Why present you with number 1 - my qualifications? Because the commenter wrongly claimed I was a 'failed' chemist. No other reason.
'So you don’t understand the concept of consensus as applied to the findings of the many disparate branches of science which all support the conclusions WRT APGW, climate change and related problems such as OA.'
I understand the concept of 'consensus' in politics and in social circumstances. But I'm baffled as to what you think it it has to do with science. Science is at heart about experiments and observations, not about conferences and agreements among humans.
See the earlier remarks about 'Continental Drift' for an excellent example of the failure of 'consensus' to tell us anything useful about the real world.
Latimer @ 23
Refusal to answer straightforward questions indicates inability to answer straightforward questions.
Since you have now refused to answer these questions several times, I feel free to pass comment.
You are unable to explain why the relevant theory and experimental confirmations lack predictive power because they do have predictive power. This means that you are wrong to claim that you have no idea what will happen to ocean pH as the atmospheric fraction of CO2 increases.
You know, as well as I do, that it will decrease. Because theory and experimentation predict that this will happen.
You are dishonest and evasive, but worst of all, you are boring.
Brad,
Its clear to me that you are green behind the ears, but a bit headstrong. There's a lot you write that is pretty blindingly simple, but most of it I let pass.
One thing that did catch my attention, however, was this little nugget:
"“Shills don’t count. By that I mean people on the corporate payroll.”
But the government payroll is OK? Got it".
You clearly don't geddit', if the gist of your remark is correct. People working for government agencies hold all kinds of political and economic opinions. But if you work for a think tank you certainly won't have views that digress from theirs. The reason is because people who are employed as spokesman for think tanks in turn funded by industries with an axe to grind have been selected precisely because their views are in line with those promoted by the industries. They have, in effect, gone through a corporate filter. One can use the same analogy to describe many journalists who write for the corporate media. Nobody says that are forced to write articles that promulgate a pro-elite or pro western bias. But they are sitting where they are because their views are in line with those who have power and influence. If their views differed, they wouldn't be sitting where they are. This is exactly the same as with people like Marohasy, who are employed by think tanks because their views are one and the same.
Your little argument fell a little flat there. You aren't quite as clever as you think you are.
As for ther title of Rampton and Staubler's book, its MEANT to be ironic. Wakey, wakey, Brad. Their first book was entitled, 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You', an expose of the public relations industry. Both are quite outstanding sources of information on PR, think tanks and the like.
Finally, I am not talking about ocean nueutralization. I am talking about acidification. Call it what you like, but marine pH is maintained over immense temporal and spatial scales, and thus can be defined as being largely deterministic. That means that to push it out of short-medium term equilibrium it would take some quite profoundly signifciant external or internal forcing. The fact that pH has declined by 0.1 units in just 150 years (a blink of an eye for such a determinstic system) is worrying. We should expect changes like this to take many thousands of years, not just a century. And of course, due to the scales involved, there are lags in cause-and-effect. That means that even if humans stopped burning fossil-fuels today the increase in atmospheric C02 would continue to impact marine pH for the next century or so at the very least.
We also know that marine biota are sensitive to what we might think are hardly noticeable changes in pH. This means 0.1-0.3 units. The problem is that most people cannot think outside of the mental 'box' in which we have been conditioned through evolution. Therefore, a change that we perceive as humans to be small is, in the scope of nature, profoundly large. A few degees C, minor reductions in forest habitat, apparently marginal decreases in oceanic pH.
I may as well be speaking to a wall as far as you are concerned. Why people on Deltoid are annoyed with you Brad is that appear to be arguing for the sake of it. Not because you bring anything new or important to the table, but more because you come across as a headstrong, angry young man. Its clear to me that your scientific education is pretty basic. Now you've had to resort to calling me an entomologist. Fair enough, even though I use insects to test all kinds of models and hypotheses in community and population ecology. I study genetic variation in plant-related traits such as primary or secondary metabolites and morphology; I examine biotic and abiotic constraints on plant invasions and repercussions for native insect and plant communities; I also study life history evolution in parasitic and hyperparasitic wasps (amongst the most species rich organisms on the planet). I also research interactions between soil and above-ground communities. Our institute here studies a wide array of fields, and I speak with many colleagues during the course of a working week. Most importantly, thanks to my professional background, I know when I am overstepping my field into those of others, and when to defer to their specialist training. People like Latimer, Jonas, SD and others (you?) don't appear to know your own academic limitations. This is why so many references are made to the now famous 1999 Dunning-Kruger study. It perfectly applies to many of the sceptics who write on blogs as if they possess some inherent wisdom that has escaped the real experts. They have no formal expertise in the field, and therefore greatly overestimate what they do know. Real experts are far more cautious.
The sceptics here are throwing caution to the wind. That''s why, if I have to choose, I go for the Academies, and the scientists doing the actual reseasrch, and not a few armchair experts on blogs.
Most importantly, as far as I am concerned, you haven't said much in any of your posts that has much in the way of scientific merit. Sorry, but that's my professional opinion. You appear to want to be a devil's advocate without knowing much about what you are writing. Your government versus corporate comment in your last post was just more evidence of profound naivete on your part.
All
Can you believe the boss-eyed dishonesty on display here?
Latimer says:
Nothing much to do with the topic??
Beyond belief.
When people behave like this, they shouldn't just be reviled, they should be shut out.
Here are Jennierf Marohasy's stunning scientific credentials:
10 papers in her scientific career. Her work has been cited 64 times. The h-factor is 4.
My work was cited more in December of last year.
Mediocrity personified. If these are the kinds of luminaries that Chameleon gets some her information from, then its a small wonder she is a 'sceptic'.
And no, its no crime to be working for a fasr right think tank that promotes deregulation and free market absolutism. But this defines the use of the word 'shill'. The term 'bought and paid for' comes to mind.
Good grief, Chammy, you are naive. Why I waste my valuable breath on you shows that I must be crazy.
Actually Brad,
One of my best friends is an entomologist. He works for DPI.
He is certainly not in the habit of looking down his nose at people who understand software or chemistry or any other profession.
So the problem doesn't appear to be connected to entomology.
I think it might have more to do with that pretentious and/or weak ass pre scientific snobbery issue you raised :-)
@bbd
'You are unable to explain why the relevant theory and experimental confirmations lack predictive power because they do have predictive power.
You know, as well as I do, that it will decrease. Because theory and experimentation predict that this will happen'
And if and when the predictions are confirmed by actual observations (or not) then you can say that you have proved the case.
Until then you can only say that it is 'predicted' or 'modelled' or 'expected' to happen.
Which is all I have been trying to say since about Tuesday.
As to
' Because theory and experimentation predict that this will happen', then I'd strongly suggest that you spend a bit more time in the real world doing real things. Lab based theory and lab based experimentation can only ever provide a subset of the real world conditions out there. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that they produce perfect predictions. Informed best guesses perhaps - as any engineer will tell you. .But you still have to do the real life work.
Latimer @ 31
You have no intention of answering my questions no matter how many times I repeat them. We both know that you can't answer them because the cut straight to the heart of the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating on this thread.
Sustained displays of evasion and dishonesty do, in fact, merit censure by the blog owner.
Just be specific Latimer
I do not accept your claim of uncertainty (Page 11: # 67) that we are unsure about (1), as there is ample evidence that average ocean pH is >8.1. Nor do I accept that a trained chemist can be agnostic about (2) and (3).
In order to be agnostic you must *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the fundamental theory underpinning the chemistry involved. You must further *deny* the validity and consequent predictive power of the exhaustive experimental confirmations of the theory that have been carried out under laboratory conditions.
How can you – a trained chemist – do that?
Be specific Latimer. Answer the question Latimer. Come on Latimer.
@bbd
See my earlier remarks which seem to have crossed. Especially wrt
'exhaustive experimental confirmations of the theory that have been carried out under laboratory conditions.'
Be specific Latimer. You are a trained chemist. You know the predictive power of theory is very strong. Theory confirmed by experiment stronger still. As near to certainty as we get. So, how can you claim to be agnostic about future reduction in ocean pH as CO2 increases?
You must explain your *reasoning* for DENYING the predictive power of theory (in chemistry, FFS) supported by experiment.
Answer the question Latimer. Be specific Latimer. Come on Latimer.
More about Marohasy's links with industry:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3458728.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Found…
No, he CLAIMS to be a trained chemist.
But by his actions here, that claim is doubtful.
Of course, he could just be stalling.
That's not a shock to anyone here, is it.
No.
Scienceblogs.
the hint is in the name.
But you'll make ANYTHING up to avoid answering BBD's questions. In case you missed, them, here they are again:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Now why is avoiding answering these simple and straightforward questions worth so much effort from you?
@bbd
'As near to certainty as we get.'
You can get much nearer by making the real world observations. Then you don't need to 'predict' anything, You can measure it directly
There was no huge intellectual problem doing them for global warming. Why the bashfulness over OA?
Wow
I want Latimer to be a trained chemist. If he is, then he knows how completely stuffed he is trying to deny the predictive power of experimentally confirmed theory in chemistry.
I said be specific Latimer. Not be evasive. You need to explain your reasoning for DENYING the predictive power of experimentally confirmed theory in chemistry.
So - explain your reasoning. Come on. Let's have it.
More comedy gold from Chameleon:
"One of my best friends is an entomologist. He works for DPI.
He is certainly not in the habit of looking down his nose at people who understand software or chemistry or any other profession"
More utter bull****. I never said I looked down my nose at people who are software engineers, you clot. I said that I don't think they have much to offer to the complex fields of climate science or marine chemistry. I wouldn't trust a garage mechanic to do medicine even though I trust him to fix my car. Its about relevant fields. You just don't geddit, do you?
Your posts are reaching the utter depths of stupidity. And if anyone is arrogant, its those people who are smearing Michael Mann, Ben Santer, Paul Ehrlich and other qualified scientists. You should read some of the choice comments the deniers have used to describe scientists or their work that they don't like. After critically reviewing Lomborg's book for Nature in 2001 I was called everything under the sun by the right wing media and think tanks. So don't come off all high handed here, Chammy. It doesn't wash.
By the way, here's some of the things that have been said about scientists and environmental groups by think tanks and contrarians over the years. Much of this is in the public domai. The follwoing comes from a single book: :
'extremeist', 'apocalyptics', 'alarmists', 'zealots', 'emotional extremists', 'ignorant', 'chemophobes', 'fundamentally elitist', 'professional scaremongers', 'potentail mass murderers', assaulting reason', 'full of environmetnal paranoia', 'overzealous environmentalist rhetoric', 'environmental tyranny', etc.
And these are all quotes from a single book, 'Rational readings on Environmental Concerns'. This is but a snippet of the shit we have to put up with from so-called sceptics. When one factors in the media, think tanks and astroturf groups, it gets a helluva lot worse.
Only if he's knowingly lying and avoiding facts is this a good thing, mind.
But at the moment, he's not being a chemist at all.
Since we have a claim he's a chemist and his actions are the opposite of those of a trained chemist, we're left with conundrums caused by his avoidance.
And the only way out is for him to admit his lies, wherever they may be.
Either in his statements about chemistry or in his statement about being a chemist.
But one of the two has to be a lie.
Latte, the null hypothesis is that sea water will acidify the same way as tap water.
If you wish to claim that they do it differently, you MUST answer BBD's questions, since they are about how you know that claim is correct.
Wow
You are getting the general idea.
# 58 was in response to your # 56 btw.
I wonder if Latte's 77-year-old "Emeritus Professor" is this dude:
From the SkS report on NASA contrarian retirees who won't have to live through AGW, but will have to change to avoid it.
JeffH,
It would be far easier and far smarter if you just politely retract your incorrect statement about Ms Marohasy.
She definitely has science quals and you claimed she had no science pedigree.
A simple google check was enough to prove you were incorrect.
Whether you have published and been cited more than she or whether you personally approve/disapprove of the people and/or organisations she has worked with has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you were incorrect when you made that statement.
You also took a while to work out how to spell the name correctly.
And JeffH?
WTF does Media Watch have to do with it?
Since when were they experts or a good resource on scientific matters?
Yep, he started out very dishonestly (and fallaciously), never acknowledged being caught out repeatedly on that behaviour, only improved marginally from there and now seems to be reverting to his original level.
As Wow points out he refuses to even answer the question about what is more likely to happen, and as I've shown he won't even define the confidence levels he attaches to the terms he chooses to use.
He didn't start out arguing in good faith, and he's not doing so now. But at least he's basically admitted his point is irrelevant to the case for concern re: ocean acidification. That case does not require that we wait until there's essentially no doubt that it's occurring at dangerous rates.
Good grief. You really are that ignorant?
There is huge value in acting on strong predictions where acting sooner is cheaper or safer or easier than acting later. If we'd acted on global warming when it first became obvious enough, instead of waiting for "high proof" like you're quibbling about here with respect to OA, then globallly we'd have saved ourselves a shit load of money - not to mention all the ancillary benefits, up to and including a significantly reduced impact on the ecosystem.
So does this dude:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp
Qualifications, that is.
However, no science pedigree.
Perhaps Jeff should - but you go first. You have a loooooooooooooong list of incorrect statements here at Deltoid, and I can't see retractions for any of them. I look forward to them. Finding them all and typing them up should take you a couple of days.
(Then Jeff can replace his statement with a corrected version that leads to essentially the same point. Marohasy has a mediocre scientific research pedigree in an unrelated field, and has abandoned scientific principles (presumably) in order to support her shilling career.)
Bet you don't apply your advice to yourself.
Jeff, thank you for the compliment about the blinding simplicity of my writing. And hey, you come across pretty clearly yourself! A lot of the time.
Feel the pleasantness? See what we can achieve when fear and Loth'ing are out of the equation? Communication!
You raise a lot of points but I really need to single out this one: you accused me of "resorting to calling [you] an entomologist"!!!!!
1. That'd hardly be an insult, as I (and latterly chameleon) have spent some time stating and restating to any who care to listen. Apparently all in vain. Perhaps we should have written it even more blindingly simply.
2. I think the fact you even see it as an insult teaches me more than I really wanted to know about the intricate system of caste prejudices that evidently occupies quite a lot of your CPU cycles. (Really? Is this stuff worthy of you, Jeff? Have I overestimated you as I did Lotharsson before you? Not quite as grossly as that, of course[!], but still I wonder—am I as incurably optimistic about human beings as my friends affectionately allege?)
3. I didn't exactly call you an entomologist so much as state (albeit not clearly enough to rob you of all vision, evidently) that I thought you'd said you were an entomologist, "right?"
4. Apparently my memory was faulty. It now seems you're an insect ecologist, or something.
Sorry for my vagueness here—it's not that I don't care about your background. Oh wait. That's pretty much it. I don't care about your background.
Don't get me wrong—it's an interesting, friendly conversation piece, but I don't care enough to learn how many rungs you are above, say, a mere eco-entomologist, and whether they're allowed to marry entomo-ecologists without their children automatically being declared dalits, etc.
Seriously, you're a grown scientist.
Don't alarm bells start going off when you find yourself stooping to social proof on an in-principle science blog, Jeff?
You seem reasonably smart. For instance, you're literate, which has got to count.
So I'm going to do you the honor of assuming you do hear the alarm bells I just mentioned.
Let me explain, hopefully with a simplicity that will leave you migrainous for a couple of hours at least, what those alarm bells are trying to tell you.
