Brangelina thread

Do you understand the difference between validity and truth, chek?

More "Squirrel!"

Papers can't tell you anything, Bray.

They have no vocal chords.

chameleon, I propose we starve Wow of the attention he craves until and unless he confesses which supposed scientist said that absurdly infrascientific twaddle he quoted yesterday about consensus.

I suppose that's one way to avoid the questions you can't answer.

BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD's questions to his satisfaction.

Wow,
Seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to answer someone else's question yet again; please point us to the place where Muller et al agrees with Chek's assessment.
And please while you're finding that, could you also let us know who's the 'someone' you quoted.
If you can't/won't do that could you please just hang out at the Feb 2013 thread and join the commenters there who are discussing this thread?
That way maybe BBD and others could possibly have half a chance to be noticed.
At the moment we could legitimately ask Tim to rename this thread the 'Wowism' thread.

BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction.

Oh, that's letting me off lightly, Wow. What you should do, Wow, is "starve" this thread for a good 2 months or so. That's the only way I'll learn my lesson. Deprive me of the oxygen that is you, Wow. I know it's cruel, but I have to be disciplined.

And please while you’re finding that, could you also let us know who’s the ‘someone’ you quoted.

Yes please—as one last cruelty here, why don't you embarrass me by revealing to the world that the quotation I mocked as so moronic "no scientist could have come up with it" actually came from a bona fide scientist, just like you've been insisting for the last 24 hours.

Did it work, chameleon? Did the average mental age on this thread just go up 15 years? Oh frabjous day!

All you need to do Brad is stop making feeble excuses, stop constantly posting, and read.

You may be able to address some of the following without references. For instance, the vexed question over the precise nature of your position. It’s never been clear. I’ve noticed you use the term ‘alarmist’ a few times. This would suggest one of three things:

- You think the atmospheric physics is wrong

- You don’t, but you think the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 is too high.

- You agree with the evidence – not the consensus; we can ignore that – but you dispute that a 2.5C – 3C increase in global average temperature will be much of a problem.

Please clarify your position. Thanks.

***

If you haven’t read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not? You asked for evidence so often I assumed that you were interested in reviewing some. This puzzles me.

***

There’s a couple of things worth reading if you are interested in the scientific consensus. Knutti & Hegerl (2008) reviews the evidence and the uncertainty and is a good place to start. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) demonstrates how the ‘fat tail’ of high sensitivity estimates can be docked. Anti-alarmist science in action ;-)

I would like to see some *evidence* of good faith as demonstrated by your reviewing some of the *evidence* and giving the forum your considered, detailed views on it. Time to walk the walk.

One other thing. You recently referred to yourself as a realist. To be a realist one must know the details otherwise reality is not known and one cannot self-describe as a realist. I cannot understand why someone with formal training in logic would describe themselves as a realist while freely admitting to be substantially unaware of the detail. How do you account for this?

I have a question.
How come Wow leaps in and answers questions for other people but refuses to answer a direct and very simple question to Wow?
Let's try again:
WOW!!!!!!
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
From whence and from whom did that quote originate?

Rohling et al. (2012) Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity.

Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change.

Hansen & Sato (2012) Climate sensitivity estimated from Earth's climate history

Hansen et al (preprint) Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric CO2.

The unprecedented warming in the 20th century matches very well? Seriously?

Do feel free to point out the key differences Cammy. Incredulity - especially coming from you - is meaningless.

BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction

Agreed.

Going back into deep geological time:

Royer et al. (2004) CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate.

Royer (2006) CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic.

Tripati et al. (2009) Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years

And back to the Cenozoic again:

An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics

Sorry, that last links is to Zachos et al. (2008) An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics.

All

Please feel free to add any useful papers on sensitivity and/or the relationship between CO2 and paleoclimate change to the list for BK. My rather rushed contribution is by no means offered as definitive. I have to go out now but will of course look back in this evening (UK time).

Here you go Chek,
http://www.scitechnol.com/ArchiveGIGS/articleinpressGIGS.php
You will find the paper in question here.
Let me know when you find that CONFIRMATION of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST.

chameleon # 6

Please stop you amateurish excursion into game theory. TL moderates here, not you.

BBD, I just gave up an hour of my life reading Knutti & Hegerl. My brain is not up to giving an intelligent critique of it at this hour. Could you please re-post the Hansen and Rohling links if you have them at your fingertips? I seem to remember downloading them last time you told me about them, but I'm at a different computer this weekend.

I'm not alarmed about climate change myself—I anticipate no net disaster befalling the planet as a result of global warming, at least. However if I did, I can't imagine why I'd hesitate to call myself an 'alarmist', and I don't understand why my use of the word betrays me as an outsider. Aren't you alarmed? Don't you think the population, or at least the Solons, should feel alarmed? Can you please tell me, in all honesty, where the protest against terms like "catastrophic AGW" and "alarmism" comes from? Why don't you people get it over with, embrace and normalise those designations?(And isn't the umbrage over "warmism" as obviously fake to you as it is to us? Who could believe for a second that "warmism" was a derogation comparable to, say, "denialism"?)

Failing that, what can people call you without causing offence? Surely there's something you're comfortable with?

(One of my best friends, with whom I've got a long-running wager on climate change, is happy for me to call his belief system "CAGWism," and I encourage him to call me a "CAGW denier"—though he's usually too polite to go beyond "CAGW skeptic".)

I think you'll find most people who call themselves "realists" are having a laugh and possibly blowing off steam. If they're speaking non-ironically, though, that's a little scary! It's an outrageously loaded and jingoistic word unsuitable for mixed company. This reminds me of a high school friend of mine who was affiliated with a niche religion. I was always getting it mixed up with another small religion also starting with M, so I asked her what the basic difference was. She explained in a deadpan voice that, "We [M____ans] believe in one true god." Oh, well that clears that up! I've never confused M_____ism with M_____ism again!

The joke being, both sides have been known to call themselves "realists"—it's just a fancy word for "us."

Oops—you have posted them. Cheers.

No need to post any more links, guys, I'll be pressed to get through those papers "in the usual abstract / conclusion way" as it is.

BK

I’m not alarmed about climate change myself—I anticipate no net disaster befalling the planet as a result of global warming, at least.

An astonishing statement. Once again, I sense a yawning knowledge deficit. One cannot be a realist if one doesn't have a firm grasp of reality.

Even if we limit ourselves to just two consequences of warming there are ample grounds for very serious concern. The first is widespread impacts on agricultural productivity; the second is sea level rise. The effects of both will be exacerbated by the additional two billion people living on the planet by mid-century (UN figures). This is part of the basis for the claim that CC will cause widespread and sustained human suffering to future generations.

Can you please tell me, in all honesty, where the protest against terms like “catastrophic AGW” and “alarmism” comes from?

They are part of the framing used by deniers to make themselves appear reasonable, rational realists at the same time as insinuating that reasonable, rational realists are excitably crying wolf.

Failing that, what can people call you without causing offence? Surely there’s something you’re comfortable with?

The mainstream. Thus placing fringe contrarianism in its proper scientific context.

The mainstream. Thus placing fringe contrarianism in its proper scientific context.

But here you're inverting reality. The so-called "mainstream", i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven't suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of "scientists" who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

Science has only one stream, and its source is the scientific method, not the "we're in a street-fight" Realpolitik that finds "a balance between between being honest and being effective" as advocated by Stephen Schneider and practiced by climate careerists ever since.

A sign of how far climate science itself has diverged from the mighty river of true science is the fact that Phil Jones, who concealed the divergence problem from a WMO audience, then boasted about it in an email, still sits in his Professor's chair on a full salary. Only In Climate™!

Another measure is the scientific illiteracy (or de-literacy) of climate alarm advocates like Lotharsson, who assert something called "the consensus of evidence" as a fig leaf for the reintroduction of consensus as an argument, which has been outlawed in science for 250 or so years. The phrase is pure category fraud. To assign a "consensus" (majority opinion) to the evidence is a Walt-Disney-like leap of anthropomorphic delirium, but Lotharsson and some others will make it with a straight face. Only In Climate™!

"Brad", "Brad", "Brad". You've been fed shit by an orchestrated campaign whose narrative you're repeating word for word.

They cannot argue the science, so they created and framed those stupid stories for numpties based on soundbite quotes and zero study. Which you and those like you have bought hook, line and sinker. But - what the spin doctors can't force on you is awareness of reality. That's up to you.

I am of course speaking to an idealised version of you here, not the footsoldier you actually are.

And now - back to waiting for an adequate response to BBD's questions. No further dialogue will be entered into by me.

BK

But here you’re inverting reality. The so-called “mainstream”, i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven’t suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

'Inverting reality' is a strong claim. Atmospheric physicists predicted CO2-forced warming many decades before there was instrumental confirmation. Some time back I provided this link to a history of climate science. Here it is again. If you choose to read it, you will see that mainstream climate science is not 'the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method'. This is in fact misinformation.

Science has only one stream, and its source is the scientific method

Agreed. Now, let's consider your previous statement in the light of the links provided at #12 and #15.

Please explain how any of the linked papers 'play fast and loose with the scientific method'.

You aren't making sense.

Also awaiting response to # 23.

The so-called “mainstream”, i.e. climate alarmism (since you haven’t suggested a better name), is predicated on the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.

Here's a challenge you might like to accept, Keyes:

1) list the "small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method"

2) list the scientists who do not "play fast and loose with the scientific method"

3) of the scientists listed in point 1, list the errors of science their "loose and fast" playing has produced.

You have made an explicit claim: you should be able to support it with a structured and comprehensive summary.

Realted to my previous post, your essential claim seems to be that no matter what the figure for climate sensitivity is, global warming is not harmful.

Please list the examples of science that you accept that forms the basis of this position.

For both this task and that in the previous post I don't expect any dancing around the issue, or semantic wrist-flapping - I just want to know on what scientific evidence you base your claims and opinions.

‘Inverting reality’ is a strong claim. Atmospheric physicists predicted CO2-forced warming many decades before there was instrumental confirmation. Some time back I provided this link to a history of climate science. Here it is again. If you choose to read it, you will see that mainstream climate science is not ‘the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method’.

We substantially agree, in that the theory of AGW itself is a product of proper science and not ‘the work of a small coterie of “scientists” who play fast and loose with the scientific method.’ Like the theory of urban warming, that of CO2-forced atmospheric warming is defensible by the scientific method, and has been pretty convincingly confirmed, according to my reading of the literature.

If that is acceptable to both of us, do you also accept that we should jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators? That would reassure me that we're both speaking the language of mainstream science.

Bernard J, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not in the business of doing "tasks" for you. In order to save us both a lot of time, tell me: have you read the Climategate emails (1.0 and 2.0)?

Bernard J,

if you're so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great harm to human and animal species. So why don't you want to bet on that? Is it just a matter of our finding an objective measurement to arbitrate the bet? Or do you absolutely refuse to wager on anything beyond the geometrical?

Like the theory of urban warming, that of CO2-forced atmospheric warming is defensible by the scientific method, and has been pretty convincingly confirmed, according to my reading of the literature.

The literature also describes the quantification and removal of UHI from global surface temperature reconstructions.

If that is acceptable to both of us, do you also accept that we should jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators? That would reassure me that we’re both speaking the language of mainstream science.

One false equvalence after another. Even if Jones and Mann and their 'intimate collaborators' have fallen short of the highest ideals of science, what changes? The radiative physics? Paleoclimate behaviour in face of same? What? These few researchers are not a proxy for climate science. Let's talk about the increase in OHC since the 1970s or summer Arctic sea ice trends.

chek:

chek

February 16, 2013
And now – back to waiting for an adequate response to BBD’s questions. No further dialogue will be entered into by me.

You promise? :-)

Bernard J, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not in the business of doing “tasks” for you

In plainer words Bernard, "Brad" is totally unable to substantiate any of his dearly held myths.

BBD, your last message is a little unjust—

One false equvalence after another.

What equivalence[s] did I assert? I'm not aware of doing so.

Even if Jones and Mann and their ‘intimate collaborators’ have fallen short of the highest ideals of science, what changes? The radiative physics? Paleoclimate behaviour in face of same? What? These few researchers are not a proxy for climate science.

Good point. In theory the excision of the gangrenous science should be an uncomplicated and minor operation. Yet for some reason, most people on your "side" refuse consent for this life-saving surgery. There is a disturbing degree of loyalty and attachment to the pseudoscientists. I don't want to presume that you're like them, so I'm giving you a chance to confirm: do you agree that Mann and Jones have violated the professional standards of science, and that we should disregard the work of scientists who've violated said standards, as the fruit of poisoned tree?

In plainer words Bernard, “Brad” is totally unable to substantiate any of his dearly held myths.

Wrong. I can substantiate them if absolutely necessary, if you're genuinely still unaware of the evidence for them (3 years after Climategate 1.0), but I'm not going to give you a "structured and comprehensive summary." Nor will I rule a red margin on the left or use cursive. You're still not my bloody governess, Bernard, no matter how many times you try to play the part.

Most importantly though, Bernard:

if you’re so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great net harm to human and animal species.

So why don’t you want to bet on the net harm? Is it just a question of figuring out an objective measurement to arbitrate the bet? Or do you absolutely refuse to wager on anything beyond the geometrical?

For the sake of this argument, let's disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

Nothing changes.

'Fruit of a poisoned tree' is blatant framing. How do those papers linked above 'play fast and loose with the scientific method'?

We both know you can't back this up, so yawn.

What you'll likely see at #38 Bernard is "Brad" blustering that he cpuld substantiate his myths, whilst remaining steadfastly absolutely unable to do so.
IOW a standard but desperate (if useless) rhetorical suggestion.

For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

No, let's do it for the sake of science. Let's actually do it.

I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don't personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world. Sorry to insist on this, but I'm not superkeen to spend time arguing with someone only to find out they were never really serious about the distinction between science and not-science. You probably are serious about it, so just confirm the aforementioned items, please.

‘Fruit of a poisoned tree’ is blatant framing.

It's blatant what now?

How do those papers linked above ‘play fast and loose with the scientific method’?

I don't claim that. Those papers may very well be rigorously scientific.

We both know you can’t back this up, so yawn.

Since I didn't make the claim in the first place, yawn indeed.

I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world.

Sure. I just said so:

For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

Nothing changes.

These people are not proxy for climate science. Those papers linked above (and all the rest of them out there) aren't 'playing fast and loose with the scientific method'.

It's all conspiracy-tinged nonsense, correctly described as denial.

Who could believe for a second that “warmism” was a derogation comparable to, say, “denialism”?

As an aside - not to distract from the substantive discussion - the success of the contrarian hijack of language is troubling. Contrarian framing has de-defined 'sceptic' to the point of parody, the point where denial misnomered as scepticism is standard usage.

At the same time, 'denial' and its derivatives have been vociferously misrepresented as pejorative by association. But they are accurate descriptions; standard usage. Nothing more and nothing less.

chek,

I thought you swore not to say anything until I'd answered BBD to his satisfaction. Why are you commenting again? When you threaten the silent treatment, it's critically important that you follow through on it.

Please. :-)

What equivalence[s] did I assert? I’m not aware of doing so.

(If) CO2 forcing (and) UHI exist (then) we should 'jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators'.

See it now?

;-)

Brad

You are venturing into game theory. Don't. I'm not satisfied with your answers.

Bernard J, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not in the business of doing “tasks” for you.

I'm not asking you to "do a task" for me. I'm asking you to validate in a scientific manner the claims that you make of non-scientific work by well-known climatologists.

In order to save us both a lot of time, tell me: have you read the Climategate emails (1.0 and 2.0)?

Absolutely not.

I do not read people's private emails unless given permission to do so. I have steadfastly refused to participate inthe crime that is referred to by the propagandists as "Climategate" - a similar minimum level of moral decorum would behove you to also resist reading or mis-using those emails.

And it matters not what the victims of the email theft said to each other - we are asessing their published work (you know, the material the is made public). If you cannot make your case based on the published scientific literature you have no case.

if you’re so confident that Arctic sea ice volume is a vital statistic for the health of the planet, then surely you predict that its predicted reduction will cause great harm to human and animal species. So why don’t you want to bet on that?

The loss of summer sea ice will be immediately serious for Arctic mammals such as polar bears and walrus. They will not suffer immediate exinction, but the effects will be clear on their population trajectories and age structures.

However if, having being backed into a physical reality corner, you want to modify the terms of the wager to reflect ecological sequelæ, I propose this:

If, between today and the time that minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume drops below 500 (five hundred) cubic kilometres in volume:

1) there has not been a report in the public media or in the scientific literature that walrus and/or polar bear populations have suffered declines sufficiently serious that experts are concerned for their ongoing viabilities as species, and

2) there has not been a report in the public media or in the scientific literature that there has been a repeat of the crushing of (a minimum of 100) newborn and/or older walrus calves on an Arctic beach due to lack of sea ice cover

you win.

If there has been such a report as described in either (1) or (2), between today and the time that minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume drops below 500 (five hundred) cubic kilometres in volume, I win.

Note that the boolean conditions are structured to reflect your opinion that there is no harm to global warming, and to reflect my scientific understanding that there is.

The others terms are as previously proposed.

To be fair, and in the interest of transparency, I estimate that my chances of winning are greater than 99%.

Bernard:

I’m not asking you to “do a task” for me. I’m asking you to validate in a scientific manner the claims that you make of non-scientific work by well-known climatologists.

You referred to each of your requests as "tasks."

Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean that.

As an aside – not to distract from the substantive discussion – the success of the contrarian hijack of language is troubling. Contrarian framing has de-defined ‘sceptic’ to the point of parody, the point where denial misnomered as scepticism is standard usage.

Trust me, BBD, any "hijacking" was accidental. The "contrarian" side, as you call us, has no power whatsoever over the language, which is why this is the only case of the climatogenic brutalisation of English working to our advantage. I agree that it's an unfair advantage, because disagreeing with a scientific hypothesis does not qualify a person as skeptical. Most of us do happen to be skeptics, but skepticism is far from an exclusive or universal property of climate "contrarians."

At the same time, ‘denial’ and its derivatives have been vociferously misrepresented as pejorative by association. But they are accurate descriptions; standard usage. Nothing more and nothing less.

Hmm—you're going a bit too far here, I think.

Sure, it's perfectly possible to use a derivative of "deny" accurately and objectively—as in, "I'm a CAGW denier." There's nothing wrong with this, because "deny" is an antonym of "espouse / believe / affirm."

Similarly, "You're an AGW denier" or "You deny AGW" would be unobjectionable statements if your interlocutor held that AGW was make-believe (which I don't).

(It's only fair, of course, to describe you guys as "believers" in the things of which we're "deniers." Right?)

Unfortunately, in real-world climate discourse these terms are very prone to being used maliciously. For example:

1. “Climate change denial” is invariably a misnomer, a pejorative and a strawman.

2. The form “[climate …] denial” was adopted by some alarmists such as Ellen Goodman with the expressed aim of evoking “Holocaust denial.”

But most cowards who use it with this intent are less open about it, so any protest against it tends to come across as paranoid on our part. The smartest response by my side would have been to ‘reappropriate / own’ the word “denial” and thereby extinguish any nasty connotation. I like the approach taken by Richard Lindzen (a Holocaust descendant), who says something like: "Hey, stop calling me a skeptic of CAGW; I deny it."

3. The word “denialism” and its derivatives falsely imply that disbelief itself has been elevated to a philosophy. Only believalists use this term.

4. Non-specific uses of “denier” and “denial” on their own are generally dubious. For example, what did you mean by “It’s all conspiracy-tinged nonsense, correctly described as denial.” Disbelief is correctly described as denial; conspiracy-tinged nonsense is correctly described as conspiracy-tinged nonsense. So what were you getting at?

5. The slide from “they deny P(x)” to “they’re in denial of P(x)” is of course vicious and illicit.

(If) CO2 forcing (and) UHI exist (then) we should ‘jettison the work of pseudoscientists like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and their intimate collaborators’.

See it now?

Sure. I didn't seriously mean that one was conditional on the other, though. I forgot how important it is to be literally precise in climate debates (what with the powerful mutual-incomprehension instincts at play). It was only a poetic "if", as in the form: "if Augustus left Rome 'a city of marble,' then Nero left it a city of ashes."

