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.
And FFS sake Calumny, do NOT pretend to have a handle on what the literature (BEST or otherwise) shows or doesn't show. You've proved that's beyond you.
You really are hard of understanding, aren't you Chameleon?
The 4th-floor government building I mentioned in relation to some nesting pee-wees (who you remind me of) was a place I once did some work at, (I was sat on the ground floor).
Co-incidentally, I now work on a 4th floor, but at Macquarie Park this time (ie, not a government building).
And, clearly, I didn't suggest you suffer from any envy as to the situation of my work cubicle, I was merely pointing out that incredibly dumb people such as yourself, and the intellectually-limited likes of Brad, are ferociously opposed to accepting the advice of those who are smarter than them, because they suffer from intellect-envy.
Australia has intellect-envy in spades - people who do well at school are "smart arses"; smart people who get jobs as government advisors are reviled and threatened by dim-witted loons; etc....
And...blow me down with a feather - did you just suggest *I* read primary sources, Chameleon?
Coming from somebody who hasn't even read secondary sources such as the IPCC reports, and clearly can't grasp how BEST failed by finding that MBH98 was correct, don't you feel kind of embarrassed by that suggestion?
'fraid not Vince. Calumny's overweening stupidity leaves the sense of entitlement, despite the obvious inequalities, completely intact.
Chek,
For fox ache!
You could also follow the suggestions I made to Vince.
I am NOT your enemy or an enemy of the environment.
I don't hate you or Vince. In fact I don't really have much of an opinion about you one way or another. I don't know you.
Vince's assertions about 'intellect envy' are absolutely hilarious.
He even made up a stupid formula based on comments at a political blog.
Vince seems to think there is a war going on between 'smart people' and everyone else and that only his idea of 'smart people' can possibly understand anything in this world.
Of course Vince also thinks he is one of these 'smart people'.
Apparently that then follows if anyone DARES to question Vince's beliefs or the beliefs of his definition of 'the experts', they are automatically a 'moron' and suffer from an ability to think and he has even inferred that it's a shame that these (not smart like him) people are allowed to have a vote!
It does make for very amusing reading.
I may or may not have a better handle on the BEST work than you or Vince.
How would you know?
What I did do, however, was read it BEFORE I read any blog reviews of it and was therefore able to make up my own mind.
There is no CONFIRMATION of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST.
David B is the only person here who has been honest enough to point out that due to the limitations (especially time frames) in BEST it has some similarities (which is EONS from a CONFIRMATION) to the latter part of the MBH98 hockey stick in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
So where have you and Vince et al picked up the notion that BEST has CONFIRMED the hockey stick?
Wouldn't have been from a blog review (as opposed to a peer reviewed science article) by any chance?
My guess (and of course it is JUST an educated guess, nothing more, nothing less) is that you have both fallen as victims for the 'academic pissing contest' that ensued after the release of BEST.
Neither WUWT or RC or SKS or Jonova or whomever were particularly interested in discussing the actual BEST paper.
They were far more interested in using it to conduct a war in academic semantics and politics.
It's interesting that you refer to the (historically fraught) DSM, given that narcissism is likely to be omitted from the next iteration (now there's an irony if ever there was one...) and psychopathy is not currently explicitly defined by DSM IV.
There is a rich literature of both beyond DSM however, and if would be even funnier to see if the Wizard of Keyes can pick the characteristics on his own behaviour on Deltoid that would lead a person to speculate about the two conditions.
So knock yourself out Brad. You're so clever - let's see if you can pick the signs that lead me (and others, no doubt) to wonder...
Too good to pass up:
Spoken like someone who's never come close to being the target of "intellect envy".
(Furthermore, those engaging in it are prone to cite humour as an excuse when employing it.)
Others; no doubt at all...
Um....in sequence:
1. Reading what its champions were expecting it to show
2. Reading what it did eventually actually show
2.a. Watching the reactions of its previous champions when it failed to deliver the result they wanted.
2.a.i. Chortling with amusement at the reputational hara-kiri performed by these non-scientist cranks.
chek,
So this is a real quote from Robert Watson?
I guess that means we can bypass Vince’s tedious denials of its legitimacy.
Well that was a waste of time, wasn’t it? Thanks Vince. :-/
Bernard J,
interesting take on the burden of evidence:
No, let's not.
Let's see if you can justify the diagnosis you made. Or are you just as full of shit as you seem?
Lotharsson?
"......the target of “intellect envy”.
Too good to pass up?
I guess you're saying that you think you're a target of 'intellect envy' too and that you think there is such a thing as a formula 'intellect envy'? ...as in the one that Vince made up?
ROFL :-)
Anyway, it's rather interesting to see you grace this thread with your presence rather than commenting about this thread at the other one.
Even more interesting that unlike Brad K, I could have continued the conversation at the Feb thread.
Is that 'smart' of you Lotharsson?
Yawn.
Brad Keyes (February 26, 2013) wrote: "chek,
So this is a real quote from Robert Watson?"
Well, Brad, I am still trying to verify this. Maybe you can help. The only source that I can find for the original quote (admittedly I haven't searched that hard) is the Wikipedia article on Watson, where the source is given as Jonathan Leake, in the Times online. On trying to follow this link, using The Times online's search engine, I find that I stand before a paywall and can only read a few lines of the article. So, as far as I am concerned, the source cannot be verified. (However, I will try my uni library tonight, in the hope that they subscribe to the Times online.)
That said, even if Watson was reported accurately, SO WHAT?
Yep!
It provided almost exactly the reaction I anticipated - right down to missing the distinction between engaging BK and engaging you, and further verification that you are arguing against "intellect envy" from a position of personal ignorance.
Thanks!
Well then Lotharsson,
Please, by all means, do define what you think is meant by 'intellect envy' considering you are claiming I am now arguing against 'intellect envy'.
I'm fascinated that you claim it's possible to argue against 'intellect envy' and that you could anticipate that.
What is this 'intellect envy' that you anticipated I would argue against Lotharsson?
:-)
BTW Lotharsson, I am fully aware that you were engaging with me.
Of course you would have anticipated that I would comment on your appearance here. I have made no secret of the fact that I think the behaviour is somewhat questionable.
That doesn't change the fact that you have been prattling on about this thread at the Feb thread.
We all know you CAN do that and that you have CHOSEN to do that.
Like doh!
:-)
Brad says,
You tell us, you quoted it - where did you get it from? Is it real?
Come on, we're waiting.
For the moment, I personally will assume you got it from the Transylvanian peasant.
Chameleon asks,
It's perfectly simple:
I assert the likes of yourself and Brad hate science, scientists, the scientific process and the knowledge it results in for the reason that you suffer from intellect envy.
Do you admit it, or are you arguing?
Perhaps you could start by denying that you sourced that quote from the unreliable Jonathan Leake?
And seeing as you are so keen to talk about the IPCC's supposed "mistakes", have you read this yet?
Before I tender the evidence for your narcissism and possible borderline psychopathy as I see it, Keyes, I will ask you again if you can detect anything in your behaviour that would lead others to perceive such traits.
Are you genuinely unable to understand why other see you as such?
Well Vince,
That's an accusation and an assertion, not a definition.
I asked Lotharsson for a 'definition' of this 'intellect envy' that I am apparently arguing against.
BTW, your personal accusation/assertions are incorrect, rather insulting and probably not very 'smart' of you.
Some of my family, some of my best friends and quite a number of my business associates are scientists.
I bear no ill will towards science, the scientific process or the knowledge that science brings.
Ironically, I have science subjects in my uni degrees.
My IQ is just peachy and I bear no ill will towards other people with higher than average IQ.
Nor do I bear any ill will towards people who don't have university quals and/or higher IQ's.
IMHO, being 'smart' or a 'smart person' is not just about IQ or possessing tertiary quals.
Well, if you're having trouble with words, look them up in the dictionary instead of wasting our time here.
Of course not, no matter how incoherent they might be, some people console themselves with something they like to call, "emotional intelligence".
Funny how "emotional intelligence" seems negatively correlated with science comprehension and positively correlated with belief in woo, though, isn't it Chameleon?
Into a bit of homeopathy, are we?
I got it from Roger Pielke Jr, as should have been obvious from my Roger Pielke Jr quotation.
Why? I already told you where it came from (Roger Pielke Jr) when I first quoted it.
But since I was clearly quoting Roger Pielke Jr, that’s a stupid assumption.
I deny that; but let me go even further and tell you my source!
It was from Roger Pielke Jr.
Just following the trail here, but Pielke isn't quoting Watson here, exactly, he's reporting what someone else said.
Specifically, he sources the quote to The Australian which reprinted an article from the Sunday Times by Ben Webster and Robin Pagnamenta. That article simple reports that Watson said them without providing any details of when or where that might allow independent verification.
While Pielke referenced the remarks as Webster and Pagnamenta reported them, he also showed that the claim was wrong, didn't he Brad? Pielke's review of Brysse et al confirms that three out of the three AR4 errors they included are underestimates.
Is this some subtlety that escaped me? That these underestimates simultaneously overstate the impact?
Bernard J:
What's with this "Keyes" nonsense, Bernard? The polite thing to say is "Brad." Were you raised by fucking wolves?
Sure, there've been an infinity of behaviours on my part that could easily lead others who had no idea what they were talking about to suggest I had "such traits." We all know the kind of pop-psychologist poseurs I'm alluding to here: the idiots who accuse us deniers of "thinking you're so much smarter than, you know, the world's leading scientists!" one day and "intellect envy" the next day.
Uh, because others are idiots maybe?
Now, stop stalling and "tender the evidence"!
Just because you ignore any evidence given to you doesn't mean it isn't there.
So you now need to show evidence for YOUR claims.
So far you have shown ZERO evidence.
Oh, the irony...
Where is that RPJ quotation? I bet you didn't link to RPJ saying it, did you.
And given that it is the same as Leake, your assertion is still just that: unverified assertion.
It's a strange reversal of evidence you have here: we>/i> have to prove where your statement came from.
And since it still isn't from Woods either, whether he said it or not is still unverified.
Telling is not showing.
Unscientific claptrap, yet again, from Braying Donkey.
you just answered your own question.
You're a moron.
You missed a much bigger load of codswallop irony, Bernard:
!!!
Wow?
Do you ever get that 'you're posting too fast, slow down' message?
I get it when I try to apologise for typos.
Just asking :-)
Brad Keyes
# 77 page 30:
You were asked to respond True/False to three questions:
[You know nothing about the science T/F]
- You have already admitted wide-ranging ignorance of the scientific evidence, some of which we discussed in detail (ECS; paleoclimate behaviour and CO2). That's how you know you know nothing about the science.
[You deny the evidence because it conflicts with your political beliefs T/F]
- See below
[You are afraid of AGW and so in denial T/F]
- See below
***
You say:
You deny that it's politics, deny that you are in denial and admit that you know nothing about the science. How you can reject the standard scientific position on AGW from a position of ignorance is a mystery to me, unless we invoke politics and/or denial arising from fear.
So what are your reasons?
What can they be?
Geeze BBD,
Why are you missing the bleeding obvious?
I am seriously disappointed.
BTW I think you have just surpassed Lotharsson, Vince, Bill and Wow on the den/y/alist/ism meter.
:-)
Calumny, I'm torn between deciding whether you could possibly be a real-life person, or a sock on "Brad's" masturbating hand.
Strange how you give that impression, isn't it?
Chek?
:-)
ROFL!
You are a hoot :-)
I don't know BradK any better than I know you sweetie.
I couldn't give a toss for your personal insults Chekky babe.
Any sexual behaviour is defintely reserved for my husband.
:-)
# 34
What am I missing that is 'bleeding obvious'?
Nothing, BBD.
But by saying so, the idiot thinks that this will be "proof enough" of something being missed.
# 34
Come on. Answer me.
You know what, wow? I'm beginning to wonder if chameleon might just possibly be a troll?
What do you think?
;-)
Oh, I think you're on safe ground with that prediction.
No Calumny, given your remarkably similar skillsets (and lack of) and single directional support, I was implying a far more intimate relationship.
@ 34
What am I missing? If not ignorance or politics or denial or a mix of same, what possible 'reasons' can there be for rejecting the mainstream position on AGW?
None are obvious to me. So please answer the question.
What you missed (not really, but by actually asking rather than just answering for them because they will never do so) is that Bray is trolling, pure and simple.
Vince wrote:
Indeed and I was trying to get Brad to investigate that for himself when I wrote in http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
But of course BK in his arrogant ignorance decided that wasn't for him 'cause he just knows what he gets from Pielke etc., is the truth.
What the likes of Brad don't realise is that most of us, myself included, have had locally available copies of this entire document (and many associated) for study long since, which we did when this particular zombie was set running the first time. Not only that, I would hazard that most like myself keep a hierarchical list of appropriate bookmarks handy, which unfortunately after some time fail but if the page or doc has been saved can most times be found gain - at least from those sources with nothing to hide.
But aside from other things discovered at the time SkS as ever produced a handy reference The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Keyes, this 'so ten years ago' stuff is rich coming from you:
Don't be so silly, how could wolves raise anything (other than the obvious but best not go there) if they are so busy fucking?
You now descend into pure comedy as you swallow your tail, or should it be tale.
@ 34
No response?
I'm seriously disappointed.
Bernard J:
Er... I mean... others are so smart with their superior intellect! We hates them!
Come now, Bernard, don't be too hard on Lotharsson and his theory hypothesis conjecture guessing—he's not a competent psychologist like you! At least he's trying to explain behaviour that confuses him.
Speaking of which, remind me:
did I ask you to keep stalling? Or pony up your evidence?
The second one, I'm pretty sure.
Stalling for time still, Bray?