They mean that you have left the confines of science. Temporarily, of course. We all have, the moment we set foot on this blog (for all our diverse motives) to "argue" about "climate science"—the scare quotes being imprescindible in the name of accuracy.
Once you start arguing from authority (and you can deny it all you want, but that's what you've spent a sizable chunk of your time here doing), you've regressed to PRE-SCIENTIFIC ways of settling arguments about nature.
I know it's not science. Latimer knows it's not science. chameleon seems to know it's not science. To us, or perhaps I should say, to me at least (I must remember to defer to the rich diversity of human motivation, of course) this place is just a rhetorical ludum or gym. I used to derive the same fun pulling the wings off IDers and other god-bothery types at a slightly different genre of website. Hell, I used to derive the same fun braining the shambling undead in Diablo III. I used a unique set axe instead of a clue bat, but the principle was the same. This place is a bit more target-rich, which is why I'll forgive the lack of cool graphics.
If you think it's science, then (by simple definition) the role it's playing in your mind is that of PSEUDOSCIENCE.
It's NOT science—climate catastrophism lost all remaining scientific qualities in 1995 in the city of Madrid, if I remember my history of science—and when you think that something which is, in truth, NOT science IS science, that's PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Get it? Have I blinded you with simplicity?
If you can still make out your surroundings, I've clearly failed. Ah well, back to rhetorical gym for me!
@wow
'Latte, the null hypothesis is that sea water will acidify the same way as tap water'
!!!
Give me strength...the man who consistently decries my chemistry hasn't got beyond elementary school stuff.
Been to the seaside recently? Tasted the water? Salty?
Now do the same with your domestic water supply. Does it taste the same? If so, call the water company. It shouldn't.
Now try boiling a kettle with seawater in it. Pour the water out. Look inside. There'll be lots of 'scale'. Try the same in a 'soft water' area like Sheffield. You;ll get very little scale as the water is pretty close to 'pure'.
So what makes the difference between tapwater and seawater? Special bonus point to those who said 'dissolved salts'. Yippee = we're getting there.
Next question: Do the dissolved salts affect the interaction of CO2 with water? A banana for the man in the front row who says yes. And another if he can answer the question..do the dissolved salts affect the pH.
Whoppee Yes! They;re the reason why seawater starts off on the alkaline side (ph ~8), not the acid. They are alkaline salts. Seawater is alkaline. Stick some litmus in or a drop of UI and you;ll see. Do the same for pure water and you;ll see different behaviour. Pure water is neutral.
So can we deduce that the characteristics of seawater are not those of tapwater as far as we are concerned here? Yes!!
Here endeth elementary school aqueous ionic chemistry
It might just be nice, my dear wow, if you refrained from casting aspersions on my qualifications when yours have been exposed as so elementary.
You've reminded me of a long ago night job teaching A level chemistry to A level rejects. Had to keep it simple for them too. One of them bought me a whole side of smoked salmon for Xmas (v. nice) and introduced me to the music of the (Guildford) Stranglers. And he passed his resit (grade C I think).
@wow
I wonder if Latte’s 77-year-old “Emeritus Professor” is this dude:
The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, “co2isgreen”, which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding.
From the SkS report on NASA contrarian retirees who won’t have to live through AGW, but will have to change to avoid it.'
Nope. Not even the right continent. And my Professor is a proper one. With a Chair at a University and all.
Do you know what 'Emeritus' means? I begin to doubt it.
Ain't that the thing though?!
A scientist - even a chemist - makes the best inference from all the evidence and attaches an appropriate confidence level to it. Latimer's talking up how he's hewing to the scientific method and everyone else (many scientists included - although he later contradicted himself and excluded them) aren't doing so - except that he refuses to hew to the practice of drawing the best inference and attaching a confidence level. Heck, he refuses to define the confidence level he's using for his quibble, let alone the ones the scientists attach to "the ocean is acidifying".
If he were to step up and do so, he might find many people not so far from his position as he thinks.
@wow
'If you wish to claim that they do it differently, you MUST answer BBD’s questions, since they are about how you know that claim is correct.'
Do the kettle experiment I suggested and you will see that they are very different beasties. No need to go through BBD's rigmarole. You can prove it qualitatively in your kitchen.
@lotharsson
'Heck, he refuses to define the confidence level he’s using for his quibble, let alone the ones the scientists attach to “the ocean is acidifying”.
The statement that ' ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact' is a 100% statement. And it is wrong.
If somebody else wants to say that they are50% certain or somethjng else like that - and can produce and publish some numerical data and reasoning to back up their numeric view, that's cool with me.
But it ain't 'proved' till they've made the real observations.
End of argument. Only took half a week.
Anyway Jeff, despite my tone, which I'm sure you'll read as angry (I'd call it "irritable" at this time of night), and whatever angriness you're about to type back in my direction, you still have my respect for what you said yesterday (Thursday) about evidence and my beer vouchers are non-revocable, so if we ever cross paths in less virtual circumstances, which will necessarily be more convivial ones, I owe you that drink.
By the way, whatever you're typing now will be improved if you subtract any personal criticisms—as I'm kind of wishing I'd been vigilant enough to do before sending comments in your direction.
Later.
You mean like "I'm a trained chemist, so I know about OA"?
Or do you mean like Joan who says "I definitely know more than all you, as evidenced by the fact you don't understand I'm right"?
Besides, the scientific method hasn't worked.
So why shouldn't we go back down to pre-school to see if your level manages to rise that high?
This proves what? That there's salt in there?
Talk about pre-school thinking, and Latte here, in the eternal struggle to avoid answering BBD's questions, makes no hesitation whatsoever to drive right down into it...!
Here's a wee clue: PROVE YOUR CASE.,
You claim that because it tastes salty, it can't become acidic by absorbing CO2.
But CO2 doesn't go "I don't like the taste of that seawater".
PROVE YOUR CASE.
And that is why you must answer BBD's questions.
However, YOU CANNOT prove your case since it is complete and utter hogwash.
So you pretend that "it tastes funny" is "scientific proof" of your assertion.
BOLLOCKS.
What IS a 100% statement?
But this is what you do to avoid answering BBD's question.
Make asinine claims so that someone points them out and then you can skitter away like a cockroach and avoid the elephant in the room:
BBD's questions:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
It's a 100% statement.
And you still haven't answered them.
And that is 100% accurate.
@lotharson
'There is huge value in acting on strong predictions where acting sooner is cheaper or safer or easier than acting later. If we’d acted on global warming when it first became obvious enough, instead of waiting for “high proof” like you’re quibbling about here with respect to OA, then globallly we’d have saved ourselves a shit load of money – not to mention all the ancillary benefits, up to and including a significantly reduced impact on the ecosystem.
So you're never going to go back and prove that the effect you're so scared of actually exists? That could be equally bad news since you'll never know if you beat it or not - or where to spend your money.
Stating and restating what?
Complete rubbish?
But then why should it be accepted as not rubbish just because you state and restate it? YOU are the insane ones who think that doing the same thing over and over again will eventually do something different.
And your internal sociopathy and insanity is nobody's problem but yours.
We just point it out for you.
As a public service to the poor family that raised you, wondering what the hell they've done wrong.
So you did call him an entomologist.
Why you thought he was one is not disproof of you calling him one.
You really don't understand a word, do you.
4. Apparently my memory was faulty.
Why "apparently"?
Are you saying you might still have been calling him an entomologist? Or that you don't remember if you thought he was or not?
But it's your M.O., isn't it.
Put a huge wool coat over every word you say so you can deny ever saying it in the future.
Try not saying anything.
They can't be "misconstrued" by others, then.
The only one talking about fear of OA is you.
But you'll do anything to avoid answering BBD's questions:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
100% fact: you refuse to answer.
The only thing we don't know is why.
Do you?
@wow
'What IS a 100% statement?'
'The cat sat on the mat' is a 100% statement. It leaves no wiggle room. It is a definite statement about the cat and where it was.
'ocean acidification is a proven scientific fact' is a 100 statement. It has no wiggle room. You cannot have a more definite statement unless you think that 'abc is an even more proven scientifc fact' is viable. But all that is doing is debasing the language.
One last thing, Jeff—I completely see your logic about the different types of payroll and will be happy to present some counterlogic for your consideration when I'm less than half-asleep.
This will all need to be qualified, though, by an appreciation that we're no longer talking about marine science and have digressed into the (far more fascinating, if you ask me) subject of organisational psychology, and it's not going to tell us jack-**** about pH at the Great Barrier Reef no matter which of us "wins" the conversation ;-), okay? Sound reasonable, mate?
Night all.
Still 100% avoiding answering the questions, Latte.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
(and making up words to pretend isn't working).
So no longer 100%, but now 100 statement.
English not your first language, is it.
Is THAT why you won't answer BBD's question? Because it's in English?
'You claim that because it tastes salty, it can’t become acidic by absorbing CO2'
I made no such claim. But you'd need to absorb an enormous amount of CO2 to overcome the natural alkalinity and make the whole thing 'acidic'. Not even the most alarimist commentator I have read has ever suggested that unlikely event will happen.
As ever, you are flounderign around with imprecise terms.
But the purpose of my little gedanken experiment was simply to show that sea water and tap water are different things. And you can't necessarily expect the effect you see in pure water to be the same in tap water.
"Night all."
Given it is only mid-afternoon in SE England (being on GMT), I see you need your nap.
5 years old or 95?
Is *that* the reason why you won't answer BBD's question?
You have to prove it will be different.
But you can't.
That's why you avoid BBD's question.
Can you boil seawater? Can you dissolve asprin in it? Can CO2 dissolve in it?
Yes to all.
Can you do that in tap water? Yes to all.
Therefore you have to prove that acidification acts in seawater differently to saltwater.
Prove your statement.
It's not up to us to do it, since YOU are the only one insisting it must be.
@BBD & Jeff "Frequent Flyer" Harvey,
Hey, guys, this business of asking Latimer questions and demanding answers is good stuff. I like it! Let me try my hand it, but in a form that directs questions at you guys instead of Latimer:
-So BBD and Jeff could you please describe the size of the carbon-footprint your lifestyle tracks on Gaia's carpet and how if everyone in the world limited the "footprint" of their lifestyle to that of yours ol' carbon-demon would cease to be a worry?
-BBD and Jeff, do you hold in complete contempt those (please do name names) carbon-piggie hypocrites who feed at the CAGW trough; spend their quisling, parasitic lives cooking up scare-mongering, alarmist-booger "narratives" for the cynical use of their grasping make-a-buck/make-a-gulag, trough-provider betters; and then fail to LEAD FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE WHEN IT COMES TO CARBON AUSTERITY?
-Do you think, BBD & Jeff, that greenshirts who espouse carbon-austerity for us "little-guys" at the cyclic rate, but then traipse around the planet, leaving billowing clouds of CO2-spew in their wake, attending this, that, or another phoney-baloney, boon-doggle eco-confab, most often held at taxpayer, shake-down expense, when such conferences could easily be video-conferenced at vast savings to tax-payers dollars (not your concern, I know) and carbon "pollution" are just a bunch of, like, painfully obvious hustlers, flim-flammers, B. S. artists, con-creeps, sell-outs, the-modern-equivalents-of-for-hire-tobacco-scientists, Delinquent Teenagers, "Merchants of Rip-Offs", and onanistic-momma's-boys-who-have-affixed-their-unhealthy-need-for-an-overbearing-smothering-overly-protective-maternal-authority-figure-to-a-Gaia-fantasy-of-the-perfect-mommy-dearest-and-now-labor-with-frantic-intensity-and-a-Sisyphean-mono-mania-to-win-mom's-so-very-sparing-and-rather-manipulatively-dispensed-praise?
Can hardly wait for your guys' answer.
Listen Brad, I speak my mind. I also know when I am treading on thin icne - outsode of my field of expertise. For this I've been labeleld as arrogant and self-righteous by some pundits on Deltoid. On anotrher thread I was constantly baited by a guy who said over and over again that I am not a 'real scientist. So when I desrfibed my professional background, I was then accused or waving my CV in his face. Its a no win situation.
I attended the annual meeting of the British Ecological Society in December. Gloabl change was a prominent theme, including keynote and plenary lectures from several eminent scientists. When they got to the topic of climate change and other attendant symptoms, it was taken as a 'given' that it is happening and that some of the side-effects of increasing atmospheric C)2 concentrations like declines on marine pH levels are also occurring.
As an asdie, its strange to me how contrarians are super selective in how they interpret the science. In the past people would write into Deltoid and say that increased atmsopheric C02 is a gift from the industrial revolution because of the fertilizing effect that extra C02 will have on plants. In other words, C02 is not a pollutant but an essential plant nutrient. Therefore, pumping more and more of the gas into the atmsopher is a good thing because it will increase plant biomasd and thus act as a buffer against starvation. Now we have people saying that the bad side effects of C02 - such as uptake by the oceans and declining pH levels, is based on bad (or no) science. Talk about being choosy.
As it turns out, carbon is not a limiting nutrient for many plants. Nitrogen and phosphorus are. Moreover, insects are N and not C limited in their diets. Increasing concentrations of C in plant tissues is liekly to mean that herbivores will have to consume more plant tissues to acquire sufficient N to survive and reproduce. The there is the fact that plant allelochemicals are C or No based. Plants with C-based defences may become more toxic to herbivores, whereas if N-based defences are shunted out of plant tissues as the plants take up more C, then these plants may become less-well defended. Its a huge ecological experiment.
Check out some fo the denier sites - such as C02 Science or the Greening Earth Society (both connected to the coal lobby) and you'll see commentaries lauding the benefits of extra atmospheric C02 whilst downplaying the possible negative effects. These sites are also famous for taking exisiting studies and distorting their findings to bolster their own agendas. This is why science by blog most certainly is NOT science. Its a lot of wild and wacky theories that are used to downplay the human fingerprint across the biosphere. The we have to ask ourselves what motivates many of these contrarians. And if one bothers to look for the evidence, its clear that there are profit-related motives at work. Short-term profits over long-term considerations.
<blockquote?I made no such claim. But you’d need to absorb an enormous amount of CO2 to overcome the natural alkalinity
*THIS* is why you demonstrate you are not a trained chemist.
It doesn't matter how alkaline something is.
If it becomes more acid, EVEN IF IT REMAINS ALKALINE, it is acidifying.
ANYONE who has done chemistry beyond the age of 12 in the UK will know this.
Hence you're not only not a trained chemist, you never even took science at school (which since it is a required subject in the UK education establishment must mean you skipped schooling).
That would explain your uneducated grammar.
So the answer to BBDs questions are:
"-So BBD and Jeff could you please describe the size of the carbon-footprint your lifestyle tracks on Gaia’s carpet"
Zero.
Since Gaia doesn't have a carpet.
Mike, can I ask you a question: do you use that mouth to BJ your dad with?
*THIS* is why you demonstrate you are not a trained chemist.
It doesn’t matter how alkaline something is.
If it becomes more acid, EVEN IF IT REMAINS ALKALINE, it is acidifying.
ANYONE who has done chemistry beyond the age of 12 in the UK will know this.
Hence you’re not only not a trained chemist, you never even took science at school (which since it is a required subject in the UK education establishment must mean you skipped schooling).
That would explain your uneducated grammar.
So the answer to BBDs questions are:
MIke, IMHO you are nuts. Take that as a compliment.
