By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
because you're an arsehole denier on the rampage and chek pricks your pomposity balloon.
Ah, another claim whose "proof" is that you claimed it.
This thread rattles along at such a pace that its hard to maintain any coherence between the yes-you-did-no-I-didn't free-fire, but in case there is any remaining interest in whether "pathology" has Greek or Medieval Latin roots...
The term in the current sense was coined by Jean Francois Fernel in 1557. Of course, at that time, scientists conversed in something that was vaguely akin to medieval Latin, but littered with neologisms suitable to their purpose. Fernel Latinised his name for publication to Fernelius, but one can hardly consider Fernelius to be a Medieval Latin word, any more than Linneus (Carl von Linné) is.
Now, Fernel's schtick was to drag Greek medical ideas (with a heavy dose of subsequent knowledge from Arab and other scholars) kicking and screaming into the 16th Century. His magnum opus was Universa Medicina, the second part of which is titled "Pathologia".
Now while that term is Latinised, it is not Latin, any more than "Fernelius" is. Fernel read Greek, and while the Universa Medica is in that distinctive version of Latin used by scientists of the time, it is littered with Greek marginalia, and derives its neologisms directly from Ancient Greek.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled bickering.
Is that against policy?
Nah, I know the answer: no.
And it's irrelevant anyway:
1) this isn't your thread, it's your cage. Apparently you can't read. Get some primary education.
2) the definition of liar isn't "someone who says Bray is wrong".
3) You're a serial pathological and congenital liar, yet still you post here
Bray is incoherent.
The difficulty in understanding this cage thread has nothing to do with this cage thread but with the psychotic lunatic caged within.
Or the spells in Harry Potter.
Frank, if nobody posted here and you say this is the correct thing to do because eventually Bray here will piss off somewhere else, then isn't that effectively the same thing as banning his shit?
Yet one requires that everyone conspire to get rid of him except the blogroll owner. The other only requires the blogroll owner to do something.
The result is the same, but the actions are taken by the one giving him air in the latter case.
FrankD:
"There"? Where do they start teaching Latin before (what we call in Australia) Year 7?
Oh, and in case you have the wrong idea about my socioeconomic caste, no, my school didn't have a proper Classical Greek syllabus; they hired a Greek teacher just for a handful of my friends ("by popular demand," I guess) when we were in what we call Year 9.
Smart decision.
Er... thanks... I think... but whose skills are you talking about?
On McKitrick:
http://sienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/16/moving-goalposts/
Well, I guess we now know why you've such an inflated opinion of yourself and your "proofs" seem to all boil down to "I think so".
Fucking hellfire.
Wow:
IDIOT.
Al Gore devotes several minutes of his carbon-credits infomercial confessing this in lurid detail (all in service to the redemption narrative peculiar to American religion). If you should ever overcome your pathological fear of evidence, here, see the grubby details he left out:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-o…
By the way, wow, ever since bill exposed your chronic lying about the mongoloid non-scientist responsible for that unscientific quote about "consensus of evidence," you've been unwelcome on this thread. Why haven't you taken the hint? LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.
FrankD:
Tell me about it. Since the thread was created for me, I feel somewhat responsible for its "quality" and I can only really ask you to bear with us.
If Wow fucked off as per this thread's anti-liar policy, I'd like to think the coherence would improve.
The fact that his intellectual vandalism is turning away potential contributors like you makes it all the more frustrating.
What would you suggest I do about it?
I can't fix Wow, but do you think I should be responding to the problem differently?
There is.
Thanks for your insights on medical / medieval / neo-Latin and the distinctions between them, Frank—I've actually learnt something tonight!
BK with more distortion:
BK you may care to reflect on how you keep accusing others of lying here when above you createa barefaced distortion of a courageous and honest scientist.
The full quote, which you shrank from repeating is this:
Which can be found here under the sub-head, The "Double Ethical Bind" Pitfall.
This scurrilous behaviour of yours deserves a very public warning particularly concerning the courageous presentation Stephen gave in Australia clearly very ill. Note the marked contrast to the bombast of the likes of Monckton and Watts and the shrill tones of Nova and the floppy Curry.
Dig out a copy of Schneider's 'The Patient from Hell: How I Worked with My Doctors to Get the Best of Modern Medicine and How You Can Too' and be humbled, yoiu will then be in better shape to understand his 'Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate' .
You NEED to read both. Then come back and apologise.
FrankD @ 3
Thank you. Note how our resident polymath continues to dispute this.
BK
Dyson leans toward libertarianism. McIntyre lends his support to libertarian and conservative 'think tanks' and shill organisations like the Heartland 'Institute'. He co-publishes with a religious fundamentalist.
And Moore is a corporate shill. As you can easily see from the Sourcewatch bio.
As I said, you picked terrible examples in support of an indefensible argument. More fool you. Denial does this to the mind though...
Let me repeat:
Not afraid of AGW = does not understand the topic and/or is in denial
Main source of denial = conservative/libertarian politics (to which AGW represents a destructive challenge) and/or religious fundamentalism.
You are the author of your own misfortunes beyond this point Brad. I asked you again, and again, and again to clarify your position and explain your motivations. You ducked and you weaved and you dissembled instead of being frank and open and *honest*.
After many days of this, I reluctantly concluded that you could only be concealing something which you believed would be to your discredit here. Or why else keep on dissembling and evading as you did - day after day after day.
You've dug your own pit. If you don't see that you are even further gone than I thought.
And Brad, I gave you every chance, every consideration. I am not by nature this patient or forgiving or indeed civil in the face of disingenuous nonsense on the scale demonstrated by you here.
Lionel A @ 13
Brad doesn't 'do' reading. Nor is he very good at humility.
Many here will be familiar with Deep Climate's informative and frequently surprising two-part article on McIntyre and McKitrick.
Part I
Part II
Scholars of recent history will remember how the Wegman plagiarism debacle played out. Corruption of science and all that.
Something else for Brad not to read because it will challenge his belief systems.
It's because I know the background and you don't that you do such colossally stupid things as holding M&M up as exemplars.
Save yourself the pain of a re-run of the climate sensitivity implosion: don't attempt to defend the indefensible from a position of complete ignorance.
I think you've hit the nail on the head BBD. For many here all these alleged 'controversies' were played out and done to death years ago with every strand of denier spin either deconstructed or dynamited.
But if."Brad's" a new convert who doesn't yet fully appreciate he should've checked more thoroughly what was in the package he's bought into, and crucially that all the smokescreens are to mask no challenge to the science itself, just the usual tales about whut bad mens teh scientetists are.
Or he's just another Johnny-come-lately, ten-a-penny denier.
Oh FFS, now Brad is reverting to snobbery about his primary education?
Do elaborate.
No, please don't. You piffle on about the most erroneous shit as it is without delving into your fantasy personal life, Bray.
Remember, chek, brad doesn't read the denier blogs 'cos there's nothing to learn there (well, apart from how crooked they are, but Bray doesn't want to know about that, so doesn't look).
That you are, Bray.
Which you never read, did you.
He grew tobacco and got money from tobacco companies.
Neither are proof of being a shill.
The only mongoloid is your own self, Bray.
My god, you're complete and utter scum of the earth, aren't you. Sooner you FOAD the happier this world will be, you fuckwitted moronic troll.
Ironic: with a meaning other than the literal interpretation.
Indeed, this thread was created to cage you. And you are entirely responsible for its quality. Which is why this blog has gone to shit: you're filling it up with complete and utter shite.
THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE????
Wow says,
This is serious, I've been working on my repello muggletum for days now, and if it's not Latin, it might not work!
Chameleon asks,
It's not so much an opinion, as a formal result.
BEST was the Koch-funded attempt led by fake-sceptic Richard Muller and cheered-on by cranks such as Anthony Watts to prove the hockey stick wrong.
It didn't just fail in that objective, it went so far as to provide a second-rate confirmation that the hockey-stick is correct.
As you would know, were you capable of even the most elementary comprehension and analysis.
But Vince?
In the actual BEST work, which would be the 'formal result', there is NO confirmation of either MBH98 or the hockey stick.
You may, however, have picked that notion up by reading something else?
BTW Vince,
how often do I need to say that I am NOT a regular reader of WUWT?
In fact the only blog I visit regularly is this one.
I see you've identified the vital components that are always, but always missing from the 'B' listers.
Cammy, PantieZ, Olap, Karen, Griselda, Sunspot - the list is too familiar to go on - and you know the et al. etc., but all meetiing the basic specification: lacking even the most elementary comprehension and analysis.
I've heard of human engineering, but this present collection are just grotesque mannikins of what thinking, reasoning human beings could be like.
Yes Cammy, we know you're too dumb to read graphs. We don't need your wittering reminders every few hours.
This practice of trying to 'contain' real discussions, and worthwile debates with better informed people, but in specific and seperate threads ..
.. must have a reason. I wonder what Occam would have thought the simplest possible explanation would be ...
.:-
The graph of temperatures.
You know, that oblong thingy with the squiggly lines on them.
chameleon
Modern data shows unusual warming. The millennial-scale reconstructions do not show that *global average temperature* during the misnomered 'MWP' exceeded the mid-C20th average.
This is where we are now. The detail of MBH98/99 is irrelevant. If you wish to disagree, you need to back it up with a widely supported result.
chameleon, cont:
Even if, despite all the evidence we have, it somehow turns out that GAT at some point during the 'MWP' matched modern levels, we would be left pondering two related questions:
- Why is CO2 forcing less efficacious than expected?
- What so far undetected mystery forcing is responsible for energy accumulating in the climate system, predominantly in the oceans?
All told, there's a lot to get through.
Chameleon says,
What an odd thing to say - what do *you* think BEST achieved?
Regardles of that, if you wanted to know what BEST's result was without reading their results, all you need to witness is the backtracking and recanting by cranks such as Watts, who were all set to applaud fellow-sceptic Richard Muller's work, when it was predicted to prove Mann wrong.
As it turned out, it confirmed Mann's work as correct, hence the cranks abandonment of their promised support for Muller's results.
I'm not wishing to disagree BBD!
I agree there is much to learn.
My point was that BEST neither proves or disproves MBH98.
You appear to understand that but chek, Vince & Wow seem to be voicing an opinion that they have pucked up from somewhere else NOT in the methodology used by BEST or the conclusions in BEST.
It is NOT incumbent upon me to supply evidence that BEST disproves MBH98. It doesn't.
BUT IT DOESN'T CONFIRM IT EITHER!
I'm not interested in what people WANTED it to say.
It seems that Vince has decided because it didn't say what Watt's wanted it to say it therefore means it CONFIRMS the hockey stick and MBH98.
I do not agree with that assertion at all.
Yes, you keep repeating your 'Who me?[ defence, but you've been asked to detail the differences that nullify the hockey stick blade. But you don't.
You just keep bleating 'Who me?' Maybe your hairdresser might have a clue why such a ditz is cluttering up scienceblogs.
Vince Whirlwind --- It was certainly hot everywhere during the Triassic but it was most assuredly not dry everywhere. It was wet near the equator and it was wet in the 'temperate' and polar regions; see the graphic once again. It was certainly dry in the extensive deserts from maybe 20--50 degrees both north and south. Even the equatorial rains might not have extended all the way across the wide continent, being wetter on the east side than the west.
The trouble with most accounts by geologists is to use far too few rock samples from far too few regions and then extrapolate far too widely. However, the map I linked actually appears to take climatology into account.
David, I would prefer cartography that is based on people looking at rocks than one based on an interpretation of those rocks fed through a couple more layers of intepretation before resulting in a climatological model based on sparse data but apparently providing too much detail.
One important point is that coal forming was not occurring during this period. That should tell us one thing. It wasn't "wet at the equator", or we would have early Triassic coal beds in those rocks. The biosphere 250 million years ago lost over 90% of its carrying capacity for animal and vegetable organisms, land and sea.
More importantly, though, let's devise a gaming exercise where we try to feed 8 billion people using those narrow coastal strips that were receiving rain at that time and see whether Brad's "no worries" belief in some kind of "global thermostat" is going to be much help to us.
Let's not forget, Brad is denying that a 3-degree rise in temperature will occur, because of some magical property of the planet that will apparently prevent it from happening.
Such a shame that magic didn't work 250 million years ago when the ocean surface reached 40 degrees and killed virtually everything in it.
Chek,
The assertion by Vince was that MBH98 and the hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST.
When questioned further he also asserted it was the SAME hockey stick.
I did not say and have not said that the hockey stick is NULLIFIED by the Muller et al study.
It isn't.
Therefore your question and your demand makes no sense.
Why would I have to show how MBH98 is NULLIFIED by BEST when I clearly don't think it is?
BEST neither proves or disproves the hockey stick.
Why are you having trouble with that concept?
It no more says what Watts et al apparently (according to Vince) wanted it to say than it says what Vince seems to want it to say.
Where does the notion and the assertion that MBH98 and the hockey stick was CONFIRMED by BEST come from?
Vince Whirlwind --- High temperatures imply considerable evaporation from the equatorial ocean. Prevailing winds are always toward the west; some substantial precipitation surely falls along the equatorial east coast and some distance inland.
Lack of coal beds means either the strata did not survive intact to this day or the conditions for coal formation were not there. For example, perhaps fungi consumed the plant materials before adequate burial.
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm
chameleon --- BEST indeed largely is yet another hockey stick.
Chameleon.
MBH98 and other tree ring reconstructions are corroborated by proxies other than tree rings. And these latter proxies also describe a "hockey stick".
Is this so difficult for you to understand?
David, how can the adverb "largely" be justified? We're talking about a 250-year study.
It's a quarter the length of the canonical Hockey Stick.
(And given certain commenters' predilection for choosing their HS to suit the argument, I'd better pre-empt that game of grabass by saying that, yes, if we're talking about the very first HS, the HS of MBH98, then it's less than half the length of that.)
BEST starts when the Little Ice Age has already bottomed out and begins to thaw.
This adds nothing to the credibility of the claim that modern temperatures are "unprecedented" in any meaningful sense.
Bernard J:
I'm not trying to induce a cerebral aneurysm, I'm just sincerely interested in your answer to this:
can you get a non-tree-ring-based "hockey stick" without using the Tiljander varve proxies (upside-down or otherwise)?
Brad, 5 examples of exactly that were previously provided to you.
Stop going around in circles.
David says,
For your 3nd option: exactly - it was too dry for coal formation.
Some assumptions about past climates are very questionable because they are largely based on oceanic and atmospheric conditions that pertain to the modern configuration of continental mass.
Things were very different 250 million years ago. A hotter atmosphere will carry more moisture, but it doesn't follow that it will carry that moisture and release it over any significant part of Pangaea. To my mind, the lack of coal is a hint to that effect.
It would seem a dangerous assumption to make, that more moisture over the oceans necessarily results in increased precipitation overall over land.
My understanding is that the precipitation in the early Triassic was less likely widespread and more likely constrained to narrow coastal bands. It's what the rocks seem to tell us, anyway.
2nd option. Not wearing my glasses and typing with both thumbs at once....
Brad Keyes --- Yes, BEST is a short handled hockey stick. The evidence for 'unprecedented' comes from elsewhere.
Vince Whirlwind --- The basic atmospheric physics does not depend upon configuration of continental mass. The Triassic arrangement of continental mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blakey_220moll.jpg
certainly had equatorial rain as well as plenty poleward of the Hadley cells. The link is suggestive of rainfall locations via the green color. Given the just prior species extirpation I have no idea just how green it was under all that rain. There are plenty of potential reasons for lack of coal formation. Anyway, we certainly do not want to come close to repeating those conditions.
Here is the early to middle Triassic map:
http://cpgeosystems.com/240moll.jpg
Clearly the coloring is merely suggestive.
Vince:
No, I was saying that the climate isn't going to "tip," in light of the fact—established over 4 billion years—that the planet has a "thermostat."
But Bernard drew to my attention the likelihood that I was getting "tipping points" and "conditions for runaway warming" mixed up—and indeed, the well-established thermal homeostatic behavior of the Earth's atmosphere throughout the last 4 billion years may have prevented the latter, but it hasn't prevented the former.
You seem to be arguing recently that the "thermostat" doesn't work a damn because every few hundred million years, if fails to keep things below a pleasantly balmy 27 degrees. (This is just a paraphrase, so forgive any traducement of your meaning—I'm a bit time-poor right now.)
But what I had in mind was the kind of homeostasis enforced and enjoyed by the human body: it can't maintain a fixed value for any given parameter, and it doesn't even pretend to, but it maintains—by a system of net-negative feedbacks to perturbations—a target range which keeps you alive. You’ve suffered the occasional fever, which wasn't all that much fun, but you're still alive to tell the tale, aren't you?
A major complication missing from the above story, of course, is that—in disanalogy to human thermoregulatory physiology—the Earth doesn’t have a unique “target state” but a number of discrete ones, which alternate over time. (“Deglaciation” and “glaciation” being examples of processes that “tip” from one stability to another, and back again.)
Hey, I never said the thermostat was perfect. It is, after all, nature, not “magic.”
Perhaps more to the point: what would have worked back then, Vince—what do you think could have prevented the Permian-Triassic extinction event?
A carbon tax?
I’m not trying to be flippant, I would just like to know: when nature does have one of her floridly psychotic episodes every few hundred million years, what can we possibly do about it?
The next time it happens, do you realistically believe that even the crackest of crack batallions of hovercar-chauffeured carbon accountants, risk-management consultants and climate psychologists will have the brains and charisma to manipulate the composition of the atmosphere just right so that the kind of piscine Armageddon (or should I say ichthyo-holocaust, BBD?) that took place 250 mya isn’t permitted to happen again?
If so, then let us build a memorial museum for those asphyxiated fishies, with a marble monument as its elegiac centrepiece, and let us inscribe upon the pedestal, in 500-pt Trajan:
NEVER AGAIN
chek:
As far as I can tell, that would most likely be because SHE NEVER SAID BEST NULLIFIED IT.
Did she, chek?
You do comprehend the difference between drawing attention to Vince Whirlwind's false doctrine that BEST confirmed the Hockey Stick and brandishing BEST as a Hockey-Stick-breaking study, don't you?
I mean, you went to university, didn't you?
So you know something about reasoning, one would hope?
Classy stuff, chek.
Unfortunately for you, this is a thread for adults.
Misogynist fuckwits who couldn't debate in good faith if their faith depended on it may be welcome in the low-traffic side threads, but this is the House of Brad. And your kind is not welcome here.
Go away, take your palindromic pal with you, and do not come back.
Vince:
If 5 examples of "hockey sticks" that don't use tree-ring proxies or Tiljander proxies have been provided, I missed it.
And I use "hockey sticks" in the obvious sense: scientific analyses (with nice little graphs at the end) showing that there was relatively little climate change for hundreds of years, since 1000AD or earlier, until a sudden onset of global warming c. 1900 that culminated in millennially-unprecedented high temperatures in the 1990s.
Perhaps you could re-post them, or bear with me as I scan back through the hundreds of comments I haven't yet had time to read.
How amusing :-)
Lotharsson is doing his best to create a discussion about this thread at the Feb thread.
Looks like a classic case of backstabbing to me.
He is correct that he CAN do it but I'm spectacularly unimpressed with the behaviour.
Vince,
you're asking the wrong people the wrong question over at the wrong thread:
What's your damage, Vince?
Illiteracy?
Surely not. More likely a simple case of "not wearing [your] glasses and typing with both thumbs at once" again, right?
So, to repeat, THIS is what I asked:
can you get a non-tree-ring-based “hockey stick” without using the Tiljander varve proxies (upside-down or otherwise)?
Since you obviously only read a few words of the question, presumably your previous "answer":
can be losslessly disregarded.
Hi chameleon,
If the Loather is cowardly enough—or as I prefer to think of it, has the rat cunning and self-preservation—to confine his illogical and duplicitous outbursts to the side threads, what's the problem? Everyone—the readers, our contributors—wins!
:-)
Yes.
Coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers - for starters.
Three years ago I knocked one up from Aono's cherry blossom festival data.
And not a tree ring in sight - but in each case the rapid 20th century warming is very apparent...
Brad,
I guess you're right.
It still looks like childish and petulant behaviour to me.