Lionel A:
Hey, I thought the IPCC was "not in the business of making predictions"! (Was it Vince or chek who set us all straight on this?) The IPCC makes projections, Lionel! Your choice of words makes you sound suspiciously like some sort of denier.
By the way, what happened to Naomi Oreskes' (and some of the local troletariat's) adamance that the 2035 pred er, prophecy was "a typo"? Even John Cook isn't brazen enough to try that one on! LOL
BBD:
Of the myriad positions on AGW current among scientists who acknowledge (like I do) that it's a real phenomenon, how on earth do you know which position is the "mainstream" one? (I assume you mean the modal / majority position?)
Yes, you probably would.
Yes, you're even in denial about denial.
Who would have thought it.
Of the myriad positions on AGW current among scientists
You're confusing 'scientists' with 'pseudoscientists'.
It's the latter group that have 'myriad' , conflicting and self-contradictory positions (which happily for some, all happen to go in the same direction as approved of by the fossil fuel lobby).
None of them ever bother to disagree with each other, though, do they.
Doesn't look like they believe IN their position, they merely agree AGAINST the science.
chek:
LOL
I wasn't aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!
I know a super-smart mental health perfessional who can help you with that mode of ideation, chek. If you ever want to talk to someone about it, email stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au
# 51
Stop being evasive and ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
Your behaviour is astonishing.
Something else you know nothing about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-chang…
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/10/11819/meet-network-hiding-koch-mone…
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=178
Defend your position, Brad.
I say you are a lying, mentally ill, ignorant fool.
Prove me wrong by answering the question this time.
Explain your reasons.
wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!
Of course you didn't chucklebrain, their outposts tell you that all the time, don't they. And you're only too ready to believe them too chucklehead, because - and I don't know why you just don't come clean and admit it to BBD - you're a moron denier.
In total, between 2002 and 2010 Donors’ Trust and the Donors’ Capital Fund, the two identity-laundering groups paid $311m to 480 organisations
Or I'm going to carry on filling in the blanks for you.
"I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!"
Yet you believe in a scientific conspiracy to make up facts in support of AGW.
Hmmm.
Lionel A,
on one of the minor threads (where, as you know, I don't respond inline to my critics) you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
You then linked your few readers to some google searches, which are of zero avail to you because they fail to show that I've ever denied the existence of consensus in science.
Apparently you think you can justify your aspersion with the further generalisation that, "Anyone who checks these citations will see that [the alleged claim is] made regularly by well know[n] and not so well known AGW deniers."
Well, it is well know[n], among those who know stuff, that I am not an AGW denier.
So that excuse is abortive.
Secondly, even you know that I've never claimed that scientific consensus doesn't exist. Google can't help you prove a lie.
Thirdly, just in case you were thinking of pretending you only accused me of saying that, "Science is not about consensus," science is not about consensus. I don't believe I've ever pointed it out to you before, largely because it's so goddamn obvious. Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus. If you don't grasp this, it's a sad indictment of your nation's education system.
Remember, as long as Bray has one unanswered question out there, he will insist they are answered before he deigns to answer yours.
And if you do answer them all, he'll ask another question before he answers, so that there will now be another unanswered question out there for you to answer first.
More hilarious walter mitty views from Bray.
Keyes:
Faff about over words all you like you are still in a mess WRT that Watson quote. You see you shouldn't trust Uncle Roger when it comes to quotes as he seems to have gone to the same training school for quoting as Plimer.
So you still have not gone to the heart of that matter then.
Why do you keep repeating from ignorance. Because you say John Cooke isn't brazen enough to try that one does not mean he would not, he just hasn't. You gotta do better than this.
Looks like your holes within holes are getting tighter, less wiggle room.
But you've said that consensus is a form of evidence, Bray.
BBD:
Make up your mind, BBD.
No. It would be a waste of my valuable time to articulate the evidence against your belief system, when you and I don't even understand / mean the same thing by the concept "evidence."
First things first.
" "I say you are a lying, mentally ill, ignorant fool."
Make up your mind, BBD."
You are lying, mentally ill and an ignorant fool too. They are not mutually exclusive.
You should read up what those words mean.
In your dictionary that defines two words!
"First things first."
See what I mean in post #63.
"valuable time"
LOL!
Brad, you haven't defended your reasoning. Again.
You stand revealed as a deluded, dishonest, evasive, ignorant, naive and mentally ill troll.
Sorry, I missed 'arrogant'.
Keyes you are confused about this too, looks like you are entering melt down here:
I had trouble finding this, as you didn't provide a precise pointer, one of your stupid baffle-gab tactics I know, and then I did find it but guess what, it was not I that wrote that and here is the evidence precisely pointed:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/#c…
And the rest of that post is simply more repeated prolix bolix. If you are not an AGW denier then what are you, given the way this thread has played out?
Here is your theme tune,
but
I would rather listen to the early hits from this artist with a smile to melt ice, having collected her early singles and first three LPs, the third one of which 'North Country Maid' would now cost serious money by the look of things. As she appears there she is almost a dead ringer for my youngest daughter who is now in her late thirties.
- Brad chuckles "I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!"
- Several people provide links with proof of that industry.
- Brad reverts back to whining about his own, new, magical, superior definition of "consensus".
Shocker.
Stu:
Yep, my "own" definition of consensus (as majority opinion) is so new and magical that it's found in every dictionary known to humankind.
Return back (sic) to Jotunheim, troll.
Aw poor "Brad" it was everybody else that made you the dishonest little denier, unable to admit any error or acknowledge any lie, that you are and none of it is poor li'll "Brad's" fault, nosiree Bob.
Both pathetic and disgusting "Brad". Well done.
Lionel A,
while I congratulate you on the pulchritude of your spawn, I fear you are confused about this too, and that you may be entering meltdown here:
Far from confused, I wrote what you quote in a state of crystal lucidity. As you figured out for yourself, at length, the basis for my precisely true remark was your precisely false accusation (emphasis added):
And since I’ve never said what you falsely attribute to me—that science is not about consensus and consensus does not exist in science—I reiterate, if only for the edification of our readers: you made it up.
*Incidentally, I’m an agreeable person par excellence and would much rather concur with others, but unfortunately they have to be right in order to enable me to do so.
Hehehe. How can I stay mad at you, A, when you put such wit into your comments?
An AGW believer.
In case that was too prollocks for you, Lionel A, here's the chase:
Since I’ve never said what you falsely attribute to me—that science is not about consensus and consensus does not exist in science—I reiterate, if only for the edification of our readers: you made it up.
FTFY unless you're now dropping the "it's only a popularity contest".
Are you?
Yeah, just like Nero's "crystal lucidity", right?
Yeah, believe it to be false.
Oh dear, your linguistic feats are obvious.
Try getting an education next time, hmm?
BK
If you aren't lying, or ignorant of the scientific evidence (although you have admitted that you are) or politically prejudiced or in denial, then it is very hard to understand why you say:
What are your reasons?
What can they possibly be?
Try answering the question, Brad.
So you now say that your rant against Ian Forrester was a load of baloney???
How quick you turn, when it becomes convenient to change your statement.
A proper little whore, aren't you?
BBD:
That's because it would be a waste of my valuable time to articulate the evidence against your belief system when you and I don’t even understand or mean the same thing by the concept “evidence.”
You wrongly disagreed with the majority of my 6 (axiomatic) epistemological ground rules for scientific conversation. I'm drafting a detailed exposition of your mistaken reasoning, but the Augean chore (with which you haven't lifted a finger to help) of cleaning up after the troletariat is delaying that reply to you.
"with which you haven’t lifted a finger to help"
Aaaw, widdle bwad keeps cannot do it aww awone....
ROFL!!!
Y'see BBD, it's not "Brad's" fault at all, nosiree Bob.
He's not squirming and evading not nohow.
It's everybody else just making it seem like it.
What talents?
You have none.
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1
I wasn't wrong, Brad. You were.
You are the one with the personal definition of scientific evidence.
This is just more fucking evasion.
What are your reasons? Just WRITE THEM DOWN.
HE CAN'T!!! HE'S DENYING THEM!!!!
"Brad" a denier denying denial - or do you deny it?
I'd like to see you try, Brad. Why not even try? Bit short of confidence are we? Or perhaps you just don't have a scientific case? Could that be it?
BTW the word-twisting is starting up again. What you refer to as 'my belief system' is correctly called 'science'.
What we are interested in here is *your* belief system.
If you have a scientific case then why ever not wheel it out, Brad?
You've been asked time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
Why so fucking coy, Brad? Come on man, out with it.
Brad, Are you nucking futs?
More of BK's cupid stunts!
Groan. Is there no end to this?
Now that was from #64 above here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Note that it was not I that wrote what you attribute to me in that above and I have emphasised where you addressed ME, and nobody else, indirectly using 'you'.
One thing is for sure, you are getting tedious and repetitive.
Time to start answering straight questions still outstanding from BBD and Bernard J. You moan about wasting your precious time without thinking for one moment about the time we waste trying to clear your prolix sophistry aka baffle-gab.
" trying to clear your prolix sophistry aka baffle-gab."
And THAT is why you must be PUNISHED, Lionel.
How DARE you!
:D
Lotharsson,
Drama,
this seems to be the canonical formulation of your childish attempt at psychologizing me, chameleon and our "likes":
And here is a minor sample of the ways in which your speculation is stupid:
1. If we hated “the scientific process” we’d take it out on the scientific process, rather than defend its integrity tooth and nail from innovators and vandals like Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky, who’ve taken it upon themselves after 250 years of triumphant discovery to retool the epistemology at the heart of modern science, sabotaging the finest intellectual technology ever made by man.
2. If we hated “the knowledge it results in” we’d take it out on the countless branches of science that are generating knowledge at a mind-boggling rate, rather than lament the state of climate science, in which field you can’t name off the top of your head a single useful thing the human race actually knows that we didn’t know (say) five years ago, can you?
3. If we hated intelligent people we’d take it out on intelligent people, wouldn’t we? Why would we care about Phil Jones, who admits he can’t get his head around Excel? We wouldn’t. We’d resent the people you resent—people like Steve McIntyre and JeanS, who, armed with nothing but a genius for statistics and a home PC, can force NASA to correct its calculations and David Karoly to retract $300,000 climate-science research.
4. If we hated scientists for their “intellect” we’d take it out on the most intelligent scientists—the ones who are right about stuff, whose predictions are vindicated and who win Nobel Prizes—the science laureates, not the mediocre hockey-bacillographers who pretend to be Peace laureates—wouldn’t we?
Neo-Freudian farcical fail, gentlemen.
"Neo-Freudian farcical fail, gentlemen."
You don't even know what you're saying, you loon.
"1. If we hated “the scientific process” "
More evidence of your psychosis.
Lionel A,
I apologise for blaming you for Ian Forrester's comments.
No excuses.
But you're not blaming you for your attacks against Ian saying what you NOW insist you've always said?
And before this disdappears under the bridge with the troll, Stu at #75 highlighting your disgusting behaviour is not trolling.
Naturally, I expected Calumny to jump right in and point out your error, but it seems our partisan li'll trollette de toilette is nowhere to be found when it comes to "Brad's" trangressions no matter how egregious they may be.
BBD,
unlike you apparently, I don't spend all night online.
But now I am back online:
The bleeding obvious is you have already decided what the reasons/motivations are.
You have made that clear at 2 threads.
You are asking to be proved wrong.
That's just an attempt to lay a semantic trap, not a genuine attempt to learn or understand another point of view.
I am disappointed because I did think you were asking genuine questions upthread.
FTFY chubby.
chameleon
Then answer the fucking question.
chameleon
To avoid any further attempts at misrepresentation on your part, we shall recap.
Brad said:
I responded:
You asked:
The fucking question, oh not-bright candle, is being asked of Brad. If you are going to inject comments into other conversations, do better than this.
Or I will be increasingly rude to you, as Brad has used up all my store of patience.
Brad says,
I see - so you were quoting the ever-unreliable Roger Pielke Jr who was quoting serial fabricator Jonathan Leake who wasn't quoting Robert Watson.
I'm glad that's cleared up.
Perhaps you could point out which of your "axioms of science discourse" would indicate that this kind of error-strewn shenanigans is a good idea?
Vince:
So am I. But the question is why it took you so long.
chek:
I'm an AGW believer denying AGW denial and professing AGW belief.
Deny that, "chek," and you're denying the truth (not for the first time).
Yup, you've cracked!!!!
This is you all over!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePEUhKlchg
Forrester,
on one of the minor threads you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
You then linked your few readers to some google searches, which are of zero avail to you because they fail to show that I’ve ever denied the existence of consensus in science.
Apparently you think you can justify your aspersion with the further generalisation that, “Anyone who checks these citations will see that [the alleged claim is] made regularly by well know[n] and not so well known AGW deniers.”
Well, it is well know[n], among those who know stuff, that I am not an AGW denier.
So that excuse is abortive.
Secondly, even you know that I’ve never claimed that scientific consensus doesn’t exist. Google can’t help you prove a lie.
Thirdly, just in case you were thinking of pretending you only accused me of saying that, “Science is not about consensus,” science is not about consensus. I don’t believe I’ve ever pointed it out to you before, largely because it’s so goddamn obvious. Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus. If you don’t grasp this, it’s a sad indictment of your nation’s education system.
I have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right. says "Brad"
versus
"Brad" who now says:
I’m an AGW believer denying AGW denial and professing AGW belief.
Glad that we cleared up that you're an opportunistic, confused, lying toe-rag.
Chek,
Please quote me ever denying AGW, you subpontine liar.
"Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus"
I suppose to an idiot like you, you don' t know any better at all, do you.
have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right. says “Brad”
There you go sunshine. That's you, that is.
"Please quote me ever denying AGW"
This thread.
Duh.
We can all thank our lucky stars that it's not just us who has no clue what the hell is wrong with Bray: he doesn't know what the hell he's doing either.