I live in a very small house in Holland and my wife and I don't have any children. We spend very modestly and don't live an extravagant lifestyle (hardly possible on a scientists salary anyway). I would say that our carbon footprint on the basis of these facts is smaller than the average European and much less than the average Austalian or American. So you can come off your high horse.
I also find it funny that you label your opponents as 'greenshirts'. Pretty ironic that. But certainly in keeping with fruitcakes. Nobody is preachibng austerity to anyone. But I can tell you this - if humans in the developed world continue along the same trajectory, austerity is going to be rammed down our throats by mother nature. Like it or not, we don't possess anything like the technology required to counter the cumulative damage we are doing to the biosphere. The debt is going to have to be paid. And its growing.
Why I respond to such a ninny is beyond me. Your posts sound like you are drunk in a bar. Perhaps you ought to stay there and chill out.
Yes, please go. You argue like an infant.
@wow
'Acidic' is your word, not mine
'You claim that because it tastes salty, it can’t become acidic by absorbing CO2'
And I was going to write you a nice piece about carbonate/bicarbonate/CaCO3/CO2 chemistry in seawater (very different from pure water).
But I just can't be arsed to fill in the lacunae in your chemical education and doubt you'd be capable of understanding it anyway.
‘Acidic’ is a real word, not mine.
You don't even know what this means, do you:
You can't answer BBD's question because you have no answers to give.
You have an opinion and that is all. No reason.
You don't even know what you're saying.
And complain when others, trying to find out and assuming you have at least knowledge of what YOU say, get it wrong.
If it answers BBD;s questions, go ahead.
If it doesn't, then it won't prove your assertion.
Oooh, the pointing out of you arrant and obvious lack of education has made you ask daddy to find a big word for you!
I bet you don't know what THAT means, either.
But go ahead, write your little fiction piece.
If it answers BBD's question, then it will answer BBD's question.
If it doesn't, we know that you are still talking bullshit.
@wow
I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
Just for a moment I thought that there might be a reasonable person hiding inside the thuggish and repellent persona.
Clearly I was mistaken.
So you admit you can't do as you claimed:
You avoid answering questions, merely go "I don't know! I don't know!" and, because YOU don't know, YOU say that it doesn't exist.
Sorry, whining about how you're a sack of crap getting aforementioned crap beaten out of them is not going to cut any ice.
Boo hoo say I.
Boo fucking hoo.
@wow
Whatever.
Shall we run a sweepstake on this?
If Tim throws down the gauntlet and demands that either Latte answer BBD's questions or gets banned, what do we reckon will happen:
a) He'll disappear
b) He'll complain and disappear
c) He'll answer with complete bollocks, then complain, then disappear
I plump for (b).
Wow, what erudition!
So, Latte, you admit that you don't know anything about OA and that you cannot answer BBD's questions here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Jff,
"Mk, MH, y r nts."
Jz, Jff, s gd f y t ffr m th bnft f yr tw-bt, lw-rnt, pt-cllng-th-kttl-blck, ths-Jff-gy-rlly-tks-hmslf-srsly, shrnk-wnnb, dgnstc sklls.
t th sm tm, Jff, yr rspns rqrs lttl, crtv rdng-btwn-th-lns n my prt n rdr t mk sns f t ll. Hr's my crrnt stmt f yr rply whch rspctflly ffr p fr grp-srcng pr-rvw hr t Dltd (fl fr t jmp n, Jff):
Jff's rply s bst ndrstd s slf-dmrng, slf-cngrtltry dfns f hs grnshrt, crbn-pgg, hypcrt lfstyl tht mplys th typcl slf-srvng ddg tht thr r vn bggr--w cn thnk MCH BGGR--c-phny, C2-glttn hggs t thr (nd, Jff, jst bt y rb-shldrs wth lts f ths srt f spr-szd, dbl-whppr, snctmns, lctrng, d-s--sy-nt-s--d, tw-fcd, mrcnry, GHG-ngrgd, crp-t, wll-cmpnstd, tnrd nvr-flks t ll ths bndggl gb-fsts y s rglrly ttnd (n prsn, tht s, nd nt thrgh lw-cst/lw-crbn vd-cnfrncng)).
s tht bt th sz f yr rply, Jff? f s, tw pnts:
-Wht s t bt y pmps-ss, slf-rghts, prchy, tn-pt, dbl-dlng, lfty Svnrls tht prvnts y frm prctcng wht y prch--. . shwng LDRSHP FRM TH FRNT ND BY PRSNL XMPL by dptng lfstyl wth crbn-ftprnt tht s ql t r lss thn tht ll f hmnty mst dpt (r s y sy) f th "ngl f GW Ctstrph" s t pss vr s? mn, lk, wht s wrng wth y ppl? mn, lk, y wrds ct lk y dn't vn blv yr wn flm-flm r smthng.
-Jff, y ddn't nswr ll thr f my qstns nd s sk "Tm" t bn y frm th blg. Thgh, gtt dmt, dn't qt ndrstnd tht Dltd-lnd cstm, bt Ww cn xpln t ll t y, f y r pzzld, yrslf.
nd, h by th wy, Jff, ntd yr "ctty", tht-rlly-hrt!, lttl rfrnc t my prch n "hgh hrs". Wll, Jff, ll cn sy s tht t lst s "qstrns" dn't trvl bt n nvrnmnt-dstryng, fssl-fl cnvyncs--cn y sy th sm, Jff?
So dried your mouth, mike?
Pity nothing as substantial comes out of it when you 'pine on a blog.
I'll vote 'C'.
My take so far is that Lati knows just enough to - as they say - be dangerous, but not enough to kid an oceanographer. The sort of half-baked science the denial blogs love.
Latimer
Still waiting since # 54:
I said be specific Latimer. Not be evasive. You need to explain your reasoning for DENYING the predictive power of experimentally confirmed theory in chemistry.
So – explain your reasoning. Come on. Let’s have it.
This is boring Lattie.
His "theory" is based off that tired old anti-science of "It can't be acidifying it it's still alkaline".
And that is REALLY boring.
I mean, how long has that tired old zombie been pushed out of its grave by yet another numbnut who thinks he's found the secret to the world?
Hello mike
Glad to hear you are keeping well.
I don't own a car. I last flew in 2003 (voluntary cessation; I am not afraid of flying). I don't live in a hair shirt, nor do I expect anyone else to. That would be what is known as a 'strawman'.
All I would like is for the contrarians to do a little less denying and a little more reading. Confusing and misleading people isn't going to help matters on any time-scale.
Latimer,
I gather you missed my post from the 23rd.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
You're welcome.
Latimer
Ah ha! Writes he the master of the circular argument who keeps claiming that there is no data to back up pH changes in oceanic waters.
The fact that oceanic organisms are being deleteriously affected by the process of OA provides data points.
The fact that pH levels have been measured This figure shows the relationship between changes in ocean carbon dioxide levels (measured in the left column as a partial pressure—a common way of measuring the amount of a gas) and acidity (measured as pH in the right column). The data come from two observation stations in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canary Islands and Bermuda) and one in the Pacific (Hawaii). The up-and-down pattern shows the influence of seasonal variations. and presented here too Ocean Acidification
The NOAA Ocean Data Education (NODE) Project it is clear that your point is groundless.
You may also care to immerse yourself in literature available through this portal .
Oh! And how are models constructed and run? What is the basis of these?
I could go on but you are becoming excruciatingly tedious with your self imposed narrow focusing blinkers.
If you are so bothered by the environmental fall out from increasing A-CO2 why are you trying to undermine the status of the current sate of research?
BBD,
Yr: "Hello mike."
Thank you, BBD, for your courteous, thoughtful, eminently-reasonable, and thought-provoking reply.
Latimer,
Whilst you are in the mood to delve into Woods Hole here is another entry point for data that can get where needed:
Global Surface pCO2 (LDEO) Database. As you are a chemist you should be able to make something of that. Now stop jerking us around.
Oh! BTW. Here is a way you can earn yourself some beer money by tilting at windmills.
d) He'll complain, disappear, then come back in a week pretending nothing happened and demand that people show him at least 50,000 stations measuring ocean pH since the fall of Rome, or it never happened.
FTFY, Lionel.
However, he's not and he's here solely to jerk people around.
This is why Jeff is being hounded by that pustule mike. So that he wastes his time and energy on that carbuncle on society.
The issue, Stu, is that Tim gives him his orders if he doesn't answer. He can't come back if he doesn't answer. That's why Tim needs to be involved.
Otherwise, (d) is no different from every other flouncing denialist and is a sucker bet!.
I take it then that in the event of Tim doing so, you'd pick (b), right?
Latimer,
And here is more:
First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
Article available from here:
Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean.
I'll bet your beers going flat right now - if typical heavy - takes ten minutes to draw a pint which goes flat in one. I was heartily glad to get back south for a civilized pint. Have a tale to tell about the Salutation Arms Hotel in Perth on that score.
Gosh, another link for Latimer to not read so he can deny the information it makes available exists.
@Wow:
"“Night all.”
Given it is only mid-afternoon in SE England (being on GMT), I see you need your nap.
5 years old or 95?"
ROFLMAOAYI. How many times have I revealed, on this very thread, that I live in Australia?
No, don't try to answer, I'm guessing you're innumerate as well.
I feel almost Loth to request this, but:
better billy-goats, please.
The comments of a distasteful fanatic who makes spittle-flecked claims (Merchants of Doubt is an 'anti-Semitic pamphlet' is a new low, even by the standards of Denial) don't amount to much, though, do they, 'Brad'?
I recall know that you were one of the chief plonkers who turned up to whine about Prof Lewandowsky's findings that you're all unable to avoid the lure of crank magnets across the spectrum. No! no! no! you shrieked - and yet you make lunatic claims like the above.
What a hoot! What a crank!
(Sure, you were just cribbing trying to pretend you'd read something you hadn't, but look what comes out when you're in a corner, little man!)
As for mike; man, you have problems.
Lati. You know nothing, You have nothing. Your claim to authority is a sham. Either put up or shut up.
Hey again Jeff,
1. thanks for your insights about what I'd guess is the base and bulk of the planet's food chain.
(Notice the way I'm not demanding a scanned and notarised copy of the documents qualifying you to offer said entomological info. I gratefully take it in because it's interesting an sich.)
2. At the risk of going OT, how do you like the Netherlands? Since you evidently grew up speaking English, what was the appeal of that specific destination?
I'm informed that SkS will be running more material on OA in the next few months.
Meanwhile, since our resident 'expert' appears to be badly in need of a refresher course, let's not forget their OA is not OK series - written, I might add, by 3 practising ocean chemists; not the IT guy - and the FAQs.
The photo on the last mentioned page should be enough to concern anyone with a functioning intellect. Shortly we'll find out who's excluded from that set...
@Jeff...
And props for speaking your mind.
(A short glance above these comments shows the lesser h. deltoides engaged in its one and only known behaviour, speaking its bile duct.)
@bill trills:
"Merchants of Doubt is an ‘anti-Semitic pamphlet’ is a new low, even by the standards of Denial"
Is that the sum total of what you grasped of my book review?
*Hurt feelings.*
Perhaps if I scrape off and return the rest of your cranium to you (which is fermenting into a tangy passerine conserve on the end of my clue bat as we speak) you'll remember some of the positives. For instance, I'm pretty sure I said it was a rip-roaring time-travel-slash-conspiracy jaunt that makes Dan Brown look dry and fact-obsessed, didn't I?
'Bile duct'? This coming from the man who made the absolutely outrageous claim I referred to?
Yes, Jeff's a real scientist. You should try listening to them - it might change your life.
OK, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson.
"OK, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson."
Um, why? Did you skip that part of the CD set?
No, Sunshine, I simply do not believe that you have read the book, and I wish you to demonstrate some basic familiarity with its contents.
@bill gets boring:
"Yes, Jeff’s a real scientist. "
Oh! Unlike, say (just at random).... me?
(Friendly clue, bill: as transparent as you no doubt consider my question, the thing you're about to fly into is a window.)
Alder makes the ridiculous claim that adding (or removing) CO2 will not effect the pH of seawater since it is buffered and cannot be made more acidic by adding CO2.
I would like to hear his response as to what causes the large diurnal variation in pH seen in many places in the ocean and even observed in the laboratory setting.
If CO2 cannot and will not change pH then what is causing the large diurnal change (up to 0.6 pH units)? I will give him a hint, pH rises after sunrise and drops after the sun has set.
Brad, you're a pseudonym, remember? If you have qualifications - and I don't doubt you may - you're wasting them here.
You really are very evasive in this matter, Brad. Much like your mentor. Here's a rephrase of the question, then - is there a discussion of Rachel Carson in this book you have read?
It's alright, poppet: plenty of time - you just google around and see what you can find...
But Bill - lying is an essential part of denialism.
It's the only thing that keeps it afloat.
Brad, I'm beginning to think you're not here for the hunting, either...
So Bill and Chek,
What would you call JeffH's statement/s re Ms Marohasy?
That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.
"It’s alright, poppet: plenty of time – you just google around and see what you can find…"
You won't believe this, but my life doesn't centre around your childish dares. I was having breakfast. It's breakfast time in Australia.
What the hey, I can't resist a “challenge”...
I read Merchants of Venice when it first came out, 3 years ago I think—when did they record the non-reader's edition, by the way, bill?—and just in case you misunderstood my sophisticated and multiplex use of irony, the experience was boring as... well, that precious white ambrosia from your cloaca, billy boy. If you'll excuse the Australianism.
Therefore you'll have to forgive me (or go rut with yourself) if I haven't retained the Rachel Carson "discussion" in excruciating fidelity. So this is likely going to be a generic reconstruction/extrofabulation from the kind of dross Oreskes and her ilk usually write.
Thus, going out on a bit of a limb (it's not taken is it, bill?):
I believe Oreskes spent several pages stretching out the silly “argument” about how Rachel Carson personally can't possibly be blamed for the negro holocaust wrought in the name of her hemi-scientific book, because she'd died of cancer/shell thinning by the time dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was Not Banned in 1972[?].
Therefore, I reckon Oreskes "argued", right-wing white-male denialists like that ol’ meanie Thomas Sowell are like, totally lying to you when they impute that no criminal electrocuted in the entire 20th century has half as much blood on his hands as the sainted Rachel Carson. (Sowell is being poetic, of course, but you wouldn't expect a half-failed-geologist, half-failed-historian to get the nuance.)
And therefore, I dimly recall Oreskes "arguing," since Rachel Carson had breast cancer, millions of innocent men women and children in the developing world definitely haven't died needless and miserable deaths in their own watery melaena as a result of the chemophobia movement, if that makes sense.
Which it doesn't.
How's my recollection so far, little bird?
Brad Keyes
What do you want?
Thanks for that, Brad.
'Several pages'? Not an entire chapter, then, pet? And then you just wing it based on standard fanatical drivel...
Tim, can I draw your attention to this vile specimen's claims?
Everybody else - repulsive, isn't it? Here we see the brownshirt at the heart of so much Denial.
@bill failes even at psittacism:
"Brad, you’re a pseudonym, remember?"
Yep, Mr D. Byrd. You got me.
Tit.
"If you have qualifications – and I don’t doubt you may –"
Aw, backflapping already!
Don't, bill! How could a man-made surface you can't even see possibly cause you any skull injury, let alone a fatality, spreading your two or three functioning neurons over the patio? Don't slow down now, you'll spoil the fun! Fly fly fly, fly fly fly, Agent Starling.