Actually, it looks like a classic case of backstabbing.
If he wants to comment about this thread then this thread is the relevant place to do so.
Lionel A,
Unless I’ve misread Schneider in some way (which you genericly allege, but make no effort to demonstrate or even specify), he got it wrong. His ethics were wrong.
Paraphrasing his statements, which I didn’t have on hand, was more than sufficient for me to say why I thought this.
However, in case you seriously believe I “shrank from repeating” the Compleat and Unabridged Schneider, then let me now summon the strength to overcome the terrifying challenge of pasting the following (with apologies to patient readers):
”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
I reject this. It is wrong.
When you're a scientist there is no balance to be struck "between being effective and being honest”; there is no such ethical bind; no such tradeoff is either possible or permissible.
When you’re a scientist, the question of whether and to what extent to tell the truth is not a dilemma that "cannot be solved by any formula." The formula exists, it’s well known, it’s simple, and it’s been stated time and time again by true scientists since the dawn of science—scientists like Feynman, who said: bend over backwards to be honest.
Schneider's great error—or failing, if you like—was to forget that when you're a scientist, your "effectiveness" comes from one and only one source: your honesty. The idea of a balance between them is therefore incoherent. You cannot possibly be effective at the expense of being honest; if you give up 1% of your honesty, you give up much more than 1% of your credibility. And without credibility, you can't effect jack.
Climate scientists of the dangerous-AGW camp often whinge about how they're "losing the debate" and blame their "communication skills." Whole careers have been made in devising more effective "communication strategies" for them.
What these baboons fail to understand is that the public doesn't take well, and will never take well, to being "communicated" with by scientists who declare and display a willingness to sacrifice honest communication for effective communication.
You say Schneider acquitted himself with integrity and dignity, despite personal illness, in a speech he gave in Australia. My response is fivefold:
1. I didn’t know about that circumstance—all I’d heard was that Schneider died unexpectedly of an acute myocardial infarct while boarding or on board one of his frequent-flyer, fossil-fuel-propelled international commutes. I supposed that he was previously healthy, but otherwise gave no thought to the matter.
2. You’ll notice that I have not said Schneider’s heart attack was “cheering news, in an odd way,” as the repellent believer Phil Jones said of the sudden cardiac death of John Daly, an amiable denier, in 2004.
3. You’ll notice, if I ever get round to reading / listening to Schneider’s speech, that I do not make fun of his frailty and proximity to death. That kind of self-degrading ad hominem I leave to people like BBD, who apparently ignores everything I’ve said about Freeman Dyson on the pretext that the titan of physics is now in his 90s: “Dyson is a tired old man whose glory days are decades past.” Let me assure you that this is not an “argument” I’d be caught dead making.
4. Thanks for the rec of ‘The Patient from Hell: How I Worked with My Doctors to Get the Best of Modern Medicine and How You Can Too’; the idea of patients as their own advocates, and of patient-doctor collaboration, are both topics that interest me (rather more than climate change, I must say). I have no doubt that a highly intelligent and well-spoken figure like Schneider—for all his misguidedness as a climate advocate—would have a lot of thought-provoking things to say on this, not least due to his personal ordeal. So I’ve added it to my to-read list.
5. No matter how brilliantly he spoke in Australia, or how noble, moving and informative are his reflections on the patient journey, I don’t see what reason any of this would give me to “apologise” for my absolute rejection of Schneider’s ethical philosophy as a scientist. He got the ethics wrong. It doesn’t follow that he wasn’t a smart bloke, a brilliant debater even in the poorest health, or a great medical thinker. Profound flaws and glorious virtues are often known to cohabit the same cranium. So?
Which covers the most recent past where AGW has had an effect.
Plainly, the reality is too much for your tiny brain.
There is no fact demonstrating that, you credulous buffooon.
Since we humans are extracting stored carbon and burning it thereby putting it into the atmosphere, a carbon tax is one way of slowing or stopping this event.
Apparently you'd prefer a complete ban.
So neither of you disagree with the assertion that the hockey stick has never been falsified.
Brad, are you too cowardly to read the IPCC reports?
Scared that if you read something about science that you'd find you cannot maintain your contrary denialism?
CHICKEN!!!!
Proof (other than "I say so") required.
Bernard,
thank you.
In which "coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers" in particular should I seek further stick?
What, you can't find it for yourself?
I gave you the cherry blossom burst because it's not as well known, but the other proxies are easy to find. Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can't even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?
It says so much...
It’s lolz time, people!
A Deltoid reader called Lotharsson has been “skimming our thread every day or two”, he says… for the humor! But maybe not for much longer! Now he “thinks” our recent contributions have skidded into the realm of tragicomedy. Or maybe just tragedy!
Among the many claims (real and imagined) which Lotharsson says make Lotharsson cry are:
Unfortunately for Lotharsson, I remember what I said. I made no representations about my “scientific expertise.”
My qualifications as a “scientist” are just as good as John Cook’s, I said.
Our respective competencies are a different matter.
Alas, it’s hard to compare them when I understand the scientific method and Cook doesn’t.
(This might be said to suggest that Cook couldn’t work as a scientist even if he wanted to, whereas I could.)
Hmm. Fascinating if true! But what “slur” could possibly be bigoted enough to jerk a tear from the very eye of the Loather? Was it the part where I pointed out that the false propaganda about "a consensus of evidence" could never have come from a scientist, even before bill had revealed that it that it didn't come from one?
Or when I described Cook as a cartoonist? As Lewandowsky's mongoloid henchboy?
Have I said anything about John Cook that the facts themselves don’t support? We’ll never know; the spawn of Lothar doesn’t deign to say!
By paraphrasing him, apparently.
Ah, no, let me stop you there: I don’t make up the rules. I only cite them.
Some subspecies of homo just aren’t welcome here. Liars are NOT “welcome” in the House of Brad. Misogynistic fuckwits who couldn’t argue in good faith if their faith depended on it are NOT “welcome” in the House of Brad.
Live with it. Move on. Make the most of your self-exile in that untrafficked little side-thread, Lotharsson.
:-)
Brad Keyes.
There are multiple "hockey sticks" not based on dendrochronology, but reflecting the same temperature trajectory over the last millenium as do tree rings.
Why are you avoiding acknowledgement of this simple fact?
Bernard J,
This is a perfect microcosm of your side's failure in this debate.
I thanked you for the one, acontextual piece of information you provided and asked if you could be more specific about the "coral, stalagmites, bore holes, and glaciers" whose histories describe a hockey-bacilliform shape—a reasonable question when, after all, we both know how many candidate proxies describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like, don't we?
But like a petty fuckwit, you saw my question as nothing but an opportunity for you to score points off the mere fact that I'd asked it, and graced us all with this brilliant comeback:
Well, that sure learned me, didn't it, you supercilious twat?
LOL!
Ever wonder why the public increasingly thinks you and your "science" are Chaucerian frauds?
Because he's a denier.
Duh.
You think that's odd.
Theres a deltoid denier troll called Brad Keyes who has been skimming the other threads he's been banned from for being a lying arsehole every day or so.
Worse, this retard thinks this is his thread to control!
No, it wasn't.
You were given cherry blossoms. You ignored it and, rather than do your own homework, demanded someone else do work you demand of them.
Pay us and maybe we'll think about it.
Ever wonder why the public increasingly thinks you and your “science” are Chaucerian frauds?
Ever wonder why half-wits like you are reduced to recycling again the same old denier crap that failed first, second and third times around, "Brad"?
Keyes, you dishonest sophist, breaking down Schneider's statement into bits fails to portray his overall thinking which is that one should honest and honestly lay out the dangers humanity faces (as do all other creatures with the misfortune to share this planet) from the consequences of our own actions.
But then such word-play is all a part of the dishonest denier-delayer play book, another example on this specific theme we have seen before WRT the words of John Houghton. If you know not to what I refer then do some homework for it is clear that you need to do much on this. Give up your diet of dictionaries and turn to science.
Now if you were up to speed on this topic having had a history of reading the science, the denial of the science etc., etc., you would have not needed any further amplification. The fact that you write such is telling in itself. With every post you make you reveal more of your state of ignorance.
Forecasting the future can be difficult enough given the unknown unknowns at any point in the history of the science (this is one aspect that you would do well to study as your knowledge in this respect appears rather thin) and hence caveats are made and error ranges given in any scientific papers worth their weight. The fact that the scientifically naive general populace fail to understand the mechanisms and reasoning behind this methodology makes it difficult to alert them to the dangers without portraying some of the possible, and as we see now most probable, extreme events.
As I said before, you need to apologise for casting such an ignorant and despicable slur on the late Stephen Schneider. Any further tarrying on this will see you as for ever portrayed as a disgusting propagandist.
But wait. You go on, now casting aspersions at John Cook, labelling him as 'Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy.
You are beyond reproach and I will not dirty myself by engaging with you further. You have become an 'untouchable' in my books by quoting Feynman in the way that you have. That is now three scientists to whom you should apologise but I doubt that your ego will allow.
BTW this thread is only this long because you keep digging your hole, that is the true measure of your worth as any casual visitor will gather. 'Never mind the quality, feel the width' could be your epitaph.
~Hell, John Stuart Mill, being a Utilitarian libertarian, would agree ENTIRELY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Schneider.
Bray has said he's a libertarian of the JSM school.
Seems he flunked out of that school too.
BBD:
And I’ve stated my position. Maybe not again, and again, and again—but more than once. And clearly.
What aspect of my position is still mysterious to you?
I don’t have motivations for my position on climate. I’m a rational, not a motivated, reasoner. My beliefs have reasons. Not motivations.
But then: I’ve explained all this, haven’t I? Why are you still asking the same, wrong question?
Just because you had an emotional agenda when you were a ‘lukewarmer’ (as you’ve candidly recounted), it doesn’t follow that the rest of us do. In fact, until you told your story, I didn’t know of anyone who’d rejected the idea of dangerous AGW on less-than-rational grounds.
What a pointless mustelism, even by deltoid standards. Exemplars of what, BBD? Of what did I wrongly hold them up as exemplars?
The last time I cited the example of McIntyre (you were the one who insisted on bringing McKitrick into it), I did so because he falsifies your theory that deniers are all concealing some shameful political or religious ideology. The truth and generality of this suspicion were "obvious," you said! It was "invariably" the case!
As obvious as this psychological picture may be to you, it's false, as witness the examples I gave: McIntyre, Freeman Dyson, Patrick Moore. And little old me. Four deniers who aren't ashamed of their extracurricular views, which don't include any of the views you think they must.
You were wrong.
Your attempts to deny this are the opposite of scientific behaviour.
Your theory of the world implied a certain prediction; I showed that the prediction is false; but in a Weekend-at-Bernie's-like ploy to keep up appearances, you threw up every unlovely misdirection you could think of:
— Sure, McIntyre may be a denier and a leftie, but he's friends with people who aren't, you said.
So what?
— Moore may be a denier and a leftie, but he's an industry advocate, you said.
So what?
— Dyson may be a denier and a leftie, but he's over 90, you said.
So what?
What you should have done, if you profess to be a scientific person, or simply an honest one, was accept that your hypothesis was wrong, go back to the drawing-board and come up with something better.
Your goalpost-shifting resort to irrelevantia is NOT how reasoning works, it's not how good-faith dialogue works, and it's pretty much the definitional opposite of how science works!
Forget Feynman at your peril, BBD: “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong."
No ifs, ands or buts.
Speaking of corruption in sport, let me remind you of something we discussed 2 nights ago:
I asked:
”When have we EVER rejected science? Seriously, just one quote from us, please, that disagrees with the scientific method.”
You said:
“I’m off to bed. I leave this open goal open.”
I immediately bet you were wrong, because I knew to a mathematical certainty that I’d never disparaged the scientific method, here or anywhere:
“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?”
Now, if you’d like to start acting like a scientist or at least a scientifically-literate citizen again, a great place to start would be:
Tell me, how many balls have been kicked through that “open goal” in the last 48 hours?
Has anyone managed to throw my words back at me, exposing me as having disagreed with, maligned or undermined the scientific method? Ever?
And if not, what does that say about your “open goal” theory, BBD?
Finally, you said to FrankD:
But it turns out that all I said to FrankD, in empirical reality, was:
This doesn’t sound like a “dispute” by any stretch of the dictionary, does it?
Another failed prediction.
What does that tell you about your theory of Brad, BBD?
Why you take it.
Seriously, learn to read.
Brad keyes sneers:
... we both know how many candidate proxies describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like, don’t we?
Two points.
1) You persist in avoiding comment on the consilience of diverse and independent temperature proxies that span the last millennium or longer.
2) Please provide references to verified proxies that "describe a shape that is anything but hockey-stick-like".
You are full of talk, but never of reasoned, evidenced, testable and robust substance that can refute the mainstream understanding of cliamtology.
Why do you think it is that you struggle so to make a case against the "consensus", and why do you think it is that this thread is already a trail of the destruction of your various wispy denialist claims?
He doesn't think, therefore asking "Why do you think" is a waste of time.
Lionel A:
Seriously? You think I need to apologise to Feynman for admiring his absolute honesty:
And who are the other two scientists?
You've accused me of slandering Schneider—by pointing out that he advocated a balance between honesty and effectiveness, which you apparently consider to be a misrepresentation of, or to be at odds with, what you consider "his overall thinking"—in effect blaming me for a supposed contradiction between two parts of Schneider's thinking.
You've accused me of slandering Cook—but he's not a scientist, so I'm still confused.
Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote, and I love the scientific method, so it's not at all clear why I should repay Cook's attacks on a loved one with kindness.
Who do you think I am, Gandhi?
I'm not Gandhi. I'm not even Jesus! (My contempt for the philosophy of suffering injustice with a meek turn of the cheek may, in fact, be one of the reasons I've outlived Jesus!)
You never use it, though. Is this because you love it so much that you want to keep it pristine and in its original box???
Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote
Your personal opinion and worthless.
LOL!
Some illiterate on the minor thread has somehow got it in its head that our friend chameleon endorses the argument from consensus and inadvertently provides an amusing-in-a-junior-high-kind-of-way execration of said argument!
LOL. I'll have to remember that one the next time some teenager tries to pull the argumentum ad consensum. "The overwhelming majority of respectable, active flies are telling us ..."
:-)
Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote,
Another Jonarse-type failure wittering on about that of which he knows nothing. What is it with these obviously uneducated dimwits? Jealousy?
Bernard J:
What, you can’t find them for yourself?
Non-HS-shaped proxies are easy to find. Are you so scientifically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?
It says so much…
Bernard, "Brad" - our self-proclaimed lover of teh scientistic method - has quite obviously never read a primary source and wouldn't know how to find one if his life depended on it.
Bluster and piss is the best he'll manage.
Now if you'd instead asked for some samples of shit from the lowliest of denier sewage beds he'd be right there with it, stuck in his teeth, wagging his tail and expecting a biscuit.
"What is it with these obviously uneducated dimwits? Jealousy?"
It's that they're too dumb to think that such claims won't work.
OK, this dickwad has to be being coached on what to do by Joanarse.
Listen, you fuckwit moron, you claim you can easily find them, yet you haven't.
YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.
So why are you still here when you claim liars aren't welcome?
BECAUSE YOU WERE LYING THEN TOO.
No, but for the sheer hypocrisy in quoting him as if you are of the same measure.
With Cook your insult is plain to see, you may have some trouble whitewashing that one away.
As for Schneider, you misrepresented his message by taking bits out of context. That is what delayers-deniers and other liars for hire do as exposed by Oresekes [1] and others.
You slide past direct questions and then dismember the comments of others so as to prop up your twisted logic.
One is therefore led to ask what PR organisation(s) do you work for?
'Ministry of Magic' perhaps for starters.
You are all huff and puff and burst all over the place with prolixity like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man when challenged. The entropy of your thought processes is very high and growing with every post you make.
[1] 'Merchants of Doubt' and see Proctor 'Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition' for more on big tobacco which, with their PR agents and lawyers, pioneered the same tactics rolled out against the message of APGW with many of the same characters connected to the same think tanks.
Oreskes has just followed up by being in the et. al. group here:Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Which provides more context for Schneider's thinking.
I figure you have only been pestering at this for a mere dog watch where many of us are soon to draw the pension. Either that or you are a paid toll of fossil et. al. or a complete scientific ignoramus, with delusions of ability, despite your way with words.
"One is therefore led to ask what PR organisation(s) do you work for?"
The other being "Are you the best they could manage?"
Seconded on the Jonas-coaching. Brad is starting to parrot the "but I know REAL science" tripe.
I have to ask.
You refuse to give links to verified proxy reconstructions that don't look like hockey sticks.
Why so coy?
BK
The last time I cited the example of McIntyre (you were the one who insisted on bringing McKitrick into it), I did so because he falsifies your theory that deniers are all concealing some shameful political or religious ideology.
No he doesn't. You are being disingenuous again. He's very careful to *hide* his politics but we can see where his sympathies really lie from the affiliations he has made, which I have pointed out to you. I advise you to read the two-parter at DC before arguing at Deltoid that Stevie Mac is a simple seeker after truth.
I have now said *twice* that Dyson has libertarian leanings. Twice that Moore is a corporate shill (read the Sourcewatch bio you lazy tit). You are continuing to ignore information that contradicts and corrects your assertions.
Where is your evidence that SM, Dyson, Moore are 'lefties'. Back it up.
Your entire approach is a mockery of the scientific method. You reject and ignore evidence or simply refuse to examine it, refuse to carry out even trivial fact-finding for yourself and your discourse is an exercise in self-serving and evasive dishonesty. You morph your denial to avoid direct exposure while continuously broadcasting contrarian bollocks.
The above quote perfectly exemplifies the degree of intellectual dishonesty you bring to the table. What really irritates me is that you seem to think you are cleverer than everyone else here and that we don't see what you are doing.
All in all, more disingenuous, time-wasting nonsense from Brad.
@ 87
Classic Brad. Turn your own faults (ignorance, laziness, denial) into a weapon to attack Bernard J.
He has your number, just as we all do:
You are full of talk, but never of reasoned, evidenced, testable and robust substance that can refute the mainstream understanding of cliamtology.
Why do you think it is that you struggle so to make a case against the “consensus”, and why do you think it is that this thread is already a trail of the destruction of your various wispy denialist claims?
The other being “Are you the best they could manage?”
The clueless doxie sidekick is a new twist. Usually it's a clueless, link-spamming psycho moron (or two) riding shotgun with the new act.
Except for genuine lone cranks like Curtin and Spanky, it's a well-rehearsed formula.
wrt hocky sticks:
Not all hockey sticks come from temperature reconstructions. There are more fundamental ones than that.
The denier syllabus is very, very narrow, and like most small dinosaur-type brains they're already committed to the Serengeti strategy, which is why "Brad" is retreading all the old ground.
There's never been an update since the package was sold, which is why your IPCC data will be shrugged off in the hope it goes away and stops complicating the narrative. The deniers' narrative for simpletons being AGW is all Mann and the climategate crew's invention.
Look at Calumny's insistence that BEST simply doesn't/can't reproduce the hockey stick blade. That's beyond her briefing.
Brad Keyes.
I listed five proxies that non-dendrochronological temperature proxies that demonstrate a hockey stick.
If you think that non hockey stick proxies (you know, the kind that contradict the existence of contemporary global warming) are easy to find, then why are you struggling to counter my examples?
Go on, embarrass me by seeing my five proxies and raising me five of your own.
I dare you.
Brad says,
So you don't even read the information you are provided with.
I guess that explains your continued ignorance.
Maybe stop posting and start reading, eh?
Lionel A:
New rule, everybody! For the first time in history, you’re not allowed to quote someone unless you’re “of the same measure” as them. Why, that’s just …hypocrisy!
LOL… You’re making this up as you go, aren’t you Lionel?
Good. Why on Earth would I want to whitewash the fact that Lewandowsky’s mongoloid henchboy has mangled and betrayed the scientific method with his back-door efforts to rehabilitate the argument from consensus, which has been forbidden for 250 years?
You remind me of Ned Flanders, who says he believes everything in the Bible, “even the bits that contradict the other bits!”
Face it: if Schneider’s “overall message” were “that you have to honestly tell people about the risks,” then he would’ve simply said so.