BBD,

"I want you to confirm that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists when it comes to the natural world."

Sure.

Excellent. I'm very glad that you repudiate the pseudoscientists Jones and Mann not solo ad argumentum but for really and truly.

It won't make you very popular with your fellow deltoids, but it does open up the possibility of a good-faith discussion of "science" as a mutually-understood entity.

Let’s talk about the increase in OHC since the 1970s or summer Arctic sea ice trends.

Sure, let's.

Bernard J,

Thanks for refining the terms of the bet. I still see some problems with it:

1. the timeframe was previously 5 years but is now undefined—it might (or might not) take decades for minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume to drop below any given threshold

2. a hypothetical decrease in polar bear or walrus numbers (which is all it would take for experts to profess "serious concerns" for their viability as species) would not entail a serious net problem for the world, would it? For starters, it would likely be great news for the species they prey on.

3. My understanding was that walruses, like the overweight whore in 1 Kings 3:16, are prone to accidentally smothering their young at the best of times—so how would we know if 100 smotherings was an unusual death toll, or that it was caused by real-estate shrinkage? (For instance, couldn't it result from a boom in walrus numbers, theoretically?)

Note that the boolean conditions are structured to reflect your opinion that there is no harm to global warming, and to reflect my scientific understanding that there is.

That's a strawman. I've never believed that global warming couldn't cause some problem for some species somewhere, only that it wouldn't turn out to be a major net detriment to the world.

Brad Keyes.

I see that you re engaging in your trademark semantics and dissembling yet again.

Tell us, for the record, how much loss of ecosystem function and how much extinction do you think needs to occur before human-caused global warming is "serious", or "critical", or "catastrophic"?

"Semantics"? Guilty as charged. Words have meanings.

"Dissembling"? How so?

"Tell us, for the record, how much loss of ecosystem function and how much extinction do you think needs to occur before human-caused global warming is “serious”, or “critical”, or “catastrophic”?"

Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn't even aware ecosystems could stop functioning. Do you think that will happen in the Arctic as a result of AGW?

All things being equal (which I realise they aren't in practice), warming is associated with increased biodiversity, so any "extinctions" that somehow occurred would have to be weighed up against their opposite.

BTW did the Roman Warming Period extinguish any species, that we know of? (It's not a rhetorical question—I haven't investigated this personally.)

Rather than answer BBD's question, you prefer to rant about your crank conspiracy theories instead.

You are clinically insane.

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

Wow:

1. you said you were going to starve my thread of your presence. I was kinda hoping you meant it. Why are you back?

2. "NOTHING WAS HIDDEN."

OK, so Phil Jones was just lying to his fellow scientists when he claimed he'd hidden the decline. Fair enough.

And Wow: you still owe us the name of the supposed "scientist" who said your quote about how "there are two aspects to scientific consensus: first, and most importantly, a consensus of evidence... yadda yadda."

I don't believe you.

It was scientifically-incoherent.

I would just like to know who this 'someone' is?
Why so coy Wow?
You put it up as a quote by 'someone'.
You must have liked the quote as you copy/pasted it here.
Who is this mysterious 'someone' Wow?

LOL... who should appear on the other thread in defence of that turgid word-salad about "the consensus of evidence leads to the consensus of scientists" but Lotharsson! Nailing his colors to the mast of scientific illiteracy. An apt end. Hehehe ;-) :-)

And cowardly Wow is there to complete the chorus, saying behind my back what he lacks the spunk to claim in the House of Brad:

"Indeed it is impossible to prove to Brad he’s wrong."

Ah, Wow... just because you've never managed it, it doesn't follow that the feat is difficult.

Au contraire, it's on a silver platter:

Just tell us all the identity of the "scientist" who said what I insisted was scientifically-abortive category fraud, thus proving before the whole Internet that it's I, not you and Lotharsson, who have no idea what scientific reasoning looks like!

"Look at his insistence that Dr Jones hid something despite it being false and the evidence presented to him time and time again."

Aaaand just like that, he's back to the falsehoods so transparent, even Lotharsson won't back them up.

Nothing was hidden.

Too bad for you.

OK, so Phil Jones was just lying to his fellow scientists when he claimed he’d hidden the decline. Fair enough.

So now you claim the "crime" of "lying to his friends".

Oooh. What a scandal....

Wow, all you have to do is reveal the identity of the “scientist” who said what I insisted was scientifically-abortive category fraud, thus proving before the All-seeing and Unforgetting Eye that it’s I (not you and Lotharsson) who have no idea what scientific thought sounds like!

Platters don't get much silverer than the one on which this opportunity is coming to you!

Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could stop functioning.

And therein lies the problem.

You don't understand the subjects about which you are making proclamations.

Oh, and don't think that the twisting of the import of my question passed unnoticed. You employed one of your favourite logical fallacies, that of equivocation - of semantic shift to be precise. And in case it's an unconscious failing of yours, I will note that "loss" is not identical to "stop".

And in case it’s an unconscious failing of yours, I will note that “loss” is not identical to “stop”.

No, the misinterpretation wasn't on purpose.

So I'll rephrase: Loss of ecosystem function? I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could lose functionality.

"I wasn’t even aware ecosystems could stop functioning."

And therein lies the problem.

You don’t understand the subjects about which you are making proclamations.

So, wait... they CAN stop functioning, is what you're suggesting? (Even though that's not what you were intimating would happen with respect to the Arctic.)

Wow, you meant:

So now you claim the crime of “lying to his fellow scientists”.

Oooh. What a scandal….

You do?

Lotharsson is now crying "hyperfine sophistic parsing," as if he's merely the innocent victim of anal pedantry.

Let's clear up that distortion right now: the turgid crock Wow dumped on us was foetid in both form and meaning. This isn’t just nit-picking.

Wow’s unnamed “scientist” wanted us to believe that:

There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

There can never be a consensus of evidence in the same way that there can never be a consensus of cheese, nostalgia, salt water, bacteria, ham, etc.: a consensus is a majority opinion. The “scientist” responsible for Wow’s quote either doesn’t understand this or is banking on the probability that his/her audience doesn’t understand it.

(We are dealing either with a hapless non-scientist or a liar, in other words.)

But let’s be charitable and assume he or she meant to say “a consilience of evidence.”

Then the passage becomes:

There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consilience of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

But now the untruth of this passage is a little more obvious than it was before, when it was camouflaged by our “scientist’s” category confusion, isn’t it?

As everybody knows, a scientific consensus is perfectly capable of forming WITHOUT a consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion—and often does. This is not just a theoretical possibility.

There was no “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” behind the infamous medical consensus on gastric ulcers, was there?

When the chemical community snickered at Dan Schectman and refused even to examine his supposed quasi-crystals—which really exist, and for which Schectman was recognized with a Nobel Prize decades later—it wasnt because a “consilience of evidence–many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion” made them do it, was it?

No. These consensi were due to fashion and prejudice. Nothing more.

So Wow’s masked “scientist” is lying—there’s no other word for it, is there?—when he/she tells us that “most importantly, you need a consilience of evidence” in order to have a scientific consensus.

You don’t.

Keyes

Excellent. I’m very glad that you repudiate the pseudoscientists Jones and Mann not solo ad argumentum but for really and truly.

It won’t make you very popular with your fellow deltoids, but it does open up the possibility of a good-faith discussion of “science” as a mutually-understood entity.

Don't twist my words.

This is what you cut away:

Sure. I just said so:

For the sake of this argument, let’s disregard the work of Jones and Mann.

Nothing changes.

You misrepresented me by selective quotation and in the same breath you have the gall to talk about good faith. Well you can fuck off. Don't do this again.

Let me remind you now that the behaviour of Spencer and Christy is potentially far more questionable than that of Mann and Jones. Yet when I raised this thorny matter - nobody wanted to talk about it. But the irrelevant jabber about M & J continues interminably.

I repeat, imagine we discount their work - what changes? I *know* nothing does, but I want to hear it from you. Say 'nothing changes at all'. Say 'the physics, the paleoclimate behaviour, the projections - all stay exactly the same without M & J'.

After your appalling behaviour above, you need to redeem yourself through a demonstration of good faith. Let's see if you are capable of the slightest degree of intellectual honesty.

I should have included this above:

As long as fake sceptics go on about the supposed failings of M & J we need to keep two things in mind.

First, M & J are irrelevant.

Second, M & J are not proxies for the entire of climate science.

The fake sceptics have concocted a fake scandal out of nothing simply in order to distract attention from the fact that there is no scientific sceptical argument.

False equivalence and misdirection are the staples of fake sceptic discourse.

In other words, the whole thing is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

Third, nothing was hidden.

Wow

As long as you permit BK to force the discussion onto the supposed misdoings of M & J he wins. He is preventing you from talking about substantive issues (the absence of a 'sceptical' scientific case). It also allows the fake sceptics to keep on re-enforcing the dishonest framing of 'climate science' as 'corrupt' or a 'poisoned tree'. Another win for the tactics employed by fake sceptics.

It is arguably more productive to point out that M & J are an irrelevance, that they are not proxies for 'climate science' as a whole, (a dishonest framing), that the tree is not poisoned, (more dishonest framing) and that the sceptics have no scientific case.

Bang that drum. Don't let the other side call the tune.

OK BBD,

I hate it when people twist my words, so if that's what I did to yours, I don't blame you for being aburinated.

However, please bear in mind that I asked you if you agreed with certain propositions; you said "Sure. I just said so:" and then repeated an earlier statement you'd made. I took this as indicating not only that you agreed with the claims, but that you considered your earlier statement to be an anticipation of my expression of the same ideas.

Wasn't my misunderstanding ... uh, understandable? Isn't that how most reasonable people would understand the words "Sure. I just said so:"?

You also say:

Let me remind you now that the behaviour of Spencer and Christy is potentially far more questionable than that of Mann and Jones. Yet when I raised this thorny matter – nobody wanted to talk about it. But the irrelevant jabber about M & J continues interminably.

And the comment to which you link does indeed raise some prima-facie damning questions about Spencer and Christy's ethics. I didn't have anything to say in response because:

1. I've never come across those allegations before so I'm unable to add anything to your comments

2. my assessment of the science of climate change is predominantly based on the work of "alarmists" and, to my knowledge, has no dependencies at all on the question of the integrity (or otherwise) of Christy or Spencer. In other words, even if they stood revealed as the most Chaucerian frauds in scientific history, I'd have to ask you the same question you're asking me: what changes?

Let me be clear: if they "manipulate[d] satellite data to hide warming," then they're crooks who don't deserve the name scientist.

The conditional in that sentence was necessary because I know nothing about the circumstances you mentioned.

But since you do have enough information to answer the following question, and since I apparently misread your answer the first time, please excuse my repetition of this very important request:

I want to know if you disregard the work of Mann and Jones not just for the sake of this argument, but on principle.

I'd like you to confirm, please, that you understand where Jones and Mann are in violation of the rules of science and that you don’t personally pay any heed to the conclusions of pseudoscientists (including, but not limited to, Jones and Mann) when it comes to questions about the natural world.

I strongly agree with this, by the way:

Second, M & J are not proxies for the entire of climate science.

But they are, in my experience, very good litmus tests of a person's willingness to repudiate pseudoscience.

Quite so BBD.

But you never will see "Brad" here repudiate the pseudoscience that underlies the attacks on Mann and Jones motivated by those who haven't the ability to discredit their contributions to science. The litmus test is their embracing of crank science as if that has any validity.

What pseudoscience "underlies the attacks on Mann and Jones," chek? It's an intriguing suggestion; I do hope you'll condescend to expand on it.

"As long as you permit BK to force the discussion onto the supposed misdoings of M & J he wins"

There aren't any misdoings.

Just making that absolutely plain

He's just plain not reading any of the evidence you've given him, he's afraid to answer any questions about his evidence, he's unwilling to actually reply to your questions.

And he's already agreed that the only "crime" he's now accusing Jones of is "'lying' to his friend".

"It is arguably more productive to point out that M & J are an irrelevance"

Except he refuses that just as much as he refuses the fact that nothing was hidden.

To his denier mind, anything against his crank conspiracy theory is entirely ignored.

Your allegation that M & J are engaged in pseudoscience is too sweeping to be of value.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Mannean Hockey Stick of MBH98/99 was an accurate representation of the period before ~1600. Fortunately, it has long been considered obsolete and so this is irrelevant to any current discussion of future climate impacts.

As for the splice to instrumental data and the divergence problem - further irrelevance. The instrumental data post ~1950 are good enough and there's sufficient agreement between reconstructions to provide extremely strong evidence for the rate, spatial extent and amount of modern warming.

I have nothing further to say on this topic except to repeat that M & J are an irrelevance, that they are not proxies for ‘climate science’ as a whole, (a dishonest framing), that the tree is not poisoned, (more dishonest framing) and that the sceptics have no scientific case.

Wow

Agreed. So refuse to allow BK to prolong the discussion of the colour of the herring any further.

Tell him about Spencer and Christy ;-) Or work through Lindzen's various misdoings. Or Easterbrook's, or Singer's or Monckton's...

There are so many arses to kick you are spoiled for choice. If he want't to talk about scientific misconduct, misrepresentation, framing and serial intellectual dishonesty, then go at at with him. On your terms.

BK # 80

Straight back at it, trying to drag chek in to your argument.

Here. Look at this. Forget MBH99. Even if you managed to pull every single one of these millennial-scale reconstructions apart it makes no difference. It is irrelevant. The anomalous cluster of localised NH warming events over a period of 400 years misnomered the 'MWP' doesn't matter. It is irrelevant to the consequences of increasing RF from CO2 on C21st climate and beyond.

Only fake sceptics seem unable to grasp this fact.

BBD,

if Mann and Jones are an "irrelevance," then surely it ought to cost you nothing to simply acknowledge their proven and confessed misdeeds and to agree that their work doesn't deserve to be believed.

Even if it has no bearing on our discussion of the "state of the science," it would greatly facilitate the "metascientific" conversation that's also (unavoidably) occurring at the same time if you could just take a moment to confirm that you disapprove of hiding the decline, hiding the data, hiding the code, and the various other shenanigans these shysters have been caught in, and that they're not scientists as you understand the word.

That would go a very, very long way to establishing that we both understand words like "scientist" and "science" the same way.

Without at least that much of a common lexicon it's futile (as I've learned from frustrating experience) for two people to dispute "the science."

Perhaps you noticed how I didn't hesitate to agree that, if Christy and Spencer "manipulate[d] satellite data to hide warming", they're frauds. And if they're frauds I want nothing to do with their poisoned tree, thanks very much.

(I'm sorry I can't agree or disagree unconditionally—but, as I've explained, I literally know nothing about these allegations beyond what you've written, so I can hardly come to any meaningful verdict on them.)

So I'm not asking you anything unreasonable, am I?

No misdeeds were undertaken.

Nothing was hidden.

"So I’m not asking you anything unreasonable, am I?"

Yes you are, you're demanding that he accept as proven something that has been proven false.

You're also claiming falsely that you haven't taken anything from that "poisoned tree", yet you continue to fail to give any of the sources of your information, and have absolutely straight-out lied by proclaiming you only visit this blog site to get your ideas.

The only proven thing here is that you're certifiably crazy.

Not a good day for deniers.
Nothing but confected stories to offer against the science, and smarming would-be, half-wit tricksters like "Brad" on moronic missions.

No confidence in the contrarian framing of 'climategate'. The clue is in the name.

No evidence that I have seen demonstrates the 'corruption' and 'pseudoscience' you and others allege. I see dishonest framing, based on tenacious exaggeration and a fair bit of misrepresentation.

You can stop bothering to try and get me to go along with this contrarian narrative now for reasons stated very clearly and more than once above.

Wow and chek,

I wasn't talking to you.

Shut up and let BBD speak.

BK

Since you are being tiresomely repetitive I will be tiresomely repetitive:

The anomalous cluster of localised NH warming events over a period of 400 years misnomered the ‘MWP’ doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant to the consequences of increasing RF from CO2 on C21st climate and beyond.

Only fake sceptics seem unable to grasp this fact.

As for the splice to instrumental data and the divergence problem – further irrelevance. The instrumental data post ~1950 are good enough and there’s sufficient agreement between reconstructions to provide extremely strong evidence for the rate, spatial extent and amount of modern warming.

Fake sceptics have all sorts of problems with this too.

Fake sceptics have difficulty sorting relevant arguments from irrelevant ones.

BK @ 91

They aren't preventing me from speaking. You are attempting to silence them. Once again, piss-poor logic seems to be running the BK show.

Wow:

You’re also claiming falsely that you haven’t taken anything from that “poisoned tree”, yet you continue to fail to give any of the sources of your information, and have absolutely straight-out lied by proclaiming you only visit this blog site to get your ideas.

Are you lying or hallucinating, Wow?

Actually never mind—the only thing you know that I want to know is this: what "scientist" came up with that farrago of fatuity you quoted 2 days ago?

If you're still too much of a coward to answer that, go away.

BBD, are you OK with scientists hiding inconvenient inflections in their graphs?

If so, it's impossible to take anything you say about "science" at face value.

"I wasn’t talking to you."

Whatevah.

It isn't your thread, it's your cage. Sit down and listen, you over-opinionated moron.

"Shut up and let BBD speak."

Yeah, right. Like you'll do anything when he has. You'll ignore him and continue with your conspiracy rants.

"Are you lying or hallucinating, Wow?"

No and no.

You, however, never stop lying and hallucinating.

Now, why don't you shut the fuck up and let BBD speak.

"BBD, are you OK with scientists hiding inconvenient inflections in their graphs?"

The only people hiding stuff are the deniers.

The divergence problem was examined openly in the literature. You over-state your case.

The divergence problem was examined openly in the literature. You over-state your case.

But are you OK with a scientist presenting a graph to the WMO in which that inconvenient inflection—which you agree is a "problem"—is simply vanished without explanation, replaced with data from a completely different modality which trend in exactly the opposite direction?

Some references for # 99:

Jacoby et al (1995); Briffa et al. (1998); Cook et al. (2004); Briffa (2004); D'Arrigo et al. (2008). The D'Arrigo study reviews the literature on divergence.

BBD,

It would be bizarre to argue (which I hope you're not suggesting) that there's nothing wrong with a scientist drawing a half-true graph and presenting it on the international stage, as long as the whole truth is mentioned somewhere else, in some 15-year-old Nature article written by another scientist.

I don't condone it; I dispute that it matters in the fundamental way you imply - which is that there was an intent to *deceive*. Since the divergence problem is fully and openly examined in the literature, this cannot be the case.

Everything reverts to irrelevance.

You have shifted from an indefensible estimate of ECS to claiming that the projected warming will be harmless, to insinuations that climate science is 'corrupt'.

There's no coherence to what you argue except its intent: a denial of the validity of scientific knowledge about anthropogenically-forced climate change. This is highly revealing.

Oops, I see the divergence had been mentioned in TWO articles by the time Jones made the decision to conceal it from the audience in his WMO presentation (in 1999, I believe).

It's not 'some 15 year-old paper written by another scientist'. See references above. This is just another misrepresentation.

we crossed.

I don’t condone it;

Good

I dispute that it matters in the fundamental way you imply – which is that there was an intent to *deceive*. Since the divergence problem is fully and openly examined in the literature, this cannot be the case.

I dispute your reasoning that it "cannot be the case". If I were to knowingly tell you a falsehood on a certain topic, would you accept the argument that I obviously wasn't intending to deceive you because the truth of the topic could easily be found on Wikipedia?

Contrarians have nothing of substance, hence the dishonest framing, the exaggeration, the misrepresentation and tireless resort to *misdirection* that characterises their discourse. This is so very obvious that I'm surprised a clever chap like you hasn't spotted it.

You'd have to do a damned sight more to that graph to make it deceptive Brad. You are still grossly over-stating your case. Because you don't have one, so you are an obligate misrepresenter.

What is interesting are the reasons that compel apparently intelligent people to deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW.

The how is boring (see above). The *why* is important.

What is interesting are the reasons that compel apparently intelligent people to deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW.

The how is boring (see above). The *why* is important.

So your true interest is psychology?

I feel that. Psychology is fascinating.

But if you really want to know why, then you can't be a polemicist. You have to be an interviewer.

My interest is causality. And everyone is allowed the occasional resort to polemic in blog comments. Once again, the valid is greeted with irrelevance.