Yes, but what do you want?
"‘Several pages’? Not an entire chapter, then, pet?"
What an important question!
But I guess you'll never know, unless the non-reader's edition featured loud beeps to alert you to chapter boundaries.
Brad, you're locked in a spittle-flecked tailspin at this point.
Everyone here can clearly see what you are - and it is truly repellent.
Chapter 7: Denial Rides again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson begins on page 216, pet.
Thanks for playing.
Brad wants nothing. He's merely Lati's fluffer. Every travelling new blogscience purveyor is provided with a fluffer or two these days.
It was de rigueur on the Jonarse thread, and the same here. Intertoob entities never heard from before (and when it's all over) since.
Perhaps a lesson learned from previous Curtin visitations.
Brad Keyes
To be honest, I never really believe that you'd read MOD in four hours. But be that as it may, what is this scrap all about?
What do you want?
"Chapter 7: Denial Rides again: The Revisionist Attack on Rachel Carson begins on page 216, pet."
Oh, so we are allowed to play the game with a copy open in front of us / loaded in the stereo?
Hmm. I can't help but feel you're making it a bit... easy. Well, use whatever mnemonic crutches you feel you need.
bill warbles on:
Everyone here can clearly see what you are – and it is truly repellent.
*@brad idly wishes them smart kemistry perfessers would hurry up and market a bird repellent.*
No, in all seriousness, you're totally right. Someone should sic Tim on me so as to free the thread up for more of Wow's outbursts about how his superiors are fellating their own family members. You know, get a bit of class back into the place.
Yes, but why are you fulminating?
What do you want?
@BBD:
"To be honest, I never really believe that you’d read MOD in four hours."
Less, but close enough.
Are you really so skeptical about it? I can't be the only person who has a higher WPM for fiction than non-fiction, right?
"But be that as it may, what is this scrap all about?"
Don't tell our antic avian, but I have no idea anymore! If I had to guess: I humiliated him/her about something or other a couple of days ago and s/he's still trying to get through the invisible barrier that keeps stymying his/her revenge.
"What do you want?"
If that's a hint for me to go away, don't worry, I'm just waiting for bill to stop being so amusing.
And in case it matters BBD, something alleged that you'd asked me a question which I'm now "dodging"? If so, I've sincerely forgotten what it was, so feel free to ask again and I'll do my best. (Mind you, I must away to get a coffee this instant.)
You are lying about it, though.
You do that.
Lots.
Evidence so far suggests this is bunkum.
This nonsense about acidification not being possible unless you get to a pH less than 7 gets really tedious.
Do none of these people know a gardener or a farmer or a family keen on aquariums?
Acidifying soils and fresh or seawater aquariums is ordinary language when testing and selecting appropriate chemicals and procedures in these activities. Used all the time for adjusting the growing (or survival) conditions for plants and fish.
Get over it.
BBD,
Has it not occured to you that your questions are rather idiotic?
If the answer to question 1 is not the answer you were looking for then the remaining questions are redundant.
Latimer made it quite clear what he was arguing and it was not what you imply in your first question.
You along with Wow need to take lessons from Lotharsson if you want to lay semantic traps. He at least has some skills at this game.
chek,
Who was this jJonas/Joan/Joanne/Jean figure whose name keeps being dropped with such reverence (if not literacy) around here? What was his/her life? Why is he/she remembered when so many other educators must also have toiled vainly and valiantly here over the years, only to fade in posterity?
Brad Keyes
Not at all, hence the question. Let's talk about what you want.
Let's just do the time-honoured thing and step back and *define our terms*.
What do you want?
Ah, I see Brat is going for the "Amnesiac defence".
Let's keep quiet and let the man speak.
Most people have a higher WPM for reading: 250-300, as opposed to spoken: 150-160 (standard for audio).
Do the maths: even on the most generous assumption to you, your claim to have read a book in less than 4 hours (with time off to throw it across the room, and all) that comes in at over 13 hours spoken is implausible.
Well, perhaps you're the superman you imagine yourself to be, after all. If you are indeed a graduate of the Evelyn Woodhead sped-redding course it has clearly had a grotesque affect on your comprehension.
Because you didn't exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject.
But then, because you really are a fanatic, you had to go one further, and claim that the book is 'an anti-Semitic pamphlet'. Because, what, her targets are 'all Jewish'? I'd already conveniently mentioned Seitz, Jastrow, Nierenberg, and Singer so you still need not be familiar with the contents to take a run at this toxic absurdity.
Is Dixy Lee Ray Jewish, Brad?
For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes?
Funny that the Hannah Arendt Centre didn't call her to task for it when they interviewed her, isn't it? I even gave you that link as a hint, but on a truly obtuse intellect, that's not likely to penetrate, is it?
As it turns out I did manage to find one other 'skeptic' who refers to this 'racial' angle. He also, by amazing coincidence, refers to the book as 'Merchants of Venice'. Great minds, eh?
But, seriously, any claims about 'anti-Semitism' in the book are a wholly invented and ludicrous poison that speak only of the most fantastical, fanatical zealotry.
Now, the true fanatic ain't going to be able to see the name Rachel Carson without brimming with, and dying to spit out, similar bile. 'So let's see what happens if...' I thought...
Result: QED
Here's a working hypothesis for you, Brad:
Let's see now: your behaviour here has tended to prove / disprove this hypothesis?
OK, so now we have your definition of the term "scientific fact".
Leaving aside the quibble that nothing in science is 100% because all scientific knowledge is inductive, provisional, and subject to further refinement and even the kinds of measurements you deign to notice are the results of layers and layers of inference...
...and leaving aside that in all this time you haven't provided an operational definition of "ocean acidification" that is precise enough to test...
....and that you STILL refuse to be a scientist and give your confidence level for the claim...
...have you bothered to verify that the person(s) making the statement that you object to actually meant the same operational definition of the term "ocean acidification" and actually meant "100% certain"?
Or have you merely been pissing in the wind all this time?
That would be an idiotic misinterpretation of what I wrote. Do you wish to advance an idiotic misinterpretation to go with all of your pile of earlier fallacies and false claims?
@chameleon
So Bill and Chek,
What would you call JeffH’s statement/s re Ms Marohasy? That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.
Sorry bout the delay, chameleon…
I may be unable to do your question justice because:
1. I’m not really familiar with Jeff’s point. I’ve used my browser’s Find function but I see nothing from Mr Harvey on the subject “marohasy.” Could you jog my memory? ;-)
2. For some (fascinating—I find psych fascinating!) reason, Jeff is being scrupulously decent, pro-social and high-functioning in his interactions with me—certainly by local standards, at least. His dull nastiness when he’s arguing at you is a cause of a bit of disappointment to me (and fascination, of course, but I’m repeating myself). Just to give him the benefit of the doubt, which he’s more than earned with me, is it possible that maybe your screen name triggers some kind of old entomologists’ reflex? Could your totem animal, deep in Jeff’s childhood, have cheated him of a specimen he’d set his heart on, nonchalantly swallowing it before his upwelling eyes? In which case I cut him a bit of slack.
Oh, and this place does things to people, obviously.
Jeff, if you accidentally come across this comment, let me once more re-reiterate again that entomologists are not some kind of figure of contempt in my system. Chameleon will back me up, I’m sure. Do I need to spell it out? Vladimir F***ing Nabokov, a young Charles Darwin, some other unspeakably awesome person I’ve momentarily forgottten, an admired friend of chameleon’s, that sardonic cat that spent a weekend of love with Starling—the list goes on.
IT’S NOT AN INSULT and it won’t be one the next time someone accidentally applies it to you.
3. All I remember is he said something about a Dr Maharaji and her “piss poor” “scientific pedigree”, right?
It struck me as blending in pretty well with ambient levels of petty, credentialist garbage. I’m unfamiliar with Dr Maharaji but I’d venture, if I were a betting man, that the insult was also wrong factually.
Par for the course around here, in other words…. but just picture the s***storm that would break if one of us on the Negative team said something like that!
“Tiiiiim, Tiiiim, heelp! Those outrageous, repellent forces of Denial have started BLATANTLY comparing female scientists to dogs! Maybe not blatantly-blatantly as such, but they’re, you know… dog-whistling! Using language!
“Don’t you agree that it’s, like, really repellent Tim? Please intervene as soon as you can, they’re using their misogynist/misocynist argument rays to score cheap rhetorical pseudo-wins all over us! Please O Tim, all we ask is you block the forces of Belial long enough for us to finish our high-minded fellatio discussion started by Wow!”
Interesting. You are quite happy to predict the outcome of your gedankenexperiment (and really, if you're gonna try for high-falutin' fancy foreign terms instead of the plain English understood by many more readers, at least take the effort to spell them correctly), and apparently willing to predict with very high certainty.
So...you have theory that you're willing to use for prediction, but you appear to be vehemently rejecting research scientists' uses of theory even though they clearly have far more knowledge than you of those particular areas of science - and far more data to back it up than you are apparently aware of.
Hmmmm, what is wrong with this picture?
Sorry folks, blockquote fail. Try again.
That would be an idiotic misinterpretation of what I wrote. Do you wish to advance an idiotic misinterpretation to go with all of your pile of earlier fallacies and false claims?
Wait, wait, I know this one! Under your "logic" we can't tell if it's bad news until bad news has happened and we've measured it happening so until then we just assume it's good news and keep going!
;-)
When you write quotes like that you look like you are applying a non-scientific mode of thinking where scientific knowledge is binary - either we know something or we know nothing. That's not scientific. Scientific knowledge varies across almost the entire confidence range from "we really don't know much" to "we're pretty damn confident".
And your (apparently) pathological reasoning is worse than that. The kind of knowledge that must be used to make decisions - about today's weather, about the economy, about the preferences of individuals and of societies, about future risks and rewards, about allocation of resources and best courses of actions - is ALL less than 100% confident, but decisions still must be made.
Brad
Channelling mike is amusing but not the answer.
Yes, it does. Because it applies to you in spades.
You're a flagrant hypocrite who still hasn't apologised to Richard Simons for lying about what he said, even though you appear to have implicitly acknowledged the lie by discussing the "M.O." of Deltoid with respect to lies. And you still haven't corrected a large number of incorrect statements, up to and including the infamous "Delingpole quoted Flannery saying 'fleeting fancy'" about an article that did not include the word 'fleeting' or the word 'fancy'. But you get on your verbal high horse and demand a correction from someone else.
The hubris is astonishing.
@BBD...
What do I want? Is that all? Lol.
Okaaay, to answer that biggie as expeditiously as humanly possible, two examples:
1. To meet some denizens capable of exchanging views. Deltoids like Jeff, or, ahh,—hmm.
Can I get back to you?
2. To tear myself away and get some study done, but bill and Wow won't let me! It's a conspiracy of comedy, I tell you!
@BBD...
What do I want? Is that all? Lol.
Okaaay, to answer that biggie as succinctly as humanly possible, two examples:
1. To meet some denizens capable of exchanging views. You know, deltoids like Jeff or ...—hmm.
Can I get back to you?
2. To tear myself away and get some study done, but bill and Wow just won't let me! It's a conspiracy of comedy, dammit!
That's not the answer either.
More tomorrow. Good night all.
"If you are indeed a graduate of the Evelyn Woodhead sped-redding course it has clearly had a grotesque affect on your comprehension."
Is tehre aslo an Evelyn Wood school fo sped-tpying, bilial?
Because you didn’t exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject.
"That’s not the answer either.
More tomorrow. Good night all."
B-b-but it's 12:58 in the afternoon where I live!
According to the Wow Theory of the Internet, you must be a geriatric or baby in the Sydney time zone who needs a nap! There's simply no other possibility.
"Because you didn’t exactly demonstrate any familarity with the contents of the book, did you? Beyond the same talking points that are bread-and-butter for every denier who wants to crib up on the subject."
Actually I hate to disagree with you, but considering that I found it a jejune Dan-Brown-lite snoozefest, I'd say I've done a pretty fucking commendable job of summarising what Oreskes' "ideas" 3 years later.
Why, do your Evelyn Wood Mega-Memory, Mega-Attention-To-Detail Master Course standards find me wanting?
"Is Dixy Lee Ray Jewish, Brad?
For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes?"
How and why the hell would I know? What are you reading from, some kind of quick-reference watchlist of powerful Jews? Well come on, don't leave us in suspense on a question with such nazional security ramifications, mein Lehrer!
"As it turns out I did manage to find one other ‘skeptic’ who refers to this ‘racial’ angle. He also, by amazing coincidence, refers to the book as ‘Merchants of Venice’. Great minds, eh?"
You seem unfamiliar even with your own, believalist talking-points, so let me offer a tiny correction:
These phenomena aren't an "amazing coincidence" but a "conspi"—er, an "orchestrated right-wing campaign implicating Big Tobacco, Big Oil and all levels of the murdocracy springing into action with suspiciously good timing whenever there's a big IPCC meeting coming up in the next calendar year".
Get with the playbook, dude.
"Most people have a higher WPM for reading: 250-300, as opposed to spoken: 150-160 (standard for audio)."
Encouragement Star for research skillz dude.
So, the obvious next assignment for you would be:
what's the average reading speed of a tertiary graduate like I was, when Oreskes' conspiracy thriller was published (approximately a degree ago)?
C'mon, no resting on your laurels.
@Lotharsson tries to be helpful:
"That little epigram/idiom re pots & kettles comes to mind again.
Yes, it does. Because it applies to you in spades."
Now I know you meant well, Lotharsson, but that's not quite how the saying about pots and kettles works; what it's getting at—
On second thoughts, do your own homework, fool.
"But then, because you really are a fanatic, you had to go one further, and claim that the book is ‘an anti-Semitic pamphlet’. Because, what, her targets are ‘all Jewish’?"
My god, you're brilliant.
Since Latimer is apparently the Quibbler King, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at his stuff.
Here is the relevant part of Latimer's first mention of ocean acidification a week ago (#38 on that page). He's responding to guthrie at #36.
Yes, it's quibbling - most readers know what guthrie meant, but it's a fair enough clarification.
Here's guthrie's response (#48) which appears to be the first mention of "certainty" or "proven" with respect to acidification. Note carefully what is actually said:
Did you catch that? Guthrie is not explicitly asserting that "ocean acidification is scientifically certain". He's explicitly asserting that the cause of ocean acidification is "scientifically certain". Given that Latimer has been heavily quibbling on "scientific certainty", then quibbling about what was actually claimed is at least as valid - arguably more so. The plain reading is clearly that guthrie's use of "scientific certainty" was referring to the cause of the instances of ocean acidification that have been observed, not to a claim that the entire ocean has become more acidic (by some undefined amount) over some (undefined) time interval.
Keen readers will note that guthrie used the term "scientific certainty" rather than the every day "certainty". People who do that generally don't mean "100% certain" when you query them in detail. As some branches of denialists are keen on reminding everyone, no scientific knowledge is absolutely certain. It is all provisional pending new evidence, so it never reaches 100%. Latimer appears to be tilting at an unscientific definitional strawman.
If you read on, Latimer at #86 asks for data:
Note that he's does not appear to be asking for data showing the entire ocean has been acidifying. He's apparently asking for data showing that the causal effect has been observed "in the oceans". Since he's fond of being precise, up to and including claiming that "scientific certainty" means 100% and not a smidgin less, one would imagine that if he'd misinterpreted guthrie as claiming that it is scientifically certain that all of each ocean had all acidified, he would have asked for data supporting that claim. But he didn't.