A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?
It’s not as if Schneider is alone in selling out the absolute integrity Feynman demanded of scientists. Richard Muller sounds uncannily simpatico:
When leaders in climate science have given their moral imprimatur to the ever-present temptation to sacrifice absolute honesty for “effectiveness,” how could anyone be surprised if a whole clade of younger climate scientists took up this Mephistophelean offer?
Is anyone even shocked any more when atmospheric physicist Monica Kopacz admits the following shocking truth:
As an elder statesman of climate science, Schneider bears some responsibility for this morally-decadent culture.
Brad Keyes --- I assure you that Terra has no 'thermostat' tending to return temperatures to some nominal value after a perturbation. There is only a response to various changes.
This isn't your thread to demand rules on, Bray.
This is your cage.
'course he hasn't. he's snuck off for a bit then ignored everything handed to him he demanded, and come back with another galloping trots of BS.
Vince:
Really? Tell me about these "fraudulent graphs concocted by" Watts or Michaels. I (honestly) hadn't heard of this. If you can prove this allegation, I'll have no choice but to repudiate them as writers / scientists.
Really? You can't find them? They're easy to find. Type in Watts graph fakeinto google.
And will you even bother looking? Past actions indicate "No". You've been given Christy's fake graphs already. Ignored them.
And do the same for pat michaels graph fake.
Tick, tick, tick...
"Brad's" confected outrage based on opinion pieces of varying timing and validity, doesn't stretch as far as say, the convicted criminal holding a senior post at Heartland planning to lie to children on a national scale. Oh no.
But it's no real surprise by now that "Brad's" judgement would be highly selective when moral decadence is actually proven and convicted rather than alleged.
Brad, on the off-chance you intend to read this information, here is the one I think is Pat Michael's most egregious bit of fraud, (although the one he concocted for the November 2010 congresional science and technology comittee was worse, I don't think he ever published it anywhere)(I wonder why Pat Michaels doesn't publish the rubbish he tries to bamboozle politicians with?):
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/01/10/mann_go_ape/
Gosh, I didn't realise Pat Michaels was such a deep barrel of stupidity and lies.
Pat Michaels:
Nordhaus:
Must be great to have the likes of Pat Michaels on your siede, eh Brad?
Ah, let me guess, this "plan" was revealed in the forged Strategy Document? LOL...
Rather than confessed, you mean. In case you didn't notice, I quoted climate "scientists" who approve of exaggeration, in their own words.
By the way, Wow, ever since bill exposed your chronic lying about the stupid non-scientist responsible for that unscientific quote about “consensus of evidence,” you’ve been unwelcome on this thread. Why haven’t you taken the hint? LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick...
Here you go, Brad, Comment #36 in this very thread:
Hockey sticks.
No tree rings.
Time for your next "trick", eh, Brad?
Lionel A,
"APGW?"
DACC, MMCC, CAGW, MCCD, oh my!
A classic sign of pseudoscience: they keep changing the sciencey name of their undefined sciencey hypothesis.
And not a Tiljander proxy in sight?
Great!
Yeah, it's the archetypal denier deception: asking a question!
...a question to which you already had the answer.
The tactic is disruption and misdirection.
The aim is to confuse the likes of Chameleon, who, despite a complete inability to think is nevertheless allowed a vote, a vote easily stolen by those who lie to her.
David B:
'Brad Keyes — Yes, BEST is a short handled hockey stick. The evidence for ‘unprecedented’ comes from elsewhere.'
Thankyou for dealing with the actual issue rather than throwing vague, unsubstantiated insults.
I would disagree slightly with your comment by pointing out that the BEST graphs bear some similarity to ONE PART of the MBH98 hockey stick.
It can't really be a 'short handled' MBH98 hockey stick because there is NO DATA and NO CONCLUSIONS in BEST to either conclusively prove or disprove the entire MBH98 hockey stick.
The 'unprecedented' does indeed reside elsewhere.
Thankyou also for pointing out that there are other non CO2 matters re H2O feedbacks and doing so by discussing evidence and research rather than by using rhetoric and vague insults.
Good for you David B.
So, Brad Keyes, is the confrontation by multiple non-dendrochronological hockey stick so galling that you can't comment rationally on the fact of contemporary warming that is following the trajectory suggested by the consensus climate sensitivity of around 3° C?
The problem is that you didn't ask any of the correct scientific questions when you embarked on your journey of denial.
Had you done so, you'd have known that sensitivity was greater than the 1.5° C figure you guessed earlier in this thread, and you'd have known that many independent lines of evidence corroborate the obvious 20th century warming, and you might even have known known that humans and many, many other fauna and flora species have ecophysiologies that are tied to a Holocene climate regime. And note - when considering ecophysiology, the food sources of a species are as important as the physiological responses of the species itself.
If you 'possess' this thread in any way, it is through the demonstration of your glaring lack of knowledge of the science that you imagined you might refute.
The rest of us are happy to let you own that humiliation.
Further to the multiple non-dendrochronological hockey sticks, what does this say about the methodology of MBH98?
I'm curious about what the various Denialati on this thread think is the import of the consilience...
Chameleon, let me spell it out to you:
MBH98: A hockey stick
BEST: A hockey stick.
They agree. The 2nd one confirms the first. MBH98 is supported by BEST.
Anthony Watts' crank pastime of weather-station-spotting's purpose is proven groundless.
Welcome to 2013, where the wider world outside the crankosphere hasn't worried about "the hockey stick" being wrong for more than 5 years.
Hey! Bernard! I like your cherry-blosson proxy:http://s20.postimage.org/m66du6ekd/i4qql3.jpg
I see a gentle cooling trend disrupted by unprecedented modern warming.
Now, what does that remind me of...?
chameleon --- You are welcome. I point out that given the limitations of the BEST data, it tends to confirm the latter portion of the various northern hemisphere 'hockey sticks'; a small matter.
EXCUSE ME VINCE??????
"The aim is to confuse the likes of Chameleon, who, despite a complete inability to think is nevertheless allowed a vote, a vote easily stolen by those who lie to her."
You are correct that I am very seriously THINKING long and hard about MY vote and let me assure you that a comment like the one you just made will do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help your political cause.
and Vince:
Speaking of statements that are not based on fact and therefore could be called a lie:
MBH98 and the hockey stick is NOT confirmed by BEST.
Where on earth did you pick that idea up?
And also Vince,
What could you possibly know about my ability to think?
The fact that I don't accept your statements without question doesn't mean I am unable to think...in my world that would actually indicate I am perfectly capable of THINKING for myself!
I would once again recommend Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" to you.
I especially recommend parts 3 and 4.
You are lucky that I prefer David B's style of comment far better than yours and I will refrain from saying any more about your comment about my ability to THINK and what I now THINK of you because of that comment!
I can't imagine Vince...
Sarcasm aside, I've been waiting for someone to complain about the (not so?) obvious qualitative difference between the cherry blossom trajectory and the other trajectories. I should probably have used the later graph I made at the time I originally raised the cherry blossom festivals, bbecause it also includes MBH98, but it makes no difference to the fact of a hockey stick in the CBF data.
It amuses me greatly that not a one of the Denialists to whom I have referred Aono's CBF data have tried to discount or otherwise dismiss it.
I wonder why?
Following on from my previous comment about none of the denialists here or elsewhere remarking on the CBF hockey stick, I thought that I'd have been asked years before now why the pre-1900 portion is below the other constructions, and why it has so much more fluctuation overall.
For the record, the downward displacement arises because I placed the CBF data to match the instrumental record where the records overlapped. I did this mostly because it separated the different trajectories for easier visualisation. However, as I note on the Temperatures and Projections post where I originally raised this subject, local Kyoto March temperature anomalies fluctuate more over time than do the annual global anomalies. As a result, tying the 1900 data point in the CBF data to the same point in the instrumental record shifts the entire CBF trajectory downward, because the local (that is, Kyoto) 20th century warm extremes over global means are not accounted for.
If I can be shagged I might one day spend more than the original 20-30 minutes that I gave to the exercise three years ago, and work out the where the anomaly coincidence is for the CBF vs the MBH98 baselines, but it won't change the fact of the hockey stick.
BBD:
No he isn’t. Just because you haven’t found something, doesn’t mean it’s hidden.
McIntyre has a no-politics policy (so to speak) on his blog because he doesn’t want the science getting drowned out. The way I was raised, separating politics from science is considered a good thing—and you’re turning it into something nefarious. ;-)
But these things aren’t secret: read any proper journalistic profile of McIntyre, of the type found in newspapers and magazines everywhere (as opposed to professional character-assassination blogs), and you’ll see exactly where he stands politically. Macleans, for example, will tell you:
Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/2/
No you can’t. He’s already told you where his sympathies lie. You could interrogate the politics of his circle of friends, but all that’s going to tell you is that McIntyre is tolerant of human beings from a whole spectrum of political backgrounds. The bastard!
Are you tacitly declaring that you refuse to associate with Republicans (or the local equivalent), BBD?
Fine. I will. But don’t change the subject. The point is: McIntyre is a denier even though he isn’t hiding some unspeakable rightward political inclination or Christian cult membership.
Which breaks your theory.
We all have libertarian leanings, don’t we? I’d like to think so. If you don’t, it will only confirm that old caricature of climate believalists as paternalistic cryptofascists!
You can diagnose Dyson with libertarian leanings *thrice* if you want. Go ahead, do it four times. Dyson will still be, in New York Times language, “an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
No, I’m saving energy. What difference will it make to my “assertions” if it turns out Patrick Moore is a business advocate? That wouldn’t make him right-wing (or left, for that matter). If you honestly think industry mouthpieces are right-wing, then where do you place Al Gore, the nicotine-and-carbon shillionaire? Somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney, I suppose?
What, you can’t find it for yourself?
The evidence is easy to find. Are you so googlistically incapacitated that you can’t even do the background reading required of a first semester, first year undergraduate?
It says so much… as Bernard J might put it. ;-)
No, I haven’t ignored one bit of evidence. Just because nothing you’ve shown me so far has managed to convert me to a climate worrier on the spot, doesn’t mean I didn’t look at it. And just because I’ve been too busy (and had better things to do than) to follow up every link I’ve been given so far, doesn’t mean you get to accuse me of “rejecting” them. If you’re really committed to this whole “good faith” image you’re cultivating, you’ll have to give me time to read the papers.
What’s more telling, I think, is your silence on what you know is the dishonest misrepresentation of the scientific method by someone entrusted with educating people. Why do you have nothing to say about John Cook’s claims when you know very well they’re propagandistic fibs:
”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.”
Is it that you don’t want to hurt The Cause?
I’ve found plenty of trivial facts in the course of our exchanges.
Dishonesty? Still waiting for an example.
Watch as the deniomorph camouflages his belief system, dazzling and confusing the believoraptor flock! With brains no bigger than that of their descendant, the domestic chicken, it’s only a matter of minutes before they’re turning their scythe-like dew claws on each other! The enraged calls of the disembowelled raptorlings fails to rouse their brood-father, Tim, from his nidal napping. The cunning male deniomorph takes advantage of the noise and dust of the fratricidal fracas to slip away!
What’s the imputation here, BBD? Come out with it.
If you’ve convinced yourself that I’m masking my true beliefs, I can’t possibly convince you otherwise and I have no intention of wasting my time trying. A precondition for civilised dialogue is that both parties take each other’s professed opinions seriously. If that courtesy is beyond you, this is futile.
But “the above quote” was 100% true. If the truth is “contrarian,” then what’s “majoritarian”? *Grin.*
What irritates me is that I keep explaining what I’m doing but you refuse to understand me.
Vince:
You refuse to correct your errors even when they are *repeatedly* pointed out to you, Vince: the very essence of being in denial!
Vince, the BEST study starts when the Little Ice Age has already bottomed out! It's only two hundred and fifty years long! I don't know if you follow North American blood sports, but let me assure you: even Little Leaguers would be laughed off the rink if they tried to use an implement whose handle was barely longer than its blade as a "hockey stick"!
That's not a hockey stick!
That's a knife.
This is a hockey stick...
Bernard J:
No Denialists here, Bernard. I'm a denier. If you can't be polite, there is little point in continuing our mutual amusement.
Er, because deniers don't discount or dismiss data, maybe? Just a wild guess.
Comedy Line Of The Week:
deniers don’t discount or dismiss data
We'll see how long it takes before "Brad" retracts his scurrilous assertions about Mann and Jones in the face of yet more evidence independent of either. I rather think "Brad" will discount or dismiss it somehow or other.
"LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. "
THEN WHY DO YOU STILL POST YOU IRRELEVANT LIAR?
So denying five proxies exist, are you, you lying denier?
We're glad you agree that Jones hasn't hidden anything.
I shall be keeping a link to this for future reference.
Bray is now merely trolling.
Pathetically juvenile.
Gosh, has ANY denier ever proven their own statement wrong quicker than this?
bill:
What the hell is a Philosophy / PoMo-ish academic graduate?
Is that like an Engineering / Muslim graduate? A Mathematics / Belgian graduate? An English / Democrat graduate?
Who are you railing against? Apples and oranges, bill. Category error, bill.
This may come as news to you, but philosophy is an intellectual discipline whereas PostModernism is a movement or ideology (some would call it a pathology) that transected (or infected) multiple disciplines in the late 20th Century.
I can only speak for philosophy graduates, not for PostModernists (whose language I gave up trying to decode some years ago), but if it appears to you that we overvalue semantics it’s probably because philosophy non-graduates like yourself treat semantics—meaning—as an afterthought and use your words sloppily, which leads you into all sorts of dark places… such as, oh, I don’t know, blissfully reposing your confidence in a pseudoscientific ideology that utterly lacks a defined hypothesis.
“With some symbiosis, certainly”? So you believe it goes one way, not the other way, except where it goes both ways, which it “certainly” does sometimes? Damn. That’s a ballsy stance!
Your contempt for semantics is noted.
That's not what I said, and only someone who had no idea what I meant could possibly churn out such a bizarre précis.
The Scientific Method says nothing at all about whether or not there “can be” a consensus—the word “consensus” isn’t even in its vocabulary—but it would be childish to doubt that there are consensi on all sorts of things in the real, contingent world.
What I’ve said—leading to your accidental or malicious pseudoparaphrase thereof—is that, as an axiom of science, human opinion about nature is of zero evidentiary value about nature, to as many decimal places as you want. This entails, among other things, that in science:
1. my opinion is of equal evidentiary value to that of a dead dingo’s donger
2. the opinion of a dead dingo’s donger is of equal evidentiary value to that of the world’s leading authority
3. the opinion of a single scientist, that of a negligible minority, that of half the scientific community, that of a dead dingo’s donger, that of the vast majority of the scientific community and that of all scientists in unanimity are all of equal evidentiary weight
4. an argument from consensus is an argument from non-evidence, which is inane, illegitimate and immoral
No. I’m not asking you to believe this either, bill.
For the record:
1. It’s perfectly legitimate, albeit redundant, to point out that not just most people but all the people who know what they’re doing have examined the evidence
2. I agree with them: this almost certainly is the situation we find ourselves in, and the sheer haeccity of this situation only becomes clearer the more evidence one examines
Why? As long as you have justified true belief, you have knowledge.
They explained this to us in Week 1 of PHIL1001.
(For American readers: Philosophy 101.)
Whenever someone tries to pull that “there are no facts” line on me, I nod diagonally and say in my least skeptical voice:
“Uh-huh. Is that a fact?”
Your interlocutor was clearly an idiot, because everybody knows the real problem with Chomsky is that he’s a morally- and intellectually-frivolous Khmer Rouge apologist.
Any more hints?
Nobody was really talking about Chomsky until 1955, and that’s about as specific as I can be.
Unless I’m missing something the rest of the sentence doesn’t exactly give it away, because PostModernists weren’t the first people in history to contract full-blown relativism.
Remember Pilate’s sophomoric Clintonism: “Well, what is truth, if you know what I mean?”
Lotharsson et al are still discussing this thread at the February thread.
Highly, highly amusing :-)
When you come back here to skim and search for source material Lotharsson, that word that started with C and ended with D is COWARD!
Other words also come to mind :-)
BTW BBD, I was quite interested in some of your questions and comments. I am now quite disappointed.
You have retreated to character assassinations and political slurs.
Very disappointing because you do have the ability to ask decent questions.
Wow,
I notice that you're still typing stuff here, forcing me to skip over scads of your scatological schtick to get to the comments I want to read.
Why?
Ever since bill exposed your chronic lying about the un-scientist responsible for that unscientific quote about “a consensus of evidence,” you’ve been unwelcome on this thread. Why haven’t you taken the hint? LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.
"LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE"
Then why are you lying about John Cook not being a scientist when he works as one and works with other scientists?
Could it be because your in denial about your denial as exposed by Cook and Lewandowsy? Or because John Cook is an excellent science communicator, whereas you're merely a dull and pathetic word mill purveying unsubstantiated denial as you've done here the whole of your sorry-arsed visit?
Otherwise why the continual non-stop lying about John Cook? My guess is because he's got exactly the measure of chaff like you, and that scares you.
BK provides yet another 'Marshmallow' explosion.
Oh! My! What a load of turgid obfuscation. First off Schneider did advocate any such thing. You are either not as good at language as you make out or are a liar. Which is it?
Did you bother to go study that Brysse et. al. (2013) which included Oreskes?
If not you need to because it will inform you about the dilemma scientists find themselves in when caught between the rock of scientific assessment with all its caveats that take a while to explain, particularly of the audience turns out to be the lay public and the hard place of modern communication with its sound byte methodology.
That paper also describes the way Schneider saw it, reiterating my point above,
from page 4:
chek:
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek? (This is the definition Wow and I stipulated.)
Sorry, I didn't catch that, chek.
What did you say?
Ah.
And now you see why Wow was so reluctant to tell me who the quote came from, dodging the question for 2 days until our good buddy bill accidentally let the cat out of the bag. (Wow's none too pleased with bill at the moment, I bet!)
And please, no more red herrings about who John Cook works with. Chris Mooney, the English graduate who wouldn't know the scientific method if it ate his face, works with scientists routinely. Unfortunately their mental qualities haven't rubbed off on him.
Unlikely, given that I openly acknowledge my denial.
In case you've missed it every single time so far:
I'm a denier of that in which you're a believer, chek.
Of course, I expect you to keep pretending I haven't acknowledged this. You are, after all, a denial acceptance denier.
Yeah, he's such a good science communicator that as soon as Wow quoted him, anonymously, I knew the quote couldn't possibly have come from a scientist and I told Wow as much! Great science communication skillz there! Hahahaha....
I’m a denier of that in which you’re a believer, you accept the evidence for, chek.
Corrected that for you "Brad".
Can you spot the crucial difference?
That 'evidence' thing that "Brad" tries so, so hard to pretend doesn't underlie the scientific consensus and acceptance of AGW. And coincidentally the commodity that John Cook has acquired an award-winning reputation for promoting.
Evidence "Brad". The mortal enemy of the bullshit you peddle here in your shitcan.
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
Nobody gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions and aggregated stupidities, "Brad". It only highlights that you're in denial of reality.
Lionel A:
thanks for explaining the semi-literate initials APGW. AnthroPogenic!
Now at least I can tell what you meant by “big tobacco which, with their PR agents and lawyers, pioneered the same tactics rolled out against the message of APGW with many of the same characters connected to the same think tanks.”
If there really is such a conspiracy, it’s failed to stop me getting “the message of AnthroPogenic Global Warming.” Not only do I receive it loud and clear, I can see how scientifically cogent it is!
I’ve read a representative sample of Oreskes’ oeuvre and correctly located it within the conspiracy fiction genre.
It’s strange that an educated person like you could be impressed by her pseudoscholarship. But perhaps I missed something. Perhaps you could explain: what are some of the “same tactics rolled out” by the Bad Guys in both the climate debate and the tobacco wars?
No need to tell me to read MOD—I have, and in record time apparently; what I’m asking is for you to describe in your own words some tactical similarities between the two groups of Bad Guys, either from your own observations or from Oreskes’ books.
Because I’m not aware of any. This is not a rhetorical challenge, I genuinely had no idea what Oreskes was trying to get at in that particular subplot, and would like your help.