Yeah, vince, how come you took so long to tell Bray he's wrong?
Not even HE believed himself for a second!
Once again, BBD's perceptive comment to the effect that the inside of "Brad's" head must be like a washing machine on an extended 2000 rpm spin cycle seems the only viable explanation..
chek,
Please quote me ever denying AGW, you subpontine liar.
'Subpontine'? That's bats number four, isn't it?
have reasons, not motivations, for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.
There ya go "Brad". Let me know which of the big words you used without understanding them that you're having trouble with now.
Once again, no input from Calumny regarding "Brad's" studied and evasive fuckwittery. How strange.
Brad says,
I just wanted to be absolutely sure that you did indeed republish a fabricated quote without bothering to check its veracity.
Let's remember that the purpose of the fabricated quote was to denigrate the integrity and accuracy of the IPCC.
Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science, however spreading invented accusations against the IPCC clearly reveals your motivations for claiming to have those reasons.
Incidentally, Brad, I seem to have missed your reasoned reponse to this:
Your reasons no doubt include your belief that the IPCC is wrong.
Find some errors, demonstrate your reasons are real.
Jeezus Kerrist.
How long does it take to chew through a carpet anyway?
chek,
Please quote me denying AGW, you subpontine liar.
Vince,
If you literally believe someone fabricated the Robert Watson quote, I'm sure Roger Pielke Jr would like to know about it—why not post a comment to that effect at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html ?
I'll look out for your comment with interest, and for Pielke's reply of course.
Vince,
Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science. That's a figment of your imagination, just like chek's delusory insistence that I reject AGW.
Free advice: it's not a good look for your position when you have to invent fictional opponents (sometimes called "straw men") as a counterfoil.
Brad Keyes asks:
Keyes, all I am doing is giving to the opportunity to indicate that you understand what it is that others perceive in your behaviour here.
You see, I wouldn't want you to succumb to the temptation of saying "yeah, I knew that, but it was all a joke" when I come to specifics. I want to avoid post hoc rationalisation - something to which you seem rather prone...
Your position on equilibrium climate sensitivity when you entered the discussion was a rejection of the best science.
You rejected MBH98, and you were ignorant of independent temperature 'hockey sticks', which constitutes rejection by omission.
You rejected the body of climatological ecophysiology that indicates that warming to the extent projected by the best understanding of climatic sensitivity will be serious, and indeed catastrophic, for many species on the planet.
Of course, you have not actually said that you "reject climate science", but then, that's one of your little semantic tricksies, one of your linguistic straw men to which you are so partial...
...has it never dawned on you that your 'best' arguments consist of logical fallacies rather than of empirically-supported, referenced and reasoned science?
Bernard J:
And yet you've spent 24 hours and counting in ante hoc procrastination.
Not looking good, Bernard.
Bernard J:
And yet you've spent 24 hours and counting in ante hoc procrastination.
Not looking good, Bernard J.
Please quote me denying AGW, you subpontine liar.
I already did, "Brad".
Twice.
How credible will the response to your own words be?
Ranging somewhere between 'not ver'y to 'laughable', I'd estimate
chek,
Please quote me denying AGW, you charming, honest, rational entity of full human status.
Bernard,
I forgot to mention: please address me by my first (screen) name next time. Who do you think you are, my geography master?
Courtesy. That's all I demand.
Somehow I thought you'd go with the laughable option, "Brad".
Deny is what deniers do.
Somehow I thought you'd persist in your bizarre delusion, "chek." Believe is what believers do.
Hint: my interlocutor at the time understood perfectly well, though you seem unable to, that I wasn't referring to AGW when I used the phrase "the supposedly 'majority' position."
Presented with a detailed description of his denial of climate science, Brad can only repeat:
In addition to the list of examples of Denial you have been responsible for, I would add your opinions on ocean acidification, which also amount to a rejection of the science.
I also note that you appear to not be embarrassed to have been caught out spreading the fabricated Watson "quote". Apparently it's all Pielke's fault.
Here's a clue: it's your choice to reject climate science and defer to crank bloggers, and so it's your choice you are spreading lies and fabrications.
Incidentally, Brad, I seem to have missed your reasoned reponse to this:
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?
Your reasons no doubt include your belief that the IPCC is wrong.
Find some errors, demonstrate your reasons are real.
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post #0152 on this thread:
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0159 on this thread:
AND
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0186 on this thread:
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0188 on this thread:
McIntyre is an incompetent incapable of the statistical task he set himself, who in fact *failed*, and then compounded his failure by making false assertions based on further mathematical incompetence on his part.
Here, you are rejecting climate science on the basis of having swallowed blog-nonsense emitted by McIntyre.
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0188 on this thread:
More lies, garnished from crank blogs.
You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, Brad, some of it's unreliable!
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0196 on this thread:
False, again.
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0196 on this thread:
False, again.
Evidence of Brad rejecting climate science:
post0198 on this thread:
So, you reject climate science on the basis of what some bloke says, who admits he hasn't looked into it properly.
And then the obligatory fabricated quote at the end just for good measure.
So, how many quotes have we got so far evidencing Brad's rejection of climate science?
And that's just from Page 1.
30 more pages contain plenty more such evidence.
My expectation is:
We're going to see more Denial from Brad.
Ah, more irony from Keyes.
Shall we just say that you can't perceive any of your own behaviour on Deltoid that would lead others to speculate about you as possessing narcissistic and/or borderline psychopathic tendencies?
Once we squeeze that admission from you we can start to catalog the examples of signs that would lead people to thus wonder about your psychological state.
This is all dreadfully dull.
Vince:
Of course I'm not embarrassed to have retweeted that quote of the former IPCC chairman via a legitimate scholar. If you really believe it's all a Romanian conspiracy to defame Robert Watson then why have you still not alerted Pielke Jr to your suspicions? The legitimate place to do so would on the page where the claim was made, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html . I look forward to seeing if you have the courage of your convictions.
Vince:
Nope.
Bernard J:
No, you could have started the moment I asked you for your justification, more than a day ago. Enough of your dilatory games. Nobody is gullible enough to believe you're waiting for the go-ahead from me.
NB I advise against insulting our intelligence by pretending you can backtrack from the diagnosis you made. You weren't idly "wondering." You used the word "demonstrable." Go ahead, demonstrate, or forever be thought a fraud.
Why would I? The man is a known fantasist and an unreliable source of information. I'm under no obligation to engage with his nonsense.
Seeing as *you* are the one who was taken in by his misinformation, *you* are the one who should be asking him to explain.
Found any IPCC errors yet?
Brad says,
But you do, and you're in denial about it - your belief that MIchael Mann's mathematics is what Steve McIntyre says it is is plain wrong, and McIntyre's ludicrous effort was shown to be utterly wrong years and years ago.
You reject climate science. You believe any fabricated quote or inept bit of statistics that supports your rejection.
Brad says,
A legitimate scholar whose "reference" for that supposed quote is a link to an article in The Australian.
Truly pathetic.
How about reading AR4, finding some errors, and publishing your work?
It seems those who reject climate science are all talk and no action when it comes to doing any academic or science work of their own.
All talk....
Vince:
Publish my work? LOL...
Kiiinda busy here.
You're asking me to spend more than a few hours on a subject which doesn't generally hold my interest for more than 1 or 2 per sitting. I've read more than enough IPCC literature to know the limits of my attention span.
I'm asking you to do nothing more than take your suspicions of quote fabrication to Pielke Jr. himself.
Except that I'm not the one who thinks the quote was fraudulent. That would be you. It's odd that you're willing to say so in comments here, but not at http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/science-is-shortcut.html, where it might be read and acted on. I'm sure he's a reasonable fellow and would appreciate an accusation like that being brought to his attention ...if it's correct. ;-)
I have no intention of backtracking Keyes. I do however find it interesting to watch your responses to my attempts to ascertain your own understanding of your behaviour.
And a linguistic contortionist such as yourself should be aware that technically it's not a "diagnosis", but more like a "diagnostic impression". You seem to be unaware that the two are different, and given your previous journals of pedantry you should be able to appreciate that such difference is important...
But keep posting as you are. You are accumulating such a long list of subtle reinforcements of my diagnostic impression that I would never bother to waste the time it would take to actually list them and explain them, but posterity may one day appreciate them.
And lest Keyes thinks that I am "backtracking", I will catalog some of the signs of his behavioural peculiarities. I simply won't waste the time that it would take to be comprehensive - his examples are simply too prolific to warrant listing by anyone other than a seriously ASD pedant or a postgrad.
Well, we've established that the opinion expressed in that purported quote is an incorrect opinion.
Additionally, Pielke is not a climate scientist.
In the circumstances, this justifies me in my long-standing opinion that Pielke has nothing whatsoever to contribute to my understanding of climate science.
You might want to reflect on your decision to reject sound, professional climate science based on the nonsense opinions and dubious quotes gleaned from non-science literature you obtain from serially-incorrect non-scientists such as Pielke.
This is how science works in Brad land:
Professional scientists conduct professional research and publish their results in the professional science literature.
Brad doesn't read it.
Non-scientists with no relevant discernable skills such as Watts, McIntyre, and Pielke publish uneducated opinions, false assertions and flawed and incompetent statistical research on their crank blogs.
Brad avidly reads thew crank blogs, copies it, pastes it, spreads it far and wide.
Brad then tells us, "My opinion is worth as much as the scientific consensus on climate change".
Brad claims,
.
a. Another admission that you intend to continue your argument from ignorance: you won't read the IPCC, and yet you have some fringe, conspiracy-theorist opinions about it.
b. Did you find any of these "IPCC errors" your crank-blogs are telling you about?
Here's yet another example of Brad being duplicitous:
I said,
Now, elsewhere you talk about reasons for rejecting climate science,
He said,
Hilarious - you want to berate others about straw man arguments immediately after you throw up a straw man argument.
The issue is: you reject climate science.
Your strawman: you deny you claimed to reject climate science.
This is the inevitable result of cognitive dissonance: you project your idiocy onto others - you, the one who rejects cluimagte science (won't even read it!) in favour of crank blogs and their incompetent and dishonest assertions.
Back in your cage, Bray.
You were a very naughty boy.
" Nowhere have I claimed to reject climate science. …"
Nowhere have we claimed you claimed to have rejected climate science.
We claim you ARE DENYING it.
J.,
Oh goody. I thought for a minute you were weaseling out of it. You sounded more afraid of being weighed and found wanting than of going down in Internet history as a weaselweight milquetoast faquer.
(I ought to remind you, though, that you impressionistically diagnosed me not with peculiar behaviour but with one-and-a-half personality disorders, J. That is the track whence you must not back.)
Ah! I knew it—you're a pop-psychological poseur. A dabbling dilettante.
But that’s OK.
Fear not, please speak freely about me. We’ll all be just as fascinated by your informal observations of me as a structured profile of me. As much about me or as little about me as you want to say will be fine by me.
Now, where were we up to about me—“narcissism,” right?
An absurd charge!
Vince,
Allow me to remind everybody else of what you remember but avoid mentioning: you said that,
... which was a lie.
Nowhere have I acknowledged rejecting climate science (because I don't), let alone given reasons for doing so (because it would be silly to do so). That’s a figment of your imagination, just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW.
Despite "Brad's" feeble and unsupported protestations otherwise, what is interesting is that "Brad" here has swallowed every bit of the crank consensus (see the scratched surface of "Brad" repeated memes itemised by Vince, while simultaneously denying the validity of the scientific consensus.
Which is only what is to be expected from crank deniers. As David Benson says, it's all dreadfully dull and not news at all.
"Now, where were we up to about me—“narcissism,” right?
An absurd charge!"
Ah, who couldn't see this one coming. What a moron!
"just like chek’s delusory insistence that I reject AGW."
That's a figment of your imagination.
indeed, you don't acknowledge.
You still do however.
I think Bray just had a bet on with Joan who could have the longest thread.
It's all entirely boring, predictable denial from Bray now, in a desperate attempt to drag it all out.
Pretentious? Moi?
*Sigh*.
Are you Loathsome tonight?
It sure takes a lot of people to nail me in Lotharsson’s mind, doesn’t it?
You say they do, but I’m still waiting for any legitimate opinion polling of climate scientists that suggests the “things” I believe are out of majoritarian sync. Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised if such data exists—since climate science (uniquely among sciences) has the cash to waste on gathering such scientifically-void “evidence.” But in the absence thereof, you can’t even make the scientifically-irrelevant assumption you’re making!
Really? Nobody here is relying on bullshit consensualist arguments? Then their refusal—to a person—to acknowledge the illegitimacy of such arguments becomes a bit of a mystery, doesn’t it?
Sure, for a trained psychologist. But you’re a professional blog commenter! Come on!
Wrong. I accept all (and only) the results of the scientific method on questions about nature.
Ah, this must be a reference to my intransigent rigidity on estimated ECS, the Rose / Murari Lal quote, the four or five times I’ve clearly misread someone’s comment in my haste or misattributed one of Ian Forrester’s obnoxious lies to Lionel A, and my continued insistence that Oreskes is medically and metallurgically illiterate.
Hang on, that’s not right! I’ve changed my position on all those things.
Nope, no idea what the hell the Loather is going on about.
(And let me extend my apologies once more to Lionel and the lovely A family for inexplicably mistaking him for a forest troll.)
“Appears” to be “transparent”? Weasel, get thee hence.
It’s an obvious and explicit attempt on my part, not to avoid the question as such, but to avoid wasting hours answering it. Why spend my precious time detailing the evidence against climate alarmism, and exposing the lack of evidence for it, if my interlocutor doesn’t even know and/or acknowledge the difference between evidence and non-evidence?
All in all, Loather, that was a virtuoso blend of the irrelevant and the false. It may just be your best attempt yet!