Is seems that all that is necessary to fulfil this request is to point Latimer at any of the data sources that he has subsequently acknowledged on this thread which show CO2 causing acidification in practice in an ocean. Q.E.D.
But Latimer knows there is data showing that, and one can already see hints that he is working on shifting the goalposts in the very next paragraph:
He's now worked in the assumption - which wasn't in the original claim - that this is a "lab based theory" with no observational confirmation. And he gives the appearance of trying to widen the scope to the entire set of oceans.
Admittedly the goalpost moving effort was fairly successful. At #89 bill is already interpreting Latimer as denying that the oceans are acidifying (which does seem to be jumping the gun a little) and at #95 guthrie reiterates Vince's chain of evidence for ocean-wide acidification and adds a bit more logic, research and evidence. And then...we're off to the races with Latimer's unscientific "It's Not 100% Proven Until It's Proven My Way" carnival act.
Brad apparently doesn't understand English idiom. And has nothing to say about chameleon's mendacity.
Figures.
You may want to consider eliminating behaviours that undermine your goal.
@BBD:
"Channelling mike is amusing but not the answer."
But given that, as I mentioned, the whole aim is amusement, I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
In any case BBD, you've been nothing but adult in your interactions with me and, without being familiar with any of your other work, I have no reason to doubt that you're always a good conversationalist.
So I look forward to future non-hostilities with you! Catch you anon. I'll slip out too, while the more cluebattable locals appear to be cluebatted into silence.
Implausible claim + no evidence whatsoever of comprehension = what, Bradley?
But the targets in the book aren't all Jewish, are they, wunderkind? Jewishness is completely irrelevant. You certainly won't learn who is and isn't from the book, will you, oh king of comprehension?
What the targets are is anti-environmentalist serial deniers, in whatever flavour. Like you, for instance.
And aren't you the first people to rabbit on about correlation not being causality? Teh Irony, it burns!
Certainly, someone who could 'read' the book and come away with that garbled melange of a few insignificant nit-picks and a noxious persecution fantasy manufactured in whole cloth is equally capable of 'knowing' what you 'know' about Rachel Carson.
You are a zealot. You are an instructive zealot. The only people who could possibly sympathise with your repulsive swivel-eyed regurgitations are your fellow fanatics. The opinions of such people are irrelevant - after all, anyone who reads what you have said who is not immediately nauseated is one of you already.
(Isn't it amazing that with all your advanced degrees and everything a high-school graduate can run rings around you?)
Just when I was thinking what a nice day it is outside, they pull me back in.
"What the targets are is anti-environmentalist serial deniers, in whatever flavour. Like you, for instance."
I deny anti-environmentalist serials? Well, perhaps if you could explain what they are, we'll see if I deny them. (Out of interest, does the fact that I'm a lifelong greenie raise, or lower, your confidence that I'm going to deny whatever the hell those things you mention are?)
"(Isn’t it amazing that with all your advanced degrees and everything a high-school graduate can run rings around you?)"
Who was it that was betting, with all the bravado they could feign, that I had no "credentials" a couple of hours ago? Was that you, bill? Cmon, billy boy, it was, wasn't it? LOL. You're too cute.
Tell you what, Bradley, you tell me if the Jewishness of the targets of the book is identified in any way, shape, or form as relevant - or is even mentioned in the text - and I'll tell you if I think your implausible self-identification is of any interest.
I might add on a more conciliatory note, @bilial, you did score one here:
“For that matter, is Naomi Oreskes [a Jewess]?
Funny that the Hannah Arendt Centre didn’t call her to task for it when they interviewed her, isn’t it?”
Fair cop. How slow of me, the Hannah Fucking Arendt Centre!
Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s only, like, the last organisation on earth that's ever likely to make the mistake of interviewing a prominent figure without performing basic nasal swabs/measurements to double-check the bloodline credentials of the interviewee. I'm not gonna deny it: when you think of Arendt, her lifelong dedication to the principle of ethnoreligious discrimination is only, like, the first thing that comes to mind. D’oh.
You dropped all the hints any remotely educated child of the 20th century should have needed to twig to the fact that Oreskes obviously must be a fully vetted non-shiksa. And I managed to miss them.
For one, shining second today, the chronic pwnee became the pwner. Happy?
Now bilial, to save you a couple days’ agony, I’ll just tell you: yes, I’m being iro—actually, sarcastic.
This will be fun. Point out where I said you had 'no credentials', and then point out the context.
Then tell us what discipline/s you claim qualifications in?
Then point out where I've made a claim that is clearly outside my competence. This is where we came in...
I don't think I've ever known someone to continue to defend such a fanatical, distasteful and defamatory claim even when it's clear that everyone here knows you cannot justify it in any way, shape, or form
I take it back - mike is not the most disturbed and disturbing individual we've had show up here at Deltoid - you are.
"I don’t think I’ve ever known someone to continue to defend such a fanatical, distasteful and defamatory claim"
Hey, would you like my address for legal correspondence?
" when it’s clear that everyone here knows you cannot justify it in any way, shape, or form"
Er, I thought you understood the justification. You explained it to me, remember... not much more than 10 comments ago, I believe. Remember, you worked out the meaning of "anti-Semitic" practically from first principles, I said something clever like "nothing gets past you, does it bilial?", and we all applauded your long-awaited comprehension? Or is all this just a beautiful dream?
I'll happily even give you my real name if you're planning on manning up and filing suit any time soon.
Give you a hint:
1. know the brand "Cadbury's"?
2. Know who Reverend Spooner was and the phonetic transform he pioneered?
An oldie but a goodie from @bill:
"I recall know that you were one of the chief plonkers who turned up to whine about Prof Lewandowsky’s findings that you’re all unable to avoid the lure of crank magnets across the spectrum. No! no! no! you shrieked..." etc., etc.
Tell you what, my avian amusement, if you can link me to a single original comment of mine on Lewandowsky's sad little site in which I shriek that NO! NO! I honestly am able to avoid the lure of any crank magnets across the spectrum (or similar words), then I will cut you a cheque/check here and how that'll keep you in seeds for a whole winter. Seriously, I've got my betting book in front of me. How much do you want? You've had a pretty bad day here and I feel mostly responsible, so, being a total softie, how's about $12.00? (My neighbor has an aviary and I’m ballparking what he pays to feed one bill, so to speak.)
A link to one original comment physically, actually typed by me, in the form of a URL starting with "http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org" (Loony Lew's Domain of Madness) that justifies your characterisation of my chief-plonkery over there, bilial.
I'll give you 20 minutes to allow for your reading sloth.
Oh, and you’ll need to fly out from behind the cloak of pseudonymity, because I expect PAYABLE TO bILL would just confuse the average cashier.
Go!
My only response to you, Bradley, is as above.
I will engage in no further discussion with you until that question is answered.
OK,
1. are you at your computer? So that when I answer your question in a minute, you'll be ready to start the 20-minute challenge?
2. I'll give you an extra 5 minutes if you like, since if you're trawling through my comments you'll unavoidably be slowed down by the sheer truth per word ratio.
You haven't cheated by starting already though, right?
(In case you think I've been teasing you for bradylexia, please don't take it remotely seriously—I read pretty damn slowly myself when it's fact-rich material and not, say, The Jew Vinci Code.)
Awaiting your go-ahead.
My only response to you is as above.
Oh well, whenever you get back @bill, here's my answer to...
Tell you what, Bradley, you tell me if the Jewishness of the targets of the book is identified in any way, shape, or form as relevant – or is even mentioned in the text –
No, obviously not! Not that I can remember, anyway, and I'm pretty sure I'd have taken serious note had Oreskes ever been quite so ham-fisted as to come out and say it:
Dear reader, you may already have guessed from the pantomime surnames I chose, but just to remove any doubt (as it were), yeah, this tight-knit cabal of smart scientists who've managed, from their positions of power behind the scenes of post-WW2 America, to find a way to literally profit from the cardinal and ineradicable human condition of doubt itself are of the, uh, tribe of David... if I might put it so indelicately.
Give her some credit, bill.
Happy?
Ready, set, go.
While we await bill's return from the Quest For The Quote, let's all read the following clarification.
"Cadbury's" should be pronounced in two syllables, not 3, in order to solve the Mystery of the Real Name.
Thank you for your attention.
Right.
Yuck!
Your implausible self-identification is of no interest to me.
As for the rest, since I was indeed silly enough to let myself in for more of this thoroughly distasteful correspondence, I will - after noting that you were unable to find examples of me saying you had 'no credentials' on this site - say that that my claim that you had shrieked 'No! No! No! etc.' at STW was clearly hyperbolic and absurd, and I would, of course, be unable to find any such response from you, nor will I be wasting my time seeking one.
No doubt, in line with all of your exemplary behaviour above, your conduct at what you refer to as a 'sad little site' and 'Loony Lew's Domain of Madness ' was that of a perfect gentleman.
I will not be engaging you further on any matter, as I have found the whole experience genuinely disturbing.
"I will – after noting that you were unable to find examples of me saying you had ‘no credentials’ on this site – say that that my claim that you had shrieked ‘No! No! No! etc.’ at STW was clearly hyperbolic and absurd, and I would, of course, be unable to find any such response from you, nor will I be wasting my time seeking one."
@bill, I''m no stranger to the uses of hyperbole myself, so I'm more than willing to make allowances—as I said, anything that justifies your (clearly exaggerated) description of my chief-plonkery there will be worth $12. I'm not going to haggle over the wording. ;-)
"Your implausible self-identification is of no interest to me."
Oh, so it was a bit too hard.
Let's see. Well, the churchman I mentioned was associated with something called [S|s]poonerism[s], a consummately googleable trope.
I know you can do it. I have faith in you, little bird.
Ten minutes.
Ouch. So bilial, 25 minutes later and you haven't found even one comment of mine at Lewandowsky's place that matches your colorful memories of my supposed conduct there!
Would another ten minutes help?
Otherwise you can admit you've got nothing to show for that idea of yours. Whenever's convenient.
By the way, since I know a lot of you here have never admitted your mistakes before, it may be a strange and intimidating process for someone like bill.
It's actually dead easy. Allow me to demonstrate. (I wouldn't ask you to do anything I wouldn't do myself, bill!)
@bill, you seem to wallow in "noting that [I] was unable to find examples of [your] saying that [I] had ‘no credentials’ on this site"
So let me clear up the Enigma Of The Apocryphal Credentialism without delay!
I may have made what's called in psychology (perhaps my most favoritest of all academic pursuits) a "mistake." I may have mentally interchanged you with one of the other, well, interchangeable zomgies who've generously done so much to amuse me today without any hope of even a rhetorical micro-triumph in return. I may have forgotten their names, but I'll never forget the laughs they gave me.
God bless you, whoever you were, selfless deltoids!
Anyway, so yeah, I must have been what we call "wrong" about that!
So sue me, billie. I mean, I assume you’ve got the ball rolling on those lèse Oresqué proceedings you keep hinting at, right? So just get your crack community-college lawyers to add another charge while they’re at it!
LOL.
Soooo, you seem to have flown away like a sore loser.
Cheer up pal—next time we meet I’ll up the ante, give you a chance to really save face.
I’m willing to hold, just for you, a One Minute Fast Money Round, worth $25.00 (think of all the millet! all the cuttlefish and sunflower seeds!), in which all you have to do is answer one rudimentary, foundational-premise question about a topic you’ve never hesitated to hold forth about on numerous occasions, and in which I therefore assume you know exactly whereof you speak. You’ll either know the answer (surely!!!!) or you won’t, but google will be both needless and useless in the task. (So on the bright side, no research—and no reading!—is required.)
It’ll be fun, bilial!
All right, forces of Belial out.
Lotharsson?
"You’re a flagrant hypocrite who still hasn’t apologised to Richard Simons for lying about what he said"
Is this the comment from Richard that you're so upset about?
'The heat wave is weather, without global climate change it probably would not have been as bad.'
What have I misrepresented about that?
This is what I wrote afterwards when you wieghed in:
"So Lotharsson,
Seeing as we were discussing this part of Jeff H’s comment:
‘but heck, that’s weather and its fickle. Climate is not. You seem to expect that climate warming means linear, consistent short- and long-term change. In your muddled thinking, this each month of the year must be warmer than the same month of the previous year and so on forever more for climate change to be proven. This is a non-brainer.’
And I actually agreed with that. Climate is anything but linear.
I then commented that the ABC and others claiming that the current heatwave is attributable to AGW was not really doing the climate/weather misconception any favours.
It is clearly a ‘weather’ event is it not?
Just the opposite to the weather that David D had commented on.
I found Simon’s ‘probably’ comment rather incongruous.
Are you defending the ABC’s comment or Simon’s comment?
Or are you just wanting to argue with me?
I did apologise for the misnomer but I'm seriously wondering what else I need to apologise to Richard for?
Is there something else I missed in this very short 'probably' comment?
chameleon, you may know exactly what you're doing, but my 2c would be: why waste time apologising to Lotharsson? You know, I know, we all know it's a moving goalpost of eternal umbrage whenever a humourless cultist is involved. No matter what we do (short of actually bending the knee to the god Catastrophe) they'll always consider us, as bill comically whined, "simply outrageous"!
(And bill is serious—he's not intentionally doing an impression of Cleveland's out-of-town aunt, he's trying to express, well, outrage!)
If Richard Simons is actually offended, and says so, and if that bothers you, it's probably a different story!
Anyway, sorry, meddling over ;-)
You are working yourself up to a fair state of excitement there Brad. I can't say I am interested in wading through 1000+ comments to work out why. I will note though that as far as I can recall you were booted off Lewandowsky's blog early in the discussion because of your inability to conduct an adult conversation. I can see that you are still waiting for the gonads to drop.
"You are working yourself up to a fair state of excitement there Brad. I can’t say I am interested in wading through 1000+ comments to work out why."
Nor can you be bothered asking why, so I'll take your input for what it's worth, i.e. somewhat less than the market value of my unsolicited advice to chameleon a few msgs ago.
"I will note though that as far as I can recall you were booted off Lewandowsky’s blog early in the discussion because of your inability to conduct an adult conversation."
You recall slightly wrong Mike.
Oh sure, I was complained about by the same genre of crybaby who can't lose an argument without running off to Tim, but that never came to anything as I was careful.
I was booted off late in the discussion for breaking a single inviolable, if implicit, rule one time:
never mention a fact that's embarrassing for the mods.
Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science
Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming cranks.
Top climate scientist denounces billionaires over funding for climate-crank organisations
That's Brad - always willing to offer an opinion based on his personal ignorance of the relevant information.
Mikes last comment actually made more sense than his usual rants. Thanks Tim!
I'm not saying your perception is provably wrong, but if you can link me to any comment of mine at the House of Lew that you consider sub-adult, please do because I'd like to know what you mean by that.
To give you one example of my superhuman patience and decorum over there, I never even raised Lewandowsky's hackles despite my famously low, low opinion of him. I even informed him once when he'd demonstrated his incomprehension of the scientific method, but I did it so respectfully that he didn't even feel the need to censor me.
So that's what you tell yourself! Whatever it takes to get you through the night, man.
So, does anyone think that all this bradding about has successfully erased Latimer's set of outstanding issues and questions from readers' minds?