Why do you feel motivated to deny the standard position on AGW?

By the way, nobody I've ever met on the other "side" can even approximately explain our reasoning process. Not one "believer", to my knowledge, has ever grasped why "deniers" "deny the scientific mainstream position on AGW." The standard explanations pumped out by your "public thinkers" are a cause of great mirth to us because they don't even come close.

Why do you feel motivated to deny the standard position on AGW?

You don't really expect me to tell you if you ask like that, do you? That's not a question, that's an insult with a question mark on the end.

This is an example of why your "side" has failed to work it out.

Try it again, but as if you actually want to know.

Then enlighten me. It's nothing much to ask. Why so coy?

Wow, looks like "Brad" still hasn't understood (despite your sterling efforts to pound the fact into his head) that the graph was about temperature, and used the best suitable proxies available.

But being determined to remain the scientifically illiterate cospiraloon that he appears to be, "Brad" likely doesn't understand that thermometers are proxies too.

Try it again, but as if you actually want to know.

Of course I want to know. How many times have I asked you now?

But I will gladly rephrase the question.

What motivates your rejection of the standard position on AGW?

Denial is a synonym of rejection, as we all know. But thanks for demonstrating the validity of an earlier remark on the hijacking of language.

Proxies, proxies, proxies, all the way down.

You’d have to do a damned sight more to that graph to make it deceptive Brad.

Really?

The graph presents tree ring data as if it were temperature data except where the contradiction is too obvious (post 1960), at which point it substitutes actual temperature data to maintain the illusion. Seamlessly.

Forgive me if this is "tiresomely repetitive", but here is what Paul Dennis—Phil Jones' own colleague at the UEA—says about it:

"The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature, and thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’. This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc. This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible, and I agree with him."

Denial is a synonym of rejection, as we all know. But thanks for demonstrating the validity of an earlier remark on the hijacking of language.

I haven't demonstrated that, because I wasn't objecting to the word "deny." There was nothing wrong with your use of it.

What motivates your rejection of the standard position on AGW?

No noticeable improvement.

Think about it a bit.

What relevance does this have to the scientific position on AGW? None.

So why are you fixated on this detail instead of addressing the relevant question, which is why are you rejecting the entire scientific understanding of AGW with such dogged persistence?

# 21 responds to your # 19.

Why so coy? It's illogical. The only outcome is that others become suspicious of your motives because you refuse to discuss them openly.

The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should "trust" bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can't tell the temperature in 1980.

For a scientist, it is unconscionable to conceal a problem like this.

"This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. […] The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question." —Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics, Oxford

We're both behaving doggedly, BBD.

That's what people do when principles are at stake.

The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should “trust” bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can’t tell the temperature in 1980.

For a scientist, it is unconscionable to conceal a problem like this.

How big a problem was the divergence? Not very. Read the D'Arrigo paper.

Does it make any difference to the standard position on AGW? Not at all.

So why are we still talking about it?

Why do you feel compelled to reject the standard scientific position on AGW?

BBD, think about it: how can you expect someone to tell you their REASONS for believing something when you ask them their MOTIVES for believing it?

If you won't say, people will draw their own, doubtless unkind, conclusions. You can easily prevent this by being open about why you feel as you do.

Motive and reason are synonymous.

No, rational reasoning is very different from motivated reasoning. You'e effectively asking me what I hope to achieve by denying the "standard position." As I said, this is an insult. You probably don't mean it as such, but it is.

My motives for doing something are my reasons for doing it. You are being rhetorically evasive, as ever. It's tedious. Please answer the question. I would be genuinely grateful if you would explain your reasoning to me now.

My motives for doing something are my reasons for doing it.

That's only true for actions. It doesn't work for beliefs.

It's irrational (by definition) to have motives for your beliefs and disbeliefs.

I would be genuinely grateful if you would explain your reasoning to me now.

With pleasure.

First of all, denial of the "standard position" is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism. We're all born atheists, and we're all born climate infidels.

In fact some of us were well into our adult life before we ever heard of the "standard position" on climate science.

So the question only really makes sense if you ask: why weren't you convinced by this piece of evidence? Why didn't that piece of evidence win you over? Why didn't "the vast body of accumulated pieces of evidence" convert you? Etc.

Brad suffers brain-failure and types,

The post-1960 divergence graphically highlights the dubiousness of the entire tree-ring methodology and raises the obvious question of why we should “trust” bristlecone pine MXDs to tell the temperature in 1080 when they can’t tell the temperature in 1980.

So...in 1980, tree ring data diverges from known-good data (thermometers, as confirmed by BEST).

In 1080 however, tree ring data agrees with ice cores (etc...).

With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

- Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we "hide" it.

- Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

Of course, you need multiple PhDs and a lifetime study of climate science to follow what's just happened here, (or, alternatively, a brain), so Brad just won't get this....

Brad Keyes.

You have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but that you think there is no need to be concerned about this warming. You also admit - and conspicuously demonstrate - that you do not understand basic ecological concepts. On this basis alone your opposition to the mainstream science is untenable.

Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the "hockey stick". This is an illogical stance to maintain.

Even more egregious is the fact that you argue against the hockey stick on the basis of your (claimed) perception of scientific malfeasance, but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

Seriously, what actually are you arguing and on what basis are you making this argument?

"If you won’t say, people will draw their own, doubtless unkind, conclusions."

They'll be accurate, though.

So, why didn't the vast body of accumulated evidence (some small part of which has been linked on this thread) influence your reasoning?

Objectively, it should have done, so the question is why didn't this happen? You would have to have a *reason* for this.

The mind boggles that Brad is still stuck on the basics, despite the reams and reams of crap he has had the time to type on the subject.

And many are the times where Brad has admitted, "I haven't read that", as part of his standard argument for his "atheistic" position.

It's not even infantile.

With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

– Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we don't use it.

– Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

FTFY, Vincent.

First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism. We’re all born atheists, and we’re all born climate infidels.

We are all born knowing nothing. Most of us develop the capacity for reason by adulthood.

"You would have to have a *reason* for this."

The reason for it is that he's in ideological denial and has nothing else to prattle on about.

I'm sorry, that could have been ever so confusing for the poor dear Arts-graduate, couldn't it?

"First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism."

Anti-scientific bollocks. Atheism is not negative, it's lack. Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive, you fuckwit.

"We’re all born atheists, and we’re all born climate infidels."

Yet more complete shite from your diseased mind.

# 37 Perhaps 'de-emphasise'?

Yeah, Vince.

Remember, when everyone is saying "Those who can or will read the evidence, is given the consensus. Those who cannot or will not, you get the consensus". Which then turns into "CONSENSUS isn't evidence!!!!!" in his psychopathy.

It isn't the evidence that the scientific consensus is based on, it is the consensus that the science is based on.

Indeed he gets it completely wrong twice more on the subject:

a) does not realise that replication and multiple lines of evidence is a consensus to anyone not able to replicate the study.
b) does not deign to notice that what McIntyre demanded (the code) would merely allow him to repeat NOT REPLICATE the study, thereby ensuring that absolutely NO NEW DATA (the reason to require replication of a paper) and therefore a complete and utter waste of time. But to him, it's a travesty that M&M, incompetent to do the work, were not allowed to merely repeat the study, gaining absolutely nothing scientifically from it.

So, yes, even putting "hide" in quotes to demonstrate you don't mean hide, but are aping his alarmist rhetoric, would be entirely confusing to this mental midget.

Vince:

– Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we “hide” it.

Why the scare quotes around the verb, Vince? He didn't "hide" it, he hid it. Actually. Literally.

Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you're a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

But science has higher ethical standards than certain other vocations, so we shouldn't expect Vince to grasp this.

Well, BBD, the data was referred to along with the three other papers that went into the graph and, in the interests of keeping the graph clear and easy to understand (the entire reason for USING a graph is to make it easy to digest, and a spaghetti of lines is not easy to digest), the source was not repeated in full, only in essence, with a link to the original paper for that line.

Apparently, trying to help is, to Brad, a heinous crime.

Wow, I thought you were boycotting my thread until I'd complied with someone-or-other's demands?

Can't we go back to that?

Everyone wins.

"Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it"

Yes you do, on a graph that

a) is meant to show the temperature
b) refers to the graph where the 1980 tree ring data is absolutely shown

you have every right to leave out misleading data and let the interested person view the original which is entirely clearly referred to.

You're having trouble with the bollocks you spew being shown up, Brad?

Hey, you were going to answer BBD's questions.

But you refuse to.

Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you’re a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

No it doesn't. See D'Arrigo (2008). The modern divergence appears to be atypical. And millennial temperature reconstructions do not solely rely on dendro proxies.

None of which challenges the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW. So why are we talking about it?

And more to the point, why do you doubt the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW?

Go on, Bray, if you answer BBD to his satisfaction, then I'll stop posting.

Seeing as 1980 tree-ring data is no good, you have no right to hide it if you’re a scientist, because that gives a false impression that your proxies are more reliable than they are.

Ah, it seems the mental midget doesn't understand the concept of calibration, and that what was once demonstrated to be reliable, can become unreliable over time. I would normally leave it to somone far more competent like Bernard for instance to explain the additional post- c.960 stressors, but I wouldn't be surprised if he decided not to waste his time.

After all, mental midgets cannot learn, they'll merely repeat the stories they chose to believe, long ago.

Wow:

b) does not deign to notice that what McIntyre demanded (the code) would merely allow him to repeat NOT REPLICATE the study, thereby ensuring that absolutely NO NEW DATA (the reason to require replication of a paper) and therefore a complete and utter waste of time.

Seriously, dude? Are you fucking blind?

Here is me, three pages ago, “not deigning to notice” your revelation that M&M were working with NO NEW DATA:
______________________________________________
Right. Very good point.

What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!” He merely wanted to audit it (which is sometimes called “internal replication”).

Why?

Because McIntyre couldn’t tell—and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say—exactly how they’d got from their own data to their own conclusion.

The question for McIntyre, therefore, was whether the paper was even valid (not whether its finding was empirically robust). That is, did its conclusions even follow from its own data?

To validate the paper, it was only necessary to know what Mann’s own raw data were and how he’d analysed and transformed them to get the final graph. If these two factors had been self-explanatory to readers of the paper itself—as they should have been, since the paper was generally presented as a work of science—then history would have been very different. There would have been no Climate Audit, no Hockey Stick Wars, no Jerry Sandusky references and no libel suits. Remember what one of your quoted passages says:

“Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists…”

But if any other scientists had “scrutinised” MBH98’s methodology, they didn’t say so publicly.

A paper’s peer reviewers are supposed to vouch for its validity, at least prima facie, so they should have sent MBH98 back as soon as they noticed it was impossible to guess how to trace the steps from raw data to conclusion. But as Richard Muller points out, there was a strong desire in the climate community to “believe” in the Hockey Stick; and because it was such an “attractive conclusion,” there was also a strong temptation to rush it into print without due diligence.

When these problems started coming to light, the climate science community suddenly adopted a code of omertà. To their eternal discredit, they protected the bad scientists in their ranks and disparaged McIntyre instead.

Fortunately we know a bit about what they were saying behind closed doors—thanks to the Climategate emails.

4241.txt: Rob Wilson:
“The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel …   The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. ”

Tom Wigley:
I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith [Briffa] is better? – or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike [Mann] is too deep into this to be helpful.

3994.txt: John Mitchell:
“Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me  that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

Tom Wigley:
“Mike,
———-
Re WSJ. They say …
“Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.”
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn’t mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.”
—————–
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M — but it seems that you do too.”

Tim Barnett:
“Not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as I remember. For instance, I seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference.

My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures.”

Myles Allen:
“I completely agree with Tim, but the question is whether we have either the energy or thick enough hides. My recollection of the experience of asking (I thought quite politely) Mike [Mann] about this kind of thing is rather unpleasant.”

Hans von Storch:
“Simon, I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre’s in GRL. I would assign the following significance to these articles (just among us, please):


—ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be “true”. (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbility.)
[…]


—McIntyre &McKitrick: As far as I can say (we did not redo the analysis, but Francis Zwiers did) the identfied glitch is real. One should not do it this way.”

1527.txt: Rob Wilson:
”There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”

4369.txt: Tim Osborn:
“This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ” 

4369.txt: Ed Cook:
“I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA):
“How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
The media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness.”

1104.txt: Wanner:
“I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report… I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.”

4101.txt: “Dr Dendro”:
“Hi Phil,…
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
 so.”

#51 should read "post- c.1960 stressors", in case the midget gets too excited.

Vincent, don't forget that Wow is in denial that anything was hidden—so he feels compelled to rewrite your comment:

With me so far? This is where it gets complicated:

– Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we don’t use it.

– Seeing as 1080 tree ring data is as good as any other, we use it.

FTFY, Vincent.

Fortunately we know [an incomplete] bit about what they were saying behind closed doors [and we can make up anything we like to fill the gaps].

Fixed that for the gullible moron.

BBD:

And more to the point, why do you doubt the validity of the standard scientific position on AGW?

As you may have noticed, I was starting to explain the many reasons when we were interrupted by the chatter of the troletariat. Now, I can either clean up their shit or answer your question. If you want me to do the latter, perhaps you could gently suggest to them that they fuck off.

And BK now resumes his misdirection tactics, as he must, lacking any substantive scientific case. Since BK is being boring, I will cut and paste previous comments with apologies to others here.

Why are you doing this Brad?

Why didn’t the vast body of accumulated evidence (some small part of which has been linked on this thread) influence your reasoning?

Objectively, it should have done, so the question is why didn’t this happen? You would have to have a *reason* for this.

You have shifted from an indefensible estimate of ECS to claiming that the projected warming will be harmless, to insinuations that climate science is ‘corrupt’.

There’s no coherence to what you argue except its intent: a denial of the validity of scientific knowledge about anthropogenically-forced climate change. Why are you doing this? What are your reasons? And why won't you discuss them?

@ 56 Just ignore them and explain your reasoning.

Translation: "Brad's" er... 'position' doesn't withstand too much examination.

"Seriously, dude? Are you fucking blind?"

No.

YOU, however, are nuts.

"What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!”"

Two problems:

1) he's incompetent (much like yourself)
2) it's not basic, it's a waste of time

But you go ahead and cling to your crank conspiracy theories and your lying sacks of shite authorities.

"Vincent, don’t forget that Wow is in denial that anything was hidden"

There was nothing hidden.

"and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say"

As you've been shown before, this is a complete fabrication.

Brad, "to hide the decline" doesn't mean anything was "hidden".

Obviously, this is terribly confusing to you, as you refuse to read anything that reveals the context that everybody else understands, sticking instead, as you do, with crank misinterpretations.

Vince:

– Seeing as 1980 tree ring data is no good, we “hide” it.

Why the scare quotes around the verb, Vince? He didn’t “hide” it, he hid it.

No, he didn't hide it. Nothing was hidden.

Classic case of denial in action there, Brad. Your understanding is completely at odds with reality.

Bernard J:

Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the “hockey stick”. This is an illogical stance to maintain.

Your criticism demonstrates a thoroughgoing incapacity for logic, mongoloid.

There would be absolutely nothing inconsistent about accepting that the planet is warming but disputing that it is warming in the manner indicated by the hockey stick graph.

As it is, I have never said the warming segment of the hockey stick was incorrect, so this is your private delusion and none of my responsibility.

Even more egregious is the fact that you argue against the hockey stick on the basis of your (claimed) perception of scientific malfeasance,

It's not egregious to argue against papers that you perceive as malfeasant.

It's rational.

but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

So the fuck what, you retard? The rational and moral duty to argue against a scientifically-malfeasant paper is completely unaffected by supposed vindications of its conclusion. You really don't know how science works, do you?

Lest we forget, Brad's classic claim that his personal opinion (largely based on his admitted neglect of actually reading any primary material) is of equal value to the scientific consensus.

The mental incompetence revealed by that claim really underlines the complete pointlessness of all of his drivel.

Retard whines loudly.

Refuses to answer BBD.

Because they can't: it would show them up for the drooling moron right-wing ideologue they are.

Vince:

No, he didn’t hide it. Nothing was hidden.

OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he'd hidden it. Fair enough.

Just checking, is this "malfeasance" the malfeasance alleged by a group of lobby-group-funded incompetents including Steve McIntyre and found to be entirely without merit by about 9 seperate audits by genuine authorities?

As this "malfeasance" clearly has been demonstrated to have been a false claim, why are you still trying to flog it?

Oh, what a "crime", appearing to "lie" to his friends in a personal and private email.

Oh, society will crumble, crumble....

You really are a crybaby alarmist.

But Vince, denial is all about clinging to unreality. It's the very definition of all that deniers can do. Well, that and inventing baseless stories about how scientists are denying reality.

OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it. Fair enough.

Nope. Keep trying. You might get it one day: He didn't hide anything. The divergence problem is well-documented.

BBD:

@ 56 Just ignore them and explain your reasoning.

I'd happily ignore them if I didn't feel some personal responsibility for keeping this thread relatively clean of troll shit.

So I either clean up after them, or they fuck off and I concentrate on your (non-trivial) question.

On August 1st 2012, John Christy once again testified before the US Congress in a Senate hearing on climate issues. His written testimony is here and his verbal testimony is here. Christy's latest testimony consisted entirely of five climate myths, four of which we debunked in a previous post. In this post we will examine Christy's comments regarding the link between climate change and extreme weather.

Soon after Christy's testimony, Roger Pielke Jr. and Steve McIntyre weighed in by attacking the largely correct testimony from Christopher Field, while turning blind eye to Christy's grossly misleading testimony that contained myths regarding extreme weather events. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Pielke Jr. is not uncommon and several climate scientists have been the victim of similar efforts (for example, Coumou and Rahmstorf, James Hansen and others). To this end, Pielke Jr. uses an oft-repeated strategy that involves misdirection, bait and switch and knocking down strawmen arguments that he has constructed.

See http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1566&p=3

Vince:

You might get it one day: He didn’t hide anything.

OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it. Fair enough.

Steve McIntyre was in communication with the Wegman panel, at least concerning technical questions around replication of his work. The full extent of McIntyre’s communications or meetings with Spencer or other staffers, as well as Wegman panelists, is still unknown. However, the record shows there were at least two intriguing opportunities for face-to-face meetings in Washington during the Wegman panel’s mandate.

See: http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-par…

the wegman scandal can be read about here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/19/the-wegman-plagiarism-scanda…

As to why McIntyre does all this bullshitting, his bio is:

Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. "I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," he said in 2009

Follow the money.

OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it

Oooh, the "crime" of appearing to "lie" to his friend on a personal and private email...

"So I either clean up after them"

Oh dear. You steal even ideas off other people.

Can't manage your own material, little boy?

I've already told you, you knucle-dragging buffoon, that if you were to answer BBD's questions to his satisfaction that I'd stop posting.

Either you WANT me posting here, or you DAREN'T answer BBD.

Brad Keyes

Perhaps you will be interested to know that I was once a 'lukewarmer'. Never witless enough to deny the radiative physics, but motivated by an understandable desire to find the scientific consensus on ECS in error.

Proceeding from this sceptical (but emotionally motivated) position, I tried to find evidence that the efficacy of CO2 (and other GHGs) was over-stated. Hence the keen interest in paleoclimate.

This led to greater insight into the sheer scale of evidence informing the standard scientific position on AGW.

As an aspirant rationalist I was compelled to confront the motivation behind my illogical conviction that ECS to 2 x CO2 was very low. This doesn't fit with *any* paleoclimate evidence.

So, reluctantly, I was forced to abandon my lukewarmer position.

@ BK # 73

Oh, come on. Stop being a disingenuous, evasive twat.

OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it.

Which fellow scientists and who among them wouldn't have already been aware of 'the decline' is of course left hanging in "Brad's" reconstruction.

Odd how Bray thinks somehow that if he's responding to one person, he can't respond to others.

Or that if there is a message between where he last left off and where you posted, he can't find it.

I wonder if he's aphasic?

Nah, "Brad's" just doing a 'wrist on brow' theatrical-style pose. Kinda like a Jane Austen or Tennessee Williams heroine when overwhelmed.

Although in this case the overwhelming is from the sheer amount of nonsense he's absorbed coming home to roost.

Billy Conolly calls it "Going all 'Rita Hayworth'".