Finally I can’t help but chuckle at the total overnight disappearance of the “intellect envy” meme from the local pop-psychological discourse. Courage of your convictions, anyone?!
LOL :-)
Losers.
This is how a palindromic pervert speaks to women ...
… thus providing ample evidence for Mr. Alder’s moseisleyism:
Should've listened. Should've listened.
Courage of your convictions, anyone?!
Absolutely precious coming from you, precious.
[Deltoid] was quite the weirdest and nastiest bit of the climatosphere I have ever visited. Perhaps the strangest part is that they delude themselves that they are a ‘high-traffic’ and highly successful part of the debate.
Whatever else you may say, sniffing out shit from the shit purveyors isn't difficult, nor sugar coated on this blog. Of course the obverse is that the honest have no problems whatsoever.
Have you heard about the Loathsome Loather?
He's further amused!
LOL. Magical thinking at its finest. As if calling it a "strawman" can turn back time and untell Vince's lie:
And what classic theme do we find recurring here?
Yes, we're familiar with your low opinion of the critical-thinking faculties of science and philosophy graduates, Lotharsson. We don't understand it, but we're familiar with it.
Yawn.
Yes, we’re familiar with your low opinion of the critical-thinking faculties propensity of those like me who believe and spout any old unsubstantiated denier garbage even though I quite shockingly claim to be a science and philosophy graduate[s], Lotharsson. We don’t understand it, After due consideration it is erminently understandable but we’re familiar with unfamiliar with being called out on it.
Fixed that for you to make sense within the voluminous evidence contained in this thread "Brad".
Lotharsson's summary on the other thread was spot-on.
Your response another exercise in self-serving tripe.
You bore me.
And you never answer my questions.
# 78
Latimer is a joke. He wouldn't answer my questions either. Because I nailed his nonsense too.
BBD,
I'm still pondering your disagreement with 4 of the 6 statements I considered axiomatic—why do I consider them truisms? why do you consider them false despite the first 2 being true?, this kind of thing. I'd prefer to figure out what the stumbling blocks are to agreement and get around them than use the current impasse as an excuse to postpone evidence-based argumentation indefinitely, yet there can be no point moving ahead until we reconcile our understanding of how evidence works.
Balls. You are being evasive. You don't get to insist on your own, private definitions of what constitutes scientific consensus.
You can play these games with some people but not with me.
You would do infinitely better at this stage to explain and defend your reasoning for this:
Just make a scientific argument against the scientific consensus. If you have one, that is.
If not, I predict you will go back to avoidance tactics dressed up as definitional argument about SC. As usual.
Oops!
Brad says,
but of course I meant chek. Chek is the one who denies my belief in AGW; Vince denies my belief in climate science itself.
Must remember not to get Dumb and Dumber mixed up.
BK
Back at # 33, Bernard J said:
Same old semantic tricksies, Brad. Some of us are bored, bored, bored...
Brad says,
...and fabricated quotes repeated by non-scientists like Pielke
... and defective statistics from a non-scientist called McIntyre.
.... and an anti evidence-based belief in a "Climategate" whistleblower, when the cops themselves say it was an illegal access from the outside.
Scientific method? Pull the other one.
Brad now says,
Which is a contradiction of what he has previously said:
Discounting the first strawman, (denying you acknowledge being a denier of climate science), what is clear is that you deny climate science, and you claim to have reasons for doing so.
So far, those reasons amount to a great gabble of garbage gleaned from crank blogs with virtually zero reference to primary sources.
You may think those are reasons for your denial of climate science, but it is patently obvious from just what piss-poor reasons those are that you are in fact driven by motivations, not reasons.
BBD:
Gonads. You are being lubricious. My "own, private definition of what constitutes scientific consensus" is confirmed by every dictionary known to man, BBD. You don't get to insist on the priority of some random enthusiast's Wikipedia spiel over legitimate lexicography.
Bernard J may have had the brains to say,
(otherwise known as facts), but that didn't stop Vince from lying, did it? As I told him:
Finally, thanks for your concern, BBD:
Oh, I'm sure he's already noticed that the February thread can't seem to stop talking about me (in craven and forked tongue) and is more than happy for me to occasionally intervene against the constant trickle of defamation if I generate interest in both threads, which, of course, I do.
You are the liar. Or you're simply stupid.
You *do* reject climate science. (eg, referencing non-scientist Pielke's nonsense).
When questioned, you refer to the *reasons* for your beliefs, in the context of denying you have political motivations.
To summarise:
- you deny climate science
- you rely on cranks to support your position
- you give those cranks' misbegotten opinions as your "reasons"
- you deny your reasons are factually incorrect
- you deny being moitivated in your denial
- you deny your denial
Lubricious.
But Vince, Pielke is a scientist. As is Pauling. As is Wakefield. As is Newton. I mean, there is absolutely no precedent for a scientist going off the deep end. And even if that did happen, luckily, science totally depends on what a person of authority said, rather than reproducible results. See, this is why evolution is 100% about what Darwin wrote, and why climate change is 100% about what Mann wrote. Science has no mechanism for self-correction whatsoever.
Stu, I think Vince is referring to Pielke Jr. the non-scientist, not Pielke Sr. the deep-end scientist.
RPJr is a political scientist and so a scientist in the wider sense of a seeker and disseminator of truths about the universe. Unfortunately he is not very good at matters climatological.
Stu, you'll notice that Brad didn't touch the "Pielke isn't a scientist".
The reason should be obvious.
Brad relying on a non-scientist such as Pielke for his info is therefore not a personal decision he can even defend.
David - you're very generous. I, for one, wouldn't praise Pielke by saying he is "not very good".
Vince Whirlwind --- I try to be polite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr.
http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/john-cook-3280/profile_bio
http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/stephan-lewandowsky-685/profile_…
Just posting up the profiles of the 3 gentlemen that are getting multiple mentions atthis thread and the Feb thread.
It appears that along with Roger Pielke jnr, Lewandowsky and Cook are probably not particularly good in matters climatalogical either?
All of them do run blogs on the subject however.
OK, Chameleon, we've demonstrated that Pielke's opinions about climate science rest on non-facts and apparently fabricated quotes containing incorrect opinions.
How about you demonstrate any error Lewandowsky or Cook have made in relation to climate science?
Vince:
The reason is obvious to the sane:
Pielke (Jr.) isn't a scientist.
What's to touch?
Heh? I don't apologise for a second for getting "info" from a non-scientist. Why should I? This weird new ethical code is your own invention.
Vince:
You've "demonstrated" jack, in other words. You've proven to the world that you don't trust Pielke Jr.
Well la-dee-da.
Vince:
I'll do you one better: Lewandowsky doesn't know how science works.
Check out this bollocks:
Neither does Cook:
Vince?
Why so tetchy?
I was merely agreeing with DavidB that there are high profile people who are commenting on issues climatology who are probably not any good at it.
Pielke jnr would be ONE of many!
I could add more to that list if you like?
I just put up the extra ones who have been quoted/mentioned numerous times here.
I fail to see why you now demand that requires me to prove anything else about them?
I have already posted their profiles.
What else do you need?
They, like Pielke, do not possess the necessary quals to be considered a 'climate scientist'.
However, they like Pielke do indeed run blogs on the subject.
What's your problem with that observation Vince?
Stu:
Don't worry Stu, you didn't miss anything—I haven't apologised for what you imagine to be my error on that front. Nor do I have any plans to do so.
1. no scientists—well-funded, destitute or anywhere in-between—are denying climate
2. the fossil-fuel multinationals are pouring their financial support into alarmist (or as you would call it, "mainstream") climate science. Read the Climategate emails. The scientists you consider "good guys" are the ones giving Big Oil "input into the research agenda," and asking their colleagues to "find angles that would appeal to [Exxon-Mobil]," in exchange for fossil-fuel "largesse." Hell, which multinational corporation do you reckon put on the champagne and canapés for the book launch of Rajendra Pachauri's bodice-ripping pulp fiction? The answer may shock and alarm you. Have you asked yourself how the directors of these companies would justify to their shareholders the simultaneous expenditure of large amounts of cash on both pro- and contra-CAGW research?
bill,
Google it and you'll find:
Are you really unable to figure out from the context which sense I meant?
Hint: I highlighted it.
Why do you ask?
Jeff Harvey,
you reply to chameleon's citation of a new paper as follows:
(There follows a description of a paper-counting exercise in which "meaningfulness" is implicitly defined as "proportion of papers supporting.")
Does chameleon argue against global warming or argue that recent warming is not man-made? (I'm not being a smart-arse, I'm genuinely asking.)
How much attention should we pay to them in your opinion, Jeff? 0.0017% of our total attention? Less? Zero?
Most believer sites on the internet are also operated by non-scientists. Shall we follow that through to its logical extension?
Could you elaborate on this accusation please Jeff?
What aspect of "how science works" does chameleon show signs of failing to know?
Does science work by counting papers?
Me:
Brad, in denial:
You have been unable to find one single error in the IPCC whereas I have highlighted one.
The error I highlighted was an error of understatement, proving Pielke's assertion (via fabtricated quote) wrong.
We have thus demonstrated not only that Pielke is, as you say, untrustworthy, but also that you are unequipped - be it intellectually or just factually - to support Pielke's assertion.
Curiously though, you continue to deny. Deny. Deny.
Everything you say is instantly shown to be shallow, wrong, or dishonest. And yet you continue.
Clearly, you are motivated by something you won't admit to. Yet.
Vince?
WTF?
Most believer sites on the internet are also operated by non-scientists. Shall we follow that through to its logical extension?
The ever-dishonest "Brad" attempts to create more false equivalence. The difference is that "Brad's" 'believer' sites don't invent their own crank theories or promote crank theories by cranks and pielkejrs et al., but do promote the peer reviewed science and the scientific consensus as does the IPCC.
"Brad's" ''logical'' extension would of course be a hoot to see, but always, always, always fundamentally dishonest. Much like "Brad" himself.
I’ll do you one better:
Claims "Brad".
But then doesn't.
Chek?
WTF?
"Brad" at comment#7 avoids Stu's question and refuses to apolgise for his error with yet more of his serially dishonest false equivalence.
What is it about deniers that makes honesty impossible for them?
chek,
LOL… are you telling us (before the Unblinking, Unforgetting Eye) that you can't see a problem with Lewandowsky's attempt at philosophy of science?
Think carefully.
Lotharsson:
Yes, who can forget when the original, seminal paper—Precursive Fury: When NASA Scientists Who've Walked on the Moon Go Skeptic—was published to widespread academic acclaim? What fun times we all had on Lewandowsky's shapingtomorrowsworld site (which absolutely does not take its name from the environmental movement's alleged itch for international power and influence, which is just a denier lie)!
It wasn’t all beer and skittles though. Inexplicably, for at least two sustained weeks, Lewandowsky's SS kidz would delete all my attempts to post the following:
_______________________________________
Here's my favorite krazy klimate konspiracy theory, which seeks to explain the large number of skeptical comments on climate blogs:
"Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.”
Cue spooky music!
The conspiracy theorist I'm quoting? One Professor S. Lewandowsky.
(The beneficiary of Lewandowsky's sagacious and not-at-all-paranoid thoughts? One Alene Composta, a satirical character whom Lewandowsky mistook for a person.)
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a known activity engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, often emplying students at cheap rates.
http://www.informationweek.com/security/client/air-force-seeks-fake-onl…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to…
http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/centcom-government-not-using-persona-ma…
I guess we can add the use of fake IDs to astroturf online media to the long list of subjects about which you are determined to offer opinion despite being in a position of apparently profound ignorance.
Hey Chek, (Ali G voice:) "High Five!?"
Will he come back for more humiliation?
Because reality is against them.
Therefore reality MUST BE DESTROYED.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/07/astroturfing-energy-citizen…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to…
And cranks like "Brad" really, really hate Lewandowsky.
Hey Vince?
How about I do a BBD and insist you answer my question at #6?
Why so tetchy about me agreeing with David B and providing further evidence?
Would you like me to add some more names to that list Vince?
I could also add the names of people who run blogs on climate who do actually possess quals in that field.
And yes M Mann would be ONE of them.
:-)
J Curry would be another ONE of them.
:-)
There are others.
Chameleon
How about you engage about K13 on the other thread? You brought this study up, after all.
*** I have an admission to make - "Vince Whirlwind" is a fake ID that I use to try to spoil the astroturf.
I was using my real name, but my employer is a multinational who could easily get very cranky with me if I upset any future anti-science government that might soon get in by calling them out for the ignorant anti-science liars in league with the cretinous Tea Party. that they are.
Chek,
Hate Lewandowsky?
Seriously?
Lewandowsky has less credibilty to comment on matters climatology than Pielke jnr.
Hate and/or like has SFA to do with the matter.
Read the profiles Chek.
David B was right about Pielke jnr and Lewandowsky is even less qualified.
Chameleon, the point you seem to have missed is this: your question was based on a false premise.
Let me explain it simply to you:
- Pielke is a non-scientist who has written many incorrect things about climate science
- Lewandowsky is a non-scientists who has written only correct things about climate science
- Cook is a science educator who has written only correct things abuot climate science
So, you see, with Pielke spouting nonsense about climate science, and the other two talking sense, your question which rested on the assumption that they shared the same approach to clomaet science was therefore an invalid question.
So, I'm not tetchy, you're just wrong.
Chameleon says,
Well, seeing as we have pointed out a few of Pielke's false assertions about climate science, how about you match us with some false assertions from Lewandowsky:
....
If you can't then you will be admitting that your assertion above was also a false assertion.
So, Brad. How do we reconcile your ophidian rhetoric with your rare, unguarded statements?
How do we reconcile your attempts to say one thing while constantly implying another?