Jeff H,
1. your logic about corporate payrolls was ironclad as it went. But I'm not convinced that you're familiar with the standard model of how a government paycheck might corrupt (if indeed people have been corrupted), which is quite different from the way a corporate obligation achieves that effect. Think about it for a bit, and then I'll tell you what the usual answer is.
2. I'm curious as to why you told me all about what "deniers" (and contrarians and so on) do. That is, what was the desired effect? I'm not "contrarians". I'm me. Even if I were a contrarian—which I'm not in the least—I wouldn't be "contrarians", so I wonder what that kind of tribal theorising could ever achieve, even if it was absolutely spot-on?
You made the comment. People commented on the lie at the time, including Richard Simons himself. Do your own homework.
Lotharsson # 76 page 13, yes, that's correct. Nice to see someone can read properly!
A scientific certainty is not the same as a mathematical proof for instance. Although really, once a theory is old enough and tested enough it pretty much is, e.g. Newton's laws of motion - they were effectively superseded and became a small subset of the larger laws of motion.
Anyway, once it becomes clear that someone is wilfully avoiding thinking about something, I usually leave them to it.
@MikeH:
"Audit trail reveals that donors linked to fossil fuel industry are backing global warming cranks."
Why bother with audit trails though, when there are common-knowledge emails that reveal the same thing?
The CRU leak shows global warming "scientists" asking each other what slants would appeal to Esso, meanwhile negotiating with petro giants to fund their labs. The same cranks agree, in these exact words, to offer Shell input into their research agenda.
For example.
Sorry?
That one is worthy of Wow Lotharsson.
Which comment and what homework?
Wasn't that Richard Simon's comment?
Hmmmm?
I think you're right Brad.
Humouless cultist/eternal umbrage :-)
I see Chameleon still writes veritable nonsense in which my opinions are twisted and distorted. Its not even vaguely clever; directed conclusions is the operative term.
As for my opinions re: Jennifer Marohasy, I base them on her scientific pedigree. Her publication record is virtually non-existant and her work is rarely cited by other scientists. Now, to become a prominent scientist in any field of endeavor usually takes many years of research, during which time one's standing in the field gradually increases. I gave my first plenary lecture at a conference in South Africa in 2011, by which time I has over 100 publications and 2000 citations (not 10 and 60 respectively).
When any scientists - and I am not referring to anybody specifically here - becomes something of a media celebrity and well known on the basis of very thin qualifications then alarm bells start ringing - or should. It should be made clear that many of the so-called scientists down-playing climate change and other anthropogenic threats are, like it or not, on the academic fringe as far as their scientific bonafides are concerned. By contrast, those on the side defending the science behind AGW and other threats generally have long resumes with very many publications, high h-factors, and years of lecturing experience. There are some exceptions to this, but the fact is that this is the rule for the most part. Therefore, in their own field of specific research the fringe academics are often veritable unknowns. With no respect to Dr. Marohasy, she would never in a million years be invited in a million years to present keynote or plenary lectures even in her own field (pest management) because her scientific record is thin. There are thousands more scientists working in this field with better publication records.
So this begs the question: what common thread runs through the qualifications of the Marohasy's, Soons, Baliunasas, Balls, Plimers, and many of the other scientists who become well known as spokesman? The fact is that they are those who, in contrast with the vast majority of the scientific community, down-play the human component. Given that many of them IMO have pretty weak scientific records and few publications, it seems to me that two things should be obvious: (1) being a contrarian is a good way to advance one's scientific visibility, and (2) there clearly aren't that many really qualified scientists who agree with them.
The we have to ask the poignant question, how did these scientists become prominent spokespeople in the public sphere? That's simple. Many of them are linked with right wing think tanks and anti-environmental organizations that in turn receive bucket loads of cash from polluting industries. This is a classic PR trick that I alluded to yesterday - PUT THE WORDS IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S MOUTH. If the president of a tobacco company says that smoking is harmless, then the public would laugh at him/her. But if they can hire an actor to play a doctor, or better still, pay a doctor big bucks to say that smoking is harmless, then the public is much more likely to believe it. Edward Bernays mastered the art of public relations. Its now a multi-billion dollar industry with anti-environmental groups right at the forefront.
What one finds if they see interviews on television or in the newspapers is that often interviews are conducted with two so-called 'experts' on either side of the debate. On the one hand you'll have a scientist who has a lengthy resume and hundreds of publication son the one side and another person - also called an 'expert' but with few relevant qualifications on the other. The so-called expert on the contrarian side may be an actual scientist, but they often have few publications, and may not even be trained in the relevant field (again, indicating how much trouble the contrarian side has in recruiting qualified scientists). Mot importantly, the interviewee will often not say that the contrarian is affiliated with a think tank or an anti-environmental front group that is funded by corporations promoting a de-regulatory agenda. Now, as I said before, if I am a lawyer and my client pays me, I am working for them. Why should it be any different for scientists? You can bet your bottom dollar that scientists appointed in think tanks would not be sitting where they are if their opinions were different from the agendas promoted by the think tanks (and especially its corporate funders). On the other hand, many of the the most prominent contrarians are employed as university lecturers on the government payroll. The last time I heard there wasn't a witch hunt to expel these people from the public payroll. I personally know several university researchers who are contrarians. But you'll never ever find a pro-AGW scientist employed by a right wing think tank. Never, ever.
The other thing the media does is create controversy where there is broad (not absolute of course) consensus. By interviewing two people on opposite sides of the debate - and, as I said above, one, the contrarian, often has thin credentials and is speaking outside their trained field - the media gives the impression to the general public that the debate is split pretty evenly among scientists down the middle. This is patently not the case, especially amongst the statured scientists.
Finally, one should look up the names of some of the so-called corporate front groups (like the one Marohasy represented in the article in linked earlier). Note that these groups often have environmentally friendly names - e.g. the National Wetlands Coalition was one of my favorites but there are many others - whereas in reality they are lobbying organizations that aim to downplay environmental problems and aim to work at reducing government regulations limiting corporate activity (such as the draining of wetlands or the clear-cutting of forests; a great book to read about this is 'Secrets and Lies' (1999) about PR companies and astroturf groups working to lobby the NZ government in the 1990s to permit clear curt logging of NZ wet forests). The use of environmentally friendly names by decidedly anti-environmental groups is called 'aggressive mimicry'. Again, the aim is to mislead the public, who will think an organization with a nice name is actually working on behalf of environmental protection, not the opposite.
I am more than happy to write more about this as I have given many lectures on it over the years.
Jeff H,
having said this:
"2. I’m curious as to why you told me all about what “deniers” (and contrarians and so on) do. That is, what was the desired effect? I’m not “contrarians”...."
... if you were telling me about your own experiences with contrarians for the sake of it, I get that—it helps me sense where you're coming from. Just so long as you do separate past encounters from your dealings with a previously-un-dealth-with individual, then the conversation won't be hostage to prejudice (and so futile). :-)
Sorry for the typos and grammatical gaffes. I wrote this in a single take.
Chameleon, I don't want to argue with you any more. I have my opinions based on years of working in an academic environment. I am critical of scientists who down play various threats to the environment because it is my belief that they are very wrong. Read my last long-winded post and then comment. I think its important that we conduct this debate in a civil manner, I am guilty of becoming too emotional sometimes and I apologize for that.
Humourless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humourless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humourless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humourless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humourless cultist
Eternal umbrage
This is a Pantera track I think, chameleon :-)
Indeed, I pointed our latest 'Black Knight' at that 'OA is not OK' series way up thread, and that was before he decided to point me in the direction of O-Level chemistry - one of the boorish jocks he being. I guess he will use Burn's Night, 'Neeps & tatties' and all that as an excuse for current absence. Has he flounced off again, I wonder?
Ian Forrester,
Oh, come on. Give the guy a break. It's all to do with GCRs and the sun. Och, Aye, and away the noo!
Well done JeffH,
It's your OPINIONS!
I'm reasonably confident if Ms Marohasy (congrats on finally spelling the name correctly) read you comment above, she would probably form an OPINION of your OPINION.
Neither of them would be scientific however, despite the fact that you're both scientists.
BTW JeffH I'm still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything? They at least conceded that Ms Marohasy is a scientist.
And JeffH,
I am not your enemy nor anti the environment.
So if you are apologising for the 'name calling' then I accept your apology.
And your and Brat's opinion of anyone matters how?
Hmmm. Ring a bell?
Or are you unable to remember more than 10 minutes at a time?
Talking out both sides of your arse-crack again, chubby?
After this bit of inconvenient (to Brat) truth from bill:
My goodness, didn't Brat go apeshit.
Really hurt his ego.
But chubby stroked it for him and he calmed down.
chammy:
Dolt, track records on contrarianism, lack of scientific credibility and being just plain wrong are matters of fact.
Here you are start with these:
Plimer exposed as a fraud
Plimer busted by Media Watch
Plimer suffers from crank magnetism.
and that is just a few of the take downs of just one of those faux-sceptics. You really are wet behind the ears in this aren't you.
Citation needed.
...says the commenter who fails to grok 90% of what she reads, humour included.
And ironically, that's blackly amusing.
Does that mean he can now stroke it forward by returning to his earlier function of fluffing Latimer?
Speaking of faux-skeptic Plimer, one hopes that even chameleon should be able to comprehend some of the contradictions in Plimer vs Plimer.
"BTW JeffH I’m still unclear what Media Watch had to do with anything?
Citation needed."
LOL. You expect chameleon to dig you up a peer-reviewed study that asked whether she, chameleon, was clear yet on what Media Watch had to do with anything, and that got a negative result and was then published in a Lotharsson-approved journal?
Why? Why would anyone go out of their way to fulfil your bizarre quests? Is there any XP or gold involved?
"My goodness, didn’t [Brad] go apeshit."
Nup.
Ummm Lotharsson?
JeffH linked Media Watch.
I'm rather tempted to write 'do your homework' :-)
no Wow,
that accolade belongs unquestionably to you.
No doubt about that.
"(to people they bother to read’s written opinion)"
I've seen some funky syntax in my day but... Wow.
That's, like, deific bro. *Inhales.* No, I'm being serious. It's not just godlike, it's pertaining to the very manufacture of gods!
I take it that you are aware of all Internet traditions?
Ah, thanks. I had a quick look when you mentioned it and couldn't see him talk about "Media Watch", so I thought it was another of your inventions. My mistake this time!
If you're:
you should probably re-read the context for Jeff's reference. We will all cross our fingers and hope that will do the trick this time.
Th qstn hs bn skd: "Ds nyn thnk ll ths brddng bt hs rsd th mmrs f Ltmr...frm th rdr's mnd?" (Lthrsn)
Th nswr: N! Mst dfntly nt! Ltmr's , pc, hrc rn-fst hmmrng (mdstly bttd by fw bt-prt xlrs, lk m) nd cmplt, skppng rt f y gtlss, mtnt-pygmy, Dltd crp-ts, n th crs f whch Ltmr, lk sm mghty, frkng Grk Gd, dscndd frm th clds f lymps nd mprsly bnt n lttl gd-fn, nrd-btng sprt, ffrtlssly nd fr ll t s, brshd sd th whl md-httr, jbbrng-gk, nkl-nppng, brzrkr-drk, pck-ttck bst y fcklss, cntmptbl, pstrng-phny, hv-bz, Dltd trgh-hggrs cld mstr n yr wn fbl, frccl, lghng-stck dfns ( lvd Jff's lttl "thnk-y" msh-nt t "Tm" fr Tm's ltst vwl-cll f n rlr cmmnt f mn--wht wn kss-p, crybby y r, Jff!) hs md f Ltmr n nstnt, blgsphrc lgnd nd hs nsrd hs ndyng fm mng nrml, mntlly-hlthy, prdctv, p-stndng, thnkng rl-mn nd th slf-rspctng, lscs, strng wmn, wh lgh t y mmm's by c-wrds, ths lph-ml, h-mn dt
Hp tht nswrs yr qstn, Lthrsn. nd f nt...yh, tht's rght, y knw th rst, Lthrsn.
And this, boys and girls, is what happens when you decide school is boring and skip school.
Don't make like mike moaner here makes out.
Go to school.
Learn.
Or end up like mike.
Brat, when you've displayed as poor a record of cogent thought as you have, what makes you think that insults from you have any meaning?
Chamy:
I would be surprised if you knew what homework was. You clearly have done very little if any at all before and since appearing here.
And quit with the false smilies, this combined with a nasty comment, being a trick used by the perennially deceptive and dishonest.
Have you checked up on Plimer yet? Come on do YOUR homework.
Holy crap, mike. When did you stop taking your meds?
It may have slipped Brad's memory - he seems to think he was banned for something other than repeated violations of the commenting code, complete with multiple pre-ban moderator warnings - but his comments at Lewandowsky's blog were removed. Can't say I've checked every page, but Google doesn't find any.
So this request is either mendacious, or Brad's memory ain't that great.
I thought it was a shame that they were removed - they were a great record of how deeply he was pushing denialist memes, how ill-informed (or mis-informed) he was and how poorly his arguments were supported.
It's a denialist prerequisite.
1) Ignore arguments
2) False smilies
3) Poor spelling
4) Grandiose pronouncements of victory
5) Projection
6) Mutual fluffing
7) Overuse of scare quotes
8) Tone trolling
9) False concern trolling
10) Repeated failed flouncing
11) Oblivious use of discredited sources
12) Redefinition of terms
13) Dismissal of questions as irrelevant
14) Dismissal of science as not real
15) False equivalence (e.g. funding)
16) Implications of conspiracies
17) Did I mention projection?
It's actually a passive-aggressive ploy.
If you don't say nice things to them, then you're a meanie.
If you say nasty things to them, then you're a meanie.
If you ignore it, then you're a meanie.
If you ask them "where's the joke?" you're a meanie.
Indeed the entire point is merely to pretend that it is YOU being unpleasant and that therefore is why you're wrong and they are right.
It's purely part of the ad hom issue that all deniers indulge in as a pavolvian action.
13a) Totally ignoring direct questions
18) Claims that there is no funding for environmental science denial.
To which latter is the answer, lookee here:
ALEC Exposed: "Warming Up to Climate Change", Energy companies, corporate polluters, factory farms and their politician allies voted to change environmental rules, One of the lesser publicized ventures of Koch Industries was its large-scale confined animal feed operations (CAFOs), etc., etc..
Chamy - more homework for YOU..
You guys should lay off piling on Chad Brad.
He is obviously a genius of kripkensteinian proportions whose scientific understanding is simply beyond that of any expert in any field upon which he deigns to direct his attention, no matter how fleetingly.
Chad, are you in Queensland? Are you a native Ozzie?
"It may have slipped Brad’s memory – he seems to think he was banned for something other than repeated violations of the commenting code, complete with multiple pre-ban moderator warnings"
Show me such an offending comment from me, chum.
" – but his comments at Lewandowsky’s blog were removed."
Are you serious? C'mon, their arbitrary pettiness may be an open secret (moderation was done by the SS kiddies, if I recall, with all the attendant bias) but removing existing comments? Are you really accusing them of such Orwellian past-control as to deny the existence of comments already in place? That would be a step too cowardly even for the kiddies, surely.
"Chad, are you in Queensland?"
Er.... Lotharsson's "do your own homework" clause is classically invoked as a cowardly manoeuvre, but in this case, surely I would be not only justified but doing you a favor by asking you to look it up for yourself. Then you'll see for yourself my exact location in relation to Lyibia, Niger, Nigeria, etc. (in counterclockwise order).