“First of all, denial of the “standard position” is a purely negative belief system, much like atheism.”

Anti-scientific bollocks. Atheism is not negative, it’s lack. Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive, you fuckwit.

LOL :-) ;-)

Yeah, you totally got me Wow—I admit it, atheists believe in 0 gods, not -1... whatever was I thinking?

LOL!!!

As long as you keep eavesdropping on tertiary-educated people, Wow, this language barrier is going to keep popping up right in front of your face, with the inevitable hilarious misunderstandings.

You've probably seen it before, but just in case.

BK

Just so you don't think I'm deliberately missing your earlier point, I freely admit to being logically agnostic and emotionally atheist.

Note the free admission in blog comments.

Note the logical consistency.

Zero is higher than negative and lower than positive

LOL

This maths came as a surprise to you?

Well, go on, answer the man, Bray.

Oh, that's right: you cannot and will not.

You're the hollow man.

Wow:

"OK, so he lied to his fellow scientists when he said he’d hidden it"

Oooh, the “crime” of appearing to “lie” to his friend on a personal and private email…

LOL...

Seriously, though, this question is a validated predictor of climate-change attitudes: "How do you feel about scientists using their university email accounts to lie to their scientific colleagues?"

If you condone it, you're more likely to express grave concern about global warming and to support international efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions.

If you find it unacceptable, you're most likely to identify as a "skeptic."

Wrong again.

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Interesting how "Brad" at #93 studiously ignores #'83 in order to maintain his misleading narrative.

Chek:

Which fellow scientists and who among them wouldn’t have already been aware of ‘the decline’ is of course left hanging in “Brad’s” reconstruction.

Yeah, because the best way to mislead your colleagues would be to send them an email detailing the precise method with which you plan to mislead them, while also publishing papers documenting said method so everybody can see the method you are using to "mislead" everybody.

I guess nobody ever accused climate deniers of being either logical or consistent.

BBD,

this is very interesting—I appreciate your frank introspection:

Perhaps you will be interested to know that I was once a ‘lukewarmer’. Never witless enough to deny the radiative physics, but motivated by an understandable desire to find the scientific consensus on ECS in error.

I myself have no affective dog in the ECS race—but then, I'm sure that's what I'd say if I did have one! So you're under no obligation to believe me.

Never seen Tree Lobsters before—drolly amusing, thanks.

I can't remember what I was up to in explaining my failure to convert to the "mainstream" narrative, but one objection to it that has always seemed pretty insurmountable to me is articulated here:

http://clivebest.com/?page_id=2949#comment-4945

(Linking to it because I'm pressed for time.)

Never say never, however! You may know of an answer to my objection, in which case I'd be all ears.

I've gotta run. It's Monday morning. To be continued, if you're up for it?

Anyone else feel dumber for reading clive's bullshit?

Tomorrow then. Toodle pip!

If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

And if it HAS?

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html

More wilful / witless incomprehension in the peanut gallery:

Yeah, because the best way to mislead your colleagues would be to send them an email detailing the precise method with which you plan to mislead them, while also publishing papers documenting said method so everybody can see the method you are using to “mislead” everybody.

oh, FFS! Phil Jones sent an email to 5 climate scientists. In the email, he claims he's just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization, not in front of the 5 climate scientists he sent the email to. The troglodyte consensus seems to be that he was lying about this: he hadn't, in fact, concealed anything in the graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization.

So he was only deceiving 5 scientists, not hundreds! Hooray!

You trolls have rather high shame thresholds, you know.

The climate is stable to external CO2 forcing

This statement is contradicted by all available evidence. A selection is linked at Page 21, comments # 10,# 12 and # 15.

Clive Best is mistaken.

one objection to it that has always seemed pretty insurmountable to me is articulated here: [Clive Best comment]

***

BBD:

cool, talk to you then.

No, idiot, he didn't.

@ 4 Am edging towards bed but couldn't let CBs nonsense pass for a whole 24 hours ;-)

Nothing was hidden, doofus.

BBD:

PS

Sorry, I was referring to my comments, not Clive Best's. The permalink doesn't seem to work.

Brad Keyes says:
January 24, 2013 at 12:49 pm
“If positive H2O feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.”

You mean we’ll finally be able to turn off the cli-sci funding spigot (or clamp off the haemorrhage, if you prefer) and redirect our money, effort and attention to, you know, non-imaginary problems?

Then the collapse is a moral imperative. As soon as possible. Wouldn’t you agree, Clive?

(For technical considerations I’d amend it to: if positive feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.)

FWIW, it collapsed for me as soon as the following thought occurred to me, which Lindzen puts more eloquently than I could (though it doesn’t by any means depend on his formidable authority):

If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

It makes nil difference whether or not Lindzen himself has successfully isolated and characterised the mechanism of the thermostat. The point is, it exists and it’s as dependable as the sunrise. The climate is not going to tip.

Or have I missed some subtlety?
Reply
Brad Keyes says:
January 24, 2013 at 1:02 pm
My formatting was unclear, but this:

If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

was a quote from the Professor. Though, as I suggested, it might as well have come from a junior-school geology teacher. It’d be just as self-evident.

Again, unless I’ve missed some subtlety, it seems to me that every able-bodied person in climate science is morally obliged to bring about the collapse of “the whole lot” now, if not sooner.

"was a quote from the Professor. Though, as I suggested, it might as well have come from a junior-school geology teacher. It’d be just as self-evidently wrong"

FTFY.

This dude isn't fit to teach geography at kindergarden...

"Or have I missed some subtlety?"

Yes.

If

It's a short word and you don't appear to know what it means.

it's a conditional statement and the rest of the proclamation of yours depends on that conditional statement to be correct.

It isn't, as BBD and my two links above show.

conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization

Yet if it were concealed, why did he include a reference to the paper that shows that information?

The answer is that it wasn't concealed.

Nothing was hidden.

BK

The old feedback misrepresentation...

(For technical considerations I’d amend it to: if positive feedback fails then the whole lot collapses.)

Explain deglaciation under orbital forcing *without* net positive feedbacks. How does a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of high NH latitude TSI flip climate from a glacial to an interglacial unless by engaging powerful positive feedbacks?

If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain <1 don't saturate the sytsem*. No boiling oceans. This has no bearing on the efficacy of CO2 forcing, something strongly supported by paleoclimate evidence.

*Although we may have had several Snowball Earths, culminating in the Neoproterozic SE.

Hell, it doesn't all fall over if there are NO positive feedbacks. Doubling will STILL cause 1.2C per doubling of CO2 and we have enough to change the world 6-10C by that measure in commercially accessible reserves.

However, you cannot get the earth the temperature it is without positive feedbacks being in place, so feedbacks are positive.

Indeed the current temperature indicates that there is a positive trend since with half a doubling of CO2 we have 0.9C or more warming, meaning a 1/3 positive feedback at MINIMUM.

Yet if it were concealed, why did he include a reference to the paper that shows that information? The answer is that it wasn’t concealed. Nothing was hidden.

"Brad's" entire premise rests on the denier spin of the incomplete information he's been fed.

And denial of any data that doesn't push his predetermined agenda.

We might also wonder why the average surface temperature is ~33K. Why not much lower? Answer: positive feedbacks. Try explaining it without them.

That's a good question BBD but it is missing something obvious.
If the ONLY answer is positive feedback, how come it's not much hotter than -33K?

Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the “hockey stick”. This is an illogical stance to maintain.

Your criticism demonstrates a thoroughgoing incapacity for logic, mongoloid.

There would be absolutely nothing inconsistent about accepting that the planet is warming but disputing that it is warming in the manner indicated by the hockey stick graph.

Erm, you seem to be popping a valve or two, Keyes.

As to what is logical, the warming described by science has been shown to describe a "hockey stick" trajectory by multiple proxies independent of the tree ring data - as has been drawn to your attention many times on this thread. This is the basic thrust of the whole global warming issue.

The hockey stick is also implicit in the empirical sequelæ of warming, especially with respect to ice loss in the Arctic and from the termini of glaciers - many of the empirical sequelæ do not recover on the scale of centuries. If warming had occurred in the past millennium to the extent seen since the industrial revolution, the cryosphere and indeed the biosphere would not look as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This puts an upper limit on the integral of previous warming events over the last few thousand years, and evinces a... hockey stick.

If you want to dispute the fact that it is warming more - and at an unprecendented rate - in the last century or so than it has in the previous millennium or two (that is, in hockey stick fashion) you have to address and refute more than the dendrochronological data. The wide body of empirical evidence does not imply a U-shaped curve warming phenomenon, which is really the only plausible alternative to a hockey stick for the last several millennia, so you are very much backed into a corner with what you are trying to deny.

As it is, I have never said the warming segment of the hockey stick was incorrect, so this is your private delusion and none of my responsibility.

Then what are you disputing? That the current rate and magnitude of warming is not unprecedented in the Holocene? On what would you be basing such a claim? Are you trying to claim that the regional "Mediæval Warm Period" was in fact consistent across the planet and for the whole of the preceding Holocene temperature record? This would be the most parsimonious way to avoid a hockey stick. That would be curious though, because you would be relying on the very same proxies to make a case for the Mediæval Warm Period and prior temperatures, that you have to refute in order to avoid acknowledging a hockey stick trajectory.

And if you are trying to mould the Mediæval Warm Period into a typicality for Earth's climate, you have to also account for the warming mechanism that led to it, and for the warming mechanism responsible for the current change in climate. Are they the same in ætiology? Are they comparable in extent? Are they of equivalent effect and of equivalent persistence?

Parsimony wants to know. And the security of future generations of people and non-human species is dependent on the answers.

It’s not egregious to argue against papers that you perceive as malfeasant.

For a laugh, provide references to all papers that you think are "malfeasant", and give page, paragraph, and figure references to the specific instances of malfeasance.

Please.

[...]but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

So the fuck what, you retard? The rational and moral duty to argue against a scientifically-malfeasant paper is completely unaffected by supposed vindications of its conclusion. You really don’t know how science works, do you?

So what? Well, if you cherry-pick your targets for criticism, as you are wont to do, you are open to charges of the logical fallacy variously know as "suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, [and] one-sidedness".

The rational and moral duty is to argue a case with complete consideration of all evidence, and in a complete context of that evidence. You do not do this.

And yes, I know how science works. I've spent decades conducting scientific research and publishing scientifically.

And it's curious to see that you're as afflicted with a similar case of the metaphorical gnathostomiasis that afflicts the hyperdysphemic troll mike.

Livin' in your head rent-free, Keyes, livin' in your head rent-free...

Further, you have in this thread admitted that you accept that the planet is warming, but you have also disputed the warming as indicated by the “hockey stick”. This is an illogical stance to maintain.

Your criticism demonstrates a thoroughgoing incapacity for logic, mongoloid.

There would be absolutely nothing inconsistent about accepting that the planet is warming but disputing that it is warming in the manner indicated by the hockey stick graph.

Erm, you seem to be popping a valve or two, Keyes.

As to what is logical, the warming described by science has been shown to describe a "hockey stick" trajectory by multiple proxies independent of the tree ring data - as has been drawn to your attention many times on this thread. This is the basic thrust of the whole global warming issue.

The hockey stick is also implicit in the empirical sequelæ of warming, especially with respect to ice loss in the Arctic and from the termini of glaciers - many of the empirical sequelæ do not recover on the scale of centuries. If warming had occurred in the past millennium to the extent seen since the industrial revolution, the cryosphere and indeed the biosphere would not look as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This puts an upper limit on the integral of previous warming events over the last few thousand years, and evinces a... hockey stick.

If you want to dispute the fact that it is warming more - and at an unprecendented rate - in the last century or so than it has in the previous millennium or two (that is, in hockey stick fashion) you have to address and refute more than the dendrochronological data. The wide body of empirical evidence does not imply a U-shaped curve warming phenomenon, which is really the only plausible alternative to a hockey stick for the last several millennia, so you are very much backed into a corner with what you are trying to deny.

As it is, I have never said the warming segment of the hockey stick was incorrect, so this is your private delusion and none of my responsibility.

Then what are you disputing? That the current rate and magnitude of warming is not unprecedented in the Holocene? On what would you be basing such a claim? Are you trying to claim that the regional "Mediæval Warm Period" was in fact consistent across the planet and for the whole of the preceding Holocene temperature record? This would be the most parsimonious way to avoid a hockey stick. That would be curious though, because you would be relying on the very same proxies to make a case for the Mediæval Warm Period and prior temperatures, that you have to refute in order to avoid acknowledging a hockey stick trajectory.

And if you are trying to mould the Mediæval Warm Period into a typicality for Earth's climate, you have to also account for the warming mechanism that led to it, and for the warming mechanism responsible for the current change in climate. Are they the same in ætiology? Are they comparable in extent? Are they of equivalent effect and of equivalent persistence?

Parsimony wants to know. And the security of future generations of people and non-human species is dependent on the answers.

It’s not egregious to argue against papers that you perceive as malfeasant.

For a laugh, provide references to all papers that you think are "malfeasant", and give page, paragraph, and figure references to the specific instances of malfeasance.

Please.

[...]but at the same time you ignore the fact that the same hockeystick has been repeatedly constructed with proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings, and the late 20th century divergence problem (which is recognised and explained by current science).

So the fuck what, you retard? The rational and moral duty to argue against a scientifically-malfeasant paper is completely unaffected by supposed vindications of its conclusion. You really don’t know how science works, do you?

So what? Well, if you cherry-pick your targets for criticism, as you are wont to do, you are open to charges of the logical fallacy variously know as "suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, [and] one-sidedness".

The rational and moral duty is to argue a case with complete consideration of all evidence, and in a complete context of that evidence. You do not do this.

And yes, I know how science works. I've spent decades conducting scientific research and publishing scientifically.

And it's curious to see that you're as afflicted with a similar case of the metaphorical gnathostomiasis that afflicts the hyperdysphemic troll mike.

Livin' in your head rent-free, Keyes, livin' in your head rent-free...

Phil Jones sent an email to 5 climate scientists. In the email, he claims he’s just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization...

I'm curious Keyes.

Did you attend and listen to this presentation? Do you know what Phil Jones said during the presentation, and in particular what he said whilst he was discussing the figures related to the trajectories that you regard as "malfeasant"?

As I noted in my previous post, to exclude some of the data and context from your case is to be cherry-picking, and I'm sure that you wouldn't want to employ logical fallacy in order to make your case, would you?

Unbelievable. Another 1,000 posts on this thread since the last time I looked (late last week). Don't some of you people have better things to do with your time? Well, I do, but I cannot resist a tilt at Brad. You talk, Brad, about "Earth's natural thermostat", but without providing any real evidence of such. Did Venus have a "natural thermostat"? If so, why did its climate appear to have run away? If not, why not? And if Earth has a "natural thermostat", why does its climate change at all? What's the mechanism, Brad? You assert that there's been no "tipping point" in 4 billion years, but what about glaciations, Brad? Surely they are "tipping points"? You appeal to the "formidable authority" of Lindzen at the same time as your denialist-contrarian kith and kin rail against "authority" in science. Bah, enough of your rubbish......

If climate has not “tipped” in over 4 billion years, it’s not going to tip now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat.

No tipping?

Really?

Peterd.

Yeah, I swore off a while back, but there have since been a number of opportunities for palpable hits, and Keyes' case is looking more tattered for the skewering, so it's worth it.

At least 'til now. I doubt that he has many bolt holes left to which to run.

chameleon --- The positive feedback is water vapor. Water vapor precipitates rather rapidly providing an upper limit on the positive feedback.

Brad --- Planetary climates have no natural thermostat, Terra, Venus, Mars and Europa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29
More interesting is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
and it has no thermostat either.

In every case the physics and chemistry is quite fully developed for the equilibrium case and less well developed for the non-equilibrium condition Terra currently suffers from.

I think Brad's referring to the "natural thermostat" that allowed the ocean to heat up to 40 degrees at the surface 250 million years ago, with consequent anoxia and eliminating 96% of all marine species, causing such damage to the biosphere that it took 6 million years for land vegetation to recover sufficiently for coal formation to resume, and 30 million years for recovery of all habitats.

I, for one, am glad to give away any sort of risk management in favour of such an effective "natural thermostat".

Brad says,

In the email, he claims he’s just used a technique to conceal an inconvenient truth in a graph intended for presentation in front of the World Meteorological Organization,

Er, the "inconvenient truth" being that temperatures were spiking downwards in the late 20th Century
no, er, that tree ring growth does not provide a good proxy for temperatures prior to the late 20th Century
no, er.....ah!
that Jones hid nothing and that his statement of intent referenced a statistical method of presenting good information despite the presence of bad data

Of course, a very inconvenient truth when you're obsessed with bathing in a sea of fact-free denial.

What a complete joke you are, Brad.

Vince,

Yes, I get why this sounds reasonable to you:

that Jones hid nothing and that his statement of intent referenced a statistical method of presenting good information despite the presence of bad data

I'd predict that the large majority of educated people would be hard pressed (not to mention disinclined) to fault your logic here.

But there's a small subset of educated people who've been conditioned by a long process of indoctrination to reject arguments of this form on sight.

I'm not talking about the set "deniers," "denialists" or "denialati," in case that's what you were thinking.

I'm talking about the set "scientists."

There's a flaw in your thinking. It's offensively salient to scientists but it's mostly invisible to the other 97% of the population, no matter how intelligent and well-educated.

Even when I tell you what it is, you'll probably think I'm lying. (And I won't really blame you.)

Let me quote the impeccably pro-consensus, alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller's reaction to what Phil Jones did (my emphasis):

"Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say, “Well, you know, it’s a human field. You make mistakes.” And then I show them this [WMO graph] and they say, “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.”

Why is an apparently harmless trick—which merely "simplified" and "uncluttered" the "message" of the graph, right?—so unconscionable in science?

Because science has a strange and unique epistemology.

"Let me quote the impeccably pro-consensus, alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller’"

Who only became so when he looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion as the rest of the climate science scientists.

You assert every time that you will look at data, but you don't. You assert every time that looking at the data will prove or disprove a conclusion, except if anyone does that and proves the conclusion of AGW, you do as you've done to Muller.

Your only criteria for "scientist" is "agrees with me".

"I’d predict that the large majority of educated people would be hard pressed (not to mention disinclined) to fault your logic here."

Nope, I find his logic sound.

BBD's papers had absolutely no effect on this idiot denier.

It's as if there were no contrary evidence presented whatsoever. Like he's denying its existence.

You assert every time that looking at the data will prove or disprove a conclusion, except if anyone does that and proves the conclusion of AGW, you do as you’ve done to Muller.

What art thou playing at today, jester? I accept the reality of AGW.

Wow,

what part of the concept of a boycott are you having trouble with? Let me put "boycott" into words that should be suitable to your level of education—because you wrote them:

BBD, chek, et al, I propose we starve this thread until Bray answers BBD’s questions to his satisfaction.

Can't you carry out a basic threat?

"I accept the reality of AGW."

You don't.

Can't you answer BBD's questions?

PS weren't you and chubby going to ignore me? "Can't you carry out a basic threat?"

PS apologies for responding to two more lightning shifts of goalpost there from our resident donkey Bray.

Hey Wow?
When are you going to let us all know whose quote you copy/pasted?
Who is this mysterious 'someone' whom you infer is a scientist?

Chubby, are you going to say why?

Hey, let's keep on talking about Phil's graph!! The graph!! The very loudly insinuated insinuations of misconduct!! The CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE!!!!

FFS.

Reason and evidence apparently have no effect on BK. That is because BK is in denial and so rejects reason and evidence that challenge the constructed pseudo-reality he *wishes* to inhabit.

The very nature of denial makes is near-impossible for the sufferer to admit that he or she is symptomatic.

This is a colossal waste of time.

chameleon @ 17

That’s a good question BBD but it is missing something obvious.
If the ONLY answer is positive feedback, how come it’s not much hotter than -33K?

Read what is written instead of posting redundant questions:

Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain less than 1 don't saturate the sytsem*. No boiling oceans. This has no bearing on the efficacy of CO2 forcing, something strongly supported by paleoclimate evidence.

You haven't got enough of a clue to participate in discussion like this. It needs saying.

I accept the reality of AGW

.