How do we reconcile your pretence of acceptance of AGW with this:
The parsimonious explanation is that you are a liar and a troll. Since you refuse to explain your reasoning behind the oft-quoted statement above, I'm inclined to stick with the parsimonious explanation.
Oh chameleon, my dear...? Kopp et al?
Vince:
Really? There's a proven conspiracy, known to be engaged in by the US government and lobby groups, to clandestinely pay climate skeptics to comment, using multiple personae, at Alene Composta's blog???
LOL.
Ah, no, fellas, that would be what your sophistimicated academic types call a "conspiracy theory."*
Just because someone, somewhere in history has done it for some reason to some poor soul, doesn't mean they're doing it to you right now via your dental fillings. Sheesh.
* Why not look it up? You'll be amazed to know that your better-quality dictionaries these days actually define double-word phrases—things like "flying fox," "Trojan horse," "inkjet printer" etc. (but not phrases that are no more than the sum of their parts, like "scientific consensus").
Well yes I did BBD,
So far the commenters only want to invent arguments with me, not discuss the new publication.
I'm assuming they're waiting for some hints from Tamino or SKS or Rabbet or WUWT or Jonova.
Vince seems to be struggling with the concept of 'not dissimlar'.
Bill and rhwombat have opted out entirely.
What would you like me to add?
I provided the link, the summary and my assessment of the conclusions.
Do you think they're incorrect?
chameleon
Can we discuss K13 on the open thread? I will respond there.
We're trying to discuss it, Chameleon, but you don't seem to be joining in.
Why is that?
Why can't you describe how you came across it?
Why do you falsely claim to have provided a summary when all you did was cut and paste the abstract and then add in a mysterying reference to Church et al?
Why don't you stop posting other stuff and come and actually make some comments about your paper rather than just falsely claim to have done so?
Why am I not surprised that this statement of Brad's,
is entirely different from what was asserted?
Just can't help himself.
A liar and a troll, whose argument cannot even begin without a logical fallacy.
Ummmm Vince?
Is Lewandowsky a Climate scientist for fox ache?
I was merely agreeing with David B and adding further comment on other non qualified people who run blogs on matters climatology.
Why are you so tetchy about that?
Lewandowsky has no more credibilty in matters climate than Peilke jnr.
I suppose if you disagree with that, you can explain why you think he does?
I can find nothing in his profile that would indicate that.
If there is, please enlighten me :-)
chameleon - open thread.
Of course BBD,
It is however 10pm in OZ EDST
I need my 7-8 hours.
It may have to be tomorrow.
:-)
Chameleon says,
Lewandowsky has less credibilty to comment on matters climatology than Pielke jnr.
Well, seeing as we have pointed out a few of Pielke’s false assertions about climate science, how about you match us with some false assertions from Lewandowsky:
….
If you can’t then you will be admitting that your assertion above was also a false assertion.
Why is it you have time to post lies on this thread, but no time to quickly nip over to the other thread to post your assessment of this paper, which you have read?
Easy, it goes like this:
PIELKE = OFTEN WRONG
LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG
When you assess the credibility of two competing sources, the source that has often been found out to have been wrong is less credible and the source that has never been seen to be wrong is more credible.
I wonder if you can grasp this concept?
BBD:
That's easy. It's so easy I can't believe you're confused. In fact I'm almost inclined to think you're just pretending to be confused, since you appeared to understand me perfectly well when this ancient quotation was first typed by me. (I wonder, is your recent onset of difficulty in reconciling my statements entirely genuine, BBD?)
The solution to the grand paradox, as I'm confident you already know, is as follows.
I do accept AGW, a phenomenon whose existence (by happy coincidence) is apparently accepted by the majority of climatologists too—though the evidence for it would be precisely as convincing as it is whether or not there was a professional consensus in its favor.
What I don't accept is the apocryphally "majority" view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.
Please don't misunderstand, inadvertently or otherwise, my hesitation to believe the claim that there's a scientific consensus on the existence of an AGW crisis. In evaluating the climatic conjecture for myself, I don't give a tinker's cuss whether or not such a consensus exists. But for old-fashioned reasons of truth, honesty and the American way, I would prefer that you people not make things up, however irrelevant those things be.
Chameleon
You are being evasive. But I will be here tomorrow.
Why not? Do you reject the ~2.5 - ~3C ECS range?
And Brad, it's not 'apocryphal'. That is a misrepresentation so egregious it richly deserves the simpler description of 'lie'.
Brad says,
Irrelevant - you don't base your belief on the evidence, as you admit you don't read any primary sources.
And judging by your use of sources, you exclusively inform yourself from crank blogs, seeing as you repeat a whole raft of denier-nonsense, some of it years out of date.
No Brad, if you aren't completely delusional, it's because you are a liar.
No BBD,
Seriously.
I do live in NSW Australia.
It is now 10.45 pm.
I'm tired and I need to sleep.
I will re appear tomorrow :-)
Sou is plugging her own blog on one of the minor threads here:
I’m always up for some amateur psychiatry (*cough*Bernard), so Sou’s enticement was irresistible.
Having read her post, I second the advertisement. Read Sou’s Kenji Watts post. The usual rule applies though: the comments under it are more intelligent and interesting than the article itself.
More to the point, anyone who’d like to see a case study in denial could do worse than reading Sou’s responses to her readers!
First, I pointed out to the bloggeress:
Sou replied:
This reaction was surprising, to say the least!
Did you know, gentle readers, that there are still people on the planet who haven’t heard about the fraudulence of the Heartland Institute’s supposed “Strategy Document,” Peter Gleick’s ninth “steal”?
I didn’t.
Naturally I wasted no time in sharing this year-old “news” with Sou, only to run into the brick wall of denial.
Hmmm. Coming from a blog proprietoress who appears perfectly content to refer to Peter Gleick’s dossier as if it were authentic, it seems audacious (to put it kindly) to adopt a selective anti-rumor-mongering policy!
But fair enough. It’s Sou’s blog—if she wants to moderate hypocritically, God bless her.
So I tried again, removing any hint of endorsement of unproven claims.
Brick wall.
At this point, I’m afraid to say, Sou’s injunction against “promot[ing] unfounded and unsubstantiated rumours” could only be described as dishonest, given that my comment promoted no such thing.
But I gave her the benefit of the doubt and submitted yet another iteration of the information, even more inoffensive, modestly-scoped and rigorously objective than the last, only to have Sou delete it again!
LOL. Believers In Denial.
Well, perhaps her name comes from the fact that she doesn’t give two sous for the facts?
In any case, as a special treat to Deltoid readers, I now present v 3.0 of
**** The Comment that was Too Hot for HotWhopper! ****
_________________________________________________________________
Sou,
1. I recommend Megan McArdle’s textual analysis of the 9th document in Dr Gleick's Heartland dossier, the so-called "Strategy Document.” McArdle, a warmist at The Atlantic, comments that some sections of the Document "read like they were written from the secret villain's lair in a Batman comic ...by an intern." In short, McArdle finds that it is unpersuasive as a real document. 2. Dr Mosher read the "Strategy Document" and publicly alleged that Dr Gleick was its author on the basis of the writing style, long before Gleick came out as the “leaker” of the dossier.
(Amusingly, Dr Kaczynski was caught by writing-style analysis, but we needn't go there! :-)... )
__________________________________________________________________
Afterword
Dear Sou,
You have serially deleted comments which made no factual claims you couldn't easily verify yourself by googling, and which expressed no opinion other than that "I recommend McArdle's article."
One struggles to see how such transparent and objective commentary could possibly be construed to "promote unfounded and unsubstantiated rumours."
What's your real agenda in objecting to what I've posted, Sou?
Because at the moment, of you, Anthony Watts and Kenji, I’d have to say you’re the crazy party.
chameleon,
You're forgetting, chameleon, that John Cook practices climate science "by virtue of his founding of, and involvement with" his blog*; and Lewandowsky is Cook's mentor and teacher; so, by the socratoplatonaristotelian property, Lewandowsky is a jedi master of climate science.
Simples!
* Does not work for climate infidels.
Brad
What a vast cloud of obfuscatory pixels. Let's get back to business.
Modified as:
Why not? Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range?
An impressively compressed misrepresentation: apocryphally "majority" view
The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced. This is not apocryphal. Describing it as such is a lie.
Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not 'apocryphal', the use of scare quotes around "majority" amplifies the lie.
This one misrepresentation after another after another bt "Brad" is just getting tedious.
"Brad", you've just earned yourself the moniker "Bradliar".
Congratulations.
The deniers' signature tune:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye_fZocBAMI
Vince and chek,
since you're having so much trouble following along, let me recap slowly.
1. A 'conspiracy theory' (and Mac users just need to right-click to verify this) is defined as:
2. Some meanie commenters at her blog made an imaginary woman cry.
3. Stephan Lewandowsky, the great humanitarian and empath, reached out to dry her satirical tears by proffering the theory that the mean commenters were being covertly paid by unknown organizations to leave their mean comments, and to deceptively inflate their numbers by using multiple "personas".
4. Only a batshit-crazy person could have thought this was plausible.
5. You've now helped flesh out the conspiracy theory by naming some suspects:
6. Your argument, for want of a better word, seems to be that a roughly analogous technique has been used in unrelated contexts by organisations in the past; therefore it was NOT a conspiracy theory to theorise that pseudo-commenters employed by a covert organisation were conspiring against "Alene Composta" (a fictional, satirical character). Have I got that right?
7. That's a batshit-crazy conspiracy theory and you're the theorists.
8. Geddit?
BBD:
First of all, what kind of mealy-mouthed mustelism is the phrase "potentially dangerous," BBD?
I'm going to ignore that and pretend you said something pertinent to our actual disagreement, e.g. "a major net threat / risk / danger, on rational probabilistic average."
If this is the majority position among climate scientists, I wasn't aware of that (and my opinion to the contrary cannot, therefore, have been a lie)—nor was I aware that you'd informed me of the existence of any research purporting to demonstrate that. (Have you?) If you have, then I missed it; please accept my apologies.
How large is the majority of climate scientists who say they consider AGW to be a major net threat / risk / danger on rational probabilistic average unless we reduce our emissions, may I ask?
As an aside, when you said "the majority position among climate scientists," did you intend this to be synonymous with "the climate-scientific consensus"?
Vince:
Lewandowsky:
LOL
WTF?
BK wrote elsewhere:
Not so. Rose is repeating a mischaracterisation of the issue when on the other side, and just by way of example we have this from a real climate scientist :
New Research Links Climate Change to Extremes.
And you can forget the layers of introductory treacle.
Answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?
Bradliar still pfaffing about attempting another denier diversion by reducing science to a Bradliar approved definition, rather than deal with the published literature I see. What a time-wasting, sack-of-shit doofus.
13,950 peer reviewed articles between 1991-2012, versus 24 contrarian ones
LOL
A zinging rebuttal there by Bradliar, fully within his competence this time, too.
BK
The majority position among climate scientists is that AGW is potentially dangerous unless emissions are reduced. This is not apocryphal. Describing it as such is a lie.
Since the majority position among climate scientists wrt the potential dangers of AGW is not ‘apocryphal’, the use of scare quotes around “majority” amplifies the lie.
You are lying troll.
BK
Your claim is:
Modified as:
To make these statements you must already know the answer to the question you pose. You must have REASONS. So you tell me.
BK
Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range?
Lionel A:
Yes.
Yes I do, Lionel.
I blieve, Amen.
BBD:
Sigh.
So is walking your doggie.
This "majority position" (citation?) is perfectly compatible with AGW being actually non-dangerous, and even beneficent (like other warming episodes).
Bray can't count!
BK
1/ Answer the question posed at # 62. You *must* have this information in order to make the following claims:
Modified as:
So you tell me - not ask me - about the size of what you assert is the apocryphally “majority” view.
You assert that the "majority" is 'apocryphal'. You *twice* put scare quotes around "majority". Defend your assertion. Don't ask me about this again until you have done so.
2/ Do you reject the ~2.5 – ~3C ECS range? Third time of asking in a row. Answer please.
3/ What other abrupt >2.5C warming during an interglacial are you referring to here? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Keyes just cannot help himself:
I thought as much, why use one word when you can use eight, well seven and a non-word. Prolix be thy name, but not the only one.
Another display of your Janus face, and poor sense of humour whilst once again evading answering a question honestly.,
So, to be clear, answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?
Let me get this straight, Brad. You said there was no such thing as a well-funded denialist propaganda operation. You were proven wrong. Now your argument is what, that the fossil-fuel industry (also) funds actual climate research?
You really think you're fooling anyone here?
Stu
Perhaps more to the point, does the FF industry think it is fooling anyone by bunging some chump change to the likes of UEA CRU etc?
Cheap PR.
You really think you’re fooling anyone here?
Just himself, but that's enough..
BBD:
Chump change? They were major enough contributors to have the scientists offer them "input into the research agenda" and look for "angles that would appeal to [Exxon-Mobil]." Look outside the emails and you'll discover with a few keystrokes that Big Oil has funded climate-alarm-predicated research projects to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Are you unaware of this fact?
Lionel A,
Sigh.
"So, to be clear, answer this in one word, do you believe in AGW?"
Yes.
Brad demonstrates yet again that he doesn't read the information he is provided with before attempting to share his ignorant opinion:
You didn't read the links I provided.
Those links demonstrate quite clearly that your above train of thought is spurious.
Why don't you demonstrate some good faith by figuring out why?
Elsewhere you write:
It stands to reason that if you get your conspiracist information from crank blogs, you will have strange attitudes towards the basic processes through which science is advanced.
Here's a hint: You are the one with the problem of non-understanding, as evidenced at least 250 times so far on this thread alone:
- you do not acquire information from primary sources
- you acquire information from cranks like McIntyre and Pielke
- you make assertions you then fail to back up with any valid information or analysis
What is a good value for climate sensitivity, do you think?