ROFL… I wish. That would be one of those dream jobs where people say, “I can’t believe they pay me to do this!”
But I can’t seem to break into the industry, for whatever reason. (I wouldn’t even know where to start; do you?)
Wow refuses to hook me up with an interview at Heartland. He won’t even tell me how much HI pays him, but I’m a bit envious / annoyed when I think of the fact that I’m forced to have a “day job” too, whereas Wow can devote himself to this (making believers look silly on the climate blogs) full-time! I reckon if I stuck at it, I could one day be almost as good as Wow himself.
Come on Wow, at least give me Joe Bast’s cell phone!
You manage to look silly (and uninformed and, it has to be said, stupid) all on your own "Brad".
Projecting it onto others is just another facet of your greater pathological denial. Y'know, the one that you don't acknowledge such as why you can't accept John Cook is a scientist, and Dr. Lewandowsky has cranks like you sewn up and explained down to a tee.
chek:
So that would be "none", then?
Unfortunately for you, chek, on February 16, 2013, I wrote to Wow:
And Wow wrote back, in toto (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…):
So, seeing as Wow and myself both agree on the meaning in which the word “scientist” was being used, I ask again:
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
Swear-words won’t help, chek! Just answer the question.
[Oops, sorry for the formatting there.]
chek:
So that would be “none”, then?
Unfortunately for you, chek, on February 16, 2013, I wrote to Wow:
And Wow wrote back, in toto (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…):
So, seeing as Wow and myself both agree on the sense in which the word “scientist” was being used, I ask again:
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
Swear-words won’t help you, chek! Just answer the question.
:-)
"Brad", your deep, persistent denial is noted (and found highly amusing).
Oh and careful re-examination of what Wow actually said is not as exclusionary as your deep denial desperately interprets it as.
For a word-parser (at best) you're actually quite shit at your job, aren't you "Brad".
chek:
I don't think you're quite following the climate debate, chek.
Heartland is what we call a "denier" group. If I got on their payroll, they'd be paying me to do what Wow does: make "believers" look silly.
Geddit?
(I'm not pretending I could do quite as good a job as Wow, but remember, he's got a lot more experience.)
Oh and "Brad" given your Gradgrindian urge to redefine science to meet with the demands your bankrupt denial, just for a laugh mind, explain which of the 'physical sciences' the Manhattan Project depended on to be successful.
Tell us about temperature 'hockey sticks' Brad...
chek,
let me remind you of Wow's message of February 16:
As all our readers can see for themselves (whether you like it or not, chek), Wow and I were using the word “scientist” in the same sense for the purposes of this argument.
So I ask again:
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
Just answer the question. Without swearing, if that's possible.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Your denial about who is and who isn't a scientist is actually becoming quite obsessional now isn't it "Brad".
It was already irrational, but I think you're crossing the line into a personality disorder now. Maybe you should get yourself checked out "Brad".
Dear Vince,
Always.
OK, I read it. Now could you point me to a rebuttal / exposé / contrary view to Michaels' piece that explains the egregiousness of it? Or could you yourself explain the egregiousness of it?
Thanks again for the info,
Brad Keyes
chek,
let me remind you of Wow’s message of February 16:
Our readers can see for themselves (whether you like it or not, chek) that Wow and I were using the word “scientist” in the same sense. So I ask again:
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
"Brad" as I've already said and can be said no plainer :
NOBODY but you gives a fuck about your arbitrary re-definitions. Now go chew some carpet or whatever it is you do when people don't submit to your will.
Moron.
Nobody thinks bill exposed anything other than you're a lying arsehole, Bray.
Your disapproval of me is absolutely of no consequence to me since you're a morally repugnant individual. Your diatribes are rather like Pol Pot telling people off for eating the last biscuit. While the crumbs of the last biscuit are still falling from his mouth.
Because you're insane?
Physics.
Bray, how are you going to make me leave?
And why, since you're asserting you're a JSM libertarian, which would make your "GO AWAY!!!" screaming rant entirely hypocritical.
Over at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/kansas-renewables-guardian.html
there's an interesting bit on how, with enough PR bullshit being flown about pandering to the local prejudices, you can get turkeys to vote for christmas to be extended.
Another interesting read.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient…
And more info.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-textbook-climate-science-climate-de…
Lionel A,
this comment ticked you off for some reason:
You responded:
Yes he did:
”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Your denials won’t change what Schneider said, Lionel.
Well, I’m not a liar. So we can rule out B.
As for option A, I wasn’t aware that I “make out” that I’m “good at language.” (Do I?) But I can definitely read English satisfactorily. Can you?
Just wondering, has anyone used Calibre to convert a game manual PDF to ebook?
chek:
My question obviously has a provocative effect on you—provoking everything but an answer, that is:
That's strange, because Wow accepts my "arbitrary re-definition" for the sake of the argument (which is exactly how it was intended).
He's even having a heroic little stab at answering the question on your behalf, since it seems to reduce you to impotent coprolalia!
Isn't that cute of him.
But how about you do it, chek?
Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?
And which format should I use? Mobi?
Here's someone else who goes with the boy band theme: "he says it best, when he says nothing at all":
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html
That John Cook sure is an excellent science communicator running an excellent science communication website.
Have you got any more links that might educate carpet-chewing "Brad", Wow? As many as you like, as they provide some benefit even to the most casual of readers.
I expect the fact that John Cook's qualified in physics and solar physics and teaches at university level as well as effectively practising science communication on a well-known website detested by climate denier cranks (such as carpet-chewing "Brad" here) must really make nobodies like carpet-chewing "Brad" quite dyspeptic.
Well, Bray doesn't actually bother reading anything (not, in any meaningful sense of "comprehending what is said"), so I'm not really bothered about what he reads or not.
So I figure I'll ignore him.
Meanwhile, I can see if anyone here has used Calibre to convert Game PDFs (you never get a physical manual with games any more) to kindle format with calibre. Many of them use tables and I'm not sure if Calibre does will with those or not.
In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see The house of "Brad" rapidly becoming the House of Cook.
Here's how John Cook's website, skeptical science explodes carpert-chewing "Brad's" uneducated, child-like view of scientific consensus for instance.
Sorry, can't help you Wow - in the mobility stakes I haven't evolved beyond laptop yet.
Incidentally, skeptical science - that website John Cook runs - has another article on the global consensus here.
Ah! Resorting to pedantry and nit-pickery now BK:
Which APGW was used to emphasise the anthropogenic part - but of course only you, the gatekeeper of language, can invents such stuff.
and
I intended that to read 'did not', but my banana like fingers lost the 'not' somehow. I guess I should be sent back to school for that, in your books.
But still you misread Schneider. Are you always this obtuse?
Did you consult 'Brysse, K., et al., Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environ. Change
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008', at all?
For it matters not what some other atmospheric physicist (Kopacz) writes it is that which Schneider wrote that is the subject here.
As for climate science being a morally decadent culture and Schneider being responsible for same is a total inversion of the truth, a must be coming from seventh rock from the sun when we have the likes of Monckton, Watts, Ball, Michaels, Lindzen, Plimer, etc., etc. representing the other side.
Yeah, you have to wonder why there's so much hate for a site that tries to inform. Even if it's wrong (there would need to be proof of that, and in a few cases where this has happened, there has been an ATL correction).
Meanwhile, WTFUWT demonstrates frequently (though not 100%) that they are earning their scorn, but deniers never see it.
So the denial side insist absolutel accuracy in their projections, pretend that they never do wrong, when cornered say "Well, if you can prove that, I'll say it was wrong" then hide/ignore any evidence and at best try the "I'm above it all, unlike you plebs" with "both sides are equally bad" without any proof of this assertion. And never retracts or admits error.
The AGW realists admit the error on occasions where it is shown, admit that there are caveats to their statements and correct themselves.
"must be coming from seventh rock from the sun when we have the likes of Monckton, Watts, Ball, Michaels, Lindzen, Plimer, etc., etc. representing the other side."
Dark Side of the Moonies.
As is well known Lionel, most denier claims of impropriety are specious projection based on accusing your opponents of doing what you're doing.
It's a pity that John Cook's excellent and generally thorough website skeptical science doesn't yet cover this aspect of climate change denier behaviour. It's an important one.
That is a matter of opinion as there is little evidence of that in this context. It would appear that you lack the breadth of understanding required to engage on this topic in a meaningful way. Your shallow understanding is being exposed again and again.
Thankfully, Monckton has stopped bullying this guy, so his site is a little quiet now, but he's an illustration that AGW realism/denialism isn't a left/right thing:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/
Lionel A:
Not at all; everyone makes typos. Notice how I quietly added the [not] and grappled with what you meant, not what you typed.
You're welcome.
Why are you thanking Lionel?
but he’s an illustration that AGW realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing:
As BBD would probably say, the whole left /right thing is contrarian framing. Apart from Bickmore, I'm sure I saw that James Hansen is (or at least was) a registered Republican, as is Kerry Emanuel. There areseveral others talking here. Then of course there's Margaret Thatcher and John McCain. And whilst totally anecdotal my impression would be that many successful academics would be 'small c' conservatives.
Lefty eco-terrorist-hippie-activist-daughter-deflowering-climate-nazi-communists is very much an invention of the shady, rabid wing of the right that facilitates trash such as Limbaugh, Beck, Monckton and similar paranoid clowns in their win at all costs race whose apt motto could well be 'Better a dead planet than a Red one'.
Aye, it's meant to censure anyone who DARES not conform by making them "THE OTHER".
So you tell them they are Nazis. Or commies, if Nazi won't work. Or hippies if they won't do it. Or all three plus any others if your listeners are dumb enough. Hell, it "worked" for Glenn Beck...
chek:
Correct.
No, unfortunately BBD is one of the proponents of such crude binarism himself, and simply won't hear of it being wrong. Try telling him how many prominent contrarians are "left" / "socialist" / "liberal"-leaning. This data contradicts his private ironclad law (i.e. that all deniers are either neo-cons, conservatives, libertarians or fundagelical Christians), so he won't even consider it.
Wrong again, Bray.
"Brad" your crude mischaracterisations are contextless and typical of you, unfortunately.
Despite the impression McIntyre might like to give, as you would discover had you ever bothered with any of the links provided, has aided and abetted by unfair means and especially foul, the most venal of right wingers such as Smokey Joe Barton, and cynical evangelical fronts for 'free marketeers' such as the Cornwall Alliance of which McKittrick and Specer are members.
The usual right wing and free-market think tanks and suspects make appearances too. Association matters. As my gran used to say,' show me your friends and I'll show you who you are'..
But not having read them you'll never know why BBD's view is anything but crude binary thinking. There is strong evidence in that instance.
John Cook's excellent website, skeptical science has this to say about the Cornwall Alliance.
BK
I knew you wouldn't bother reading those DC links (or any of them, come to that). And now you look doubly stupid for defending the indefensible from a position of ignorance despite being warned not to do this at the outset.
As for Dyson, you (as usual) have only the corner of the picture. Here's some perspective.
I have noted that you are (as always) framing. I said that the vast majority of deniers are motivated by conservative/libertarian/fundamentalist beliefs. You refuse to discuss your motivations and lie when challenged, claiming that you have been open and honest. So I supplied the probable detail based on the usual profile of deniers like yourself.
I still think I am almost certainly correct and you have done absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise.
So let me get this straight. Is Brad now going full Jonas in purporting to define what science is? It's hard to make out from the puddles of delusional whining he's leaving all over his dungeon.
So let me get this straight. Is Brad now going full Jonas in purporting to define what science is? It's hard to make out from the puddles of delusional whining he's leaving all over his dungeon.
Stu:
No. Not even close.
Get it straight:
(I cut out your Jonas reference because, having spent no time on his thread, I can't comment on what his views on science may be.)
I read Wow's quote "from someone" about scientific consensus (which turns out to have been from John Cook) and immediately said that "no scientist could have come up with this."
Wow said I was wrong.
I bet I was right.
Wow said I was wrong. But he refused to say who the source was, preferring to dance around and insist I didn't know what I meant by "scientist" anyway. So I came up with an objective definition (for the sake of the bet):
Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist.
Wow accepted this definition, replying:
Do you agree with Wow, Stu?
If so, which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, Stu?
BBD:
Every day I’m framing.
I have no idea what you mean, but it sounds cool.
You said deniers they were *invariably* hiding the shameful secret that they were conservatives / libertarians / fundamentalists, and that this was *obvious.*
Interestingly your mates don't agree with you, arguing that "realism/denialism isn’t a left/right thing."
Your mates are right (except that they fallaciously identify believalism with "realism", and libellously identify denial with "denialism").
Rubbish. I’ve always been candid about my “motivations”:
Just because you had an emotional agenda when you were a ‘lukewarmer’ (as you’ve candidly recounted), it doesn’t follow that the rest of us do. In fact, until you told your story, I didn’t know of anyone who’d rejected the idea of dangerous AGW on less-than-rational grounds.
On motivations:
- AGW denial and 'scepticism' is *almost invariably* associated with conservative/liberterian/fundamentalist belief systems.
- This is because AGW is a destructive challenge to those belief systems.
- You claim to be different, yet karaoke the contrarian memes without providing an alternative motivation for doing so.
You are either confused or being evasive.
Why do you cleave to
BBD:
No offence BBD, but I don't have time to read every link people want me to read, so I won't even bother when your advertisement for it is so vague. You've given me no reason to think that, even if the article consists of 100% God's own truth, it would change my claim about Dyson, which is (in the words of the NYT) that Dyson is "“an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources.”
Alleging that I only have "one corner of the picture" is pretty weak compared to coming out and disagreeing with what I've said. DO you deny that Freeman Dyson is a "liberal", BBD? If not, then is it really necessary that I read your spaceship article? Wouldn't it just be simpler to admit that, as your mates put it, believal / denial isn't a left-wing / right-wing thing?
A true heir to the profession of Feynman would never advocate “getting loads of media coverage” by “mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have”, would he?
Feynman did just that whilst on the Challenger commission.
BBD:
That's because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly "majority" view is wrong and that the contrary view is right (In this instance, not as a general rule—hence I don't really agree with the adjective "contrarian" either!).
What reasons?
Brad, you say:
What reasons?
My surmise is that the nasty Cook and Lewandowsky had "Brad" chew through at least five carpets before he calmed down an realised his evasive and manipulative schtick only worked on the Cammys of this world.
But "Brad" now has to rationalse his motivation" reasons", which is always entertaining when attempted by the deluded..
I just want to see a list of these reasons so they can be evaluated *rationally*.
A list of reasons. Not much to ask.
Me too.
But I suspect that he'll go chew more carpet rather than box himself in with definitive statements that can never live up to his grandiloquent proclamations without exposing his complete lack of knowledge of what he's talking about. Vanity and incompetence are a common enough mixture.
We shall see.
chek:
I’m sorry if you feel “manipulated” by my facility with words, chek, but what exactly do you imagine I'm “evading”? I stood by my derision of Cook's article (which, I remind you, was so scientifically illiterate that as soon as Wow excerpted his favorite paragraph, I knew that no practitioner of the physical sciences had written / spoken it). I was happy to defend such a my low opinion of the words quoted.
Here is how I justified it (and this was before bill had let slip the identity of the author):
Brad Keyes
February 17, 2013
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 can never be a consensus of evidence, just like there can never be a consensus of cheese, nostalgia, salt water, bacteria, ham, etc.: because 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:
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 con[silience | sensus] of evidence” in order to have a scientific consensus.
You don’t.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Forrester:
Citation?
Oh, that's right—you just made it up.
Combat against strawmen is the terminal phase of a losing campaign. Carry on, soldier.
LOL
How droll coming from the likes of Forrester, who attributes invented statements to me.
I’d never really thought about it, but—yes.
That doesn’t make it “a science.”
You could equally call English “the basis” for modern science, since without a common language in which to report their research and findings, scientists couldn’t build on the work of other scientists around the world. Am I suggesting that English is not “a science”? Er, yes.
Forrester proceeds to claim the triumph of metric standardisation as an example of the value of scientific consensus:
No more than the agreement to drive on a given side of the road in a given country is a “consensus,” Forrester.
These standards are conventions, nothing more. (Like the rules of English, you might say.)
They tell us nothing about nature, nor do they pretend to. They are not hypotheses, let alone hypotheses confirmed by evidence, nor do they pretend to be. They are not the truth, or true, or proven, or facts, nor do they pretend to be. They do not constitute scientific theory, nor do they pretend to.
Forrester has confused himself.
ROFLMAO….
As a denier, let me acknowledge for the record that science is NOT consensus!
Which you already knew, of course, gentle readers.
And now that we see a believer, Ian Forrester, openly denying such a truistic fact, we see the foundations of believalism itself, exposed in all their jerry-built risibility. The fact that the alarmist edifice built on such an absurdly feeble basis is slowly shuddering and crumbling is neither very surprising nor very interesting, is it?
The misosophical stupidity of these people is to be despised.
Keyes once again shows his hatred for science and anyone connected to science. He thinks that by spouting big words which he doesn't understand that makes him sound educated and "scientific" Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a despicable liar and arrogant to boot and doesn't give a hoot for what becomes of future generations.
He should be ashamed of his attitude, it is despicable that a so-called "intellectual" should be so full of hatred to his fellow beings that he wishes such dire straits on them because that is what continued emission of greenhouse gases will do. That is as close to a criminal act as you can get. I don't understand why such hatred towards science, scientists and fellow human beings is allowed on a so called "science blog".
Brad Keyes --- Please inform me of all the errors in Ray Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate".
Ian,
of the two of us, only you are insulting and denigrating science, e.g.:
Stop accusing science of being consensus.
That is beyond trivialisation. It's defamation.
If science were "consensus", it would have left us wallowing in medieval ignorance. Still. To this day. It would have taught us nothing.
"Consensus" is a pre-scientific way of knowing.
You may as well call chemistry "alchemy", astronomy "astrology" and science "religion."
I don’t understand why such hatred towards science, scientists and fellow human beings is allowed on a so called “science blog”.
Lionel A:
I never knew Simon had passed any comment on Schneider. So I couldn't have "repeated" it—my remarks were my own.
No, why would that be necessary? Schneider's interview was self-explanatory, was it not? His answers can surely be judged on their own merits.
Yawn. Climate scientists act as if they were the first scientists in history to have this "problem." Never mind that they also have unprecedented media buy-in and celebrity endorsement and the support of the international community and the entire environmental movement—advantages most scientists can only dream of—they still bitch and moan about how hard they have it.
The other absurdity is, they can't seem to get their rhetoric straight. One day, "the facts / the science / the truth" is so obvious, only the most obtuse deniers could fail to grasp “it"; the next day it’s so complex they're agonising about how they can possibly dumb it down enough for proletarian comprehension.
All these “dilemmas” have been considered and solved by previous scientists. The scientifically and morally correct solution was put succinctly by Feynman:
“You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist. . . . I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not [only not] lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, an integrity that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
“For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘there aren't any.’ He said, ‘Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind.’ I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.”
(That last sentence seems almost prescient when we consider the attitude of later “scientists” like Monica Kopacz!)
To digress for a moment, Feynman also had wise advice for hockey-bacillologists who might be tempted to secrete methods, censor data and obstruct replication:
“There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in ‘cargo cult science.’ It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
“One example of [the need for integrity] is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
“We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.”
But still you won't back up this opinion with specifics.
Readers can judge for themselves whether my "reading" of Schneider—which I expressed mainly in direct quotations from the man himself—was erroneous in any significant way.
(I note that you've eased back on the accusations of deliberate distortion—good.)
You mean “criticisms of.”
You mean “criticisms of.”
Hahahaha.
One ties oneself in the most ergonomically-unfriendly knots when one tries to find “reasons why” something is the case which isn’t the case in the first place. There is no “possible reason why scientists have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming”, because they HAVEN’T underestimated it. They’re systematically biased in the opposite direction.
Schneider himself said it—weren’t you paying attention? “Offer up dramatic scenarios.” They admit exaggerating. They even suffer the occasional paroxysm of conscience and reproach each other for their exaggerations.
Acrimony? In climate science?? I don’t believe you.