But *deny* that it will have much noticeable effect. Which is how you have deceived yourself into believing two incompatible things (assuming that you aren't lying about accepting the ~2.5C - ~3C ECS range).

The reality of AGW is that there are positive feedbacks to CO2's effects and that it really is occurring, both contested by our most annoying donkey galloping over the fields like a nutter.

Wow:

"Your only criteria [sic] for “scientist” is “agrees with me”."

If that were my criterion, I wouldn't call Richard Muller—who reckons that carbon dioxide is going to be the worst pollutant in human history—a scientist, would I, idiot?

"“I accept the reality of AGW.”

You don’t."

Oh, please tell me more about what I do and don't believe, idiot.

"[Chameleon], are you going to say why?"

As is obvious to everyone but you, you idiot, Chameleon wants to know who originated your quote in order to settle the question:

was Brad right to insist no scientist would ever say something so scientifically absurd, or are Wow and Lotharsson right in pretending it was a perfectly science-literate thing to say?

Only you know the answer, Wow, but you have been dodging the question for hundreds of comments now.

Your dodgery gives the strong impression of a guilty conscience.

"The reality of AGW is that there are positive feedbacks to CO2′s effects and that it really is occurring, both contested by [Brad]..."

Readers can tell that you're a liar, idiot, as soon as they realize that I explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of AGW.

...the other reality being that starting 250 million years ago, and lasting millions of years, the entire Earth was a hot, arid wasteland with virtually lifeless oceans.

It's happened before and it could happen again, *especially* if we continue irresponsibly creating the necessary conditions for a major heat build-up on Earth.

Brad belongs to that minority of the population whose selfishness and ego collectively outweigh their intelligence and commonsense.

Why?
No Wow,
The question was WHO!

BBD:

"Climate has varied enormously over the last 4 billion years but positive feedbacks of gain less than 1 don’t saturate the system. No boiling oceans."

Thanks, that's a good point—I forgot that positive feedback alone doesn't inevitably saturate a system; positive loop gain has to be positive AND above a certain threshold in order to predispose the system to runaway, uncontrolled, catastrophic instability. (I'll have to revise my cybernetics / feedback theory, in case I've misused some of those descriptors.)

Keyes might be interested to see that Eli is currently hosting discussions on both sensitivity and the consequences of warming.

Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

Vince:

"It’s happened before and it could happen again, *especially* if we continue irresponsibly creating the necessary conditions for a major heat build-up on Earth."

OK. so what are "the necessary conditions"? Is there a certain CO2 concentration at which you think major heating (with 40C ocean-surface temperatures, etc.) becomes probable?

And more interestingly (to some of us, anyway), have you come to a view on this question yet:

are Richard Muller (and Jonathan Jones and Paul Dennis and Eduardo Zorita and Andrew Montford ...etc.) and Brad Keyes lying when they tell you you're not allowed to do that [what Phil Jones did] in science?

I forgot that positive feedback alone doesn’t inevitably saturate a system; positive loop gain has to be positive AND above a certain threshold in order to predispose the system to runaway, uncontrolled, catastrophic instability.

Keyes.

Very, very in the mainstream are concerns about runaway warming. This is another of your straw men.

What is of concern is that there is an effective asymptote that is above the thresholds for coherent civilisation and for non-damageing ecosystem intregrity.

And "uncontrolled"? Really, you love the torture of meaning, don't you? We are not currently in control (in the restraint sense) of the increase in CO2, and therefore we are not in control (in the restraint sense) of warming. This does not mean, however, that a lack of control is only characterised by a (relatively) wild trajectory that leads to boiling oceans.

Oh, and 2° C will be catastrophic for many people and species. No ifs, no buts.

There. I said it. Wotchya gonna do about it?

"Very, very few...

Bernard J:

Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

What's with this "Keyes"? Wouldn't the polite form be "Brad", Bernard? (This isn't just because I called you a retarded fucking mongoloid, is it? Sheesh, talk about overreaction.)

And Brad Keyes, there are a few questions at #19 and #20 awaiting your attention.

What’s with this “Keyes”? Wouldn’t the polite form be “Brad”, Bernard?

It would be, if I could muster any respect for you and your approach to logical thinking.

However, you continue to bastardise science and that makes it increasingly difficult to exhibit any such respect.

If you showed some good faith it might be different, but you seem impervious to that concept.

Bernard J:

"Very, very in the mainstream are concerns about runaway warming. This is another of your straw men."

I thought "runaway warming" was implicit in the idea of a "tipping point [for warming]"? If I was wrong about that, then this is more a question of terminological confusion than "straw men."

"What is of concern is that there is an effective asymptote that is above the thresholds for coherent civilisation and for non-damageing ecosystem intregrity."

OK. Good to hear about asymptotes. Finally some language I can relate to.

Bernard J:

"And Brad Keyes, there are a few questions at #19 and #20 awaiting your attention."

There's a queue, I'm afraid.

Bernard J:

"However, you continue to bastardise science and that makes it increasingly difficult to exhibit any such respect."

I continue to bastardise science? Really? This is a perverse accusation to throw around when I'm the first and loudest voice raised on this thread in condemnation of pseudoscience (decline hiding, algorithm hiding, data hiding, peer-review-literature redefining, consensus redefining, peer-review-system gaming, science politicising, lying, and other practices newly and deplorably associated with science).

The problem is, Brad, all those Bad Things exist only in the fevered imaginations of science-incompetent bloggers liks Steve McIntyre.

Various investigations have shown Muller's opinion on Jones' work to have been unfounded and wrong.

Simple as that.

And yet you keep regurgitating those wrong opinions.

Readers can tell that you’re I'm a liar idiot, as soon as they realize that I [mouth words to] explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of AGW [while still wittering on about climategate].

Corrected for the sake of verité.

Spread the wisdom around Keyes, rather than hiding it under the bushel of your Deltoid naughty corner.

There's nothing to spread around, BJ. Just another two-bit dunce who thinks the 'climategate' tales tell him all he needs to know

Here's a history of climate science that I have linked already. Everything you say doesn't apply to it. I assert this; you are invited to demonstrate that I am mistaken.

You are still trying to use exaggerated smear tactics as a substitute for a coherent scientific counter-argument to the standard position.

It's still not working.

I wonder where 'climategate' (the clue is in the name™) came from. The first recorded use. Does anyone know?

Meanwhile, we can chortle.

Vince:

Various investigations have shown Muller’s opinion on Jones’ work to have been unfounded and wrong.

I can only think of one "investigation" that actually looked into the hiding of the decline, and it quietly conceded that Jones' graph was "misleading." You're not allowed to do that (mislead*) in science, Vince.

You describe this as an "opinion," but it's no such thing—it's an axiom of science. The idea that, after 250 years of the triumphs of the modern scientific method, we suddenly need an "investigation" by politicians and university business managers into whether one of the rules of science is correct is nothing short of surreal.

You (not being a scientist) can hardly be blamed for thinking that an inquiry or investigation is a perfectly sensible response to the "controversies" raised by the CRU revelations.

Not me. I'm offended by it and I will fight these anti-scientific bastards until they're beaten, if necessary to the death.

It's a pity that so many, apparently well-intentioned, non-scientists like yourself have been so adamant in defending an argument which (unbeknownst to you) is anti-scientific.

But as long as you fail to see your error, you'll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you'll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I'm afraid.

* The question of WHY Jones' trick was misleading, when—as you've rightly pointed out—it improved the accuracy of his graph as a representation of historical temperatures is a whole separate question, which will require us to discuss the difference between scientific epistemology and non-scientific epistemology.

BBD:

I wonder where ‘climategate’ (the clue is in the name™) came from. The first recorded use. Does anyone know?

There's a James Delingpole article that answers this question. He's often credited / blamed for the (horrible cliché) name, but in the article, IIRC, he mentions a blogger who anticipated him.

But as long as you fail to see your error, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you’ll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I’m afraid.

Very moving stuff, Brad. But # 60.

BBD:

I take it you are talking to me here:

"Here’s a history of climate science that I have linked already. Everything you say doesn’t apply to it. I assert this; you are invited to demonstrate that I am mistaken."

Actually most of the history of climate science has NOT been one of corruption, as far as I can tell.

BK @ 63

I'm intrigued. Can you ferret out a link?

BK

Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?

If that were my criterion, I wouldn’t call Richard Muller—who reckons that carbon dioxide is going to be the worst pollutant in human history—a scientist, would I

Oh, so this is how you talk about scientists???

alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller

Yeah, you talk a load of shite, you do.

Fuck, this retard wouldn't know corrupt if it raped him sideways with a barn door.

The jerkwad's just gotta talk bollocks.

According to 'Medea Coverage' here the ever-straight up Delingpole stole it from an anomymous WTFUWT poster.

Although the inclination of a lazy, sensationalist press to unthinkingly add the '-gate' suffix to anything that moves has made it a little old after 40 years of the same ol' formulaic thinking.

Sorry, can't resist it:

But as long as you fail to see your error, you’ll be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of science, and you’ll be a casualty of this war for the soul of science, I’m afraid.

The problem is, Brad, all those Bad Things exist only in the fevered imaginations of science-incompetent bloggers liks Steve McIntyre.

And their brain-dead acolytes, Vincent.

You know, like bray here.

http://climateboy.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/overuse-of-gate-suffix.html

And it is all utterly asinine. The reporting in the Times (Leake) and Daily Mail (Rose) is undeniably bad and irresponsible. If these news outlets were interested in the credibility and integrity of their reporting, they would sack both of these writers, apologize, and have real science journalists set the record straight. That won't happen because both are in the business of publishing salacious stories of dubious quality.

Humphhh... #70 should be 'Media Coverage', and definitely nothing to do with ancient Grecian mythological princesses.

You may have been confusing it for Bray here.

Certainly a drama queen.

@ 71 chek

Thanks for that. By some extraordinary coincidence, my hunch was correct. The clue is indeed in a name coined by 'Bulldust' on WUWT, picked up by Delingpole and now in standard useage. Who says the contrarians don't hijack the fucking language?

The idea that, after 250 years of the triumphs of the modern scientific method, we suddenly need an “investigation” by politicians and university business managers into whether one of the rules of science is correct is nothing short of surreal.

Yet that is only because crank idiots like yourself with an axe to grind because you're ideologically opposed to the consequences of AGW have demanded they investigate.

Then when the answer hasn't been "GUILTY!!!", you whine, bitch and complain that it was all a whitewash and cover-up, PROVING it's all a scam.

Not me. I’m offended by it and I will fight these anti-scientific bastards until they’re beaten, if necessary to the death.

Bullshit.

You're fighting FOR these anti-scientific bastards AND ARE ONE YOURSELF.

* The question of WHY Jones’ trick was misleading

Is yet more made-up bollocks.

It was only misleading if you wanted to be misled.

Nothing was hidden.

Still, if you haven't got a scientific argument and you are fighting a war for the soul of science you have to use whatever you can cobble together.

It's definitely a load of cobblers...

BBD:

Thanks for that. By some extraordinary coincidence, my hunch was correct. The clue is indeed in a name coined by ‘Bulldust’ on WUWT, picked up by Delingpole and now in standard useage.

And I think you'll find Delingpole credited the pseudonymous blogger / commenter.

What chek means when he / she alleges that Delingpole "stole" the term is anyone's guess.

You haven't suggested he stole it; Wikipedia doesn't suggest he stole it; I'd hardly say he stole it.

chek, explain yourself.

Wow:

""* The question of WHY Jones’ trick was misleading"

Is yet more made-up bollocks.

It was only misleading if you wanted to be misled."

LOL.

Classic stuff, coming from someone who loves to cite the very inquiry which quietly conceded that the graph was "misleading."

It's odd that those rejecting science see themselves as fighting a war for its very soul.

@ 80

You are visibly running out of steam.

Wow:

"Yet that is only because crank idiots like yourself with an axe to grind because you’re ideologically opposed to the consequences of AGW have demanded they investigate."

But my understanding of the scientific evidence has always been that AGW is real. (Have I mentioned this?)

Wow:

"Oh, so this is how you talk about scientists???

alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller"

Yep. I use epithets like "scientist."

Having said that, it's hard to deny that 'climategate' (the clue is in the name™) was a contrarian construct. I feel for you.

"What chek means when he / she alleges that Delingpole “stole” the term is anyone’s guess."

A writer - even a so-called one such as Delingpole when using unoriginal material not his own, is said to have 'stolen' it.

Oh noes - Writergate!
Go call for an investigation you illiterate, prickly little drama queen.And be sure to give the Cammy sock a link so she can be sure it exists!

p.s. "Brad" got a link to his crediting? It's not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, but just maybe you aren't lying this time.

BBD:

"Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?"

That's an interesting interpretation. The truth is:

1. I don't think the field is "in error."

2. The field certainly is corrupt, but I've never alleged or even "implied" that the corruption is anything but a relatively modern development, have I?

BBD:

"Then why are you consistently implying that the field is in error because it is corrupt?"

That's an interesting interpretation. The truth is:

1. I don't think the field is "in error."

2. The field certainly is corrupt, but I've never alleged or even "implied" that the corruption is anything but a relatively modern development, have I?

BBD:

This is perhaps the most confused thought you've had so far:

It’s odd that those rejecting science see themselves as fighting a war for its very soul.

I take it you're referring to us.

When have we EVER rejected science?

Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method. (That's what "rejecting science" would sound like, surely—or did you have something else in mind?)

BK

Let me get this straight. You don't think the field is in error but it is 'certainly corrupt'. The supposed 'corruption' is recent.

So why doesn't the recent 'corruption' contradict all that came before it? You are a literate man. What does 'corruption' mean?

You are a funny sort of logician.

When have we EVER rejected science?

Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.

I'm off to bed. I leave this open goal open.

BBD

"BK @ 63

I’m intrigued. Can you ferret out a link?"

James Delingpole @

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate…

writes:

"In his superb summary of the Climategate story so far, Christopher Booker generously credits me with having invented the name. Almost but not quite. The person who really coined it was a commenter called "Bulldust" on the Watts Up With That site. He wrote:

"Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?"

'Not at all long' was the answer. I picked up his ball and ran with it. And yes, I totally agree with all those of you who groan that it's too obvious or insufficiently witty (Mark Steyn's Warmergate is better)."

chek, even after I told you Delingpole had credited the original commenter, you thought I was making it up:

"p.s. “Brad” got a link to his crediting? It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, but just maybe you aren’t lying this time."

Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified, I suggest you need to revise your mental model of the world. (That's a little rule from the world of science.)

BBD:

"Let me get this straight."

I appreciate and admire your approach to disputation here.

Yes, let's make sure we understand each other. Let's make this our highest priority always.

"You don’t think the [climate science] field is in error"

Actually, climate scientists are wrong about most things, as are all scientists. It's just that scientists are slightly less wrong than non-scientists, and are getting slightly less wrong every generation.

This is pretty much the eternal condition.

So it's a bit of a silly question whether "the field" is "in error."

We (that is to say, you) need to get more specific, please, or our argument will only become sillier and sillier. ;-)

" but it is ‘certainly corrupt’."

Right. It's the only scientific field in which you can do the kind of things [a small number of] leading climate scientists have, by their own admission, done—and still keep your job.

So the institutional corruption is certain.

"The supposed ‘corruption’ is recent.

So why doesn’t the recent ‘corruption’ contradict all that came before it?"

"You are a literate man."

Thanks BBD.

"What does ‘corruption’ mean?"

It means hocking your box.

It means prostituting your principles.

It means being willing to compromise the scientific method in return for, oh, $90bn or so in government research funds.

It means you can do the kind of things [a small number of] leading climate scientists have, by their own admission, done—and still keep your job.

"You are a funny sort of logician."

Again with the flattery. Thanks BBD.

Yes, wit (or humor) and logic are more intimately linked than most people are aware. Some of the most savagely funny writers have been logicians, literally—e.g. Lewis Carroll.

BBD:

I forgot to respond to this:

“The supposed ‘corruption’ is recent.

So why doesn’t the recent ‘corruption’ contradict all that came before it?”

Why would it? I don't follow you here.

If (say) pharmacological research had become corrupted in the 1980's, surely that wouldn't vitiate the truth of the well-established theories of pharmacology, which go back at least to the 19th century?

Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified,

Has it really? Did the derivative cretin credit the derivative cretin or the crank site he stole it from at the time? That link seems to be over a week later.

BBD:

"The very nature of denial makes is near-impossible for the sufferer to admit that he or she is symptomatic."

I'm pretty sure Freudian gobbledygook is not the best you can do. We've had some fairly intelligent dialogue at several points.

chek:

“p.s. “Brad” got a link to his crediting? It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing, "

Yes, Delingpole credited Bulldust.

""Now that your imaginative expectation has been falsified,"

Has it really?"

Yes.

"That link seems to be over a week later."

Now you're shifting the goalposts. (Not entirely scientific, chek.)

Nevertheless, if you can find the original, over-one-week-earlier Delingpole article that constitutes what you think is theft of the term, then link please. I'll check it out.

BBD:

""When have we EVER rejected science?

Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.

I’m off to bed. I leave this open goal open."

I'm outta here too. When you wake up it will be very interesting to see if a single person has managed to land a ball in this "open goal," won't it?

What a lot of frothing. And yet "Brad" can only froth because the cause of his foaming is all imaginary.

And that's before even getting to unsuccessfully disputing any of the science. Have you ever heard of 'displacement activity, "Brad".

chek:

You've made some good comments before, but this one sounds more like the petulant and dishonest bitching of a loser:

"What a lot of frothing. And yet “Brad” can only froth because the cause of his foaming is all imaginary.

And that’s before even getting to unsuccessfully disputing any of the science. Have you ever heard of ‘displacement activity, “Brad”."

A giveaway of the difference between this kind of immature nastiness and a good-faith, intelligent contribution to the dialogue is this:

Proper criticism tends to quote the person being criticised, and the quote exemplifies or substantiates the alleged flaw in the person being criticised.

Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

Brad, clearly still wallowing in "Climategate" nonsense, says,

I can only think of one “investigation” that actually looked into the hiding of the decline, and it quietly conceded that Jones’ graph was “misleading.”

quietly conceded

Oooh, looky-here - some loaded, non-informational language.
Why do you use the word "concede"? and why do you prepend the (clearly inapt and irrelevant) word "quietly"?

Jones’ graph was “misleading.”

Cool, let's have fun matching that assertion of yours with the words actually used, shall we?

...?

Brad's a liar, and denial is how he rationlises being one.

Vince:

You’ve made some good comments before (e.g. the one about the limitations of the Earth's thermostat), but this one sounds more like the petulant and dishonest bitching of a loser:

“Brad’s a liar, and denial is how he rationlises being one.”

A giveaway of the difference between this kind of childish nastiness and a good-faith, intelligent contribution to the dialogue is this:

Proper criticism tends to quote the person being criticised, and the quote exemplifies or substantiates the alleged flaw in the person being criticised.

Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

Vince:

"quietly conceded"

Oooh, looky-here – some loaded, non-informational language.

Why do you use the word “concede”? and why do you prepend the (clearly inapt and irrelevant) word “quietly”?

Jones’ graph was “misleading.”

Cool, let’s have fun matching that assertion of yours with the words actually used, shall we?

…?

Readers of this comment are left to guess what on earth your position is. Are you claiming that:

1. the inquiry non-quietly, openly, frankly, candidly found that the graph was misleading?

or that:

2. the inquiry didn't say it was misleading?

I know what the inquiry actually said, of course—it would just be fun if you'd clarify your insinuation before I reveal the facts.

Cretinous criticism, by contrast, is more likely to take the form of vague, citationless insult.

"Brad", I recall telling you way back when, perhaps even before you were confined to your cage thread that professional liars and sophists way, way above your level have already done their worst with this bilge and none of it stuck. Except in crank land where everyday is a crankday..

The huffery and puffery and your adoption of some piddling mission to change that - and, get this - about a subject of which you clearly know zero - because you rilly, rilly rilly'n'trilly believe it was all real is nothing more than a comic spectacle. Citations? Your circus act doesn't need citing.

Anyway, really have to run—answers to follow.