Do you accept you have been misled by your unreliable sources and that 1.5 degree is not a particularly sound opinion to have?
BBD:
Don't you understand the accepted effect of "scare quotes" in written rhetoric?
They express agnosticism—or skepticism, or cynicism, or uncertainty—as to the veridicality of the contained word[s].
They do not imply knowledge that the contained words are false.
They do not imply that the writer knows the correct words to substitute for the included words.
Your argument makes about as much sense as if I were to demand that chek (who habitually uses scare-quotes around my screen name):
1. prove that my screen name is not my real name
2. tell us all my real name
3. prove it
Vince,
you simply repeated the following quote by me, without apparently writing anything responsive to it:
Do I take it you have no idea what's fatuous about Lewandowsky's attempt at describing "the basic processes through which science is advanced"?
I would've thought this was obvious, but:
Science is inherently skeptical, as Lewandowsky himself dimly recognises. Richard Feynman memorably described the "first principle" of science, in his plain-speaking Brooklyn style, as "you must try not to fool yourself." In a word, skepticism.
You cannot do science without trying not to fool yourself. Skepticism is, and has always been, the "first principle" of modern science.
But you can do science without peer review.
In fact that's what scientists did for a couple hundred years. Modern science worked perfectly well without peer review, until the post-WW2 glut in government-funded research forced journal editors to farm out the labor of pre-publication proofreading to domain specialists (the "peer review system").
If peer review is "the instrument by which scientific skepticism is pursued," then Einstein was not a skeptic and Einstein was not a scientist. He submitted his three century-changing papers in 1905. They were published without ever being peer-reviewed.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of Lewandowsky's dictum. Do you begin to see how incoherent his pseudophilosophy is?
BK # 76
1/ You *must* have specific information in order to make the following claims:
Recently modified to:
So the:
supposedly “majority” view
And:
apocryphally “majority” view
Is 'wrong' and you 'don't accept it'.
Why not? On what specific information is your rejection based?
Since you must already have this information to make your assertion in any way valid, you must also have comprehensive supporting references. Please provide them.
2/ Do you reject the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? This is now the *fourth* time of asking in a row. Please answer.
3/ What other abrupt >2.5C warming episodes during an interglacial are you referring to here? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please note: abrupt climate change during deglaciation is not the same as abrupt warming during an interglacial. To avoid any time-wasting. There's been enough of that already on this thread.
Time to hold the weasel's feet to the fire until some honest, verifiable, substantive answers to BBD's outstanding questions are forthcoming. Another Jonarse style thread here is not required.
OH!
How did I miss this @ #42?
"....Easy, it goes like this:
PIELKE = OFTEN WRONG
LEWANDOWSKY = NEVER WRONG
Vince has made up yet another formula like his formula for 'intellect envy'.
:-)
I also note above that Vince is confessing that he is part of his own conspiracy @ # 26.
Vince ,
You seriously need to follow Latimer's advice from a few weeks ago and get out some more.
chameleon
Other thread.
Full disclosure: it is 23:30 here and I am leaning towards bed, so we need to make brisk progress or you will be waiting for me ;-)
Moron Brad makes shit up.
Again.
The joke is he probably thinks it seems plausible.
Better today.
Best climatology blog is
http://www.realclimate.org/
What is curious, Chameleon, is that you respond to my post without offering any hint of evidence showing that I am wrong.
All you have to do is show us where Lewandowsky has been wrong about climate science.
We've shown you Pielke is habitually wrong.
Brad says,
Let me guess, your argument will centre around some examples of "how science was once advanced, many moons ago".
See, Brad - you don't need to type so much - we know your dishonesties off by heart.
Vince,
Are you alexic? I already made the argument:
Lewandowsky:
“Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.”
Keyes:
Science is inherently skeptical, as Lewandowsky himself dimly acknowledges. Richard Feynman memorably described the “first principle” of science, in his plain-speaking Brooklyn style, as “you must try not to fool yourself.” In a word, skepticism.
You cannot do science—any science—without trying not to fool yourself. Skepticism is, and has always been, the “first principle” of modern science.
But you can do science without peer review.
In fact that’s what scientists did for a couple hundred years. Modern science worked perfectly well without peer review, until the post-WW2 glut in government-funded research forced journal editors to farm out the labor of pre-publication proofreading to domain specialists (the “peer review system”).
If peer review is “the instrument by which scientific skepticism is pursued,” then Einstein was not a skeptic and Einstein was not a scientist. He submitted his three century-changing papers in 1905. They were published without ever being peer-reviewed.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of Lewandowsky’s dictum. Is it dawning on you how incoherent his pseudophilosophy is?
No Vince,
I wasn't commenting on your idea of wrong and right in your world.
I was only agreeing with David B that there are many people who are NOT QUALIFIED as climate scientists making authorative public comments on matters climate.
They also run blogs on this subject.
Lewandowsky and Cook are 2 of those along with Pielke jnr.
They are NOT the only ones.
You have now invented a silly formula about it which is very funny but entirely irrelevant.
And the mask slips again.
Then gather your faggots, because it's the only way you people are going to win the climate debate at this stage.
Yes, another strawman argument - more dishonesty.
No, Chameleon, you are now being untruthful about what you previously said.
Will you correct this yourself, or do I need to?
Let's be clear on why your previous statement was wrong:
- Pielke makes statements about climate change that are wrong.
- Lewandowsky does no such thing.
( - Brad tries diversion in the form of mad non-sequiturs, but nobody's fooled by his dishonest behaviour)
Vince,
Substantiate the above or admit what is publicly obvious: you're out of your depth on the topic of how science works and have no coherent comeback.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but dishonestly accusing an honest person (for example, me) of dishonesty is a form of lying, which makes you unwelcome here.
Indeed we were.
And yesterday I typed a comprehensive listing of the documentation of evidence for your narcissism, until a frozen computer scuppered the conclusion on the last furlong. Fortunately my new iMac arrived today, although I don't intend to wast the same amount of time that I did yesterday documenting the blatantly obvious. Even so, there are a couple of points from my first draft that are worth repeating.
The first is that this thread is your prison, your stocks, your naughty corner. We come here to ponder your misdeeds and unpick them for the edification of the third parties who might stumble upon them, and not because you are actually in any way informative... beyond the demonstration of denialist thinking and tactics. You are not this thread's owner, nor its proprietor, nor its moderator - in spite of your behaviour indicating that you believe otherwise.
You don't get to dictate what people say here, nor how they address you, nor whether they can post at all - in spite of your behaviour indicating that you believe otherwise. And yet this is one of your defining schticks here - amongst several - that are reflective of a narcissistic personality.
Secondly, I have no inclination to wade through your epic expatiation here in order to catalog the considerable list of comments from you that support this conclusion. What I will do though is repeat what I listed before - some of the characteristics of a narcissistic personality...
From Ronningstam 2011 (p90):
"Grandiosity, an enhanced or unrealistic sense of superiority, uniqueness, value, or capability expressed either overtly or covertly and internally"
"Variable and vulnerable self esteem alternating between overconfidence and inferiority" (not that the latter is permitted expression here...)
"Strong reactions to threats to self-esteem including intense feelings (aggression, shame, and envy)..."
"Self-enhancing and self-serving interpersonal behavior"
"Aggressiveness"
"Avoiding and controlling behavior and attitudes to preserve self-sufficiency and protect against affects and threats to self-esteem"
"Fluctuating or impaired empathic ability"
From DSM-IV:
Shall we leave it to the list (and perhaps even yourself) to check these criteria with repeated and evident demonstrated behaviour from you on this and other threads on Deltoid, STW, and elsewhere?
And in spite of the intimation in your comment:
this thread is not a 'major' thread by any measure other than the lengths to which you stretch out an exchange by the instrument of semantic divagation. It's only significant in your own mind, unless it is to serve as an example to the world of your peculiar bastardisations of logic and science.
Vince?
WTF?
Of course Lewandowsky is prone to error when he comments on topics outside of his expertise.
Actually, he is also human, so I suspect he is prone to error inside his own area of expertise as well, just like the rest of us mere mortals.
Your invented formula is rubbish Vince and your attempt to invent an argument with me is equally nonsensical.
I do seriously recommend Kahneman's book to you.
I am not trying to argue with you and I have no intention of arguing that I didn't say what I didn't say or arguing that I didn't mean what I didn't mean.
Take Latimer's advice and get out some more Vince.
You and Bill are probably correct about where the voting is heading.
According to the latest polls, the coalition with a rather large majority and Abbot as PM is looking increasingly likely.
I can assume that you think this is just terrible, but I'm quite sure it will not cause the sky to fall in.
As per usual, us Aussies will muddle through no doubt.
;-)
Which Lewandowski?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Lewandowski
obviously knows nothing about climatology nor (being but an economist) the proper functioning of science.
There is also LINDA M. LEWANDOWSKI from Duke who might know a little and a rather mysterious Stephan Lewandowski.
Probably better to stick to actual climatologists.
Nobody has the faintest interest in discussing with you your peculiar and irrelevant notions as to "how science works".
Chameleon says,
Good. So you can provide an example of Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science then.
Please go ahead.
This is the fourth time I have suggested to you that you do so.
If you can't demonstrate Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science, then the statement,
Lewandowsky is never wrong about climate science
remains a true statement.
The fact I have had to ask you 5 times now to provide an example of Lewandowsky being in error with no response on your part indicates that my statement could very well be correct.
Thanks David B,
Yes it is that mysterious one :-)
I linked him upthread along with Pielke Jnr and Cook.
Vince doesn't seem to get the point and is still claiming I need to argue about saying something I didn't say or meaning something I didn't mean.
It leads him to make strange comments like this one:
" If you can’t demonstrate Lewandowsky being wrong about climate science, then the statement,
Lewandowsky is never wrong about climate science
remains a true statement.
HUH?????
You are of course correct David B,
We would do better to stick with the actual climatologists.
Vince could also understand that even climatologists are human and therefore will not be infallible.
Especially about the highly unco operative beast we know as climate/weather.
Vince,
FTFY.
Your slavish fascination with a failed niche science is suddenly easier to understand.
Which is an extra special accomplishment considering he's unable to understand science sensu lato. Great effort Stephan! Don't pay any attention to the big psychologists—you're the real champ!
Hey, Chameleon, still holding to your guns that the Australian summer that finished yesterday is not the hottest on the 103-year Bureau of Meteorology record?
This Stephan Lewandowski?
http://www.cogsciwa.com/
A Winthrop Professor in The School of Psychology, at The University of Western Australia whose research seems to be computational modeling of human cognition?
Probably better to stick with actual climatologists.
Brad says,
Yes, an evasive, dishonest twit who won't read primary sources but likes to quote cranks knows all about "science", while a respected professional is all at sea.
What a topsy-turvy personal world you inhabit, Brad.
Bernard J:
LOL. That would be why I come and go at my will, right? Good one!
Talk about denial, Bernard.
The idea that this thread or any thread knit by mortal woman can contain me is a comforting myth you tell kids to get them to sleep at night. Any adult still capable of believing in it at this stage, after seeing what happens to fools who think it’s safe to diss me on the marginal threads, would have to be the truest of True Believers!
The reason I don’t contribute more widely to the blog is that I’m not a charity—why exactly should I help out low-traffic, non-brand-name threads by tossing hits their way? Let alone if you people don’t pick up your game dramatically; unless you’re grovellingly nice to me from now on in, don’t whinge when I take my style of commentary (which is my IP) elsewhere.
Which you guys can’t seem to stop doing on the February thread either, can you?
LOL! :-)
Face it, Bernard: you enjoy discussing my ideas, considering them, arguing about them.
And I get that. I’m used to it.
But it would make much more sense to talk about me on the dedicated thread, so that—if nothing else—the visitors who want to catch up on the latest commentary from and about me will have a ”one-stop shop” for their BK fix, instead of being forced to check both this thread and the minor ones every day.
In other words, you have no intention to show any support for your conclusion.
Quelle surprise.
This shows your superficial awareness of my writings, Bernard. Seriously, don’t think you can get away with just skimming my comments and still hope to be able to make informed, intelligent contributions to the thread. You can’t—as the above attempt shows.
Hint: I’m not even a denialist!
I’ll stop there—no need to embarrass you further—but I suggest you make it your homework: spend the weekend really reading the points I’ve made. You won’t appreciate them fully the first time—don’t worry, there are some pretty deep concepts in my writing, and it repays repeated study—but at least you won’t make howlers (like “denialist”) in the future.
But of course not! How convenient for your case.
I can’t even begin to understand what you’re thinking here, Bernard. Or maybe I don’t care.
Feedback at the halfway mark:
Your analysis of me, so far, has been a slight letdown. Nonetheless, it’s undoubtedly one of the more interesting topics anyone has brought up at Deltoid for a while, so you should be commended for at least trying.
In Part One you’ve obviously chosen to focus on the “Brad is a narcissist” myth, and while your analysis demonstrates an ability to cut and paste from the literature, it’s disappointingly short on references to the things I’ve actually said, done and thought. If we’d heard less from random academics and more quotes from me your comment would have held the reader’s attention better (and been intellectually meatier).
Perhaps the most common answer, when people are asked what they think of when they think of me, is “justified arrogance.” You seem to have mistaken this charisma-like quality with a flaw of some kind, but I guess it’s understandable, given how much you don’t know. Indeed, from your point of view, my sheer self-confidence must be unfamiliar, confusing and even a bit intimidating, so we can’t hold you 100% to blame for your misguided diagnosis.
Anyway, while you’ve failed to meet the (admittedly superhuman) burden of arguing that I’m a narcissist [LOL !], your comment is not without entertainment value. I'm now eagerly looking forward to the second half of your promised analysis of me: the development of your equally oddball theory that I'm "borderline (at least) psychopathic”! And remember: your troubles really don’t mean anything to me, so no more whining about how your computer or your cat died or whatever. This isn’t about you, Bernard.