Really? I always found nature to be more than cinematic enough, epic enough and heroic enough in its own right to fascinate students for years on end. In my experience, it needs no embellishment.
Then again, maybe this is only true for the important, profound and / or high-stakes areas of science; maybe climate change, where nothing interesting is going on, really does need to be sexed-up by unscrupulous carnival operators?
I can think of no context in which his comments would be defensible.
Furthermore, I quoted him fairly. Deny it all you want, he said what I said he said.
Again I ask: in what conceivable way?
Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, Lionel.
Could you be a bit vaguer?
Bluh? That’s a new one!
Huh? Maybe I was confused about APGW several comments ago, but now that you’ve spelled out that somewhat idiosyncratic acronym in full I actually know what you were trying to say. And I know very well how anthro Pogenic global warming differs from climate change, of which it’s just one example or subtype.
What’s not to understand? Were you expecting me to acknowledge the reality of one and deny the other? Sorry to disappoint you, but the evidence is pretty clear: they’re both—both CC and AGW—real phenomena.
David D. Benson:
Sorry David, I don't review books I haven't read. Kind of a personal quirk. Sets me apart from your Danae and your Gleicks. :-)
BBD,
If you're still around, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Lionel A's latest idea. He reckons that if you say "science is not consensus",
How do you rate this recommendation?
BBD,
Oops!—I meant "Ian Forrester's," not Lionel A's, latest idea.
Sorry if you were offended (as you should be) by that mix-up, Lionel.
Lotharsson:
*Sigh.* This tack again.
Unfortunately, Lotharsson, the similarity between those concepts is not news to me. It was not news when “it was pointed out to Mr. Keyes,” and it isn’t news now.
As desperately as Lotharsson wants me to, I have never disputed this banality.
At one point he actually fantasised that I’d denied it:
This fantasy even came with a backstory; in Lotharsson’s mind, I already had a history of denying it!
So I suppose I now have to reiterate to Lotharssson:
We both know the phrases are fairly synonymous. But you won’t get this trivial semantic truth to do any propositional work, will you? It’s a logical dead-end, Lotharsson.
But if you’re determined to figure that out the hard way, be my guest.
Brad Keyes --- Then you need to study Ray's book. Relieve of your misconceptions about planetary climates.
So: Ian F thinks consensus is science, and that if people disagree with this revolutionary re-definition, "They are to be despised."
As psychotic as that must sound to the healthy population, there already appear to be 4 takers, and counting, for Forresters' notion! Here are the known subscribers so far:
The They Are to be Despised List
I. Forrester, founding member
Lionel A
Wow
Lotharsson
chek, you've always seemed borderline insane. Would you care to add your name to this august roll?
Lotharsson:
Lotharsson is breaking his policy against telling trivially-exposed lies now; read on!
Really? So why weren’t you able to quote me taking that “position,” Lotharsson? Why couldn’t you quote me saying something that might have been reasonably paraphrased as, “consensus does not exist in science”?
Because you made that shit up.
Like Forrester.
No, I ridiculed it on the basis that it was a strawman of Forrester’s own fabrication. Readers need only scroll up to see my reply for themselves:
LOL
It’s strawmen within strawmen!
This is all great data for my next paper, Recursive Stupid: when believers relieve believers.
Having misunderstood me in the clunkiest and most obvious way imaginable, Lotharsson tries to brazen it out with the condescension that is his stock in trade:
And this from a guy who claims to work in software, which normally entails some sort of competence at basic parsing and basic logic!
Astute readers may be wondering:
hang on, where did Lotharsson even get the clause “science is not consensus” in the first place?
Well, Lotharsson is (understandably) reluctant to draw attention to its source, but allow me to copy-and-paste the line he’s gone out of his way to avoid quoting. From a certain Mr. Forrester (my emphasis):
It’s unmistakably clear what Forrester is asserting here: consensus is science.
It’s unmistakably clear, from my reply to Forrester, how stupid I found that claim:
(It becomes impossible to believe, at this point, that Lotharsson still didn’t understand the origin of the disagreement over whether consensus is science.)
As hard as it is to imagine an adult revealing such an uneducated thought in public, this really happened; and not only did Forrester publish the above claim, but other adults, rather than guffaw uncontrollably, took it seriously! Lotharsson himself, up until his recent attack of discretion, was more than happy to openly associate himself with Forrester’s misosophical musings by uncritically quoting...
... thus earning himself a slot in the “They Are to be Despised” list.
Of course, if Lotharsson feels his name was included in error, I’d be happy to remove it; it’s as easy as Lotharsson writing, “No, consensus is not science.” (My emphasis.)
Failing that, the only reasonable inference is that Lotharsson agrees with Forrester’s fraudulent equation.
There is no reason.
Because there are no reasons.
What reason do you need to die-ie-ieeieeie.
"That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming."
That's entirely wrong. For a start you have invested your own self-worth into it.
You also have no reasons for rejecting it. You never had any reasons for thinking ECS was 1.5 and 2.5-3 was an outlier. You have no reasons for rejecting the sensitivity other than "They may be wrong, right?".
"I knew that no practitioner of the physical sciences had written / spoken it)."
Based solely on your own definitions of what you have pre-determined to be scientifically acceptable.
Which you neither adhere to nor have correct.
Either quote where Ian says this, or withdraw your lying statement.
LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!
The emperor really doesn't have any clothes on, guys.
Hey bill,
what do you reckon:
is consensus science? Yes or no?
Either quote where Ian says this, or withdraw your lying statement.
LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!
Brad,
With regards to Wow's, "LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!", there's some background to Wow's comment, Brad, that you might find of interest in understanding where Wow's age-inappropriate anger-issues are coming from.
You see, Brad, Wow is "mummy's" most precious little snookums-wookums bubber-bubber. And when Wow puts on his feisty-puppy, Wownd-up, big-boy-wannabe snot-act, mummzie-wummzie thinks her l'll Wow is just the cutest punkin'-pie there ever was! (Wow is Mom; Mom is Wow)
Best to ignore him.
\
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Wow:
Finally you acknowledge it!
Yet I see you are still spamming this thread with your stream-of-consciousness tweets.
Let me remind you of your message of February 16:
No it was not. I knew immediately that it couldn't be, and I was right.
It was from John Cook. As everyone knows, John Cook does not practice a physical science. He is not a solar physicist. He is not a physicist. You were lying.
Your kind is not welcome here.
mike,
Interesting. It all sounds a bit Norman Bates-y... *shudder*
Aha! You do distort the intended message which did not necessarily imply that you had foreknowledge of Simon's opining. Yet more sophistry. You are working up to a prize for this.
No it was not, and certainly with the way in which you took a part out of context. You should study the paper for then you should grasp why your response here is invalid,
I have but you do not bother to read it, see above. That is not my problem.
It seems that you like pontificating from ignorance as also seen with your exchange with David B Benson WRT your not reading Ray Pierrehumberts, 'Principles of Planetary Climate.
So, as with all of your arguments with myself, and others here, you are declaring from ignorance.
Quite why Feynman's expose on Cargo Cult Science is supporting your case is a mystery. And yes I have read much of Feynman's works and indeed own copies of most including one that contains the description of Cargo Cult Science.
Both Feynman and Schneider would by now be crying foul at your antics here.
WRT Cook how do you think a mongoloid reference could NOT be racist?
Cook clearly has an education in science sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate change science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of Skeptical Science.
Therefore your declaration that,
is demonstrably untrue, see above. GOTCHA!
Who is the liar now? Your 'facility with words' [1] is exposing you for the evasive, devious and mendacious troll that you are.
One thing you are good at though is filling long posts with nothing more than exploding marshmallow, i.e. puffery also exemplified with your wibbling on scientific consensus. I figure you are close to holding a record for this.
The scientific consensus on climate change describes the broad agreement on the specifics of the anthropogenic component as informed by the multidisciplinary nature of the data supporting that consensus position.
As with other consensus positions in various other areas of science such as, relativity, plate tectonics and evolution there is still room for much debate about some of the details, indeed over the years this has required some drastic re-jigging of certain aspects of those sciences but the overall structure remains intact. And yes I have a reading and studying interest in all of those too with a library that supports it.
[1] What a shame that hasn't allowed you to progress beyond arguing from ignorance.
Lionel, quite so.
"Brad" despite the literally thousands of words and God only knows how many once perfectly serviceable carpets you've expended in your spittle flecked rants, let me repeat something you were told way, way back but have chosen to ignore in favour of seeing your own words in type and munching all those tasty carpets.
"Scientific consensus is not the argument, but it indicates the strength of the argument".
I appreciate there are two clauses to that sentence and that may make things tricky for you, and there is possibly also a degree of subtlety there which may frighten you.But try "Brad", just try. Deconstruct it as much as you like, but the meaning underlying the words should remain clear, even to you.
Finally you acknowledge it!
Where?
I was quoting YOU, Bray.
I know Feb 16. You're lying here too. It is from a scientist. Just you pretend they aren't because you're a fraud and he points it out.
"I say he isn't" isn't proof of your assertion.
And, likewise you have been unable to quote Ian saying that science is consensus.
Three lies in one post.
Unusual, but not unexpected, from you to pack so many in to one small post.
Bray, according to you, neither you, mike nor chubby, joan olap or panties are welcome here.
Yet you do welcome them.
Why do you welcome liars and love so much to lie yourself?
Remember, no data will be read nor statement understood because Bray doesn't even know why proofs are required in science.
You're just an ignorant prick, aren't you, Bray.
chek,
You have no idea how science works, but let's pretend you do. Let's imagine this is not a load of bollocks:
Then a strong consensus tells you the argument is strong.
So a strong consensus tells you the argument is well-supported by nature.
So a strong consensus tells you that nature is firmly on-side with your argument.
So a strong consensus tells you something about nature.
So a strong consensus is evidence about nature.
So a strong consensus is scientific evidence.
So a consensus can be scientific evidence.
So in science, consensus can be evidence.
So in science, consensus can be used as evidence.
So in science, consensus can be something you can argue from.
So in science, you can argue from consensus.
Agree?
You shouldn't—that's patently false. In science, you can't argue from consensus.
See the problem with positing your original bollocks?
Ashes to ashes. Bollocks to bollocks. Reductio ad absurdum.
Reductio ad absurdum
That's what you do "Brad". On the opther hand your logical leaps into continual logical fallacies are a wonder to behold.
It's quite easy to see how you chew through so many carpets now. Everyday decisions must be a complete munchfest for you..
He knows Monckton Latin (tm)!
I hope the pantwetter has wool fibre rather than man-made carpets. The roughage will keep him "loose".
Still nothing showing Ian doing as Bray claimed.
I guess he just can't stop lying, the timewasting, the arrogant prick.
He's awful coy about "disproving" accusations of lying, isn't he.
It's like he knows he was lying and is avoiding it.
Aw, hell, no it IS that he knows he is lying and avoiding it.
Lionel A,
you're weird.
On the other thread you felt that, "The likes of Keyes are beyond contempt," which is true—but I presume you meant "beneath contempt," didn't you? Presumably your sheer subcontempt for me got in the way of accurate typing.
Yet on this thread, here you are, suddenly capable not only of noticing but also of exchanging detailed philippics with me.
So either I've done something to rise by at least two levels in your esteem (from somewhere beneath your contempt threshold to somewhere above your attentional threshold), or you're just not very consistent!
But now that I’ve more than regained your contempt, let me make the most of this period of grace to comment on what you wrote:
Aha! You do distort the meaning of my reply, which didn't necessarily imply that you'd necessarily implied that I'd had foreknowledge of Simon's opinion. Yet more incomprehension. You are working up to a prize for this.
No, I can't be bothered, since the a priori chances are that an essay written in 2013 isn't going to add much by way of context to an interview Stephen Schneider gave in the late 1980's.
I already understand and accept (and am unmoved by) your point that climate scientists are in a "dilemma" when it comes to public communication. So what? All scientists working on a problem that touches on some public concern—which is to say, most scientists working today—must have been tempted at one time or another to "sex up" their findings in order to "get on the evening news," but they've traditionally managed to resist such unworthy thoughts, because they know science is rooted in a principle of absolute honesty. Climate scientists are the only scientists who seem to struggle with this idea. And perhaps if climate-science role models like Schneider hadn't opened the ethical door to a compromise between honesty and "effectiveness," then the youth in climate science wouldn't have been led astray. Who knows.
What are Brysse, Oreskes and friends going to add to the thus-far unmoving picture?
Unless you can be more specific, you're giving no reason to spend my limited time reading their apologetics.
This criticism might have some merit if there were any signs that I “liked pontificating” on climate science.
But there isn’t, and I don’t.
If you’ve been following the thread from the beginning, you’ll know that the only positions I’ve expressed on climate sensitivity, atmospheric feedback, medieval temperatures, etc., have been those that BBD and Bernard dragged out of me. They insisted on knowing exactly “where I stood.” I submitted to their climate-doctrine litmus tests reluctantly, and it would require a powerfully distorting historical lens to think I’d “pontificated” to anybody here on the subject of the climate.
Perhaps I should have been more didactic. I’ll try again.
Contrast Feynman’s philosophy in these passages (my emphasis):
“You should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not [only not] lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, an integrity that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
with Schneider’s philosophy in this passage:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
See the irreducible contradiction between them? The point being: you’re either a Schneiderian or a Feynmanian; you can’t be both, by the principle of non-contradiction.
No—Feynman would be too busy crying foul at Schneider’s antics to criticise a humble little non-scientist like me. Schneider’s “balance between being honest and being effective” would appall him.
ROFL!
Okay… okay… so far I’ve heard:
1. Cook is a practicing physicist
2. Cook is a practicing solar physicist
3. Cook is a practicing climate scientist
And number 3 was as simple as running a blog!
Anthony Watts, whose climate-science blog is much more active and widely-read than Cook’s, must be a climate überscientist by your logic! Give the man an honorary Professorship.
The uncanny thing is, despite Dr Cook’s years of research and publication in the peer-reviewed climate-science literature, he’s inexplicably managed to avoid picking up the rudiments of scientific thought! It’s almost unbelievable that someone who’d hung out with scientists and listened to their opinions, or even done so much as read a book or two about the history of opinions in the science community, could ever produce a falsehood as gross as this one with a straight face:
“There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus [sic] of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”
Are you actually naive enough to buy this, Lionel? Are you really oblivious to the existence of scientific consensi that don’t have the support of a consilience of evidence?
Finally:
When you seconded Forrester's decree that "They are to be despised," adding "Indeed", what precisely were you agreeing with?
Did you mean that "deniers" are "to be despised" for saying "consensus is not science"? I consider that to be the obvious reading of Forrester’s remarks, which conclude:
If this is the idea you were endorsing, does a reasonable person have any choice but to conclude that you think consensus is science, Lionel?
In which case, it’s futile for us to even attempt to discuss what “the science” tells us, because we speak two different dialects of English. When I say things like “science” and “evidence”, I mean science and evidence. When you say “science” and “evidence”, it’s anyone’s guess what you mean. (“Consensus” and “opinion,” perhaps?) In any case it’s doomed to be a pseudo-conversation.
Projection from our resident pinhead prick.
Again.
Comprehension: pegged at 0% and holding.
"Brad's" looking more and more like another refund pending case for the Oregon Institute.
I think Bray has watched too much Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles, cooing on about con-sensei.
Maybe this explains Bray's "Walter Mitty" hallucinations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality
Bloomin 'eck.
More exploding marshmallow from Mr Stay Puft!
I would only appear weird to a clot from the other side of Alice's mirror.
So now you of the 'word police' are censuring me for using the phrase 'beyond contempt'. If I wish to use that then who the fuck do you think you are to decide otherwise. Sheesh! You are a jerk of the first water, indeed beyond the pail. And yes I do not what I mean there too.
The rest of that exploded marshmallow is just more of the same ol' same ol', 'I don't need to learn anything I don't want to' even though I feel free to take climate scientists apart on the basis of mine own ignorance'.
Now you are making stuff up.
Ah! Never mind the quality, feel the width again. Now what scientific qualifications does Willard have, exactly?
You clearly do not have a handle on the history of this subject, once again that paper I cited will help you out with your false notion that scientists have not understated the perils of warming.
Neither do you have any clue, or pretend not to, about the long history of dirty tricks aimed at climate scientists as indicated in a para' with link here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa….
But of course your overweening arrogance makes you believe that you need not bother following the links in arguments. And your arrogance is clearly displayed at every post as you try to poke fun at others use of language. A 'poor humble non-scientist' you will never be. Perhaps you should discover what humility means
As a bore, you are a class act, as a poor humble non-scientist, not so much.
It clearly is a waste of time arguing with one of your ilk, as somebody once remarked [1], 'arguing with him is like trying to nail a jelly to the wall.'
[1] about a certain British Minister for Technology when whilst in the US trying to discuss sorting out problems with a certain British gas turbine engine for a certain newly developed mark of a well know US military aircraft.
You had better sort out the syntax etc. on this post before it goes to print, you being such an expert like.
Brysse et al., page 9:
Notice the author's use of what BBD would denounce as "framing": the ontological field is divided between scientists on the "inside," and skeptics on the "outside." Skeptics are implicitly called "external opponents"!
This is either:
1. a bizarre and inadvertent admission that nobody inside climate science is skeptical, and that climate scientists and skeptics are opposed to each other
2. a deliberate use of a fictional dichotomy, which delegitimises "skeptics" by denying the significant real-world overlap of the sets "climate skeptics" and "climate scientists."
All very nice in theory, but the environmental sciences community doesn't actually punish false alarmism, does it? Look at Paul Ehrlich, who's made a career out of never being right and remains as highly-respected as ever among ecologists. Look at Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the serial reef obituarist. As long as your predictions bring in the next grant, your peers aren't going to care too much which orifice you pulled them from.
Lionel:
As a professional meteorologist, Watts clearly has an education sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of the award-winning science blog WUWT.
In case a certain palindromic peeping-tom is lurking, waiting for a chance to misunderstand something, that last paragraph was ironic.
So what actual scientific training has Watts had, do you know?
I tell you you do not know, so go and check up what Watts has for qualifications.
He's no more qualified than Glenn Beck.
So, Bray, if Anthony Watts is only a weather PRESENTER, what does that do to your assertion about him that was premised on "as a professional meteorologist"..?
It's interesting that ol' "Brad" here is side-stepping further and further away from any actual science (which he's too ignorant and lazy to inform himself of) and deeper into Hello! magazine territory by way of diversion.
After taking stuff out of context we have more marshmallow from Stay Puft.
Only in your twisted mind which removes things from all context.
Keep reading much other stuff you betray your naivety still, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa….
WRT Paul R. Ehrlich who you slur with this, '...who’s made a career out of never being right...'. Never, not eve? No exaggeration there?
Perhaps you should read 'Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future' and see where you seem to fit in that picture.
Maybe you consider yourself a master of language and rhetoric but, as we see, of reason not so much.
Ehrlich was right to point at the population bomb and it is only some unforeseen by him temporary improvements in agricultural techniques, dependant upon oil and thus the 'temporary', that he was off with the timing. However there is a growing number of the world's population falling below nutritional standards that maintain health and life. This not only in developing countries but also the sold called 'West'.
Ehrlich has more knowledge and understanding in the tip of his index finger than you have in the whole of your sentient being, and by a long way.
Have you not heard about food banks in Britain, or elsewhere.
Then there is this: The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8) .
and
this: The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See.
In that latter we see the worst outcomes (True.B) that many scientists could foresee happening if we continued BAU at its most extreme - continued overexploitation of ALL resources in order to achieve infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Many scientists could see this coming but never propounded the worst of outcomes because they knew only too well that they would have trouble from the likes of you and then any chance of reasonable discussion would be over.
The bottom line here is that you can use words but not in a reasonable manner.
He's being a very coy boy, isn't he.
Wonder what he has to hide.
Stay Puft again:
My turn for a ROTFL
Before braying about that you should have learned what the award was and how he won it. But sorry I forgot, you are a neophyte here aren't you.
I think the name of this thread is wrong it should be Bragelina.
And isn't that award the result of several people agreeing?
Does that make it a consensus?
Surely not, Bray NEVER uses a consensus as argument! NEVAH!!!!!