:-)

Terra around 250 million years ago was indeed hot and therefore the opposite of arid; it rained one 'hole heck of a lot. In contrast LGM was rather cold and so arid.
LGM vegetation map:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ray2001/ray_adams_2001.pdf

A Play by Play for New Readers

1. Chek alleges that James Delingpole “stole” the term Climategate.

2. Chek (falsely) claims the, ahem, authority of Wikipedia for this charge. (Wikipedia makes no such allegation.)

3. I say Delingpole credited the first person he saw using the term “Climategate”.

4. Chek doesn’t believe me, saying “It’s not something I can imagine the vain galoot doing.”

5. I then quote Delingpole doing what chek considers unimaginable:

In his superb summary of the Climategate story so far, Christopher Booker generously credits me with having invented the name. Almost but not quite. The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on the Watts Up With That site.

(See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate… .)

6. Chek’s imagination having been proven faulty, its response is that:

frothing “Brad”…froth…foaming…all imaginary…unsuccessfully disputing…‘displacement activity', “Brad”?…“Brad”…cage thread…liars and sophists…done their worst…bilge…crank land…a crankday…huffery…puffery…piddling mission…clearly know zero…rilly, rilly rilly’n'trilly…comic spectacle…Citations?…circus act.

What a lot of frothing. And yet “chek” can only froth because the cause of its foaming is all imaginary. And that’s before even getting to “chek’s” unsuccessful debating of the science. Have you ever heard of ‘displacement activity, “chek”?

That wasn't my understanding, David - apart some thin green bands around the continental margin, 250mya was very, very dry across the landmass, to the point where no coal was formed for about 6 million years until the recovery started.
40-degree oceans weren't terribly condusive to life there, either.

Basically, Brad's idea of a "global thermostat" is mindless superstitious nonsense.

In context, the warming we consider to be "dangerous" will heat the oceans (surface) up to an average of 20 degrees, 10 degrees cooler than 250 million years ago.

But, if Brad thinks the economy will take a 6-metre sea level rise in its stride, thanks to this magical "thermostat", I hope he's prepared to be disappointed...

Readers of this comment are left to guess what on earth your position is. Are you claiming that:

1. the inquiry non-quietly, openly, frankly, candidly found that the graph was misleading?

or that:

2. the inquiry didn’t say it was misleading?

I know what the inquiry actually said, of course—it would just be fun if you’d clarify your insinuation before I reveal the facts.

I guess it's a shame your choice of Uni study - the study of talking unproductive bullshit - didn't include any instruction as to the importance of agreed meaning.

An inquiry doesn't "concede", it "finds".

A person being questioned "concedes".

Do you concede you deliberately used misleading words in order to imply a certain meaning?

Will you quietly (ie, with embarrassment) concede that no inquiry found Jones "was misleading"? Or can you back that assertion up with a proper reference?

READER POLL

Well, well, well! It seems that, over at the immensely-popular February 2013 Open Thread, resident drawcard "Lotharsson" has not only noticed the existence of our modest little "side thread," but is a regular reader! How flattering. He's even honored us with the old "denialist treadmill" cliché:

"After a while [Brad's] travelled all the way around the loop and starts reasserting previously rebutted claims – this is most clearly seen with his obsession with M & J, but if you watch long enough you’ll see it on other topics too."

This accusation seems to enjoy general assent (or at least silence).

Very well. Let’s choose a reference-point: the claim I made a while ago that Naomi Oreskes is a science bimbo because she thinks beryllium (with the tiny atomic number of 4!) is a “heavy metal.”

How long will it be, dear readers, before I cycle back to using this comprehensively-rebutted zombie talking-point all over again?

1. Before the end of this page.
2. Sometime in the next 200 comments.
3. Sometime in the next 500 comments.
4. Sometime in the next 1,000 comments.
5. Before this thread has doubled in length (~4,600 comments).
6. Never. Brad argues in good faith and learns from his errors like a real scientist.

I thought “runaway warming” was implicit in the idea of a “tipping point [for warming]“? If I was wrong about that, then this is more a question of terminological confusion than “straw men.”

A tipping point is simply a point at which a meta-stable system shifts from one state to another. There is no need for anything remotely resembling a "runaway" in the system's equilibrium. Just a shift, step-wise or otherwise, and likely not of more than a few degrees Celsius (if even that) in the case of global warming.

Once again, you played loose with the terminologies included in your claims.

Bernard J:

A tipping point is simply a point at which a meta-stable system shifts from one state to another. There is no need for anything remotely resembling a “runaway” in the system’s equilibrium. Just a shift, step-wise or otherwise, and likely not of more than a few degrees Celsius (if even that) in the case of global warming.

Good explanation. Thanks.

And Keyes, if you're going to play the "confusion"card you're as good as admitting that you don't understand the basics of the science

Of course that's no surprise, as you seem to side-step any request that you demonstrate your competence with evidence of scientific understanding. Except on those occasions when you admit that you don't understand the science.

Which reminds me, there are some questions hanging...

That'd be right. Pre-empt my last comment with a thank-you.

Makes me look churlish.

;-)

Hmmm....*only* 91 posts since my own yesterday? Some of you (Brad included) must be slacking off. Oh well, my copy of Archer and Pierrehumbert's "The Warming Papers" arrived last week and it's time for me to get stuck into that. This seems to me preferable to reading Brad's posts: at least, I might become a little more educated about climate.

Bernard J.@14 and Brad@15, yes, and it seems to me that glaciations and deglaciations are examples of "tipping points" that do not lead to runaway (as a new steady state is attained).

Vince,

thanks for clarifying your position.

Rather than an either / or, you're asserting both of these things:

1. An inquiry doesn’t “concede”, it “finds”.

2. No inquiry found the "hide the decline" graph "misleading."

So I was wrong: you're wrong about two things, not one. ;-)

The truths are, Vince:

1. Inquiries are human endeavours, and "show" inquiries (like the CRU-associated ones) are, how can I put this, all too human. They have axes to grind and ideologies to protect and so, when the discover something they didn't want to discover, they give these discoveries minimal publicity. In common parlance, they "bury" them.

2. "Buried" on page 60, paragraph 26 of the report of the Muir Russell "Inquiry"—which, unlike certain other CRU "inquiries", actually examined the ethics of the WMO graph—is the following statement, which is made quietly enough to have escaped your attention until now:

"In relation to 'hide the decline' we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."

Oops, buggered up the tags.

Vince,

thanks for clarifying your position.

Rather than an either / or, you’re asserting both of these:

1. An inquiry doesn’t “concede”, it “finds”.

2. No inquiry found the “hide the decline” graph “misleading.”

So I was wrong: you’re wrong about two things, not one.

The truths are, Vince:

1. Inquiries are human endeavours, and “show” inquiries (like the CRU-associated ones) are, how can I put this, all too human. They have axes to grind and ideologies to protect and so, when the discover things they didn’t want to discover, they give these discoveries minimal publicity. In common parlance, they “bury” them.

2. “Buried” on page 60, paragraph 26 of the report of the Muir Russell “Inquiry”—which, unlike certain other CRU “inquiries”, actually examined the ethics of the WMO graph—is the following statement, which is made quietly enough to have escaped your attention until now:

“In relation to ‘hide the decline’ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.”

As I've mentioned before, scientists tend to take an even dimmer view on misleading graphs than bureaucrats do.

"This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. […] The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question." — Jonathan Jones

"The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature, and thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’. This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc. This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible, and I agree with him." — Paul Dennis

"The justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I’m willing to publish in […] Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say, “Well, you know, it’s a human field. You make mistakes.” And then I show them this and they say, “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.”" — Richard Muller

Vince W,

The immediate mystery for you should be: how can the scientific community possibly consider Phil Jones' trick misleading when it merely replaces bad data (that didn't reflect temperature trends) with good data (accurate instrumental temperature trends)?

Surely this “trick” improves the truthfulness of the graph, right?

You must think that scientists who condemn it have got it ass backwards.

I wouldn't blame you. But unless you've been taught the scientific method, which you haven't, you can't know how scientists think (because it’s very far from obvious—remember, it took tens of thousands of years to develop the modern scientific way of thinking).

And since you're unlikely to trust any attempt I make at explaining it, I urge you do the following:

1. Find one of the 3% of the population who understands the scientific method. (Most scientists and former scientists should do nicely. Try to find someone outside the climate debate, unless you’re more interested in an emotionally heated argument than in learning something new.)

2. Since most scientists don’t follow the climate debate in detail, you’ll probably need to describe the “trick” (explaining the difference between the dendro proxies and the thermometric data, etc.).

3. Show them the resulting graph.

4. Tell them that, as you see it, Jones has merely used a statistical technique to throw out bad data (which contradicts the thermometers) and replace it with good data (from the thermometers).

5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

Bernard J:

"That’d be right. Pre-empt my last comment with a thank-you.
"

Hehe, nothing tactical about it! ;-) I'm always grateful to people who reduce my ignorance instead of milking it in a fallacious bid to vindicate their own belief systems!

Vince W:

A Scott is doing it here, too.
http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differenc…

He’s displaying some seriously obsessive behaviour.

And how's that thread working out for your side, Vince? :-) Why do you think that is?

Basically, Brad’s idea of a “global thermostat” is mindless superstitious nonsense.

Hell, it's no different from the Gaia theory that he's likely to decide is rubbish.

And anywhere there is or was a coal seam? That used to be under water. THAT is how "stable" the world's climate is.

And still he's ignoring the absolute evidence visible today that proves him wrong.

Denying.

Hence he's called (correctly) a denier.

alarmist scientist Professor Richard Muller”

Yep. I use epithets like “scientist.”

Yup, deep deep deeep denial, Bray.

You are a literate man.

No, he's a loon.

5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

Hell, you can't answer that and you're the one making it up!

You must think that scientists who condemn it have got it ass backwards.

Yup, they have it ass-backwards.

Nothing was hidden.

Hey Wow,

You told us this was a quote from a scientist:

"There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.... yadda yadda yadda"

I called BS on that. No scientist would say something like that. All scientists are acutely aware of how wrong it is.

You were lying. You're a liar. Liars are not welcome here. Go away.

"You were lying."

Nope.

"You’re a liar"

Wrong.

"Liars are not welcome here."

Which is why you're caged in this thread.

"Go away."

Boo hoo, little crybaby.

It isn't your site. You're hanging round here whining and being a dick and not leaving so anything you receive is something you have gone out of your way to get.

Suck it up, junior.

Lotharsson,

I know you read this thread, so please tell us:

you know the source of Wow's quote—which Wow insists is a scientist—don't you?

Was I wrong to think no scientist could possibly have come up with that turgid word-salad?

Or is Wow lying?

It would be both dishonorable and dishonest to keep the answer to yourself, Lotharsson.

Oh, and please note you're YET AGAIN progressing your retarded fantasies as fact with ZERO evidence behind them.

Gives the lie to your bullshit statement about how you obey only evidence and data.

Ickle boy run to daddy....

Awww.

Wow:

“You were lying.”

Nope.

“You’re a liar”

Wrong.

Then name the "scientist," coward.

Name the “scientist,” coward.

Funny old world when you can't google, isn't it?

Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ. That makes him a good deal more of a 'scientist' - though he makes no claim to be a 'climate scientist' - than many of your 'Climategate conspiracy-mongers!'

So, you are talking out of your arse again, Mr Philosophy Graduate. Shocked we are, shocked!

Bray, you're a coward who refuses to look reality in the face when it comes into conflict with your comfort.

You are entirely without merit and the entire world will be notably better off when you've fucked off and died.

So, you are talking out of your arse again, Mr Philosophy Graduate.

Bill, he never completed.

It was too hard for him.

bill:

Funny old world when you can’t google, isn’t it?

What, and spoil the game?

Cook

D'oh! That should have been obvious. My main suspect was Lewandowsky, until Wow said it was someone with a BSc; why didn't I think of Lewandowsky's understudy, the cartoonist?

You know what you are, bill?

A spoiler.

That makes him a good deal more of a ‘scientist’

You're quite right to use the scare-quotes there, bill.

As Wow and I explicitly agreed (and as you'd know if you'd followed our thread), we were using the definition "scientist = someone working in the physical sciences."

Wow was wrong (and Wow knew it), but kept on insisting I was wrong, which I wasn't (and Wow knew it).

Wow has been lying for several hundred comments now. Shocked we are, shocked!

why didn’t I think of Lewandowsky’s understudy, the cartoonist?

More lunacy.

And note, it doesn't matter to Bray WHO said it, he's going to deny any evidence they are wrong.

What a pathetic streak of piss you are, Bray.

"Wow was wrong"

Only because you insist it.

In reality, you're absolutely faking it.

Wow,

now that bill has exposed your lie, go away and do not come back.

Wow,

now that bill has exposed your lie, go away and do not come back.

McIntyre isn't a scientist, then.

"now that bill has exposed your lie"

Tell me, has reality EVER entered into your life?

Oh, McKitrick won't be a scientist either.

See, Bill, this is entirely why it wasn't worth saying.

All it's done is make this braindead moron cum in his pants.

McIntyre isn’t a scientist, then.

Oh, McKitrick won’t be a scientist either.

Correct.

Neither is Cook.

I knew as soon as I read your absurd and turgid word-salad of a quote that no scientist came up with it.

You said I was wrong.

Bill has now exposed your lie.

Go away and do not come back.

Oh, McKitrick won’t be a scientist either.
Correct.

So why do you keep harping on about him when he's complaining about a real scientist?

Neither is Cook.

WRONG

Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ.

You have nothing, but you're excited over it, like one of those little yappy dogs.

Pathetic waste of your daddy's sperm.

You said I was wrong.

You are.

Bill has now exposed your lie.

Nope, he hasn't. See above.

"Neither is Cook."

WRONG

Cook has a BSc, Masters in Solar Physics, and is a fellow of the Climate Change Insititute at UQ.

Those qualifications are no better than mine, Wow, and I'm not a scientist.

We both agreed on the terms.

"Scientist" meant someone practicing in the physical sciences.

Deny, deny, deny all you want, Wow.

Rant about jism, semen and their various synonyms all you want, Wow. (That's where you always go when caught out, isn't it?)

It won't help. You're caught out in a lie.

Liars are not welcome here.

Go away and do not come back.

Liars are not welcome here.

That's why you're banned to this thread, idiot-boy.

We both agreed on the terms.

Liar. I asserted that you refused to state what makes a scientist. And you did. It was all "usually", or "often" or "sometimes".

“Scientist” meant someone practicing in the physical sciences

Which Cook does. He lectures in the UQ science department.

But you don't do reality, do you, denier-butt-monkey.

Hey, what about Feynman, was he a scientist?

He practiced the theoretical science.

You really are a grossly over-opinionated retard, aren't you.

Wow,

You're not only a liar, you're a bungling and inept liar.

Remember this little conversation we had? I do.

I said:

Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.

You said:

"Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist."


Then the quote was from a scientist.



... thus sodomizing your credibility with a chainsaw.

Bill has now exposed your lie.

Go away and do not come back.

Readers with the stomach to see Wow's self-sodomy with a chainsaw for themselves may click here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…

You’re not only a liar, you’re a bungling and inept liar.

You're projecting again, little boy.

You've said many contradictory things. So that you can then mine out a quote of yours that says whatever the hell you need to pretend you said at any moment in time.

You're a psychological nightmare and have absolutely no value as a human being whatsoever.

You are immune to reality.

Thank you for linking to the truth there in post 59. It was from a scientist.

Of course, YOU insist he isn't, but you have absolutely no evidence other than you say it.

However, for the idiot you are, this is entirely enough.

Tim, the only one who can fix this stupid shithead is you.

Wow,

this really happened:

“Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.”



Then the quote was from a scientist.



Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

Thought so.

Bill exposed your lie.

Liars are not welcome here.

Go away and do not come back.

Still living in your fantasy world.

"Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?"

Which one of them does Richard Feynman practice?

Lying your arse out again.

Cook is a scientist.

Mann is a scientist.

You are not.

You are a nutcase.

“Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

None.

(Which is why Wow was unwilling to reveal that the quote came from Cook. He refused to tell us for 3 whole days, until bill let slip the answer.)

"Which of the physical sciences did Richard Feynman practice?"

Physics.

Bill exposed your lie.

Liars are not welcome here.

Go away and do not come back.

"“Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

None. "

See, this is entirely the reason why you think beyond all doubt you are right.

You just asked that question and then answered it to make you right.

Evidence content: ZERO.

You're absolutely wrong.

"“Which of the physical sciences did Richard Feynman practice?”

Physics."

WRONG.

Richard Phillips Feynman (pron.: /ˈfaɪnmən/; May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988)[2] was an American theoretical physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams.

Theoretical, not physical.

The reason "Brad" can't accept John Cook (aka the cartoonist in crank land) is a scientist is largely because Cook and latterly in partnership with Lewandowsy, has "Brad's" number.
“What I’ve learnt is that people’s views which are not based on evidence and facts can’t be swayed by evidence and facts.”

Just like "Brad" can't accept Delingpole stole the climategate riff off some crank on Watts' crank blog and let everyone (such as fellow crank Chris Booker) believe it was his (piss-poor and derivative) invention for over a week before owning up to it. (JD couldn't upset Watts whose links to Heartland are important to JD).

Just like "Brad" thinks his rewarming of climategate will have a different outcome if only he can just keep doing it enough.

Just like "Brad" thought he knew more about psychology more than a Professor of pschology, "Brad's" expertise knows no bounds.

The harsher truth is of course that delusion knows no bounds, and "Brad's" thousands of posts here and elsewhere raging against it have zero effect on AGW.

Cook is a scientist.

Your only "proof" against it is that you say he isn't.

That, from an obvious nutcase, is worth less than nothing.

Your only "proof" ECS is 1.5 is that you say it is.

Your only "proof" that Jones hid something is that you say he did.

Your only "proof" that the Hockey Stick is wrong is that you say he did.

Your only "proof" that Mann didn't give his method out is that you say so.

Your only "proof" that consensus is anti-science is that you claim it is.

Your only "proofs" are your own idiotic conjectures.

You've never once managed to give any actual data.

What's this rubbish about M&J engaging in scientific misconduct to get $90bn dollars in grants? What planet are you on now? You just say stuff, you do. As repeatedly pointed out, M&J aren't actually relevant to anything at all except your conspiracy fantasies.

Since you are being obtuse (or possibly a dishonest fuckwit), some repetition will (again) be necessary:

(1) M&J are not proxies for climate science.

(2) M&J are irrelevant; their work changes nothing about the scientific understanding of AGW

(3) 'Climate science' is not and has never been 'corrupt'. This is dishonest framing which requires that we are *misdirected into ignoring (1) and (2) by clamorous repetition.

(4) This has all been pointed out to you already, several times.

(5) The 'sceptics' have no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW and so are *forced* to rely on smear tactics (3), misrepresentation (1), (2) and repetition (4).

Christ it's boring.

As for those afflicted with the pathology of denial typically denying being in denial - that's well-established. 'Sub-Freudian gobbledegook' is is not. It serves as a redundant demonstration of the fact that you are in denial.

We've all had enough of the rhetorical tricksiness, the misrepresentations, the goldfish memory, the non-reading of evidence, the unsupported assertions and the general slipperiness. That's why everybody keeps telling you to fuck off. I really do sympathise with the regulars here. They have put up with a hell of a lot of nonsense from you.

One more thing. The point about 'climategate' is that it is contrarian framing. It is yet another hijack of the language like the de-definition of 'sceptic' until it became synonymous with 'denier' and the attempts to delegitimise the term 'denial' and its derivatives by playing the victim.

Missed this earlier:

So it’s a bit of a silly question whether “the field” is “in error.”

We (that is to say, you) need to get more specific, please, or our argument will only become sillier and sillier.

This refers to the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2. We've been over that in considerable detail and my understanding is that you now accept the range ~2.5C - ~3C. This is more clumsy rhetorical evasion by you. You do it constantly and it is part of the reason you are not highly thought of.

The interesting part is that presumably you know that you are heavily reliant on crude spoilers and evasions. What puzzles me (and doubtless others) is how *you* must feel about your own argument. How you square that circle with yourself is a real mystery to me.

I'm reminded about your definition of 'corruption' on the previous page:

It [corruption] means hocking your box.

It means prostituting your principles.

It means being willing to compromise the scientific method

Projecting like a fire-hose, as contrarians invariably do, in their 'battle for the soul of science'...

BBD:

"So it’s a bit of a silly question whether “the field” is “in error.”