BJ,
did you know that your link was faulty?
It' s OK though, I had already read it earlier.
The figs I gave you also came from BoM.
It's a bit confusing isn't it?
Whom do we believe?
BoM or BoM?
What ideas?
I haven't seen any.
All I see is B-Grade logically fallacious argumentativeness and some vague beliefs.
We see you believe sensitivity is 1.5, but you are unable to demonstrate any idea why this would be the case.
No idea at all.
Oh look! Brad, "My opinion is as good as the scientific consensus" Keyes is confusing himeslf with Richard Feynman again.
What a hoot this nutter is, really.
Seriously: ignore him and he will go away.
Yep David B,
that's the man :-)
Lotharsson is waxing eloquent about him at the Feb thread as well.
Chameleon says,
Let me spell this out for you:
You said Lewandowsky and Pielke had the same credibility when it comes to making statements about climate science.
I demonstrated Pielke has low credibility due to persistent false assertions.
This, Pielke and Lewandowsky have different credibility when it comes to climate science, unless you can demonstrate Lewandowsky also makes persistent false statements.
I was unable to find any such false statements.
Nor were you.
You now deny you said what you said.
You are thus not only wrong in your assessment of their respoective credibilities, but you are also a liar.
I think it's now pretty obvious why Bray posts: simple narcissism.
If he doesn't get attention on his jail thread, he goes demanding attention outside it.
Vince,
Conceptual distinctions aren't your forte, are they Vince?
My opinions about nature, and Lewandowsky's opinions, Feynman's, yours, and the consensus of patients in an institute for the retarded, and that of the IPCC, are all of identically equal evidentiary value in science.
Zero.
That's an axiom governing opinions about nature. In science.
(If you don't like it, too bad. Happily you're not a scientist, so your incomprehension is essentially victimless.)
On the other hand, Richard Feynman's opinions about science, which I tend to share, are worth a hell of a lot more than Lewandowsky's, which I reject.
Vince:
Are you still going on about this?
I've given the ECS thing nary a thought since the day (a couple of weeks ago) when BBD and / or Bernard linked me to papers disagreeing with my initial estimate. I've had more urgent and interesting things to do than read them, but I've explicitly told you that I'm even less certain than I was before about the low estimate I gave. If I cared deeply about the topic I might be in a position by now to give you a more final answer. But I don't and I'm not so I won't.
Knowledge doesn't accumulate if you can't identify the authorities, twit.
And if we needed Feynman interpreted, we wouldn't rely on a slimy weasel to do it for us, would we - we would choose somebody qualified and credible.
Your opinion, eg, "sensitivity is 1.5 degree", which you are unable to provide any reason for, is utterly worthless.
Lewandowsky's opinion on the same subject, however, will almost certainly be based on something you are incapable of: an honest appreciation of the facts.
Vince,
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such, you twit. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Or as Feynman put it, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
And he should know. :-)
Vince,
just FYI: your use of the "cardiac surgery" cliché betrays your confusion between science & technology, semantic learning & procedural learning, and knowledge & expertise.
Like I said:
Conceptual distinctions aren’t your forte, are they?
Lies of a Loather
~ ~ Part 248 ~ ~
Pfft.
Quote me ever lamenting my expulsion from that paradise, liar. Ever.
Bullshit.
Show me two comments of mine at shapingtomorrowsworld that violate "the commenting terms & conditions."
It's not as if your addiction to this lie is untreatable, Lotharsson. It's not as if you haven't been given every opportunity to kick the habit. It's been repeatedly explained to you why I was banned. But nobody can help you if you won't help yourself.
Could this be bill's most worthwhile thought ever?
A capital idea, Mr Byrd.
Do it do it do it.
"Brad's" always good for a round of Crank Bingo.
So far we've had:
1) You people are losing the argument
2) Fantasising his interpretation of science as synonymous with Feynman's and superior to the professionals here.
3) Reliance on crank sources, never primary literature
4) Unable to admit error even when shown it.
5) A sucker for false equivalence.
... and probably a bunch more that isn't worth the effort researching over in his swamp.
But feel free to add any others that spring readily to mind.
Just head your post "Brad Crank Bingo".
Brad says,
Absolute. Garbage.
Which biologist is going to prove atomic theory from personal obersvations and first principles before moving on to whatever organic process they are interested in?
You are a complete idiot.
and
*You* are not an improver of knowledge, therefore *you* need to rely on authorities or your opinion necessarily is unsound.
Garbage. Again.
Science is taught.
Cardiac surgery is just as much science as dendrochronology, not that you would understand the first thing about what science is, seeing as you chose to complete an Arts degree, instead.
I'm sure you can sit around a table and wear a skivvy with the best, but you are absolutely not in the running when it comes to saying anything sensible within a conversation about a field of scientific endeavour.
...as you demonstrate everytime you try.
chek,
you incorrectly suggest that I'm
May I remind you that I've willingly accepted correction when shown the error of my ways in such matters as:
1. getting Lionel A and a Forest Troll mixed up
2. the term of art "heavy metals"
3. the occasional comment that I've misinterpreted by reading it too quickly
4. failing to distinguish positive loop gain from high (near 1.0) positive loop gain
5. failing to distinguish tipping points from runaway warming points
and have also corrected myself (despite the failure of anyone else to show I was in error) on a number of matters including the nature of Naomi Oreskes' solecism about the "cure for malaria," which on closer examination was merely a verbal "typo" on Oreskes' part and did not reflect a true deficit in her knowledge.
Now let's see if you have the integrity to admit you were wrong in claiming that I never admit I'm wrong.
Vince:
It's ignorant of you to think I completed an Arts degree and not a Science degree.
Vince:
LOL!
Do you seriously not recognise the saying about the
"improver of natural knowledge"?
It's so well-known I didn't even put quotes around it, given that "plagiarism" from such a famous source surely isn't even possible—or so I would have thought until I met you, Vince!
Are you really telling us (because you sure are showing us!) that you had no idea the author of those words of profound metascientific wisdom was:
— a scientist
— a famous scientist
— a famous biologist ?
"Which biologist," indeed!
ROFLMAOAYI !!!
What a slimy little crook Brad is,
Chek accuses:
Brad, up to his usual tricks:
Must have used his Arts degree to get a job as a Real Estate Agent, I reckon.
So you *do* recognise authorities in science?
How about recognising some recent ones, eh?
Like those authorities that say Steve McIntyre is a lying joke, for example?
And really...don't even imagine you've stepped ahead of me - it's just pathetic Brad.
Now let’s see if you have the integrity to admit you were wrong in claiming that I never admit I’m wrong.
The 'never' is your own sneaky addition there "Brad".
And I'm thinking specifically of a few (including me) pointing out the payrolled denier mill, whose (documented) existence you wouldn't admit as highlighted by Stu.
So another Crank Bingo item can be added:
6) Creating a strawman to play the victim-bully role.
Vince:
Oh for fox ache.
No, I referenced a great scientist who happened to compose one of history's finest lines about science, Vincent. I did not cite his authority IN science.
See the word "metascientific," Vince?
Do you have even a vague idea what those first 4 letters are doing there? Go on, take a guess.
chek,
the word "never" was implicit in your word "unable."
However, since you object to my paraphrase on grounds known only to yourself, please accept my apologies and let me try again:
Now that you've been shown your error, let's see if you're able to admit you were wrong to accuse me of being "unable to admit error even when shown it."
Now that you’ve been shown your error...
Really?
Where did that happen?
Oh, I see now -you inferred it - all on your own - inside your own crank brain.
It could just be your guilty conscience trying to get a message through as best it can, "Brad".
Vince:
Riiiight.
I'm sure you walked into your own man-trap on the Huxley quote deliberately... It can't have been what it looked like.... no sirree...
ROFL !!!
:-)
chek:
Are you blind, chek?
You accused me of being
But I showed that this accusation was erroneous. I pointed out that I’ve willingly conceded my error, when shown it, in such matters as:
1. getting Lionel A and a Forest Troll mixed up
2. the term of art “heavy metals”
3. the occasional comment that I’ve misinterpreted by reading it too quickly
4. failing to distinguish positive loop gain from high (near 1.0) positive loop gain
5. failing to distinguish tipping points from runaway warming points
and that I’ve also corrected myself (despite the failure of anyone else to show I was in error) on a number of matters including the nature of Naomi Oreskes’ solecism about the “cure for malaria,” which on closer examination was merely a verbal “typo” on Oreskes’ part and did not reflect a true deficit in her knowledge.
So chek, now that it’s been shown that you were in error to say I was “unable to admit error even when shown it,” let’s see if you’re able to admit it.
Brad Crank Bingo #8
7) Arguing strawmen which don't negate the original accusation even after a specific example has been pointed out.
Those errors have made absolutely no difference to you, though.
You still assert that only you know science and only you can say who is or isn't a scientist. And despite errors, you have never considered that you're making yet more.
These are not acknowledging error. They're dismissing error.
Brad Keyes
Well I'll be damned. You *completely ignored* those questions I keep on asking you! Again! I'm shocked to the core.
Here they are again. To avoid the suspicion that you are a lying troll who has, in fact, lost this debate, you need to provide substantive answers to the three (3) questions below.
1/ (a) You *must* have specific information in order to make the following claims:
Recently modified to:
So the:
supposedly “majority” view
And:
apocryphally “majority” view
Is 'wrong' and you 'don't accept it'.
Why not? On what specific information is your rejection based?
1/ (b) Since you must already have this information to make your assertion in any way valid, you must also have comprehensive supporting references. Please provide them.
2/ Do you reject the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? (This is now the *FIFTH* consecutive time of asking!!)
3/ You say:
What other abrupt >2.5C warming episodes during an interglacial are you referring to here? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please note: abrupt climate change during deglaciation is not the same as abrupt warming during an interglacial.
Come on Braddie! Let's have some straight answers this time!
BBD:
I'm busy correcting liars, but
NO. Nor do I accept it. Notwithstanding whatever guess you extorted from me previously, I'm really not sure what the most probable ECS is. Are you?
whatever guess you extorted from me previously
There goes "Brad" the victim, again.
I’m busy correcting liars, but
...but haven't got the time to correct your own. What a strange egocentric yet curiously self-unaware world you live in "Brad"
BK
Strike one. First evasion. Refusal to answer (2).
I am sufficiently convinced by the scientific evidence - particularly paleoclimate evidence - to accept the range approximately 2.5C - 3C. Why aren't you? On what evidence do you base your rejection of this range?
Climate agnosia is just evasiveness cloaking denial. Here, we will deal in evidence and reason.
Try again on (2).
What about (1) (a) and (b) and (3)?
Just a quick note to advise "Brad" that if the subject is beyond your personal expertise (as is 99% of the modern world to 99% of the population) accepting the scientific consensus is a perfectly respectable stance to adopt.
Except to cranks, obviously.
BK
Oh my, oh my. You've done it again:
This is astonishing.
How - in the name of God how - can you claim that you don't believe AGW is potentially dangerous if you 'don't care' about ECS? ECS determines the level of potential danger. I don't believe you are stupid, so I assume you understand perfectly well what you are doing here. You are indulging in denial.
- Don't like what the evidence implies...
- Won't read the evidence...
- Pretend neither to know nor care...
- Avoid, avoid, avoid...
This is denial in action, Brad. This is *you*.
Wake up.
Which brings us back to # 39:
Strike one. First evasion. Refusal to answer (2).
I am sufficiently convinced by the scientific evidence – particularly paleoclimate evidence – to accept the range approximately 2.5C – 3C. Why aren’t you? On what evidence do you base your rejection of this range?
This feigned climate agnosia is just evasiveness cloaking denial. Deal in evidence and reason and substantive responses.
Now, back to (1) (a) and (b); (2); (3).
chek,
thanks for the following polite and reasonable comment:
Yeah, I've heard this, and it's a superficially convincing argument. (I’m ignoring your last quasi-sentence because the noun “cranks” is inanely subjective.)
I don't agree with it, however.
Firstly, if a scientific question is beyond your personal capacity to form an evidence-based opinion, then it's more reasonable not to have an opinion on it. If someone pressures you to adopt one in the absence of intelligible evidence, ask them to fuck off.
I always do, and my policy hasn't let me down yet.
It forces me to be agnostic about a few esoterica like string theory, but so what? Even physicists haven't sorted that out yet (or at least, they hadn't last time I checked—which was late 2007).
Scientists who know what they're talking about never seem to have trouble explaining it in a manner I can grasp.
Secondly, there are many reasons why the "scientific consensus" is not a useful guide to the most likely theory in the absence of intelligible evidence, but perhaps the simplest reason is that on 99% of questions, nobody knows what the scientific consensus is. It's never been determined, because that would be a waste of time. Climate science is the first field to even consider the use of scientific opinion-polling as a heuristic. (Why doesn't this ring alarm bells with you, by the way?)
Let's take the rhetorical favourite, medicine, as an example. Please don't tell me what 9 out of 10 "cancer doctors" think. You have no idea. Nobody does. Consensus is simply not a topic of measurement, interest or conversation in medicine. It's beneath doctors to resort to such voodoo non-evidentiary factoids. Next time you're in an ED or ER, eavesdrop on the doctors' office (which is usually centrally-located). Listen to how they do (and don't) debate for and against the list of possible diagnoses and treatments. Hint: the phrase “9 out of 10 doctors” is not going to come up.
Appeals to climate agnosia are diagnostic of denial, Brad. See above.
Jeff H:
Really? Such defeatism is needless and unfortunate.