It seems that Brad would rather engage in literally endless argument about the definition of scientific consensus than discuss the scientific evidence and its implications.
Evidence which suggests - very strongly indeed - that unless emissions are substantially and rapidly reduced, the consequences for future generations and global ecology will be severe.
But Brad is not afraid of AGW. He's a 'realist' not a 'climate worrier'.
This is an impossible position to hold in the light of the current scientific understanding of AGW. So *why* does Brad believe something silly? He is a clever chap. Why do something illogical and even foolish? What *motivates* this behaviour?
There are a few possible answers:
- Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded Brad from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications
- Brad understands the situation reasonably well but rejects the standard position because it is in direct conflict with his political beliefs
- Brad has glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW
Despite Brad's attempts to deflect this line of enquiry by fake outrage and playing the victim and definitional nit-picking it remains the key to everything.
Once again, I invite Brad to examine his conscience and tell us what he finds.
Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why does Brad never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?
Is it politics? Brad says not, but I for one think he's lying.
Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won't read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up his constructed reality at any cost to his own integrity or that of his 'arguments' etc).
Only Brad can clear this up and he keeps refusing to do so. So we continue to assume he's lying and it's politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps Brad, for all the bravado and bluster, is actually terrified inside. So frightened that his mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.
Thanks for the laugh, Napoleon. That was priceless.
No, Stu!
Stop! Don't do it!
If you goad him it'll...
OMG too late!
Oh, the humanity!
Won't somebody please think of the carpets!!
chek:
Why would I discuss the scientific evidence with the like of you, chek, when you think consensus is a form of scientific evidence ("consensus indicates the strength of the argument")? What would either of us learn?
How can you discuss the science when you don't know what it is?
BBD,
This is a perceptive remark:
Yes I would. Before sinking substantial amounts of time and energy into discussing "the scientific evidence" I would like to ascertain that my interlocutors understand such things as: what scientific evidence is; what scientific evidence isn't; the difference between science and pseudoscience; etc.
Brad
Can we cordially agree that we don't give a stuff about the definitional argument over what constitutes the scientific consensus and get down to something a bit more substantive? Eg # 1 and # 58.
You're right, "Brad". Your misrepresentation begins as soon as the words hit your cortex. Plus you don't know anything, which is what makes your adopted position so curious.
We crossed; consider the request repeated.
You've had no problems with wasting thousands of words on fuck all so far, why so coy now?
Run out of carpet?
Boy knows big words.
Like interlocutor.
But not like consensus.
Were you busy trying to find any science education Watts has undertaken?
Did you fail to find any?
Maybe he's hiding his declining intelligence...
Hey Brad, what do you reckon?
Is your question bullshit? Yes or no?
All you are demonstrating here is your intellectual dishonesty.
Lionel A:
No, the principle of non-contradiction is real and fairly important—I commend it to your (constant) attention. Especially when saying things.
(I'm appalled that you weren't taught this at some point in your education.)
Or did you mean to say I was making up the contradiction between Feynman and Schneider?
Uh, no I wasn't. Perhaps I still wasn't explaining it with sufficient obviousness.
Feynman's ethics demand "bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong" when communicating with the public, and that, "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it."
According to Schneider's ethics, by contrast, it's OK to "make little mention of any doubts we might have" when communicating with the public.
Feynman demands "absolute integrity".
Schneider advocates "a balance between being honest and being effective."
Spot the difference?
Another oddity about moron "Brad" here, is he'sheavily reliant on Watts and McIntyre, but not the first port of call for anyone genuinely interested, the IPCC.
You might think anyone genuinely interested would be interested in the weight and diversity of evidence (notice how quickly "Brad" and Calumny dropped their hockey stick nonsense?) that gives rise to the scientific consensus.
But no, "Brad" just chunders on like a shit sluice with a broken 'off' valve.
...and see he's still in denial playing word games with what people said versus what he postulates they meant rather than confront evidence. What a waste of a paycheque.
Whereas you, Bray, manage to avoid any hint of honesty and manage to completely fail to be effective.
Bray, Is the reason why LIARS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE because you don't want competition?
Place holder.
I asked:
Rather than type a single-word answer, bill typed:
No, bill, it's a simple question with a single-word answer (yes or no), and your evasion of it is astounding.
chek:
But chek, you think consensus is evidence ("the consensus indicates the strength of the argument"), so what would be the point of discussing "the evidence" with you?
Brad
# 1
# 58
?
BBD:
Sorry but I do give a stuff.
This is not "just" definitional; it's not "just" semantics; it goes to the very heart of how (and whether) we understand science.
When a whole cohort of believers has been raised to think consensus counts as evidence in science (or even worse, to ridicule the idea that "consensus is not science", as Lionel does!), then we have a major, major societal problem on our hands.
Even after the climate debate has come and gone this time-bomb of mass scientific illiteracy will still be out there, ticking. What pseudoscientific scam will these rubes fall for next? Such a radically miseducated populace has no intellectual immunity to snake-oil salesmanship, so it could be anything.
This is a major and compelling problem. If you'd rather talk about degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2, then I think you're missing the bigger and far more fascinating (to me, anyway) picture: the public and its relationship with science, which has never been as strained as it is now.
We live in interesting times.
We can add deductive reasoning to the list of things "Brad" here is unable to handle.
So let's return to BBD's post #58 which shouldn't torture "Brad's" brain unduly. If he can be honest, that is.
Oh dear, "Brad's" a cheap conspiract theorist after all.
How disappointing if not completely unexpected.
But then for the average half-wit, conspiracies are generally easier to understand than real life, and real life evidence.
You were right BBD. He's an avoider.
# 1
# 58
BBD,
You have already decided what you think those reasons are.
You have outlined them here and at the Feb thread.
Can you explain what you think current behaviour and policy is achieving in terms of measureable and practical results?
No one believes that the climate and/or the planet would be the same if there were no humans.
Keyes says:
It is obvious to everyone (except the denier troll hanger ons) that Keyes does not understand science. He doesn't appear to even understand simple logic and reasoning. It is time he was shut up, his dishonest ramblings are lowering the quality of what used to be a decent science blog which had good discussions of climate science. Now it is just full of Keyes' nonsense going round and round in loops and smearing and insulting anyone who dares to correct him.
Tim, why do we have to put up with this dishonest, arrogant know nothing boor? If someone came into your house and smeared shit all over your carpet you would throw him out immediately, how can you not see that is what he is doing here?
A forest troll says:
Thanks for your concern, F, but my understanding of science is just fine. The enigma I'm currently working through is how you came to misunderstand it so badly as to believe consensus is science:
Being a bit of an evidence junkie, I recommend that everyone:
- read the Brysse et al. paper to which Lionel kindly provides a link
- read Roger Pielke Jr.'s magisterial takedown thereof
- not clog up this thread (please) debating whether or not it's just coincidence that Pielke Jr. was fired from the GEC editorial board five days after publishing his rebuttal
chek, Forest Troll,
I've also noticed something interesting about your verbal behaviour when cornered: everything's faeces with you people, isn't it?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Brad, pathetic douche who makes love to his thesaurus...
Did you just quote Pielke? Seriously?
Wait, never mind that, did you just use "magisterial" and "Pielke" in the same sentence?
Seriously? The author of "The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming"?
Are you for fucking real?
Brad Keyes --- While your understanding of science might indeed be 'just fine', it is not good enough to understand the intricacies of climatology. I have previously indicated a way to remedy the current situation. Another way is via a quite decent history, "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
David Benson,
thank you for the rec. To be totally frank I'm more interested in science in se than climate science, but since the latter has thrown up so many questions around the former, I'll try to find time to read Weart's account.
But your comment also raises a question. Given "the intricacies of climatology," which require a better-than-just-fine grasp of science, isn't it weird that your co-believers blame people who don't understand climate science—and understand it the same way they do? If the science of climate change is as fiendishly complex and multidisciplinary as it's typically said to be, why are so many people surprised and angered by the bimodal distribution of conclusions drawn from it, even among experts?
I read Pielke's "majesterial takedown" and walked away with this:
So, just considering the evidence adduced in Brysse et al, Pielke agrees that when predictions are in error, they are five times as likely to be underestimates as overestimates. That sounds like "Erring on the Side of Least Drama" to me. The other five points were essentially bang on, so don't consitute erring on either side.
How this constitutes a "majesterial takedown", I'm not too sure, but Brad has asserted on numerous occasions that his language skills are superior to people posting here (myself included), so I'm sure there is some subtlety I'm missing here. Perhaps he will explain how errors showing a tendency towards lowballing in 83% of cases is not "Erring on the Side of Least Drama".
I expect that a wider survey would yield different numbers, but whether it would fundamentally change the balance I couldn't say.
Stu,
I don't know how to break this to you but the reputable academic journal that saw fit to publish Brysse, Oreskes, Oppenheimer et al. has also seen fit to have Roger Pielke Jr. on its editorial board for 6 years.
Seriously. The author of “The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming”.
I am for fucking real.
Try to deal.
Brad Keyes --- To answer your question(s), I don't know. Read what Oreskes has to say maybe?
However, the experts all come to about the same conclusion. There are a few physicists (and geologists) who assume since they have mastered one narrow area therefore instantly understand climatology; they are uniformly wrong in that assumption.
FrankD:
Refresh my memory, Frank.
Did I really say my linguistic skills were better than yours, or did I:
— commend you for having the good sense not to pass judgement on my etymological competence without sufficient data
and
— praise your contributions to this thread on the subject of Medieval, Medical, Modern and Moncktonian Latin?
Easy.
A wider survey would yield different numbers.
Ian,
One more thing:
You should thank your long blue hair—you're a very lucky forest troll.
See, your fellow believer BBD knows (more than) enough about how science works to know how deranged this exhortation from you is:
But don't worry, he won't say anything. He's bound by the general policy of the climate movement: solidarity trumps honesty.
Which lets you off the hook in the short run... but has proven corrosive to the credibility of the climate movement over the long run.
Brad - no you really did. It was way up the thread, not the "etymological skills" comment, and you questioned whether I had a basic understanding of English. Meh. Could care less.
Thanks for the correction on "majesterial". Yes, magister and all. Ironically, I've just been correcting some homework for an indifferent speller and had been substituting "majesty" for "magesty" - LOL #irony.
But thats a simple non sequitur. It's not the question I asked. Asserting that a different study would get different results (which it might, or might not - we have no evidence) does not explain how the 5:1 ratio found is not erring on the side of least drama.
You asserted that Pielke's takedown was "magisterial", but it agrees with Bysse et al. So how is it even a takedown?
10 pm Saturday place holder.
I must have taken my class hatred of the local trogs out on you! :-) Sorry.
Isn't that more of an explanation than an irony?
Correct—I didn't read carefully. I was addressing the question of whether the sample carefully selected by the authors was evidence for the reality of ESLD.
But as Pielke Jr.'s argument implies, larger, non-selective surveys—like the analyses of errors throughout IPCC AR4—suggest that the true trend is ESMD.
FrankD:
BTW, you surely meant to type "couldn't care less".
:-)
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Forest Troll,
how easily the mask slips...
Jawohl, mein Koncerned Women's Auxiliarykommandant!
And when I asked you "Is consensus evidence", you never did answer with a single word answer of either yes or no.
Yet again, J-Anus here demands what he cannot and will not ever deliver.
Another J-Anus comment. See Herr J. Anus here talking somewhat differently:
If you can’t answer, then you can also fuck off (with Wow) as far as I’m concerned.
All of which are this anus being Herr Fuhrer on page 25 of his jail thread.
Again, he demands of others what he would NEVER consider limiting his crusade for his faith.
There should have been a quote around another J-Anus ordering people around like he is the Kaiser:
Apparently, he doesn't like it done to him.
Just like a bully: loves dealing it out, whines and complains when he has to take it, the sniveling coward.
Bray, just to let you know, Watts' only qualification in weather presenting is at a status "retired" and didn't require any graduate education at all and has been closed since 2008 in favour of a certification that DOES require some science training.
What physical sciences does Anthony Watts practice?
None.
Hi Brad,
No, I meant "could" - I cared a non-zero amount, but not very much. And I meant "irony", although it was also an explanation. An explanation relating to an ironic circumstance.
If you spent less time telling me what I meant to write, and more time dealing with the evidence you claimed to be addicted to, we might get somewhere. So here's a reminder: You claimed a "takedown" by Pielke, but in fact Pielke endorses Brysse et al's conclusions, within the scope of the evidence they adduce. True or false?
Please - no more airy persiflage about wanting more evidence - more evidence would improve nearly every scientific paper ever written. Pielke selected (one might even say "cherry picked") from a vast array of data points, a few instances that buck the ESLD position, but neither you nor I can tell if these are representative. And for the moment, I could care less about whether more examples would support or refute Brysse et al. Its of non-zero interest, but for the here and now, I'm much more curious about something else.
What we have is Brysse et al's paper, and Pielke's blog post. So just regarding the paper that was written, not the paper you or RP Junior might have liked, does Pielke's comment support its accuracy or not? 5-to-1 he says...
And remember, bray, one word answer, right?
True or false.
Tell us about temperature ‘hockey sticks’ Brad Keyes.
Bonus points if you can incorporate the best science on climate sensitivity.
Mr Stay Puft quoting drama queen Pielke Jr.[1]:
You do realise the minor nature of the errors in the AR4 wrt Himalayan glacier melt do you not? If you do not then go study the appropriate sections where you will find that one such could be nothing more than a typo that went unchallenged by a body not actually engaged in investigative scientific work, which is not the function of the IPCC.
As ever a Google search reveals who are running with this particular meme of Pileke Jr's. origin right now.
That in itself is telling.
I admit to being coy about where my trail on this Brysse et. al. paper began [2], I was leaving it as an exercise for yourself so as to gain more insight into this whole business. Unfortunately, so interested were you in producing yet more baffle-gab that you kind of fell into the man-trap. And now you are digging a hole within your hole. How else could this thread grow so long. It is the depth record you are going for clearly.
[1] Why do I dub Pielke Jr. a drama queen? How else to describe one who makes a statement like this:
,
Here is a proposed letter of why Pielke Jr. was removed from the GEC Editorial board from The Letter Elsevier Should Have Sent Roger Jr.
Dear Prof. Pielke,
This letter is to inform you that the Editors have chosen not to renew your membership on the editorial board of Global Environmental Change at the end of your second term. There are two reasons for this.
First your participation in the editorial work of the journal has become insufficient to justify reappointment to a third consecutive term. If we were being nice we might say that the bulk of submissions to the journal have moved away from your area of expertise, but let us not sugar coat it. Your interested in reviewing for GEC has diminished over your second term and was none too high to begin with. As you were told on your initial appointment we expect Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews. Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review 3 papers which you declined. Thus, in the last 2.5 years of your second term you reviewed 0 papers for the journal. Based on this record our most courteous conclusion is that your areas of interest are not a good match to the papers submitted to Global Environmental Change and this is increasingly the case.
Second, it is the policy of the Journal to rotate membership on the Editorial Board. This year there are 6 new Editorial Board Members, one through death of a previous member. In total 24 of the 37 board members from 2005 have been replaced since you joined. That 13 members remain is based on the judgement of the editors of their work on the Editorial Board.
We thank you for the editorial work you have done in your two terms of membership, and look forward to working with you on future submissions to Global Environmental Change if any.
and seeing his outburst at the head of his blog post I see no reason why they should recant any time soon.
[2]
@EthonRaptor
Words you may be good with (and that could be a matter of opinion - yourself in particular) but context not so much.
I note others have responded to this particular 'blinkered' theme of yours but then there is something called time zones.
And Willard's scientific qualifications are...?
Dagn. Tag failure, things tend to get lost at the edge of the edit window, the following was my comment on the letter, proposed, body beneath which it appeared:
Except for the underestimation of ice loss. The underestimation of fire damage.
Oh, and the report includes many sections not just "The physical basis". Go find a science paper on how a manganese mine works.
Pielke was sacked for not doing any work.
If I turned up one day out of six, I wouldn't last six years, would I. Maybe you would, Bray, 'cos your dad owns the mine you work at.
Despite continued reliance by "Brad" on questionable outlier commenters (Pielke Jnr.? The political scientist? Really?) this choice item seems to have slipped under the radar so far.
Which is a shame as it seems to me to be the money-shot that explains everything about "Brad's" reluctance to deal with evidence and to hang on like a bulldog with lockjaw to his misrepresentation of what scientific consensus means.
Here's the take home message from "Brad":
Even after the climate debate has come and gone this time-bomb of mass scientific illiteracy will still be out there, ticking. What pseudoscientific scam will these rubes fall for next? Such a radically miseducated populace has no intellectual immunity to snake-oil salesmanship, so it could be anything.
It's a straightforward enough deduction that the current "pseudoscientific scam " referred to by "Brad" is climate science, and his "snake-oil salesmanship" isn't referring to Goddard , Watts and McIntyre et al..
BK. And in case you still harbour delusions about Pielke Jrs' delusions here are some more takes on it:
Roger Pielke Jr.’s fevered delusions of persecution continue unabated
and
Pielke Jr. implies conspiracy over routine journal procedure
Those examples are from two good blogs which will fill you in on much background which it is clear you so desperately need.
Both linked to from reference [1] in my post above.
Dear All,
what part of the following was unclear? This being a science blog, I (quite reasonably, I think) implored everybody to
Science? Stick to?
Please?
FrankD:
Of course. I thought I'd already agreed with you here (having misread your question initially).
The interesting question is how much (or little) that evidence means.
Lionel A
Is this your way of spelling Anthony Watts? What's the logic behind it—some kind of in-joke, presumably?
Anyway, I have no idea what Watts' qualifications are. I've been reading his posts for years and I don't think he's ever mentioned them. That's symbolic of one of the differences between our two cultures: believers are obsessively credentialist. Deniers, not so much.
Nevertheless, someone upthread attempted the somewhat desperate argument (or rationalisation) that John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog. If that's a valid syllogism, then Anthony Watts is an even better climate scientist because he runs a much more active, widely-read climate-science blog.
Geddit?
John Cook was a climate scientist because he runs a climate-science blog.
Of course, you can't provide a cite for that, because it's patently ridiculous. But it is nevertheless an adjunct to his field of science communication..
chek:
No, climate science is not a scam. Nor is it the truth.
Nor is it a claim. Or a belief. Or a belief system.
Nor is it an opinion, conjecture or hypothesis. Nor is it something you can "believe" or "deny." Or "agree" or "disagree with."
It's a branch of science.
Try again.
You only got one part of the "straightforward deduction" right: no, my “snake-oil salesmanship” wasn’t referring to Goddard, Watts and McIntyre et al.
pseudoscientific scam
Why so coy about expanding on your real interest "Brad"?
Far more interesting and to the point than a pointless waffle about a third league commenter like RPJnr.
chek:
Oh, I know it's ridiculous. But when has that ever stopped Lionel A?
Geddit?
It’s a branch of science.
OK. let's assume for a moment that you're not an evasive wanker whojust made a strategic blunder. Why introduce the topic of 'pseudoscience' at all?
Were you suddenly overcome by concern for people investing in, say, dog astrology, a branch of pseudoscience that doesn't deter in the least those such as Andrew Montford when a conspiracy needs to be manufactured?
"Brad" #23 Geddit
Clearly you don't.
Your comprehension skills really are woeful, "Brad".
Huh? What "strategic blunder" do you think I might have made?
Why introduce the topic of "pseudoscience" at all?
Because Forrester has fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is science.
Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence.
And this list goes on.
Not particularly.
1. Nobody takes dog astrology seriously.
2. Nobody mistakes astrology for science any more (canine or otherwise)—which means it no longer has the status and power of pseudoscience.
Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence.
No "Brad", that's entirely your own invention which you've adopted despite repeated corrections. And yes, you have a long list of those.
Brad
You say:
By all means. Now, please stop your incessant evasions, re-read and respond to the following:
[# 1]
What reasons?
***
[# 58]
It seems that Brad would rather engage in literally endless argument about the definition of scientific consensus than discuss the scientific evidence and its implications.
Evidence which suggests – very strongly indeed – that unless emissions are substantially and rapidly reduced, the consequences for future generations and global ecology will be severe.