We (that is to say, you) need to get more specific, please, or our argument will only become sillier and sillier."

This refers to the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2."

Good. Thanks for specifying.

Your original claim is now more meaningful:

You claimed I was "constantly implying the field [of climate science] is in error [about the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2] because it is corrupt."

But it's not true; I'm not constantly implying the field of climate science is in error about about the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 because it is corrupt.

In fact I don't think I have ever implied so.

We’ve been over that in considerable detail and my understanding is that you now accept the range ~2.5C – ~3C.

Why do you "understand" this? I've never said so. What I said was that I was now less confident in my original, lower estimate ever since you (unlike anyone else on the entire blog) cited some prima-facie good scientific evidence in support of the higher estimate. Since I've been too busy to critically evaluate that evidence (the various papers you linked me to) either on its own merits or in relation to the evidence I've read for a lower ECS, having had time only to read the new evidence superficially, the best I can possibly do in all good conscience as a true skeptic is to say I may well have been wrong to estimate ECS at 1.5C or lower. If you expected me to confidently adopt your estimate, however, you were expecting too much too quickly.

What puzzles me (and doubtless others) is how *you* must feel about your own argument.

It's pretty obvious to me that I'm running rings around my opponents. ("My opponents" being those who intrude on my thread with dishonesty, illogic and false interpretations of the scientific method—not those who make sensible scientific arguments to the effect that I'm mistaken or ignorant about some aspect of the natural world, which is undoubtedly true in countless cases.)

I’m reminded about your definition of ‘corruption’ on the previous page:

"It [corruption] means hocking your box.

"It means prostituting your principles.

"It means being willing to compromise the scientific method"

Projecting like a fire-hose, as contrarians invariably do, in their ‘battle for the soul of science’…

Now you sound as cretinous and obnoxious as the average deltoid, BBD.

Kindly either quote me

—hocking my box,
—prostituting my principles,
—and being willing to compromise the scientific method

or, as you once put it, "you can fuck off."

BBD, "Brad's" tactics can be found a lot elsewhere. The general cheese-paring, hair-splitting and salami-slicing then the wheedling for 'concessions', the specious logic, and the greater crusade.

I'm not going to Godwin this thread, but I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about. Denial is denial and operates the same way regardless of the field, it would seem to me.

BBD:

"It is yet another hijack of the language like the de-definition of ‘sceptic’ until it became synonymous with ‘denier’"

Yep, as I've agreed, the word has been bastardised—but if you think we orchestrated this, you give us way too much credit as a group. We're literally disorganized and so have very little cultural power.

By the way, "sceptic" is a misspelling. In English, a "c" before an "e" or an "i" is pronounced soft, like "s." (Imagine the words "sceleton" or "scillful.") The correct spelling is "skeptic."

"(1) M&J are not proxies for climate science."

Of course they're not.

On the other hand, the impunity with which they broke the rules of science—by manoeuvres which would have been, and have been, severely punished in other fields of science—is a stigma of the unique corruption of contemporary climate science as an institution.

"(2) M&J are irrelevant; their work changes nothing about the scientific understanding of AGW"

So we agree they've added nothing to human knowledge.

All the more reason why you should have figured out by now that something has gone seriously wrong with climate science as an institution. It has rewarded these non-productive academics with very high salaries and elevated them to celebrity.

(Any other field science would have expelled and/or prosecuted them for their misconduct.)

"(3) ‘Climate science’ is not and has never been ‘corrupt’."
Name another field of science in which someone has "hidden the decline" and gotten away with it.

"(4) This has all been pointed out to you already, several times."
Yes, by the type of people who vainly do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome, as the saying goes.

"(5) The ‘sceptics’ have no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW"
Science has only one stream, and the 'sceptical' understanding of AGW belongs firmly to it, as far as I can tell. Why one earth do you expect 'sceptics' to make a counter-argument to their own position?

It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

Yes "Brad", true to form and like every other uncapped deniertrash spigot that ends up in their own box, you are of course far, far smarter than everyone here including all the professional scientists and PhDs.

Happens all the time to you Galileos. You transparently know fuck all but no matter, that only shows the überlevel of your genius. We're really not worthy of your presence. Cretin.

Brad Keyes

Yep, as I’ve agreed, the word has been bastardised—but if you think we orchestrated this, you give us way too much credit as a group. We’re literally disorganized and so have very little cultural power.

You helped me trace the etymology yourself. This is a contrarian neology, amplified and re-broadcast by the contrarian element of the blogosphere. It is part of the contrarian framing. Come on, this isn't worth arguing about.

By the way, “sceptic” is a misspelling. In English, a “c” before an “e” or an “i” is pronounced soft, like “s.” (Imagine the words “sceleton” or “scillful.”) The correct spelling is “skeptic.”/blockquote>

Bollocks, as per. See OED. In addition to all your other over-reach, you are now lecturing me - incorrectly - on my own language.

Science has only one stream, and the ‘sceptical’ understanding of AGW belongs firmly to it, as far as I can tell. Why one earth do you expect ‘sceptics’ to make a counter-argument to their own position?

A new high in intellectual incoherence. I expect 'sceptics' of a scientific position to advance a robust scientific counter-argument to that position or, failing that, accept it. They have so far done neither.

Brad says,

4. Tell them that, as you see it, Jones has merely used a statistical technique to throw out bad data (which contradicts the thermometers) and replace it with good data (from the thermometers).

5. Ask them why you can’t do that in science.

Jones' wasn't an exercise in the scientific method.

The science itself is sound, replicated by many, many others using different sources of data, different proxies, different methods, and including by BEST.

Jones' graph was a successful communications exercise. His graph presented information in a meaningful way to impart correct information.

Contrast this with the various fraudulent graphs concocted by the likes of Pat Michaels and Anthony Watts.

What I said was that I was now less confident in my original, lower estimate ever since you (unlike anyone else on the entire blog) cited some prima-facie good scientific evidence in support of the higher estimate. Since I’ve been too busy to critically evaluate that evidence (the various papers you linked me to) either on its own merits or in relation to the evidence I’ve read for a lower ECS, having had time only to read the new evidence superficially...

Brad Keyes.

You admit that you do not have a functioning grasp of the science of climate sensitivity. You have also admitted that you are not knowledgeable in ecological/ecosystem science.

In spite of these freely-admitted deficiencies, you have found it necessary to claim that human-caused global warming is not a threat to human and non-human biology.

Do you not see the illogicality of your stance?

It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

Really? What mainstream science have you "run... rings around"? I'm not interested in your semantics and thimblerigging, I'm only interested in any point of science that you think you've made that successfully refutes the mainstream understanding of climatologists or of ecologists, any point of science that counters the graves fears that I and my scientific colleagues hold for the ongoing security of the world in which humans and non-human species live.

It’s pretty obvious to me that I’m running rings around my opponents.

Just like Chicken Little ran rings around the farmyard.

You transparently know fuck all but no matter, that only shows the überlevel of your genius.

I believe their "reasoning" goes like this:

1) I know it's all a scam.
2) These others can't see it.
3) Therefore I must be smarter than they to spot it

The problem, as usual with the idiots, is the very first step.

Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise. His graph presented information in a meaningful way to impart correct information

Or as Wow puts it, there was nothing fraudulent about Jones temperature graph.

BK

By the way, “sceptic” is a misspelling. In English, a “c” before an “e” or an “i” is pronounced soft, like “s.” (Imagine the words “sceleton” or “scillful.”) The correct spelling is “skeptic.”

This is an interesting comment and deserves one more look. See how you assume that you are the better informed correspondent. See how you are mistaken.

This is what you do.

Vince Whirlwind --- Basic atmospheric physics shows globally warmer is globally wetter; see Ray Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate". As for end Permian note that the 'coal forming' period had long since come and gone. Given that the continental masses were in a single large formation the interior was quite arid; that certainly would not be so along the east coast and not along portions of the west coast::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian

I knew Richard Feynman slightly, having been to his house for dinner once with a group of other undergraduates and otherwise a brief lunchtime conversation. He was a theoretical physicist except when he was taking some time off that to do 24 hour long experiments on phage (when I had lunch with him) and whatever he did the sabbatical year at Thinking Machines. I would say he was a perfectly competent experimenter when he chose to be; as a youth he taught himself radio and built circuits, for example.

chek @ 78

Denial is denial and operates the same way regardless of the field, it would seem to me.

Yup. Pathology invictus.

And to pre-emt any etymological smart-arseing, I know that's a Greek with a latin on her arm.

pre-empt

Sod it.

And to pre-emt any etymological smart-arseing, I know that’s a Greek with a latin on her arm.

You apologise too much. The problem in this relationship is not that it involves transadriatic miscegenation ("pathology" comes from Medieval Latin), but merely its heterosexuality. The proper, lesbian expression as God intended is pathologia invicta.

BBD:

You helped me trace the etymology yourself. This is a contrarian neology, amplified and re-broadcast by the contrarian element of the blogosphere. It is part of the contrarian framing. Come on, this isn’t worth arguing about.

Great. As long as you don't think we orchestrated it, we're not arguing. :-)

“pathology” comes from Medieval Latin

No, it doesn't. There you go again...

The rest of what you say is, at best, confusing.

Wow,

if there is no answer to this straightforward question, then you've knowingly maintained a lie for several hundred comments on this thread and are a proven liar:

Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

Liars are not welcome here, Wow.

Bill exposed your lie.

Go away and do not come back.

Orchestrated it or just created it by re-broadcast and repetition? It's still a contrarian framing.

'“pathology” comes from Medieval Latin'

No, it doesn’t.

Why not? Because it came into Medieval Latin from Classical Greek?

By that logic, it doesn't come from Classical Greek either, it comes from PIE (Proto Indo-European)!

BBD, you'll find that most words come from a series of sources.

The rest of what you say is, at best, confusing.

Hopefully it'll make more sense to you now.

Wow!
Just face it.
Cook does not reside inside the parameters of your definition.
Spraying vague insults at others like Feynman will not change that.

@99 Oh come on. That;s not even weak.

Night night. Bored.

Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist. Suck on it, because sure enough whatever crass redefinition.you conconct will be a hoot.

David, your Wikipedia link seems pretty good, but it does seem to me to confirm my impression that the end of the Permian was a particularly hot and dry period which then extended well into the Triassic.

Globally, heat and aridity characterise the climate of the Triassic, with the arid belts indicated by evaporites extending up to 50o either side of the Equator, being more widespread and abundant than at any other time in the history of the earth.

http://austhrutime.com/triassic_australia.htm

chek,

Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist. Suck on it, because sure enough whatever crass redefinition.you conconct will be a hoot.

You pompous dimwit, chek. I told Wow that by "scientist" I meant "someone practicing one of the physical sciences" and Wow replied, "Then the quote was from a scientist."

No it was not.

It was from John Cook, cartoonist, blogger and paid propagandist.

I ask again, rhetorically:

Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

If you can't answer, then you can also fuck off (with Wow) as far as I'm concerned.

John Cook is qualified in physics, solar physics and currently lectures at UQ on science communication. Maybe you should sign up for a course..
Now take your arbitrary, self-invented crank definitions and your crank groupie elsewhere, scieceblogs isn't the place for you. The clue is in the name.

Vince Whirlwind --- The basic principles of planetary climate applied even back then. Along the equator there was massive evaporation,k hence precipitation. Being hot the descending phases of the Hadley cells, the deserts, were pushed far poleward. This illustration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey_220moll.jpg
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic
has it about right. The claim of 'dry' cannot possibly apply globally; see Ray Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate" to understand why, globally averaged, there was far greater precipitation than today.

chek,

John Cook's "science" qualifications are no better than mine. That doesn't make me a scientist, especially given the definition of "scientist" Wow and I agreed to use for the purpose of our bet.

I won the bet: the culprit behind Wow's moronic quote was not a scientist. (As I could tell as soon as I read it.)

If you want to persist in denial of this, then please go away, take Wow with you, and don't come back.

Liars are not welcome here.

John Cook’s “science” qualifications are no better than mine.

"Brad", I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear you'd managed to earn a certificate for consistently being able to colour between the lines. Please don't try to puff up what you patently haven't got.

John Cook's a working scientist, working with scientists.
Choke on it.

Chek,
John Cook's quals and/or work experience does not fit inside that definition.
BTW, the quote was lifted from an 'opinion piece' which further disqualifies it as a 'scientifically' sound statement.

David, I'm not saying anything about precipitation generally, I'm only commenting on the <30% of the surface that had land on it.
As your latest link includes:

The global climate during the Triassic was mostly hot and dry

It became wetter later, but 250 million years ago, land and oceans were hot with a massively reduced biosphere. Coal formation was virtually (if not actually) nil for 6 million years, it was so dry and dead.

There was no "global thermostat" that kept the average ocean temperature below 27 degrees, let alone below the 20 degrees predicted by the reputable experts to be the result of the doubling of CO2 that we are already 40% of the way towards achieving.

Brad for some bizarre reason believes in this mythical "global thermostat".
Presumably studying Philosphy at Uni has led him to embrace such superstitious beliefs.

At this point. of course, Brad skips on to the next ridiculous denier talking point - whether it be spurious accusations of fraud, groundless assertions that additional heat won't harm the economy, or simply bald-faced denial of the facts.

Brad says,

John Cook’s “science” qualifications are no better than mine.

Not quite up there with "my opinion is just as good as the scientific consensus", but another cracker from Brad.

Of course it is entirely possible that it is true: I am very well acquainted with somebody whose science qualifications and publishing record are vastly more extensive and important that John Cook's (or, evidently, Brad's), but who nevertheless is in possession of sufficient ideological bias to believe that global warming is a hoax. Science qualifications are rarely possessed by complete idiots, but they are no absolute guarantee of eptitude and/or honesty.

Chameleon, hilariously, writes,

the quote was lifted from an ‘opinion piece’ which further disqualifies it as a ‘scientifically’ sound statement.

Good to see you throwing Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry and Christopher Monckton under the bus at last!

Along with Cook and Lewandowsky and many others Vince?
Where (for instance) did pick up the opinion that BEST confirms MBH98? and the hockey stick?
Wasn't from a blog or an opinion piece by any chance?
I wasn't wishing to throw Cook or anyone else under a bus Vince.
You seem to have missed the point of the questions to Wow?
You also seem to be evading David B's point somewhat.

chek:

“Brad”, I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear you’d managed to earn a certificate for consistently being able to colour between the lines. Please don’t try to puff up what you patently haven’t got.

Congratulations—I don't have a coloring-in degree—how did you know?!

John Cook’s a working scientist, working with scientists.

Good grief!! :-) Next you'll be telling us Chris Mooney is a scientist!

LOL

Maybe you should sign up for a course.

Mate, Cook’s students should sue for their HECS debt back because they’re being lectured by a halfwitted propagandist who says with a straight face that “a consensus of evidence” is

1. a thing, and

2. the necessary precondition for a consensus of scientists.

If they don’t file suit, then they’re paying HECS for the privilege of being lied to.

Either way, Cook is not a scientist. Miseducating the youth of Queensland in "Science Communication" is not the same as practicing one of the physical sciences, which is why your only response to the following question is to dance spastically around it:

"Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?"

The following answer is correct, and you will therefore never be able to say it:

"None, because Wow was lying and Brad's deduction was spot on."

Cammy, despite your crank inclinations and crank inputs, John Cook is a a scientist.

No. Now go away.

Liars may be welcome on the unpopular little side-threads, but this is the House of Brad. And Brad has standards. Liars are not welcome here.

Do not come back.

I'm still laughing at the notion that "pathology" is a mediæval Latin word.

Who knew...

WRT sceptic and pathology - I guess that BK could always "take it up with a lexicographer" - to use his own words (from Feb 13).

joni:

I guess that BK could always “take it up with a lexicographer”

*Sigh.* That's what I did. And the really clever part? I did it before shooting my mouth off.

ROFL... ;-)

Bernard J:

What really bemuses me is how little effort it would have taken you to avoid your current state of public error.

Using a Mac? Simply right-click on the following word, pathology, and choose the first item in the menu that pops up: Look Up "pathology".

Click Dictionary to open Dictionary.app. It will tell you, and I paste:

"ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from modern or medieval Latin pathologia (see patho-,-logy) ."

Poor? No worries—even non-Mac users can “take it up with a lexicographer,” thanks to the Internet.

For example, at dictionary.com:

Origin:
1590–1600; earlier pathologia < Latin < Greek pathología. See patho-, -logy

Moral of the story, trollettes and gentletrolls:

If it's of the latin-and-feminine persuasion, I'm the expert in it, so listen more and speak less.

'Pathology' comes from Latin?

Who knew?

Who knew?

Not you.

Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac.

I would say he was a perfectly competent experimenter when he chose to be;

Indeed he was. However, under Bray's assinine assertion, since he wasn't practicing other than theoretical science for huge swathes of time, he wasn't a scientist.

Rather indicating that his assertion for definition is bollocks.

Much like everything he dribbles on about.

Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

Solar physics.

Where (for instance) did pick up the opinion that BEST confirms MBH98? and the hockey stick?

In the temperature graphs.

They look like an oblong box with some wiggly lines in the middle.

Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac.

Yeah, he gets all excited when he thinks he has a zinger.

When he's buttfucked in answering a question, he disappears, then pretends it never happened and gallops on into the next cowpat-laden field like the donkey Bray is.

Vince:

Jones’ wasn’t an exercise in the scientific method.

Well fuck me.

You’re learning.

Jones’ graph was a successful communications exercise.

“Successful”, yes, in the best Schneiderian sense of the word.

Stephen Schneider’s philosophy, which might be called the core “ethic” of an entire clade of younger climatologists, was (to paraphrase): that as scientists, we need to strike a Faustian bargain between being honest and being effective.

That might sound perfectly reasonable to you and even, perhaps, to most intelligent, educated people, Vince, but only because nobody ever taught you how science works.

(And if you demand that I explain such a voluminous subject to you on a blog thread, you’ll only be providing further testimony about how little you’ve been taught. Hint: it takes more than a couple of minutes to learn.)

So again, I advise and implore you—because we’re not actually enemies, as you might think—to find a non-climate-related scientist you trust, fill him / her in on the “trick” to “hide the decline” and ask him / her:

Why aren’t you allowed to do that in science?

Wow,

keeping it classy:

"Nor anyone else who recognises the Greek root pathos without needing a Mac."

Yeah, he gets all excited when he thinks he has a zinger.

When he’s buttfucked in answering a question, he disappears, then pretends it never happened and gallops on into the next cowpat-laden field like the donkey Bray is.

Show me where I denied the Greek origin of the word pathos, you beefwit.

Just to save us the ritualistic goddamn Wowist back-and-forth, may I remind you (or at least, the competent reader of this thread) of the wisdom of the ancients. From the timeless classical dialogue of “BBD” and “Brad Keyes” (1 page ago):

”No, it doesn’t.”

Why not? Because it came into Medieval Latin from Classical Greek?

By that logic, it doesn’t come from Classical Greek either, it comes from PIE (Proto Indo-European)!

BBD, you’ll find that most words come from a series of sources.

PS:

Wow, I think I remember you now. Aren’t you the serial liar who pasted a scientifically-abortive quote at this blog and falsely, knowingly and persistently denied the veracity of my prediction that, whoever it was who came up with it, they certainly weren’t a scientist? Where “scientist” = “practicioner of one of the physical sciences”?

And hasn’t it been pointed out to you that liars are not welcome on this thread?

Well fuck me.

No, you'll have to rely on Pamela Hand for that, kid.

And hasn’t it been pointed out to you that liars are not welcome on this thread?

WRONG!

A liar was confined to this thread.

You.

(just in case you didn't get it, you're not very smart)

Ah, homo deltoides, a troglodytic error of evolution, the only known species capable of believing Richard Feynman wasn't a scientist (he was just a theoretical physicist!), but John Cook is! (Because he lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

Viable only in the zoo that is the Internet.

the only known species capable of believing Richard Feynman wasn’t a scientist

Ah, making shit up again, Bray.

It's the only way you can "win" an argument, so I guess that's what you gotta do, innit.

Show me where I denied the Greek origin of the word pathos, you beefwit.

So you're going back to the "I didn't say not nothing noway" tired old screed, huh?

I guess you're finding, as did Joan, that any substantive answers can be used against you if they aren't grounded in reality.