"Are you a native Ozzie?"
Well I thought so, until Wow advanced his now-famous theory that the Internet only exists in his personal timezone, which includes the South of England if I recall correctly.
Brad Keyes
Re your Page 13 # 79:
I thought so, but thanks for the confirmation. I will leave you to your fun.
"But given that, as I mentioned, the whole aim is amusement, I’m not quite sure what you mean there."
Actually I simplify there—you'll remember that I originally listed another desideratum as well, which you may very well be able to help me with.
There's nothing 'Orwellian' (nor any other self-aggrandising epithet) about it. It's purely that you're all noise and no signal, Brad.
Removal of your serial inanities would make no difference to the sense of any thread, but would drastically reduce the garbage to be negotiated between the beginning and the end.
"There’s nothing ‘Orwellian’ (nor any other self-aggrandising epithet) about it. It’s purely that you’re all noise and no signal, Brad."
There's a great book called 1984 that does a good job of explaining what "Orwellian" means. I commend it to your study. The relevant upshot of which would be that the past-purging manoeuvre makes it trivially easy for the most craven ninny, such as yourself, to retrospectively say anyone they don't like was "all noise and no signal," and there's no evidence left to prove that you're full of crap. That's the deplorable "beauty" of the technique. Which, I'm fairly sure, finally went out of fashion around the time Ceacescu was lined up against a wall. And not a moment too soon.
But Brad - you are all noise and froth. There's nothing there to be 'censored'. No substance whatsoever. Of course your ego would be censured, but that's entirely different.
"Brad – you are all noise and froth. There’s nothing there to be ‘censored’."
If you're telling the truth, then nobody censored me.
@chek (CONT'D)
That's why they've presumably left my original comments in place—so that idiots like you can easily substantiate your taunts with a links to original comments of mine (not worthless and unreliable paraphrases thereof by the Affirmative team). Go ahead, we're waiting. The URL you're looking for will start with http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org.
I don't care about your adventures elsewhere, and I care vless to research them. But it's nevertheless a good illustration of why going all orwellian on your ass would improve this thread.
You're still creaing nothing but noise. Off-topic thread-choking noise of no value.
"Off-topic thread-choking noise of no value"
You're right, I'm sooooo sorry for detracting from the heated discussion of Matt Ridley's "sleight of hand."
,/sarc
Chad, though your comments are gone (so sad), traces remain:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=8&n=167#2367
I'm thrilled that others have noticed your kripkensteinian genius.
Are you really living in Chad, Chad? That's so cool.
@luminous beauty
Seriously? Is it impossible to find my original comments? Are the SS boys really as cowardly as Lotharsson claimed? Are they really doing what chek calls 'orwellian'?
Lol. I guess it would explain their own triumphant blog statistics.
Thanks though—you did find "traces of" a good one.
"So far I've corrected your misunderstanding of one or two words (consensus and possibly conspiracy), I think."
To put that into context, I think I'd just finished helping a "Sou" to understand that consensus refers to a type of majority opinion—or at least helping passersby to understand that; Sou herself resolutely continued to talk about conceptual teratomas like "a consensus of evidence" ! She also thought that anyone—even a single person—playing a trick on anyone else—even a single person—was grounds for using the word "conspiracy" until my little lecture on the meanings of "con" and "spirare".
See, I taught people things.
Can't have that.
Anyway @chad and @luminous beauty, while it's fun to relive past amusements and triumphs—just to save you a tap on the shoulder by a friendly moderator, you might want to stick to the actual thread topic.
Chad breathing with Chad is so breathlessly kripkensteinian. Chad has taught us all with such honest charm and alacrity the deeper meaning of colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
We owe Chad a great debt of gratitude.
Brad Keyes
It's a rather long thread and much has been asked. What is it that you had in mind?
So you don't believe in private property, Brat?
No wow @ # 52.
You're quite clearly and most definitely and undeniably unpleasant.
That means nothing, chubby.
If you'd been something even remotely reliable to listen to, them maybe you'd have a very VERY minor point.
But you don't.
@BBD, thanks for asking—I mentioned that it would be good to find more deltoids like Jeff H with the ability and disposition to actually exchange views.
@Wow writes and doesn't proof-read:
"It’s purely part of the ad hom issue that all deniers indulge in as a pavolvian action."
Teh reflexive repugnance, it burns!
Chad,
Again, I have to thank you for teaching us that scientific consensus has nothing to do with wide recognition within a scientific domain that there is consilience of evidence sufficient to establish robust theoretical underpinnings to some particular empirical phenomena, but is merely the majority opinion of some non-specific crowd of yahoos, pulled from their collective nether regions.
I and all the cranks and crackpots on the interwebs are eternally grateful.
Yes, brat, "it burns"...
From someone who thinks that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong.
@luminous beauty:
"Chad,"
An African country. I take it you think that's an insult?
"Again, I have to thank you for teaching us that scientific consensus has nothing to do with wide recognition within a scientific domain that there is consilience of evidence sufficient to establish robust theoretical underpinnings to some particular empirical phenomena, but is merely the majority opinion of some non-specific crowd of yahoos, pulled from their collective nether regions."
Are you high? I didn't write anything like that. I merely disabused Sou of the false belief that "consensus" was some kind of unit of evidence, as in her abortive concept of "a consensus of evidence that points to...", and that it actually measures opinion. But hey, look it up yourself.
funny that you should think a cavalier misspelling of your name to show how little consequence you are is supposed to be an insult because it's an African country!!!
I guess your casual racism doesn't bother you.
Note also that you've been asked by LB if you were an aussie. Not african.
So the entire connection is one made in YOUR head.
Rather racist.
Are you high?
Words have meaning and if you so continually say things that mean something you didn't mean, THAT IS YOUR FAULT.
Maybe you should try saying something instead of weaselling all the time
PS: Note that you did the same to LB in the very same post. But, as with all idiot deniers, you demand of others what you don't deign worthy to do yourself.
@Wow sends me a comment "from someone who thinks that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong."
You're grossly overgeneralising from the specific delusion that defines someone as a Christian to some kind of global mental debility, which is far from empirically the case with Christians. There are millions of very smart and credible people who just happen to be wrong about one particular thing (i.e. they believe God committed suicide for their offenses against a Kafkaesque system of Iron Age taboos). Some of my smartest friends are Christians (and/or CAGW believers!), so your generalisation is idiotic.
@The great thinker about the Internet Wow rants:
"...you so continually say things that mean something you didn’t mean"
Like?
Lots of words.
No sense to them.
Brat, you said it, not me.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
remember?
“…you so continually say things that mean something you didn’t mean”
Like?
Like when you claim science isn't consensus therefore the IPCC is wrong.
"Like when you claim science isn’t consensus therefore the IPCC is wrong."
Wrong about what? (Nuance isn't your thing, is it?)
Let me help you. If the IPCC says science is consensus, then yes, the fact that science is not consensus does tend to entail that the IPCC is wrong.
About that.
"[Brad] you said it, not me?"
I said "that any Christian who speaks is by default always wrong"?
No I didn't.
But then your comment is no more hallucinatory than we've come to expect from you, Wow.
Yup, gave you the link too.
So you admit you have no clue what you're talking about.
Thinking isn't your thing, is it?
And, talking of saying nothing then whining when someone tries to interpret what you might mean:
What the hell was "Nuance isn’t your thing, is it?" about?
@Wow tries to sound adult and gets "deign" and "deem" as mixed up as everything else:
But, as with all idiot deniers, you demand of others what you don’t deign worthy to do yourself.
I'm no "idiot denier." How could anyone in my situation possibly be? The very real (and problematic) existence of idiots is being graphically proven to me by your very comments, right now, as we speak.
No, Wow, you linked me to a throw-away joke which I invite interested readers to click on lest they think Wow's absurd interpretation of said joke might be anywhere close to being honest.
Of course, leaving open the possibility that his interpretation is anywhere close to being honest was his whole purpose in merely linking to the joke, not quoting it so that you could see it for yourself, dear reader.
....and see what an inveterate confabulist our Wow is.
"So you admit you have no clue what you’re talking about."
Christ drying on a stick. :-)
You are high-maintenance, aren't you?
Listen. I ASSERTED that I had no clue what YOU were talking about when you accused me of having said, in the unspecified past, that "the IPCC is wrong."
What ABOUT?
What do you think I said the IPCC was wrong ABOUT, cretin?
ABOUT WHAT?
This is fun, when I'm in a patient mood.
lol
Yup, the idiot is always the last to know.
A tip for you, Brat: yes, you are. No charge.
Oh, and like many enlgish words, the words can be used alternately.
As indeed alternate/alternative do.
But your attempt to be erudite are false, since you only attempt them to preen your own ego and fluff up your empty thoughts and vacant meanings behind a facade of intelligence that, frankly, is nonexistent.
Yes, you've displayed this problem many times before.
Common among idiot deniers such as yourself.
You can't just go ASSERTING (not even in capitals).
And your meaning is entirely transparent because you use dogwhistle terms (go google it and learn what that means). Such as "CAGW" and "alarmist".
You're even more weaksauce than those lukewarmers who pretend to be "moderate" but are in actual fact, empty.
So, not content with lying about a joke I told, libellously accusing me of calling all Christians who speak "wrong by default", our favorite palindromic imbecile now perseverates in calling me an "idiot denier."
Listen, idiot, for the last time (and with apologies to readers who, you know, got it the first time):
I accept the existence of idiots.
I am an idiot believer, so to speak, though that's hardly a strong enough term.
I don't just believe in idiots, I know idiots exist, by unmediated perception as it were: I'm reading the comments of an idiot right now. You, Wow.
Give that assertion a rest, for your own appearance's sake if nothing else! You really shouldn't go on ASSERTING (not even in capitals) in the face of explicit and humiliating refutation as you're now doing.
*cue stirring music*
You are the idiot I believe in, Wow!
Yup, you're a casual racist.
How many times have you heard some racist arsehole defend themselve from the complaint by saying something like "Some of my best friends are black people!"?
Frankly, you sicken me.
"I was only kidding!".
Yeah, the cry of the arsehole uncovered.
So, not content with lying about a joke I told
Well, it has to be funny for a start.
It has to be told as a joke.
And it wasn't a joke.
But now you're being shown as the raging bigot you are not only to race but religion, you're backpedaling like crazy.
It wasn't a joke.
There's something even more wrong here. If Ridley's prediction is for 1 degree of warming over a century, then 0.2 degrees of warming in the first 20 years is not what we'd expect at all. The warming will be mostly back-loaded since rate of atmospheric GHG emissions keeps increasing. In the first 20 years we'd expect maybe 0.1 degrees at most, probably closer to 0.05.
Nope, truth is a defence against libel.
You'd also need to show damage done in the UK to have a case and since you're an idiot denier who hasn't GOT any standing to lose, you've got nothing to do legally, so you try to bully with a SLAPP down.
In AGW denial, yes.
To both counts.
Like Lionel, Stu, et al pointed out, projection.
Frankly, you sicken every right-thinking person reading this blog.
@Wow, back for more, asks:
"How many times have you heard some racist arsehole defend themselve from the complaint by saying something like “Some of my best friends are black people!”?"
Oh, all the time. TV, movies, cliche-ridden books, pulp comics. Everywhere.
However, what they don't say, if they believe that "negroes" are of "feeble intellect", is that "some of my smartest friends are Negroes," because that doesn't make a lick of sense.
Now go back and read (actually read this time) what I said about Christians, Wow.
Nah, that's asking too much, isn't it?
Spooner Chad,
Let us assume it was ABOUT scientific consensus.
Where, precisely, do you think scientific knowledge resides?
Hold the sarcasm, please. No snarky personal insult crap about where you believe it doesn't reside.
Please?
The stopped clock @Wow finally says something veridical:
"Nope, truth is a defence against libel."
Thank you. Thank you for raising this. But don't tell bill, who keeps advising me to cease and desist from drawing attention to Oreskes' febrile conspiracist anti-Semitic pre-scientific ugliness. ROFL.
You guys are a riot, individually and even more so collectively.
Hi @luminous beauty, thank you for raising the tone.
"Hold the sarcasm, please. No snarky personal insult crap about where you believe it doesn’t reside."
It doesn't reside here, agreed?
Now I'll address your question (which has no simple 1-minute answer, so bear with me)
"It doesn’t reside here, agreed?"
If stipulated, "here" means in the mind of the originator of the above quotation, then agreed.
So you realise now how badly that comes across?
"Let us assume it was ABOUT scientific consensus."
Scientific means (simplistically) pertaining to correctly-derived knowledge about nature.
Consensus means majority opinion (and can implicitly mean "in a relevantly knowledgeable group").
Before I put those two definitions together, I hope you agree that those words are not interchangeable and that, to quote probable the only words Wow has ever accurately put in my mouth, science is therefore not consensus.
Good.
Now to agglutinate the meanings, "scientific consensus" means "the majority opinion about what we know about nature" (possibly implicitly restricted to some scientifically knowledgeable group, rather than the general population).
"Where, precisely, do you think scientific knowledge resides?"
In the central nervous system of anyone and everyone possessing justified true beliefs about nature.
I did.
You were derisive about a site that you considered was religious because the bible was quoted.
You were calling all christians by default too thick to think science through.
(PS you don't seem to know what "by default" means". Rather a boo boo if you're busy trying to pretend you're smart. Comes across more S.M.R.T).
@LB,
your challenge about where it "resides" was polysemic so I can only tell you what I mean, which could probably be more clearly expressed as "snarky personal crap does not belong on a science blog."
Stipulated.
Seconded, @luminous beauty?
Yup, more racist vitriol from you, Brat.
And draw attention to what? There is no such blather as you opine about in Oraske's work.
What there IS is a desperate need by the reader (you) to see some conspiracy (by one person!!! ROFLMAO!!! See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-… for why this is PURE SLAPSTICK!!!) and then project your own vile personal disorders on them so that you can look at yourself in the mirror as "no worse than them".
@Wow, I'm talking to LB right now, who asks an intelligent question. You've had your chance.
science is therefore not consensus
ENTIRELY WRONG.
Because you are conflating into "consensus" the idea that it is merely an agreement between people.
Scientific consensus is science.
RUBBISH!
"Because you are conflating into “consensus” the idea that it is merely an agreement between people."
I'm "conflating into" it nothing more or less than its dictionary definition, friendo.
Affected erudition is a hall mark of the flim-flam artist and con-man.
Science resides in "justified true fact" but whether it is justified is defined by whether there is consensus on it being true fact.
You push science in to a tiny little corner SOLELY so you can berate the IPCC for showing the science you hate to be true.
The IPCC and all national academies of science agree that AGW and climate science it springs from is justified true fact about nature.
Consensus means majority opinion.
If you don't like it, take it up with Websters, Merriam, Oxford, and all the other Merchants of Meaning.
I have no friends as vile in their personality as you, Brad.
And you ARE conflating "nothing more than" into it.
That DOES NOT EXIST in the dictionary.
You use and abuse words because you have no respect for intelligence or discourse.
Consensus means agreement.
"Climate science" is "a fact about nature"?
This is not to say that you're childish, Wow, but that assertion sure is.
See, Brat, you make up your ideas and then twist things until you get the answer you want.
No courage.
No conviction.
Just venom.
from the dictionary...