But Brad is not afraid of AGW. He’s a ‘realist’ not a ‘climate worrier’.
This is an impossible position to hold in the light of the current scientific understanding of AGW. So *why* does Brad believe something silly? He is a clever chap. Why do something illogical and even foolish? What *motivates* this behaviour?
There are a few possible answers:
- Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded Brad from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications
- Brad understands the situation reasonably well but rejects the standard position because it is in direct conflict with his political beliefs
- Brad has glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW
Despite Brad’s attempts to deflect this line of enquiry by fake outrage and playing the victim and definitional nit-picking it remains the key to everything.
Once again, I invite Brad to examine his conscience and tell us what he finds.
Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why does Brad never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?
Is it politics? Brad says not, but I for one think he’s lying.
Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won’t read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up his constructed reality at any cost to his own integrity or that of his ‘arguments’ etc).
Only Brad can clear this up and he keeps refusing to do so. So we continue to assume he’s lying and it’s politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps Brad, for all the bravado and bluster, is actually terrified inside. So frightened that his mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.
Chek @ 15
Yes, the mask certainly slipped there didn't it? And we see the arrogant denialist tool behind it. A man who recently had the fucking gall to call me dishonest.
chek
sorry if you thought this paraphrase was unfair:
"Because you have fallen for the pseudoscientific notion that consensus is scientific evidence [2]."
I actually meant to quote your original formulation that the scientific consensus indicates the strength of the argument.[1]
I got it mixed up with its logical corollary.
Do I take it that you stand by claim [1] but reject claim [2]?
But claim [2] can be derived by simple logic from claim [1].
If you don't like [2] then you have only 2 choices:
- reject [1]
OR
- dispute the logic by which [2] is derived from [1]
Is it fear, Brad? Or are you just an ill-informed lying tool of a libertarian?
Oh, and perhaps a lawyer? You are rather good at misdirection, which makes me wonder how you acquired the facility. Or are you just a dishonest man for whom this comes naturally as breathing?
This comment is not printed in invisible ink.
Your serial avoidance of much of what I ask is has now reached the level of parody. You look bad, Brad.
The more you dodge, the worse you look. And I know you know what you are doing, so presumable some inner part of you is shrivelling away as you duck and dive and misdirect and twist.
BK and his Janus face:
So. It's OK for you to introduce Pielke Jr. so as to cast doubt on the the Brysse et al. paper but it ain't fair for us to pin you to the wall on that because you consider it unfair to do so.
Oh dear BK. Perhaps you should join Pielke in his naughty corner for being such a wimp and cry-baby and making a fuss over nothing as we have seen.
Now re Willard,
If you don't know then go find out, shouldn't be too hard for a clever-clogs like you. I ain't doing your homework for you. And it would appear there is still much of that open to do from elsewhere above:
Principles of Planetary Climate,
Revelle & Lancaster v Singer & Lindzen,
Santer v Michaels,
Paul Ralph Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider v Julian Simon and now you.
With that latter consider this:
The original wager between Simon on one hand and Schneider and Ehrlich on the other was a ten year bet about the scarcity of five important commodities at the end of the wager period. Through unforeseen circumstances, an economic slowdown, Simon took the bet. When it came to more relevant trends for the welfare of humanity as a whole Simon would not take a follow up bet.
Now YOU tell me the details of that. The finding out will be good for your education on the things that really matter.
The answer can be found in 'Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future' or at http://www.zsbbwemk.emk/camj/Zpygldmmb/zcr.frkj (Yes you do some more homework here too. Clue, this month).
Now, now Brad, it is you that has fallen for the logical fallacy that any of us would think consensus is science. Unless of course you can quote, pointing to sources, that indicate otherwise.
We have explained how science relates to consensus, or consensus to science (cart and horse working more on the pusher principle here) but that isn't quite equating the two is it now?
Brad's problem is simply described as Fractal Wrongness:
"Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
Brad is also, apparently, a fucking coward who won't answer some straightforward questions but is happy to call me dishonest out of the side of his mouth.
Well póg mo thóin, Bradley.
# 36
What interests me is *why* BK behaves the way he does. How do you end up being fractally wrong? Why can't he see what he's done to himself and why does he refuse to discuss his reasoning in direct, substantive terms?
More detail at # 29 above.
Science? Start? Will you?
Then why did you claim he had science qualifications?
Lying again, Bray.
Nobody did that, you made it up entirely.
This is called "lying".
What unscientific rubbish are you blathering on about now?
That doesn't make ANY sense.
"Oh, I know it’s ridiculous."
Does this mean you knew that it was a ridiculous claim that someone had tried to say that John Cook was a scientist because he ran a science blog?
THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU LIE???
Where did JeffH go?
He was very clear that Humlum, Marohasy & Curry, who clearly are practicing scientists and also have websites, were only 'medoicre' or had questionable previous employment.
I wonder what his assessment of John Cook is?
No offence Deltoids but have you perhaps noticed your litmus
test for 'acceptable' scientists keeps changing all the time?
Lionel A
So is it your understanding that consensus is not science, Lionel?
Good—consider yourself removed from The "They Are to be Despised" List !
Just be prepared for a certain Forest Troll to start ridiculing you as an ignoramus:
This thread was populated for a long time by Brad Keyes' opinions about apparently low climate sensitivity and about the alleged 'fabrication' of temperature hockey sticks where he apparently believed none existed.
Obviously he wanted two bites at the denialist apple. Well, actually it was three, because he eventually conceded that if sensitivity is as great mainstream science says it is, and if it was warming as much as mainstream scientists say it is, it doesn't matter anyway because warming is 'good for us'.
Much energy was expended in order to educate Keyes about stuff on which he so firmly opined, but which by his own confession he knew nothing, and about which he had conducted no background reading. Keyes was directed by many people to material that would begin to fill the gaps in his knowledge, but he has since shifted the spotlight to a game of look at his word salad, and not at the factual meat. So once again...
Tell us about temperature ‘hockey sticks’ Brad Keyes.
Bonus points if you can incorporate the best science on climate sensitivity.
Consider this your exam after having been sent to school. You have no excuse now for getting it wrong.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
Chameleon,
Tell me about it.
JeffH (the last semi-reasonable believer since FrankD) is nowhere to be seen, while every second comment comes from a pusillanimous palindrome.
God hates rational discourse, apparently.
That means you too BJ :-)
You are also good for a laugh:-)
Why do the usual commenters here not see the conundrum?
There is straight out derision of someone like Judith Curry or Humlum with addex sneering that they comment on areas outside their expertise and that they are 'cranks' and they don't have enough peer reviewed publications or citations to be taken seriously.
Yet here you all are defending Cook?
He is not in the same league as some of the scisntists you have sneered at for having the audacity for commenting on climate research.
Ooops!
Sorry about the typos in that comment.
BernardJ,
Memory is playing tricks on you:
I repeat:
—the only opinions I've expressed about climate sensitivity were those you and BBD dragged out of me by insisting that no conversation was possible unless I shared them with you
—I did so with the qualification that I might be wrong and that you were free to convince me that ECS was higher
Your faulty memory has misattributed your own zealous opinionation to me.
chameleon,
Near as I can tell it works like this:
Cook is doctrinally correct, so his pseudo-qualifications count; Marohasy and Curry are doctrinally (and sexually) incorrect, so their real qualifications are to be contemned as "mediocre" "pedigrees" (sneer sneer).
BBD,
LOL, you sure can carry a grudge:
If I called you dishonest (I can't remember that conversation), then it's obviously because you were being dishonest at the time. Haven't we moved on?
We'll move on when you begin to discuss your reasoning in substantive detail, with reference to the open questions you are once again not addressing.
BBD,
cordial thanks for your correct use of the word "reasoning" in place of "motivation."
As I think I may have mentioned already, I'll try to take further time out of my busy schedule to "discuss my reasoning in substantive detail" if you will do me a tiny but crucial favor.
What I need is for you to acknowledge, in a few words, that you agree with the following bedrock axioms of scientific reasoning:
1. "consensus is not science"
2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
3. scientific consensus is not evidence of scientific evidence
4. scientific consensus does not "indicate the strength of the argument"
5. it is illegitimate for scientists to argue, or seek to persuade the public, or seek to convey the strength of an argument, using non-evidence (e.g. scientific consensus)
6. a scientific consensus can occur in the absence of what John Cook calls "a consensus [i.e. a consilience] of evidence" (multiple lines of evidence all converging on a single consistent answer)
I hope these ground rules should take you less than a minute to read and accept. Sorry for the hassle, but it would be futile for us to keep discussing science and evidence in the absence of some kind of assurance that we are both speaking the same language, which, for want of a better word, I call English.
Thanks BBD.
Nope.
More ophidian rhetoric. I'm not going to allow you to direct this conversation: we aren't going to talk about the other conversation you were having about the scientific consensus. We have had that discussion. You know my position.
There are more recent *unanswered questions* which you are not addressing.
To return to those unanswered questions. You said:
What reasons?
"Brad", you're obviously more used to dealing with half-wits elsewhere, and find it unacceptable and strange that here you're the ignorant half-wit.
Just out of interest, assuming Deltoid was populated by a community of Chameleon or Brad-calibre stupids who acceded to your ludicrous terms, what then? In other word,s what impact do you imagine you'd have made on the world in any quantifiable terms?
Keyes continues to distort what I said. His dishonesty knows no bounds. Nowhere did I ever say "consensus is science". He deliberately distorts what people say so that he can argue that they are wrong. The only person who is wrong in everything they say is Keyes himself. What I did say was that anyone, including Keyes, who says "consensus does not exist in science" is lying. Anyone who has any knowledge of how science works will appreciate that I am correct. Only dishonest deniers twist words to say the opposite.
An example of how Keyes distorts peoples' words is as follow: if someone says "chromatography is science" you cannot twist it and say "science is chromatography". That is exactly what dishonest denier troll Keyes has done to my comments.
The only person who gets ridiculed as an ignoramus, a dishonest one at that, is Keyes.
Brad
What reasons?
Forrester:
You said that people who disagreed with that claim were to be ridiculed:
Are you now saying "consensus is not science"?
BBD,
I repeat,
You have already decided what Brad K's reasons are and you have clearly outlined what you think they are here and at the Feb thread.
I am not making this comment to defend Brad K.
My comment is more to do with my disappointment in your behaviour after you began with halfway decent questions.
He has already explained that other than being a libertarian (in the original defintion of the word NOT the Americanism of it), the rest of your 'right wing etc...' summation of either his motivations or his reasons was incorrect and therefore baseless.
If you are not prepared to understand that or engage on his point above about science and consensus, then you can't progress this discussion in a civil manner.
I was reading online this morning and stumbled accross this article about the current state of politics in Australia (where I come from).
The rhetoric and the narrative at the moment is directionless.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-has-lost-the-plot-and-the-…
I think the same applies to the climate debate.
We all know that the planet and the climate would be different if there were no humans or less humans.
The real issue is not the science BBD, it is most definitely a social/policy issue.
It looks like nearly everyone has lost the plot in a similar fashion to what is outlined in this opinion piece.
Most people do not care about all the complications and intricacies or who is employed by whom or who is funded by whom.
They just want to be able to trust that people have ethics and integrity and will do their best to do right thing.
I also found this link which looks like it agrees with David B that warmer temps probably will mean higher humidity.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/global-warming-may-hurt-pro…
"The study, published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, uses a computer model that simulates warming and a rise in humidity and their impact on strenuous outdoor activity."
" It foresees warming of 1.4-1.7C and a humidity rise of 11 per cent by 2050 compared to this benchmark."
But the conclusion is:
" The authors point out that the models do not take into account several factors that could change the picture, such as technological change and fluctuations in carbon emissions."
This is fun.
Ignoramus Keyes is so stupid does he cannot see that removing a "not" in a phrase dos not make it mean the opposite. Consensus is part of science but is not everything in science. See my previous post if anyone has difficulty in understanding this simple concept.
Keyes' ignorance and arrogance get worse and worse as he contributes more and more dishonest rubbish to this thread.
BBD:
Not with any confidence. It would be a big help if you could simply make it explicit. It should only take you a few seconds to agree with my 6 statements.
Ian,
So you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?
Ian,
So you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?
Brad
What reasons?
Keyes, consensus is part of science, get that through your thick skull. It is how science shows what the true facts are, once all, or a large majority, of scientific evidence points to one answer then the consensus has been established. There will always be idiots and ignoramuses like you who disagree but you are a very small minority.
I don't understand why a scientific illiterate such as Keyes thinks he knows all about how science works and scientists don't. Oooh wait a moment, didn't Dunning and Kruger have some thing to say about that?.
Ian Forrester,
"...... he cannot see that removing a “not” in a phrase dos not make it mean the opposite."
That is actually correct.
Well done Ian Forrester!
Well done!
So Ian Forrester,
Why are you having difficulty understanding that it works both ways?
More often than not if ANYONE questions anything here, it is automatically assumed that they must believe in the 'opposite'
Further,that 'opposite' is usually somehow connected to suspicious funding, right wings, crank blogs or a comprehension disorder.
That is actually at the root of the poor engagement between BBD and BradK at the moment.
BBD has 'assumed' that Brad K is 'contrarian' and believes in the 'opposite' of whatever BBD believes in.
To engage with that assumption, one is expected to argue that they are not what they are not and did not mean what they did not mean....which is a little like your complaint above.
It's rather irritating isn't it?
RPJr is the next thing to a charlatan; his views on matters pertaining to climate are entirely ignorable.
In my considered opinion.
Ian,
Just to clarify,
Do you agree with us deniers that consensus is not science?
David,
what about the views of the former IPCC chief, Robert Watson, whom Roger Pielke Jr quoted?
Are his views on matter pertaining to climate ignorable?
BBD:
I'd be more inclined to risk hours of my life cordially discussing these reasons with you if you could just spend a few seconds clarifying your yes / no position with respect to the 6 axioms I enumerated.
So.....Brad still doesn't understand what the scientific consensus describes....or is pretending he doesn't.
Chameleon, on the other hand, doesn't have to pretend anything - "warmer temperatures mean more humidity"!
Gee whiz! How humid is the Sahara, genius?
Your "axioms" are meaningless drivel, Brad.
In the absence of any qualifications or expertise (that's you), you need to defer to the scientific consensus, unless, you have information to the contrary.
As we've established, your belief - to take one example - that sensitivity is 1.5 degrees is not based on any personal information held by you. It's a made-up load of nonsense which you ..er...support by boasting that you haven't read any of the primary literature on the subject.
I mean, really, where on earth does this ridiculous act of yours play well? The half-wit club?
David B,
Because I respect the way you engage here, you have motivated me to look up Roger Pielke Jr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.
This is his wikipedia link but google also bring up heaps of other stuff which includes his blog (which I have never visited)
Do you mind explaining why you personally consider him a charlatan?
Brad Keyes:
And this is my point. You have been shown to be wrong about climate sensitivity. You have been shown that the MBH98 hockey stick is corroborated by at least five independent proxies.
You have not however acknowledged your errors of understanding.
Why will you not admit that you were wrong in your understanding of climate sensitivity?
Why will you not admit that the MBH98 hockey stick is replicated by completely independent studies, using completely independent proxies?
And for the record, just how did you expect to have a conversation about how scientists are (in your opinion) wrong, if you didn't first clearly put forward your own understanding?! Why was it necessary to 'drag' this from you at all?
[*For the record, it was BBD only who "dragged" from you your understanding (or rather, lack thereof) about climate sensitivity, as posted back on 10 February (comment #25 on page 7):,
I joined that conversation at comment #81 of the same page, quite a time after you posted your own comment.]
BK
I'll be happy to spend those hours in cordial discussion once you have answered the question:
What reasons?
This has nothing to do with the other conversation, and pretending that it does, and making conditions conditional on that pretence, is transparently evasive.
Vince,
As David B clearly pointed out, that higher humidity with higher temps was definitely not uniform.
Using the Sahara as an argument is totally irrelevant.
Tick.
Tick.
Tick.
BBD:
That will take hours.
And those hours will be wasted (however cordially) unless we both mean the same thing by terms such as "science" and "evidence."
Therefore such a conversation is, alas, contingent on your yes / no answer with respect to the 6 axioms I enumerated.
You could have acknowledged all 6 in the time you've misspent arguing why you don't need to.
Then we could have moved on to the long, cordial discussion of my reasons.
Bernard J:
Because that would be dishonest.
I haven't had time to critically read enough evidence to say that (though you may or may not have provided me with it already—I can't tell, because I haven't had time to critically read it).
I have done the next best thing and openly said I was less confident than before in my earlier estimate.
Apparently you expect more than that.
Sorry.
BernardJ:
Fair enough.
chameleon --- RPJr is a political scientist. His ventures into the use of statistics are overly naive (but then, that may be easily be said of a great many scientists of many different flavors). He then brings a 'stance' to his policy proclamations. That would be acceptable except he fails, consistently, to mention that such are merely political, not informed by physical science or even economics (which he knows less than he thinks he does). So, in summary, he pretends an understanding much greater than he actually possesses.
Brad Keyes --- I don't know what Watson is quoted as having said or written.
Ian:
Er, you're making things hard for yourself there by trying to understand something that isn't real.
I firmly believe that scientists do know how science works.
That's why, when someone demonstrates an abject failure to understand how science works, for instance by saying something like this ...
... I automatically assume he or she is not a scientist.
And I'm always right.
Chameleon amuses us with,
Sydney's humidity is 71% at the moment, whereas Adelaide's is apparently 43%.
The modelling in the study you mention involved an 11% increase in humidity.
Clearly, there are bigger factors affecting humidity than temperature.
It occurs to me - heating up a given chunk of air actually decreases its relative humidity.
So air could get warmer, pick up additional moisture, and yet remain at the same relative humidity level....hmmm....
In any case, I wasn't saying that a warmer world wouldn't have more water vapour in it .
What I *was* saying, was that 250 million years ago, all that additional water vapour wasn't much help to the vast tracts of the continent it never fell on. We know from the rocks that it was a very, very arid time, with hot, mostly lifeless seas, and a hot, mostly lifeless continent.
I expect that anyone who is going to engage in a discussion of science, and especially a discussion where the science is challenged, would be sufficiently informed so as to understand the basics - at least to the point of having an operational capacity to so engage.
After many pages of your blatherskiting, and on every substantive point of human-caused global warming that you have attempted contradict, I have been firmly left with the impression that you are not sufficiently informed to make a competent judgement.
David:
OK, but you shouldn't need to. You know who Watson is, so you should be able to say whether his opinions are ignorable a priori. That's what "ignoring" means, does it not?
Anyway:
(In passing, I think it takes a very special mind to be worried by the discovery that things aren't as bad as the IPCC has been telling us. Normal people would be relieved. What kind of perverse incentives govern Watson's attitudes?!?)
Nice one, Brad, I don't think the Merchants had tried that one yet.
And, you're wrong. Again. On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change.
Incidentally, we understand your aversion to reading any of the primary materials you like to write off as being wrong or the product of conspiracy, but maybe we can ask you to read these two documents and then explain to us exactly what errors are contained within?
(This is your opportunity to display some scepticism towards the crank blogs you get this drivel from - who knows? you might come to the stunning realisation that the crnak blogs are horribly misinformational!)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): "The Physical Science Basis"
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Spot any errors there?
No? How can this be?!
Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_%28scientist%29
is simply wrong (in that purported quotation) with regard to cryosphere changes and possibly extreme precipitation events, for example.
Vince:
For example, temperature? I suppose that's changing faster than the IPCC predicted, Vince?
Vince:
FFS.
Name a typographical error for which the IPCC has attracted opprobrium / outrage / calls for Pachauri to be stood down / IAC investigations.
When Robert Watson said, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact," which typos was he referring to, Vince?
Bernard J:
Oh well. I suppose there's not much point your trying to "engage" with me anymore. It's a pity you feel that way—we hate seeing you leave.
But c'est la vie. Enjoy the side threads.
10 pm Sunday place holder
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Spot any errors there?
No? How can this be?!
Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html
Read them, and point out any errors. If you can. And if you can.
I don't know - I doubt the IPCC is in the business of making predictions, but you would have to check their projections to know how they did on heat accumulation.