And, in a choice between limiting yourself to reality or avoiding any substantive comment, I guess for you, this isn't a choice: jettison reality. It never did you any favours anyway.

but John Cook is! (Because he lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

Hmmm. Any proof of that statement, Bray?

Oh, that's right: you don't do any reality. You just state things and this "proves" them.

Ooh,

touchy little troglodyte, aren't ya?

Very well:

the only known species capable of arguing that Richard Feynman wasn't a practicioner of any of the physical sciences (he was just a theoretical physicist!), but John Cook is! (He lectures the same shit Chris Mooney is qualified to teach!)

Out of primatological curiosity, neanderthal, let me ask: why did you steadfastly run away scared from revealing that the quote was from John Cook (leaving bill to betray the secret several days later)? It wouldn't have been that even you knew perfectly well that Cook wasn't a practitioner of a physical science, by any chance? No, what am I saying?—vastly overestimating your cranial capacity!

Wow:

So you’re going back to the “I didn’t say not nothing noway” tired old screed, huh?

Oh, we all know I said it came from medieval Latin.

But show me where I said it didn't come from Greek, you beefwit.

I'd like to remind our more intelligent spectators of a comment I made only a page ago (with added emphasis):

BBD, you’ll find that most words come from a series of sources.

let me ask: why did you steadfastly run away scared

Oh dear, projecting again? You're the only one who runs away (and only metaphorically speaking) from answering questions.

As to why I didn't say, that has been explained five or more times already and proven by your recent screaming ab-dabs.

Oh, we all know I said it came from medieval Latin.

Yup, back to irrelevant.

Latin wasn't the question.

Greek.

They use different letters to spell their name, indicating that they are different. That's a hint.

Can you explain why you made your post #17 if you now pretend you knew it was Greek too? Otherwise your assertion would come under the adage "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" and your implication that you are learned whilst everyone else a bufoon that you try so very hard to project falls extremely hard.

You see, you have to pretend that your words mean nothing.

This means, ironically enough, that they don't mean anything.

BK

Remember what I said about you *knowing* that you are heavily dependent on spoilers and rhetorical trickery?

I went on to wonder how that must make you feel about your argument and indeed, about yourself. Being forced to resort to near-permanent bad faith to defend the indefensible can't make you feel good deep inside.

The funny thing is, almost every single so-called 'sceptic' I've debated with over the years is just like you. Dependent on misrepresentation, dishonesty and misdirection.

The common thread is of course denial. That and unpleasant politics.

Being forced to resort to near-permanent bad faith to defend the indefensible can’t make you feel good deep inside.

That's why he's almost orgasmic when he thinks he has a zinger.

It's also why he demands bringing others down rather than try to lift himself up.

It's also why he hates the idea of paying for the damage, since he can't buy as many distractions from life as he lives it.

BK

BBD, you’ll find that most words come from a series of sources.

Yes Brad, and unlike you (who apparently googled it and got all confused), I know that the root derivation of 'pathology' is from ancient Greek.

As I said last page, what followed from you wasn't even weak.

Wow

I do wonder about the deniers. The smarter ones *must* know in their heart of hearts what they are really doing. Unfortunately, I have come to suspect that such inklings serve only to drive them deeper into denial. Denial really is a nasty pathology.

Wow,

you accuse me of retrospectively pretending to have known something I didn't know:

Can you explain why you made your post #17 if you now pretend you knew it was Greek too?

You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14, and that I haven't forgotten the difference between them... but we can't blame you for not knowing all this.

What we can and do blame you for is missing my comment ONE PAGE AGO, which I have already REPEATED ON THIS PAGE, and which reads:

”No, it doesn’t.”

Why not? Because it came into Medieval Latin from Classical Greek?

By that logic, it doesn’t come from Classical Greek either, it comes from PIE (Proto Indo-European)!

BBD, you’ll find that most words come from a series of sources.

Oh, and Wow:

ever since bill exposed your lie about the mongoloid who came up with that scientifically-illiterate quote about "consensus of evidence," you've been living on borrowed time at this thread.

Liars are not welcome here.

Go away and do not come back.

"Unfortunately, I have come to suspect that such inklings serve only to drive them deeper into denial."

J Michael iStraczynski put it like this when talking about the bad guys' motivation in the commentary to an episode of B5:

The bad guys don't think they are the bad guys, they think they are the heroes.

So when the deniers are shown precisely why they are wrong, it's a PERSONAL attack on their integrity, and they MUST ignore it and go on the offensive (literally in most cases).

Liars are not welcome here.

You were forced here because you're a liar.

Laars are NOT WELCOME on the other threads. This thread is so that your lies won't waste the time of genuine people trying to find information rather than bollocks on this site.

You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14

Yeah, and you know more science than Michael Mann, have data for all your claims and never ever make things up.

In your la-la land, this is all true.

In reality, you're an over-opinionated and uneducated troll with delusions of adequacy.

Your post #17 indicates that you had NO CLUE about the greek etymology of the word, otherwise you would have had no purpose in posting it.

BBD:

Correct my memory if possible, but I believe you were "pre-emtively" beating yourself up over the juxtaposition of a Latin- and a Greek-derived word.

In a jocular, friendly and now deeply-regretted gesture to make you feel better about it, I diplomatically offered up the fact that the groom's sordid pedigree could be considered, in effect, laundered by way of medieval Latin. Sex scandal averted.

Rather than taking it in the spirit in which it was proffered, it seems you've elected to be a bitch about it.

Why? Who knows. But it's disappointing. I actually thought we’d made some progress towards civilised conversation.

The smarter ones *must* know in their heart of hearts what they are really doing

They assume everyone else is just as bad, therefore they aren't wrong, it's just human nature, nothing to do with them.

Hence the prevalence of projection.

I actually thought we’d made some progress towards civilised conversation.

By your own "ideosyncratic" definition of the word civilised?

As long as people agree with you, or you think you can make it out that they do, you think this is civilised.

Any contrary opinion is uncivilised. Unless it's done by yourself or a fellow denier.

"The spirit in which it was offered" being typified by your response to chek in post #20, right?

I.e. condescending, ignorant bigot.

BBD,

you complain about your interactions with people on my "side" and conclude:

The common thread is of course denial.

Yes, one would hope so—given that we're disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you're a believer.

BTW in my experience, the common thread with people on your side is belief. Constant fucking belief. It's unbelievable how deep in belief you are.

;-)

That and unpleasant politics.

That's interesting. I struggle to imagine what you find unpleasant in, say, Freeman Dyson's politics. Or Steven McIntyre's. Or Patrick Moore's. Or mine. Have I offended you politically at some point? I'd be interested to know when.

BK

I wasn't pre-emptively "beating myself up" about anything. That is another misrepresentation (do you even realise you are doing it?). I was trying to pre-empt any nit-picking.

*If* I misinterpreted your comment *that* is because of the general tenor of your discourse. You only have yourself to blame for being treated with reflexive distrust after a sustained exhibition of bad faith lasting thousands of comments.

Yes, one would hope so—given that we’re disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you’re a believer.

That would be the scientific basis for AGW and our scientific understanding of its likely consequences.

You offend me by your dissembling and evasiveness whenever I have tried to get you to explain your *motivation* for denial.

You are obviously hiding something shameful, which with deniers is invariably libertarian/conservative politics and/or religious fundamentalism.

That is another misrepresentation (do you even realise you are doing it?).

Almost definitely.

It's their tactic.

Yes, one would hope so—given that we’re disbelievers (deniers) of the things in which you’re a believer.

I don't think he understood how revealing this is.

Nothing about evidence here. Not a thing.

Just belief or disbelief.

This is aided by his insistence never to read the evidence against him. As long as he can pretend that there's no evidence and it's all just "I believe X/I believe Y", then there's no need for Bray ever to change.

BBD, something to remember is that Bray has said that christians are gullible idiots, so his problem can't be from his christian faith.

BTW in my experience, the common thread with people on your side is belief. Constant fucking belief. It’s unbelievable how deep in belief you are.

Wow is correct at # 55. We read and understand the evidence. We think objectively. We have no political axe to grind. That's just yet moreframing by the contrarians, who deny AGW because it represents a fundamental, destructive challenge to libertarian/conservative political *beliefs*.

Your framing is very strongly suggestive of projection. Like a fire-hose... ;-)

You might be interested to know that I first studied Latin at the age of 12 and Classical Greek at the age of 14, and that I haven’t forgotten the difference between them…

Oh, Brad, how very old-school-tie of you... But I see they start teaching those a little later than when I was there. I'll decline to remark on your etymological skills, but let me compliment you on your fine acquisition of their legendary equivocation skills, Brad ;-)

@ 56

I know. I didn't say that fundamentalism was BK's problem. Just that it is one of the Big Three. It does help narrow things down by elimination though ;-)

Of course, the simplest answer is he's paid to do this.

@ 57

Whatever the case, BK provides salutary evidence that even a privileged education can fail to take. Imagine how his tutors would feel if they were able to see what he has been doing here. Sickened and saddened, if not downright furious.

# 60 One does begin to wonder after this volume of comments. Alternatively, he may simply be defending his own constructed reality because denial makes people do that. They *cannot* tolerate a challenge to their belief system, not least because a tiny little core bit of them knows they are in denial. Hence the desperate need to shore up the facade by any means at their disposal, however patently dishonest.

Problem is, even if its salutary evidence of how an education doesn't mean educated, it's wasted.

Chubby will still lean out from behind bray occasionally and go "Yeah..!". Bray will still avoid, lie, project, slander and whine incessantly. And nobody looking for information will be able to find it because of all this crap being dumped on this thread by the pair of them.

"They *cannot* tolerate a challenge to their belief system,"

This then begs the question: why do they keep hanging around like the smell of stale vomit?

You offend me by your dissembling and evasiveness whenever I have tried to get you to explain your *motivation* for denial.

You'll find that I'm one of the very few deniers who's even willing to keep talking to you when you request that. The question itself is offensive. (I've explained this, haven't I?) The only reason we were getting somewhere (which so outraged the troletariat that they interrupted us and haven't shut up since) is that you finally asked an honest question: what are my REASONS for denial? And of course, you were civilised enough to specify of what you wanted me to justify my denial. I don't deny the scientific basis for AGW, for example.

You are obviously hiding something shameful, which with deniers is invariably libertarian/conservative politics and/or religious fundamentalism.

If that false prediction is obvious to you, BBD, then your mental model of the climate debate requires major revision.

I'm hiding none of those things.

I don't subscribe to any of those things except "libertarianism" in the original John-Stuart-Mill sense which all modern, free people take for granted. And I don't apologise for, make any secret of, or feel one scintilla of shame for that! If I remember the findings of Mill's book by that name (and I admittedly can't do so photographically), then I dare say anyone who doesn't support them is something of an embarrassment to modern society. Of course, I'm also aware that there's a peculiarly American politics of libertarianism associated with names like Ron Paul, but as I don't even know what their platform is, I won't say anything more about them.

You’ll find that I’m one of the very few deniers who’s even willing to keep talking to you when you request that

We have very much found otherwise.

Indeed, one of the problems of the voluble deniers is the opposite: getting them to shut the fuck up. No evidence is enough to stop them prattling the same old debunked bullshit.

If that false prediction is obvious to you,

Nothing false about it.

I don’t subscribe to any of those things except “libertarianism” in the original John-Stuart-Mill sense which all modern, free people take for granted

Bullshit.

But then the bigoted minority keeps on projecting THEIR desires onto everyone else.

BBD, the answer to "why" in #64 is either

a) money
or
b) as I said, not to bring themselves up, but to drag everyone else down.

Bray's self-assessment is entirely identical with the neo-con conservative/libertarian American Right Wing.

They consider themselves part of the Silent Moral Majority.

They aren't the majority.
They aren't moral.
They are DEFINITELY not silent.

Bray is entirely identical with them (though swapping a libertarian's version of JSM for the Christian Right's version of the founding fathers).

We read and understand the evidence. We think objectively. We have no political axe to grind. That’s just yet moreframing by the contrarians, who deny AGW

Interesting. By your characterisation of "contrarians", I'm not one.

because it represents a fundamental, destructive challenge to libertarian/conservative political *beliefs*.

That may or may not be their agenda—I'm not a "contrarian" and I don't have a single "contrarian" acquaintance, so I really can't say for sure—but there is another group of deniers who believe in AGW but don't fear it.

This includes people like Steve McIntyre, Freeman Dyson, Patrick Moore and myself, among millions of others, who do not fit your explanatory template about the priority of politics in "denial."

If you insist on ignoring countless falsifications of that political theory, BBD, and keep trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, then I'm afraid it becomes increasingly hard to believe your own denial:

We have no political axe to grind.

Wow:

"You’ll find that I’m one of the very few deniers who’s even willing to keep talking to you when you request that"

We have very much found otherwise.

FFS, you hyperactive monkey, I wasn't talking to you! Your irruptions into other people's conversations were the first thing that made me dislike you, even before I knew you were a pathological liar.

How many times do I have to tell you:

You lied about that mongoloid quote, and liars are not welcome in the House of Brad.

Bugger off.

If you insist on ignoring countless falsifications of that political theory

Well, since you can't count zero, I suppose you're not *technically* wrong here.

liars are not welcome in the House of Brad.

Delusion again.

This isn't the House of Brad.

Lying again, Bray.

Lie lie lie lie lie, all day long, all you do. Lie.

Deniers aren't welcome on Deltoid.

Yet still you ape here.

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

This is your cage.

Stevie Mac teams up with the wrong people Brad. Libertarians, conservatives and religious fundamentalists (McKitrick).

Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.

Moore is a corporate shill.

You have picked terrible examples to support the unsupportable - anyone accepting the standard estimate range for ECS is deeply concerned about the impacts that it will mean later this century. To 'not be afraid' is just denial. Either you *don't really* accept the ECS estimate or you are in denial about the consequences.

Interesting. By your characterisation of “contrarians”, I’m not one.

Interesting. You even deny reality even when you're pretending to consider it.

Either you *don’t really* accept the ECS estimate or you are in denial about the consequences.

Or he's just making shit up.

Again.

Again.

The question itself is offensive. (I’ve explained this, haven’t I?)

No it isn't and your 'explanation' was nothing more than an evasion.

Wow,

your addiction to making a fool of yourself is ruining lives:

Bray’s self-assessment is entirely identical with the neo-con conservative/libertarian American Right Wing.

LOL.

Except for the minor detail that, in their self-assessment, they're:
— neo-cons
— conservative/libertarian
— American
and
— right-wing,

whereas in my self-assessment I'm:

— not a neo-con
— not a conservative
— no more libertarian than anyone else (unless you believe in political censorship, blasphemy laws, apartheid, alcohol prohibition, compulsory religion, compulsory tithing to support religion, ...)
— not American
and
— not right-wing.

Jesus Christ. Your stupidity rivals your mendacity.

Go away.

Hell, Dyson isn't practicing any science. Why Bray brings up several non-scientists is a mystery to everyone, including himself...

"Except for the minor detail that, in their self-assessment, they’re:
— neo-cons"

Yup, like you.

"— conservative/libertarian"

Yup, like you.

"— American"

You mean a member of the Genus Homo Sapien? Just like you.

"and
— right-wing,"

Just like you.

Let me simplify this for your Brad:

Not afraid of AGW = either incomprehension borne of ignorance or active denial or a synergy between the two.

Your "proof" yet again, seems to be "I say so, therefore it's true and it's true because I say so".

Wow:

Deniers aren’t welcome on Deltoid.

Yet still you ape here.

Really? One HAS to believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to comment on this blog?

Is this correct, Tim? (And why have you never mentioned it to me or anyone else?)

Please confirm this, Tim.

Is my presence here, as a CAGW denier, a violation of blog policy?

I'll gladly "recuse myself from further participation" (as the SS say about the victims of their "disappearances") if that's the case.

Please confirm.

McIntyre isn't doing science either. Nor is Moore.

# 85

Was that a Godwin do we think, chaps?

One HAS to believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to comment on this blog?

Making shit up again? This time, even after you've quoted what proves you wrong?

Deniers aren’t welcome on Deltoid.

Where in there does it say you have to believe anything?

Oh, he won't bother not posting no matter what anyone says.

There are people here who don't think he's right about stuff. THAT CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!!!

He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First, individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has an unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.

Bray doesn't abandon his erroneous beliefs, doesn't engage in an exchange of ideas, doesn't examine his beliefs, relapses at every point into dogma and never questions his assertions.

Not really following JSM's liberty.

Note too how he goes all hysterical but not so much that he's willing to actually leave a window that means he leaves (which he's already weaseled out of once already).

Statement: Deniers aren't welcome.

Hysterical Bray: Denying CAGW is against policy here????

a) CAGW doesn't exist, only brought up by deniers as a strawman
b) nothing in the original statement about policy

Histrionics is a large part of denier M.O. to silence everyone else and make them out to be "Internet Gallileos".

BBD:

Stevie Mac teams up with the wrong people Brad. Libertarians, conservatives and religious fundamentalists (McKitrick).

Ahhh, the theory has failed but the predictive goalposts conveniently shift.

"Stevie Mac" is NOT a conservative OR a religious fundamentalist (as far as I know), but [shock! horror!] he co-operates with people who you apparently consider unworthy of collegiality, and may even be, or have been at one time, friends with them [!!!], so he's guilty by association.

Classy stuff, BBD.

Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.

This bilge is completely non-responsive to, and transparently evasive of, the point I drew to your attention: that Dyson is a denier, and simultaneously as left-wing as you could ask for.

And this grubby and pathetic sub-argument from someone who's extremely unlikely ever to achieve a fraction of Dyson's scientific glory.

Classy, classy stuff BBD.

Moore is a corporate shill.

More ducking and weaving. Face the facts about Moore's politics, please.

“Stevie Mac” is NOT a conservative OR a religious fundamentalist (as far as I know)

A qualifier that would carry less freighting if it weren't for the demonstrated (and self-averred) fact that you don't read anything that you might later regret.

I.e. if you hadn't shown you are willfully ignorant of any contrary evidence, "as far as I know" would be merely a slight qualifier. As it is, it's pretty damning to your statement.

Face the facts about Moore’s politics, please.

Yes: he's a corporate shill.

Seems the only one in denial about Moore's politics is you, Bray.

BBD:

Was that a Godwin do we think, chaps?

Er, no, it was a climate-debate in-joke.

Ever noticed what the panicked SS moderators write when they're forced to block a commenter and erase everything he / she has written there?

"Memory hole" is an Orwell allusion, and although his great novel deals with fascism in general, and therefore Nazism by necessity, this particular device was one of Orwell's comments on Stalinism, was it not? It's been a while since I read it.

that Dyson is a denier, and simultaneously as left-wing as you could ask for.

Aye, according to Fox News and the teabaggers, Obama is somewhere to the left of Stalin.

Dyson isn't left wing. He's more libertarian, with a smattering of chasing past glories and the attention they received.

Er, no, it was a climate-debate in-joke.

Er, no, it wasn't funny.

It also had nothing to do with a climate debate.

For someone who whines "This bilge is completely non-responsive to, and transparently evasive of, the point I drew to your attention", you certainly employ non-responsive and transparently evasive complete bilge far too frequently.

Note too the complete erasing of any disproofs of his whining complaints.

They're just edited out of his un-reality. Never happened, as far as he knows.

Wow:

I don't think this about many people, but you REALLY need a tertiary education. What you think are your debating skills are, in reality, jester skillz.

"Face the facts about Moore’s politics, please."

Yes: he’s a corporate shill.

Let's see then, Wow:

Al Gore was a corporate tobacco shill before he became a corporate carbon-credits shill.

So his politics must be: _______________ ?

PS:
Wow, you're a liar and fuck off please.

Wow:

“The spirit in which it was offered” being typified by your response to chek in post #20, right?

No, Wow.

My comment to chek was rude, because I don't particularly like chek.

Chek is essentially you, but less modest.

Oh, and Wow:

ever since bill exposed your lie about the mongoloid who came up with that scientifically-illiterate quote about “consensus of evidence,” you’ve been living on borrowed time at this thread.

Liars are not welcome here.

Go away and do not come back.

but you REALLY need a tertiary education.

Because you proclaim I haven't had one???

Your standard of "proof" remains at it's piss-poor level.