No, you just made that up out of whole cloth.
This IS to say you're childish.
And your assertion asinine.
"Affected erudition is a hall mark of the flim-flam artist and con-man."
Also the aspie, but in that case it isn't affected.
And "agreement" means more than one person having some identical opinion, doesn't it Wow?
"Also the aspie, but in that case it isn’t affected."
Classy language about people with mental health conditions there.
No, it means "agreeing with".
Opinion may or may not be involved, but you seem to want to INSIST it is there.
So you can then (like the fundie denier idiot you are) to claim that all these scientists agreeing with each other that the data says "AGW is real" is "merely opinion".
Nope, it's a term used within the group and accepted.
But you're grabbing for some more feedlot to insist that your vile personality really isn't anything unusual.
It is.
equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony
What part of this, exactly, do you imagine I'm disputing, Wow?
This is a perfectly good definition of consensus, equivalent to the equally-perfectly-good definition I gave (majority opinion).
Now that we're at consensus about the meaning of consensus, you reckon we might move on?
"science is therefore not consensus"
Entirely right.
"ENTIRELY WRONG."
Entirely wrong.
You've not agreed yet.
Majority opinion is NOT a perfectly good equivalent.
Because it isn't OPINION.
But if you want to call it so, then go with the one we seem to agree with:
Agreement.
"Nope, it’s a term used within the group and accepted."
Fair enough, I didn't know that (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's not a term that's only acceptable within the group, like the n-word).
This is entirely what I meant by childish and asinine.
Your assertions are INCORRECT.
Going "Nya nyah nyah, are too!" was not even universal at play school.
Fuck off you condescending twat.
Go fucking look it up, knobhead.
Sweet Jesu. Yes. Whatever. "Majority agreement", if that's fine by you.
Please, I'm just about ready to consent to your defining it "consensus" a kind of arboreal insect if that will convince you that the time is overripe for us to move on to an actual question.
Brad,
"I hope you agree that those words are not interchangeable and that ... science is therefore not consensus."
Brad and foolish are not interchangeable words, either, but is that sufficient reason to conclude that Brad is not foolish?
Good?
What is it that justifies true beliefs about nature in any individual's nervous system?
"Go fucking look it up, knobhead."
Why, knobhead? It's not remotely important, now that we've agreed it's legitimate for you to bandy it around pop-psychologically the way you did. You have my blessing. Can we move on, for the love of Krsna?
Which is yet more proof that you don't know what words mean, care what they mean and will abuse them and say ANYTHING if you feel like it.
For rational people, words are a method of communication.
For sociopathic nutbars like you, it's all about getting what you want.
"Brad and foolish are not interchangeable words, either, but is that sufficient reason to conclude that Brad is not foolish?
Good?"
No, fallacious. One example was a false definition (science is consensus), the other was just a false description (Brad is foolish). One is abortive conceptually because the words aren't synonymous, the other is just wrong empirically because the predicate isn't true.
Can we move on?
"Why, knobhead?"
Why not, knobhead?
So where did we AGREE to that, you arrogant cunt?
The impediment is your insistence on abusing the language because you want to control the conversation to engineer a "Oh, you're sooo right".
You wanted to bring "opinion" in to it, just like that other nincompoop duffer did with "are carbon emissions important" then segue into "this years annual emissions are higher than 15 years ago". Because context of carbon emissions is "the total emission", but he'd engineered a word that also meant "how much came out".
And you, being cut from the same denier cloth as he, were busy engineering the same thing with "opinion".
You also wanted to make out that it was me being a problem, with your "Oh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" because you CANNOT admit mistake without splashing it around widely.
Just like you've done twice more.
Ah, you actually asked something relevant. (I missed it in all the fibre.)
"What is it that justifies true beliefs about nature in any individual’s nervous system?"
What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.
"You wanted to bring “opinion” in to it, just like that other nincompoop duffer did with “are carbon emissions important”"
...no, I BROUGHT "opinion" into it because shared opinion is inseparably intrinsic to your precious "majority agreement". That's what majority agreement is. It's simply more than half of a set of people having an identical opinion. They may very well be RIGHT, of course.
WHICH NOBODY HAS MADE except as a strawman.
Nope, was a little under-reporting if anything.
But, as is your wont, you misconstrued.
"Foolish is not Brad, but Brad is foolish"
Get it, nimrod?
Now how about
"Consensus is not science but science is consensus".
"Fruit is not Apple but Apple is Fruit".
Beginning to filter through that willful ignorance?
No it isn't.
We have an example earlier.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
We still have a different OPINION, but we AGREED to use "Agree".
And who the fuck said "majority agreement"????
Why did you bring in (another) extraneous loaded word "belief" into the equation?
Just like "opinion" it is so you can discard anyone else's facts with "that's just your belief".
Fundie denialist claptrap.
Drop the loaded words.
just like that other nincompoop duffer did with “are carbon emissions important””
You have my sympathy. That duffer (unless he was dumbing down his vocabulary for the sake of the audience, which is quite a common phenomenon) sounds scientificly illiterate, because the object of contention was presumably carbon dioxide emissions, right? Or were you actually debating about diamond geysers or the spewing-forth of manmade nanotubes?
"That’s what majority agreement is. It’s simply more than half of a set of people having an identical opinion."
NO.
It is a majority agreeing on something.
Opinion has fuck all to do with it.
I'll give you an entire internet's WHOOSH Brad.
Way to miss the point.
Your metier.
And who the fuck said “majority agreement”????
I did, remember—it's on this exact page, so I don't see why you're struggling to identify the author.
Remember, you said consensus meant agreement, I said that was close enough for government work, and I added "majority" just to make it clear that we don't just mean an opinion shared between two or three outliers. I thought I was doing you a favor, because without stipulating "majority" it would leave me free in my Satanic deviousness to declare a "consensus" among contrarians!
"your challenge about where it “resides” was polysemic so I can only tell you what I mean, which could probably be more clearly expressed as “snarky personal crap does not belong on a science blog.”
Nothing polysemic about it. "It", in the context of my 'challenge' could only be construed to mean scientific knowledge. Construing it to mean snarky personal insults is not logically justified.
"What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.
Why did you bring in (another) extraneous loaded word “belief” into the equation?"
Er, YOU asked the question:
"What justifies a true belief about nature?"
Extraneous much?
"I did, remember—it’s on this exact page,"
Except you said *I* said it:
"intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement”"
"It is a majority agreeing on something.
Opinion has fuck all to do with it."
So you agree with my introduction of the concept of "majority" into the issue.
Thank Christ for small miracles.
Now, explain to me the intriguing assertion that opinion has "fuck all" to do with agreement, if you'd be so kind.
"What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis."
So, where does this 'scientific evidence' come from?
"Er, YOU asked the question:
“What justifies a true belief about nature?”"
I was quoting you from memory:
"In the central nervous system of anyone and everyone possessing justified true beliefs about nature."
at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
So yet again, you pretend it was someone else doing it.
There's nothing equivalent to the fuckwittery of you, is there.
"Except you said *I* said it:
“intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement””"
Well, youse did.
(If you think I'm juggling the difference between Wow and lb at this point, you give my attentional faculties way too much credit.)
Youse blokes said:
"“It is a majority agreeing on something."
Now in the name of Mithras on a cross, can we please MOVE THE FUCK ON?
"So you agree with my introduction of the concept of “majority” into the issue."
It's redundant.
"Now, explain to me the intriguing assertion that opinion has “fuck all” to do with agreement, if you’d be so kind."
Already did so, but you're too fucking retarded to notice.
We have an example earlier.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
We still have a different OPINION, but we AGREED to use “Agree”.
"There’s nothing equivalent to the fuckwittery of you, is there?"
Nup. Mind you, youse guys are severely testing my social graces, and they do have a limit.
Failing to find a point, you fall back on childish.
"Mind you, youse guys are severely testing my social graces, and they do have a limit."
You have no social graces.
“So you agree with my introduction of the concept of “majority” into the issue.”
It’s redundant."
Fine, let's omit it. When people agree (never mind if it's a majority or not), that's Consensus(tm), Your Gold Standard Guarantee of Truth.
Is this where you were hoping you'd be able to steer the discussion eventually?
Just saving you the time.
"Now in the name of Mithras on a cross, can we please MOVE THE FUCK ON?"
Fuck off.
You don't WANT to move on.
You could have, but rather than move on, you prattle and whine and whinge and try yet again to find another loaded term before you can "spring a trap".
Get the fuck on with it if you're so bloody tired of it.
"Well, youse did.
Failing to find a point, you fall back on childish."
Yes, failing to find any discernible point in your oppositionalism to every fucking thing I say, even when I'm agreeing with you, I fell back on the childhood habit of removing confusion by differentiating vos from tu, you from thou and you from youse.
If that offends you guys, screw youse.
"Your Gold Standard Guarantee of Truth."
Fuck off.
YOU introduced that.
Yet again, trying to ensure that even if you have to fail, you splatter enough shit about to get everyone dirty.
Fuck.
Right.
Off.
You.
Twat.
Same with the arrogant and wastful "(tm)".
You whine about your social graces but they constitute vile insinuations about anyone who DARES disagree with you.
"When people agree (never mind if it’s a majority or not), that’s Consensus"
"even when I’m agreeing with you"
Even when you're agreeing with people, you have to snark at them. See "(tm) and "Gold Standard" bullshit.
"You don’t WANT to move on."
Oh but I do. You're wrong as usual.
Allow me to prove it.
You could have then.
But you didn't.
Yes but here's me moving on.
What is now the point of contention?
It's about wherein scientific knowledge consists, right?
Please tell me wherein you think it consists so that we can move even further onwards.
You were asked.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Actually luminous beauty, with the luxury of revision I note that your comments are of an entirely different calibre from Wow's and I apologise if you were offended by my conflation of you two.
I'd be far more interested to hear your thoughts on the above issues, to be honest, than Wow's.
Brad Keyes @ 74
We could start with the nature of scientific consensus. You say (P14; #78):
What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?
Hmmm?
Wow?
You need to take some lessons from Lotharsson if you want to play semantics.
Brad is happy to play with you but you're being absolutely plastered.
Either take some lessons or move on.
It is funny to read BTW so if you want to continue, it will still be amusing but I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you.
It was STILL you who was asked.
Again, chubby, if you had any sort of reputation for accuracy, your post would have been of a very minor issue.
However, your RDF is strong and your ability to separate your internal universe from reality renders your opinion moot.
Well Wow, if you weren't spamming me with coprolalia I might have noticed that good question from your better (on every level) half.
@luminous beauty posed this:
"So, where does this ‘scientific evidence’ come from?"
It comes from immersing hypotheses in the acid of reality.
In other words, from experiment (guided, obviously, unavoidably, by existing knowledge and theory, and analysed in light of and with relation to existing knowledge and theory).
"What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?"
A whole matrix of psychological cogs and wheels, both rational and irrational, well-oiled and dysfunctional, smooth and toothless, one of which (indisputably) is evidence.
I'm not sure I accept the premises behind talk of "preponderance of." That seems an invitation to selectivity. But if I'm wrong, feel free to clarify how preponderance should be assigned to one direction or another. Bear in mind, though, that a single observation can in principle disprove a theory previously thought to have been justified by a whole DVD-ROM worth of observational data.
@Wow reveals more of himself than we really needed to see:
"Again, chubby, if you had any sort of reputation for accuracy, your post would have been of a very minor issue."
Fascinating, isn't it, how people of a certain character literally cannot evaluate the merits of a proposition independently from their own bilious grudges against the proponent.
“What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?”
Ultimately, who knows or cares what it's based on?
Let's cut out the middle man (opinion) and see the evidence.
(Sorry to be so scientific about the whole thing. ;p)
Fascinating how evaluating a source based on evidence of the reliability of that source is, in some idiots, considered wrong.
"Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on"
So all that screaming and when it comes to the money shot, nothing?
"Well Wow, if you weren’t spamming me with coprolalia I might have noticed that good question"
Well, that's wrong for a start.
You had answered some before.
You just want someone else to blame because YOU are never wrong.
Always someone else's fault.
But it appears that the answer LB has been waiting for was "I don't know, does anyone care????".
It seems spamming you with crapola was the only thing keeping you from admitting you had nothing...
“Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on”
So all that screaming and when it comes to the money shot, nothing?"
Wow, only a True Believer in Post Normal Science could possibly think the purely sociological trivia of "what is scientific majority opinion based on?" is analogous to the ejaculation scene in a porno.
It's not, Wow.
Evidence is the cum shot.
Opinion isn't even the cheesy music.
@Wow:
"Always someone else’s fault."
No, sometimes I'm at fault. I actually drew attention to a mistake I made earlier—did you notice, or were you too engrossed in your Dictionary of Slang for Kidz?
"I actually drew attention to a mistake I made earlier—did you notice"
No, I noticed.
I also noticed you had to snark at others then too.
cf "give you courtesy of the doubt".
" is analogous to the ejaculation scene in a porno. "
Nope, that's not how analogies work, dumbass.
And its provenance is not that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot
co-opted.
"It seems spamming you with crapola was the only thing keeping you from admitting you had nothing…"
I thought we agreed that what you've been chundering forth to distract me was coprolalia, but "crapola" would also capture it.
It is ALSO a non-sequitur.
Nothing to do with post-normal-science to draw an analogy to the noisy culmination of a sexual act being a non-event.
But then you don't do this thinking lark, do you.
Anyway, I've answered all your questions so the ball is in your court. Better hope somebody who knows what to do with it is around, Wow, cos otherwise the debate is over.
"I thought "
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
And, yet again, you are incorrect. Point out where we agreed.
"Anyway, I’ve answered all your questions so the ball is in your court."
What ball?
Hell, what answer?
Hey Chameleon, that Pantera song is in my head again for some reason!
"In other words, from experiment (guided, obviously, unavoidably, by existing knowledge and theory, and analysed in light of and with relation to existing knowledge and theory)."
Only experiment? You're going to give all the astronomers a sad.
It is encouraging to see you have conditioned the burden of justification for testing an hypothesis on the guidance of existing consensual scientific knowledge and theory, which, I'm sure you will agree, rests on the collective expert acceptance or refinement of prior evidence and theory. And so on.
O, I'm sorry. I'm putting words in your mouth.
Brad Keyes
The scientific consensus is based on the evidence. If you don't know or care about the evidence, you have no argument against the scientific consensus.
But you just said you don't care about the evidence. Scientific consensus emerges from the evidence, so it is apparently the better informed position. Why dismiss it?
You aren't being scientific.
Thanks luminous, I was afraid you'd left me alone with that screaming child.
"Only experiment? You’re going to give all the astronomers a sad."
How so, luminous? Perhaps you'll be happier if I explicitly broaden the word "experiment" to "the entire Empirical approach", which obviously includes what you observe in a telescope.
"The scientific consensus is based on the evidence."
While I envy your faith, that can't actually be true, because then scientific consensi would have performed far better throughout history and would have been far more responsive to disturbing data.
Fascinatingly, if you look at the history of metascience (or "scientology"), "consensus" only became a preoccupation when the evidence for CAGW wasn't stacking up as had been hoped.
Coincidence?
"If you don’t know or care about the evidence, you have no argument against the scientific consensus."
Yes, but I just said I DO care, in fact I said I cared EXCLUSIVELY, about the evidence.
"While I envy your faith, that can’t actually be true"
Is that your belief?