Have you done so?
Or are you relying on some crap fed to you by cranks like Anthony Watts, seeing as you are too lazy (or is it stupid?) to read any primary materials yourself?
They were *definitely* underestimating the rate of sea level rise.
Here we go, Brad, it turns out (quelle énorme surprise!) that the advice you uncritically and unsceptically accepted from this Rovbert Watson (whoever he is) is totally wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Re…
So, Robert Watson was wrong. Your unnamed "Dutch Assessment" is obviously also incompetent. You sure pick your sources, eh Brad?
Brad Keyes, #88:
"Anyway:
In 2010, Robert Watson, a former Chair of the IPCC, noted of the errors discovered in the AR4 report: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.” A Dutch assessment of the IPCC AR4 found much the same.
(In passing, I think it takes a very special mind to be worried by the discovery that things aren’t as bad as the IPCC has been telling us. Normal people would be relieved. What kind of perverse incentives govern Watson’s attitudes?!?)"
Brad, are you not mis-reading Watson here? Surely what worries him is *not* the thought that actual warming has been overstated. What worries him is that the errors in the IPCC report are *all* in one direction, which (to his mind, and perhaps to those of others) might indicate some kind of bias.
Vince:
And yet in your very next message, you argue that claims of IPCC alarmism are wrong because "Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models."
LOL...
but you would have to check their projections to know how they did on heat accumulation.
Have you done so?
NO, you would have to check their projections to know how they did on temperature, because:
1. It was you who said that "On any issue of substance, the IPCC clearly underestimated the rate of change."
2. The IPCC clearly has made projections of the "rate of change" of temperature.
3. The "rate of change" of temperature clearly is an "issue of substance" in the global warming debate.
FFS!
Vince:
No wonder you couldn't figure out who I meant.
Read next time.
Robert Watson, as I mentioned, was the chair of the IPCC.
If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of - and/or accounting for - the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself...
...then yes, there's no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.
I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn't become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.
[I'm being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don't allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull...]
If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of - and/or accounting for - the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself...
...then yes, there's no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.
I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn't become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.
[*I'm being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don't allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull...]
Damn. Too slow with the 'stop' button.
Bernard,
At last you divagate into an interesting field: psychology.
Please substantiate your diagnosis of "demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy."
With reference to the DSM criteria, obviously.
This'll be funny.
BBD,
This is both lyrical and perceptive:
Fascinating fact! The opposite of ophidian is mustelid, or weasel-like, rhetoric—my ancient foe!
chek:
I don't understand what you're saying I don't understand: what the scientific consensus describes? What does that even mean?
Unlike you (I suspect), I do understand:
— what a scientific consensus is
— what the phrase "scientific consensus" denotes
In both cases, the answer is: the majority opinion among scientists.
Do you have a dictionary? It would have saved you a bit of confusion here.
There's been no engagement from you at all ever on this thread. You've never read any source material given to you and have never so far had any evidence for any of your claims despite being asked and you replying "To which claim in particular".
So since you have never been here to engage at all with anyone other than fellow deniers, no it's pointless trying to engage with you any more.
"Brad" still professes not to understand that the words 'opinion' and 'evidence' are not interchangeable, and is therefore immune to the concept that scientific consensus is based on evidence rather than a popularity contest..
Any confusion as to how this can be is rapidly cleared up once it's understood that "Brad" is a proud moron who has extreme difficulty with definitions not previously made clear in a Chuck Norris movie or similar.
Once this is understood now "Brad" has made it clear, the only response required in future when "Brad" so much as mentions the words 'scientific consensus' is 'remember Chuck Norris'.
That's the only way we'll move on from this should Mr. Norris have ever made the relevant movie. If he hasn't , so much the better.
Yup, he's being doing "all dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs" all along on this subject. He's not smart enough to change.
Indeed: worldwide average humidity doesn't change much at all with temperature. It holds more water vapour and it's the ease with which it rains out keeps it somewhat stable worldwide.
H2O is a greenhouse gas too. So when CO2 produces more warming by increasing in concentration, more water is in the air, causing more warming.
This is called "positive feedback".
You're forgetting, he's said he has data (cf evidence) for all his claims and it turned out the evidence was ENTIRELY his opinion that it was so.
To him, he cannot hear the difference, they are the exact same word: "opinion/evidence".
But when he hears himself say "opinion/evidence" he hears "evidence", when he hears anyone other than a denier say "opinion/evidence", he hears "opinion".
Comes with having two faces, I guess.
chek:
There is no dictionary in the world that defines 'scientific consensus' as anything more than 'the majority opinion of scientists.' You're on your own here, "chek."
You keep trying to tell us scientific consensus is "based on evidence" and "indicates the strength of the scientific argument," yet are outraged when it's pointed out to you that this would make consensus itself a form of scientific evidence. You're quite right to be embarrassed by that; but it's the logical reductio of your own delusory premise. Deal with it.
"Brad's" still requiring more clarification from the Chuck Norris oeuvre, I see.
Lotharsson,
you "argue":
Alas for you, I have communicated directly to Dr Mann, on his facebook page, where he could respond. And respond he did ...in a way. By bravely blocking me. :-)
Alas for you, I did communicate directly to Professor Jones, by email, when he had all the time in the world to reply—having been temporarily stood down from his CRU directorship for confessing to crimes against science—but he apparently had nothing to say in his defence. Unless of course you count the media interview he gave, in which he claimed he was being driven to suicidal ideation by the phone calls and emails he was receiving. (Some of which were later published and were indeed cruel, vulgar and stupid.) Being a nice guy, I decided not to bother Jones again in his fragile state. Are you suggesting that it's safe to do so again, Lotharsson? Do you have his new email address?
You reproach me for not talking to John Cook. Alas for you, I've left a number of comments at Cook-moderated blogs, where he had every opportunity (and frequently took them) to reply inline to his critics. Would you prefer that I email him personally?
You reproach me for not talking to Stephen Schneider. Fair enough. Next time you're holding a seance, let me know.
But your lame attempt to paint me as a C****D is pure p********n, Lothar.
So your reputation as a c**t precedes you "Brad".
How interesting.
Brad,
Please cite the source of this statement and in particular the emphasised portion.
The problem is you see that a Google turns up loads of hits (mostly from the usual suspects) but when any paged is searched, and I have also tried removing the quotes from Watson's alleged statement, I draw a blank.
Why can you not simply link to the precise source for any quotations?
BTW I was not in disagreement with Ian Forrester with respect to science and consensus and I went to some trouble informing you about the relationship between science and consensus, scientific consensus is an entirely valid concept as I argued here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
"Why can you not simply link to the precise source for any quotations?"
Because he doesn't require evidence for claims he likes.
Lionel, "Brad" isn't here to understand what the scientific consensus is, he's here to show there's no such thing, and failing that, that it's worthless.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."
Frank Luntz.
It's classic Luntz denial straight from the manual as above. Only trouble is that being a moron, "Brad" doesn't have the requisite skills to make a dent, except in his own completely demolished credibility.
Brad re correspondence with Mann and Jones,
I would like to be able to read the content of the emails that you sent but judging by the inflammatory, inaccurate and even libellous statements you have made WRT these scientists here It is likely that they found your emails extremely offensive and indicative of a scientific ignoramus behaving badly.
This whole thread has evolved because of your basic lack of scientific knowledge, of how science works and even of the back-story of the denial machine that has fed you the muck that has poisoned your mind. Indeed you showed considerable Chutzpah - equating to insolent audacity.
You are clearly a neophyte in this area and need to do much background reading and avoiding the sources I listed here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/co…
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Mann and Jones opened those emails.
"There is no dictionary in the world that defines ‘scientific consensus’ as anything more than ‘the majority opinion of scientists"
There is no dictionary in the world that defines the plural of consensus as "consensi".
And there isn't a dictionary that defines two words.
Please stop living in denier-world, nobody outside the insanity can have a clue what you're doing.
And so what?
Let say scientific consensus is the agreement of a majority of scientists.
That consensus exists in climate science with the results of the IPCC.
This will be fun.
That consensus exists in climate science with the results of the IPCC.
That would mean it was based on evidence, not popularity.
I don't think Chuck Norris has dealt with that on his Syllabus For Thunking Deniers yet, so the difference will elude "Brad" for a while yet.
Wow,
as you know, I no longer bother reading your comments, but my eye was caught by the extraordinary and (as far as I know) unprecedented sight of your writing something correct:
Yes.
That's what it is.
chek:
When have I ever claimed that, you liar?
It is worthless as evidence.
As you know.
Or have you decided that consensus is a form of scientific evidence, despite your earlier indignant denial of said idea?
And?
Lionel A:
So, shall I reinstate you on the "They Are to be Despised" list for endorsing Forrester's exhortation to "ridicule" us for saying "consensus is not science"?
Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?
"When have I ever claimed that, you liar?"
Where did chek ever claim you claimed that, you liar?
"It is worthless as evidence."
Your opinion, which as you've said before, is worthless.
Oh Bray, who gives a flying fuck who is on your "list": you're a nothing.
"Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?"
And all animals aren't dogs.
Wow:
And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest.
Which it is.
(Don't tell chek—I can't stand to see lovers fight.)
Bray, I don't bother reading your posts either, just the quotes taken from your blatherings by others far more capable than you of cogitation.
"And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest."
No it doesn't.
It only makes it require the majority of scientists have to agree.
Nothing there about being a contest. Only general agreement.
Tell me, is consensus mathematics?
Because you'll find that there is a consensus among mathematicians that Pi is an irrational number.
Does that mean that the value of Pi is a popularity contest?
No.
Wow:
ROFLMAOAYI !!!
Go on, then where does a dictionary define two words?
Oh, that's right: you don't care about facts, just how brilliant you think you are.
This should be amusing
Or have you decided
I haven't decided anything, YOU LIAR.
Hey this partial quote-mining thing is good fun - I can see how "Brad" thinks he's clever now, in a special needs/Chuck Norris setting at least.
When have I
I neither know nor care, YOU MORON.
Or have you decided that consensus is a form of scientific evidence, despite your earlier indignant denial of said idea?
What 'form' would that be, "Brad".
This is, after all, your baby you're trying to give birth to by pulling it out of your anus, so be as clear as you're capable of.
Still no evidence for this claim: "And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest."
No evidence: not a fact.
A whole heap of quiet from Bray.
I guess finding a dictionary that defines two words is proving difficult for him, rather in counter to his professed amazement at the statement that would indicate he thought the search would be trivially easy to show.
According to Bray, the existence of Australia, being a consensus view of people living there, is merely a popularity contest.
According to Bray, the existence of yesterday, being a consensus of most human beings, shows prior existence is merely a popularity contest.
According to Bray, dictionary definitions, being a consensus of the language meanings, is merely a popularity contest.
According to Bray, the only facts that aren't consensus are the only ones that can ever be possibly true.
He knows this because other deniers say so.
Ooops.
And according to Bray, the popularity of something is proof of it being incorrect.
Given the number of deniers who backslap each other, he may have a very minor point here, though.
Which is nice.
I wonder what would happen if I were the only one posting here.
Since he thinks this thread is important, that most posts are from me is what is making it important.
But since he doesn't read my posts, he must think that they aren't important.
Wow,
this is why I stopped reading your comments:
You're no challenge.
Every dictionary I've got defines "flying fox."
And "Trojan horse."
And "heavy metal."
(But not "scientific consensus," admittedly.)
But that means then that this thread isn't important, then, either.
It's a quandary for him, isn't it.
Wow v Brad:
Exactly Wow, I originally finished off that post with a similar comparison and snipped at the last minute.
And Brad, you can put me on whatever list you want I don't give a flying phart for you can shove such up seventh rock from the sun. Which may be a difficult task seeing as you are full of it anyway.
"Every dictionary I’ve got defines “flying fox.”"
We have no evidence of this dictionary of yours.
This is going to be funtastic..!
No challenge making Bray make a fool of himself.
Go on, show us where a dictionary defines two words.
Wow:
The history of our lexicon is, in effect, just that: a popularity contest.
If the vast majority of English speakers votes that the plural of "woman" is "women," then that's a pretty convincing argument that the plural of "woman" is "women."
Consensus is a form of evidence, in language.
But not in science.
Lionel A:
you quote this as if it's some kind of zinger:
There's no actual punchline there, but as long as you find it amusing, that's nice.
May I take this as confirmation that you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?
Right?
No need to tell me shove it up my ass. Teen temper tantrums are so ten years ago.
A simple agree/disagree is all you need to indicate.
BK
Once again you draw the wrong conclusions, nothing to do with teen temper tantrums (much too late for that, ten years - as if) but more about the utter contempt that I now hold you in.
You not being a scientist HTFWYK!
Brad's 'axioms':
1. “consensus is not science”
[Agreed]
2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
[Agreed]
3. scientific consensus is not evidence of scientific evidence
[Disagree; yes, it is in the specific sense that it *derives* from scientific evidence]
4. scientific consensus does not “indicate the strength of the argument”
[Disagree; yes, it does because it derives from the scientific evidence]
5. it is illegitimate for scientists to argue, or seek to persuade the public, or seek to convey the strength of an argument, using non-evidence (e.g. scientific consensus)
[Disagree; you ignore the source of a scientific consensus, which is scientific evidence]
6. a scientific consensus can occur in the absence of what John Cook calls “a consensus [i.e. a consilience] of evidence” (multiple lines of evidence all converging on a single consistent answer)
[Disagree; the SC is derived from the scientific evidence; how could it come into existence *without* said evidence and even if it could, being *derived* from scientific evidence, how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?]
Apart from avoiding answering the substantive questions, I can see no purpose to your attempt to re-hash a discussion we had a long time back. If you really care, then go and look at the relevant comments yourself. Presumably they are all still there.
Now, answer my questions.
What reasons?
BK
More questions:
- Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded you from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications (True/false)
- You understand the situation reasonably well but reject the standard position because it is in direct conflict with your political beliefs (True/false)
- You have glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW (True/false)
Once again, I invite you to examine your conscience and tell us what you find.
Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why do you never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?
Is it politics? You say not, but I for one think you are lying because you are evasive
Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won’t read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up your constructed reality at any cost to your own integrity or that of your ‘arguments’ etc).
Only you can clear this up and you keep refusing to do so. So we continue to assume you are lying and it’s politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps, for all the bravado and bluster, you are actually terrified inside. So frightened that your mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.
Is *this* the case, Brad?
Or is it mainly ignorance and politics?
Hey "Brad" when that vigilante your fellow moron mob took the popular decision (after being stoked up by a press campaign orchestrated by one of Murdoch's flunkies) to attack the house of a paediatrician (marked with a brass plaque, naturally) believing it to be the dwelling of a self-advertised paedophile, were they right because that was their popular, ill-educated, pig-ignorant consensus opinion?
Why are you trying (as in expending thousands of words) to peg the IPCC at the same level? And do you see why you won't succeed?
"The history of our lexicon is, in effect, just that: a popularity contest."
So words mean nothing, then.
Glad you agree that consensus is evidence.
BBD, Bray's avoidance of any answers can be seen by his evident flip-flopping he's done on consensus.
Before consensus is not evidence
Now Consensus is a form of evidence
I told you this would be fun.
Wow,
If you consider watching a pompous pretentious prat (and there is something Moncktonesque about BK) eviscerate himself with his own words as fun then yes it could be.
Wow,
I wrote:
Quote-doctoring to alter the original meaning is a form of lying.
You're back to lying.
Liars are not welcome here.
Go away.
Indeed you did write just exactly what I said.
Ya Wol! Mein Kommondant!!!
How quickly you abandon JSM's liberty at the earliest convenience.
BBD:
How would I know?
False.
Not as far as I'm aware!
Thanks for your questions!
Or should I say
?
BBD asked:
Rather than type a single-word answer, Bray typed:
No, Bray, it’s a simple question with a single-word answer (true or false), and your evasion of it is astounding.
BBD asked:
Rather than type a single-word answer, Bray typed:
No, Bray, it’s a simple question with a single-word answer (true or false), and your evasion of it is astounding.
Before: consensus is not evidence
Now: Consensus is a form of evidence
BBD:
Good.
Just be prepared to "be ridiculed and told that [you] are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner" by a certain Forrester.
Good.
But this makes your later comments surprising (my emphasis):
I would have thought you'd just answered that question yourself.
Only because you're a half-wit with half your brain taking the lifetime off.
You even said it yourself:
Funny how you never explain yourself how that worked. You just want everyone else to do the work, you workshy scrounger.
Poor ol' "Brad"cammy.
Hopefully this self-inflicted final phase burn-out is being documented by Stephan L., as a post script at least.
Basic grammar lesson for Brad, who only managed to spend 3 years at Uni learning to talk bullshit:
Who's doing the predicting in this sentence?
LOL, indeed....
As the suggestor here of the claim that, "all IPCC errors are in one direction", it is up to you to show it.
We've demonstrated your first source was wrong.
Try another.
Lionel (#17):
I found what appears to be the source of Brad's quote of Watson in the Wikipedia article. See the article's Reference 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_(scientist)
Brad asks,
Let's start with, "Did Robert Watson say such a thing"?
Why do you quote somebody without providing a reference?
Excuse me for being sceptical, but when I see such a thing, I imagine a quote crafted by a crank and lovingly passed around from crank to crank, then brandished when required to protect its bearer from any imminent danger posed by facts or knowledge in much the same way a superstitious and trembling Romanian peasant will brandish a clove of garlic at the shadows of the night.
Bearing in the mind all the fake quotes assigned to David Houghton, and the evident fact that the statement within the pruported quote is non-factual, scepticism is probably a sensible approach.
Jonathan Leake!
ROTFL!
Brad's been had, again!
What a gullible duufus he is...
Correcting my earlier post:
@#73, Brad said:
Good.
So, bye then, Brad, we certainly won't miss you.
"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened." Adding "We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view."[
But we now know (in the light of real world events such as the more rapid than predicted collapse of Arctic sea ice) that Watson was wrong. That the misnomered 'skeptics' hang on to an old quote is par for the course with them.
There's simply no way this clown ever made it through a single college-level course on propositional logic or set theory.
Stu, there are some pretty piss-poor Universities out there...
Oh, and before "Brad"cammy gets too excited, this is what deniers do all the live long day.
Unquoted "quotes" from their pet sources such as the recent supposed Pachauri 'quote' from Murdoch's flunky Graham Lloyd that had deniers wetting their pantieZ across the blogosphere.
It's far easier to manufacturei ncidental fanciful garbage from pet pooches than to dispute any actual science papers, especially when you don't bother quoting the actual words spoken and just paraphrase them to taste.
More background on Brad's favoured source on whether the IPCC contains errors or not:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/20/leakegate-how-jonathan-leake…
How about you just read it yourself?
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
How about starting with
Chapter4, Section5:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5.html
4.5 Changes in Glaciers and Ice Caps
How about finding just one error for us?
But not that piss-poor Vince, surely.
Except for the Oregon Institute home school packs of course.
Vince,
after reading your made up nonsense at the Feb thread, I am imagining something very different to you.
Vince seems to have invented a formula for an invented personality disordef called 'intellect envy'.
He thinks people who comment at some blog (Bolt?) hate 'smart' people like him.
I think Vince needs to follow Latimer's (?) advice and get out more.
He revealed a few weeks ago that he works on the 4th floor of a government building.
Why would anyone envy that?
He also must spend far too much time on these crank blogs he keeps mentioning.
What's smart about that?
Vince also keeps arguing from an 'us & them' (them being morons who lack intelligence or the ability to think) mindset, as if he imagines we are in a soap opera or fairytale.
I have some suggestions for you Vince:
Walk out of your office and talk to real people who work outside or who work with other real people in other real businesses.
Instead of forming your opinions about people from stupud toxic political blogs from both sides of the climate debate, go outside and talk to real people (as per suggestion 1) and read the primary literature BEFORE(!) you read blod reviews.
(This will help you avoid errors like your assertions re BEST).
That is probably enough for now, other than a suggestion that you develop a sense of humour.
Oops!
apologies for the typos.
Calumny, just because you know nothing does not mean that applies to everybody. The echo chamber is called that for a reason,and morons will always lag behind in being aware.