Climate change deniers—the two or three who still exist—are clearly deeply confused, but it ought to be pretty easy to set them straight, I'd imagine. And I'm not purely guessing here: I've corrected a couple of man-made climate-change deniers in my time; I found them to be well aware of how little they understood the issues and more than happy to have their minds expanded / changed. The only catch is that you have to reason with them like adults—which was no challenge for me, but it might be too much to ask of certain commenters here.
Jeff Harvey:
Very poetic Jeff, but were you still referring to us a paragraph later when you wrote that,
If you're talking about us that's a bit of a dishonorable remark, Jeff, unless you have in mind any specific series of occasions on which I've ever misquoted Feynman or Huxley, or even distorted their views about anything. I'd be surprised (and embarrassed) to learn I'd done it once, let alone consistently, so please let me know if you have any basis for such a charge.
(I'm pretty confident in saying chameleon is innocent of the same accusation, too; I don't know the others well enough to comment.)
BBD,
To an extent I can empathize with your frustration, though it's based on unclear thinking:
I never disputed that it's potentially net-dangerous—just like walking your doggie. I merely told you that I have no reason to believe it actually is net-dangerous on the balance of probabilities. Much less do I think it's net-dangerous on the catastrophic, existential, generational scale that might justify all the pious song and dance.
If ECS could range as high as 50.0 C, then yes, I'd probably care more than I do about what the true value was. But we know it's not that high, don't we? So the key question is: is there any real danger at stake in the argument between, say, 1.0C and 3.0C?
Well I'm not sure what you mean by that psychopathological claim (are you?), but if you mean that I'm partaking in disbelief, then yes, I suppose I am—in the same sense that you're engaging in belief. Not a very profound observation, is it?
To me it implies less morbid winters, more abundant crops and global food security (at the cost of an increase in pollen allergies), a greener biosphere and some degree of prophylaxis against the next glaciation (which really will be catastrophic when it happens).
I've read plenty of supposedly alarming climate-science papers, only to be pleasantly disappointed time after time after time. If the papers you're recommending are better (i.e. worse) than the ones I’ve read, then the timing is unfortunate, because I've got a lot of other shit on at the moment. I may get around to them at some point.
What makes you think I’m pretending? I really don't know any more than I know, and I really don't care any more than I care, id est a non-zero amount, but not enough to motivate me to learn more in a hurry.
Ha!
You make it sound like an effortful process. Not so! I assure you, nothing is easier or more passive than not seeing the supposedly-overwhelming evidence for alarm.
Why? If the climate starts acutely falling apart I'm sure I'll hear about it along with everyone else. In the meantime there are plenty of other, clear and present problems I'm working on. What exactly angers you so much about my agnosticism? Do you think I'm the person who’s preventing action on climate change? Why would that be a reasonable thought, any more than if I resented you for standing in the way of a cure for... I dunno... diabetes? I mean, you're not panicking about the predicted diabetes epidemic, as far as I can tell: so that gives me just as much right to burn you at the stake for apathism as you have to burn me. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, BBD, and right now you’re the latter! Burn!
The world doesn't revolve around the climate, BBD (unless you have some startling new evidence that it does).
There's nothing left to be said except to reiterate that you are hopelessly sunk in denial, and you refuse to examine either the evidence or your conscience on this matter.
More fool you.
Goodbye, Brad.
It is clear that Brad Keyes does not understand the concept of ECS judging by this mind numbing bit of crankery:
Come on Brad, tell us all what you think ECS is? No evasions this time or trying to regurgitate other nonsense from yourself.
Have you any idea about the nature of ecological disasters just a 2K uptick in average global can bring on? Explain why this matters? Or does not matter for that matter?
On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven't answered my questions.
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim 'other warming episodes' were 'benificent' you need one as an analogue. References required.
Most recent full version here.
Unanswered. And we both know they are going to stay that way.
Lionel,
Your question is muddy. What do you want to know: the definition of ECS or its value?
If the latter, you're SOL. How many times do I have to tell you I don't know how much the climate warms per doubling of atmospheric CO2? Are you going to pretend you do know, Lionel?
That's a meaningless question in the absence of a timeframe.
What kind of pop-sci buzzword is "uptick" anyway?
Because disasters are bad, mkay?
Another lie.
You did more than regurgitate a partial quote, (calling it a "dictum" - ah, the irony! Your feeble attempt at pomposity actually contradicts your argument!) you placed it in a context, you surrounded it with your words, and thus attempted to provide an interpretation of Huxley.
You don't understand science, you don't understand Huxley.
As I responded to you:
Scepticism and a dismissal of belief, for Huxley, are necessary to produce primary research.
You are producing no such thing - not even looking - therefore your opinions on climate science can only ever rest on what is the consensus among the authorities.
Your denial of this basic reality of science is evident to everybody.
Keyes,
Anything to avoid answering the question. It was straightforward enough.
TBS it had a two part answer the first of which was asking YOU to explain the concept of ECS, so now please do so.
As for value, yes there is some idea about the value so only with a S like you would I be SOL expecting a straight answer from you.
That is the thing, you never have given one. Now prove us wrong.
BBD:
You said you were going away.
Yet here you are.
Now we know what the word of a warmist is worth.
Hmmm.
Hard to say, not being an expert in your neurology.
But if pressed, I'd guess it's based either on your failure to listen to, or on your refusal to acknowledge, the agreement I've already expressed with that proposition: of course AGW is "potentially dangerous"!
That's every bit as truistic as it is trivial.
On what basis do you persist in refusing to accept that I decline either to reject or to accept that range?
Waaaait a minute, that's a trick question!
Tsh, do you think I was born yesterday BBD?
"Abrupt" doesn't give me enough information—you need to provide at least 1 more cli-sci jargoneme.
Do you mean "dramatic"? Are we talking "upticks"? A "dramatic uptick," for instance? Is that what you'd like?
What this mean.
Heap syntax bad. BBD not school?
At all.
Goodbye, BBD.
Vince,
d'oh!
OK, thanks for reminding me that the word "dictum" doesn't denote a mere "saying." I always forget, because it looks like it ought to mean "thing someone said." Yes, yes, har har, it actually implies a pronouncement from an authoritative source. Oh, the irony.
The rest of your comment is wrong as usual.
Hey, abject clownshoe, have you ever considered the possibility you are talking to actual scientists?
Don't be Jonas. He's boring. You're gravitating to the same sad state of delusion he's in.
I'm not here, really. This is just a repeat:
On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven't answered my questions.
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim 'other warming episodes' were 'beneficent' you need one as an analogue. References required.
Most recent full version here.
Those who study such matters think ECS is most likely around 2.4---3.0 K. Even the low end of that will be very bad.
Stu:
No. Because what you're intentionally, sleazily and descientifically hiding by pulling my sentence out of context is that I was talking to a single person, whose misunderstandings of the scientific process excluded any possibility that he was a scientist.
Of course you know all this, don't you Stu? I'm only being explicit about it in case some reader of ours is innocent enough to be taken in by your Trick to Hide the Context.
How, I wonder, does Brad imagine he could ever detect such a thing?
...because Brad *is* engaged in producing knowledge, hence his belief in low sensitivity?
No?
No. Brad produces no knowledge, believes nonsense he reads on crank blogs, and denies real science produced by real scientists.
...and thinks he is a Feynman.
Vince:
Was that you I was talking to, Vince (in the dialogue Stu strategically sampled)? I couldn't remember which of the interchangeable affirmers it was, but you do seem aburinated about something now.
Relax. So it was obvious you weren't a scientist. Big deal. Don't take it as a personal indictment—science is subtle and complex, you can't possibly guess how it works (someone has to teach you), and even professional fakers like Chris Mooney and John Cook don't pull off the act convincingly.
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. from
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml
So that John Cook appears to (probably) have some understanding of science.
David,
Yeah, John Cook does appear to have some understanding of how the sun works, but that's not the same thing as—and in Australia at least, it doesn't entail any formal instruction in—how science works.
And to remove any doubt that he's illiterate on that front, check his bizarre attempt to explain it to non-honors students:
http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-no-such-thing-as-climate-change-…
(Especially incompetent is the 2nd paragraph.)
By vote of HotWhopper management, Brad, I regret to inform you that you are no longer welcome to post on HotWhopper.
Brad Keyes --- For a one paragraph summary I don't find his 2nd paragraph that terrible. What do you object to?
Gosh, that must have been a gut-wrenching split decision.
What make-believe commenting policy did I violate, I wonder?
Never mind, this is the definitive answer to your last comment:
Sou, I presume you intended that as a rebuttal of someone’s comment, but it’s so elliptical as to be meaningless. What was the point of typing it, may I ask?
”you wore out that argument long ago”
Which one?
”You can't go around making up stuff,”
What stuff?
”re-defining words”
Such as?
”and denying a body of knowledge exists”
What did I deny exists?
”I expect you got those fanciful ideas from some denier site”
What fanciful ideas?
”you think there's some other mysterious body of knowledge around that conflicts with all the known knowledge of the past 200 years”
When did I say any of this gobbledegook?
”- - even though no-one has published it yet”
And where did you read it, Sou? In a dream?
“and no-one else has ever heard of it”
I know I haven’t!
”and it presumably re-writes all the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.”
Where can I buy one of these magical pens, Sou? LOL !
”A classic case of 'climate science is a hoax’.”
Wait a minute—there may be some dodgy climate scientists, but that’s no reason to write off the whole field of inquiry!
”I don't know what you 'believe' about climate
science,”
We noticed.
Gentle readers,
I almost forgot the link. Here, for your delectation and puzzlement, is Sou's attempt at refuting my last uncensored comment at her lil blog—the attempt critics have called "so elliptical as to be meaningless":
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/the-curious-tale-of-watts-and-his-do…
What make-believe commenting policy did I violate, I wonder?
Published comments together with subsequent unpublished comments come under the category of "persistent troll" in that they divert discussion from the main topic to suit Brad's agenda as well as being self-contradictory and circular.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/comment-policy.html
chameleon:
I wouldn't exactly call your portrait of BBD "harsh," Chameleon!
More like a masterpiece of circumspection, lenience and polite understatement. :-)
We've wasted a lot of time overestimating BBD's good faith, I'm afraid.
I reluctantly came to the same conclusion yesterday, when, within the space of 24 hours:
— Lotharsson floated his steatorrheal pop-psychology meme-du-jour to the effect that I was motivated by a desire for "martyrdom," and BBD said it was a pity they couldn't martyr deniers old-school, using stakes and bundles of firewood
— one of the interchangeable believalists on the minor thread told one of their interchangeable lies about me, for which I held the little liar accountable then and there ...upon which BBD said I should "fuck off" and graced us all with a lecture about "the height of bad manners" [!] that I'd displayed by wandering off the reservation of the main thread
— BBD serially and loudly demanded to know why I wouldn't agree with him that AGW was "potentially dangerous," ignoring the fact that I repeatedly agreed with him that AGW was "potentially dangerous"
— BBD perseverated in asking me by what amount, in degrees celsius, the Earth's climate responds to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and point-blank refused to take my honest answer ("I don't know") for an answer, insisting on a religious rule he no doubt invented for the occasion:
Wow. (The interjection, not the idiot.)
Sadly, it seems BBD is just another vested-up climate Talib, but with a slower-than-average fuse.
Sou,
you characterise my comments at your blog as "self-contradictory and circular." Period. You don't say how or why you came to feel this way.
In case readers are wondering: yes, Sou regularly resorts to this kind of unverifiable, unfalsifiable, uninterpretable handwaving.
This is not, alas, atypical of Sou.
Just out of morbid curiosity, Sou, I wonder if you're able to:
1. cite one instance of self-contradiction and one instance of circular reasoning in the most recent comments of mine (the ones which precipitated your unwillingness to debate me any more)
and—assuming you can accomplish point 1:
2. reflect on your motivations for declining to do the normal human thing and point out the above problems at your blog, thus both practically enabling and socially pressuring me to acknowledge my errors (if any) in front of your readers.
In other words, I wonder if you can explain why you've opted to eschew the normal behaviour of human beings who are confident in their own correctness and to adopt instead the standard petulant tactic of dissimulators who know very well that they're wrong, have been shown up as wrong, and have no useful comeback in their intellectual arsenal.
David B,
I'm assuming you mean this paragraph?
"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."
I believe BradK has already outlined what his objections are.
However,
I am interested in your perspective.
From what I've seen, I'm reasonably confident you can articulate your considered opinion without resorting to personal attacks.
David,
You really don’t see the problem? Okay.
1. The phrase “a consensus of evidence" is word salad and would never have snuck past a scientifically- or, heck, a verbally-fluent editor. A murder of lettuces; a flock of bilirubin; a Michael Sandusky of Jeff Menn; that kind of thing.
Notice the lexicographer’s advice attached to the definition of consensus, a word having exactly one sense:
2. apologists for the barbarism “a consensus of evidence,” people like Lotharsson, plead that it’s mitigated by John Cook’s metaphorical intent, as implied by his rephrase: “many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”
I’m less inclined to be charitable, having spent considerable time working directly with the victims of stultifying propaganda.
The bizarre concatenation “a consensus of evidence” indicates, to me, a premeditated evasion of the normal, correct phrase: a consilience of evidence.
2a. By replacing the right word with the wrong word, Cook must be hoping to confuse uneducated readers.
And this prestidigitation, ham-fisted and tin-eared as it may be, works. I know it works because our friend “Sou,” among other people, really believes “consensus” is a measure of evidence. She’s never managed to tell me how much evidence, exactly, it denotes; but nor has she ever managed to grasp that what it actually measures is opinion. I repeat: people like Sou exist who really are ignorant of the word’s meaning, and are therefore easy marks for cheesy tricks.
2b. By replacing the right word with the wrong word, Cook also imbues his made-up formula with a semblance of scienciness; arguably even a pseudosyllogistic quality. Listen to the rhythm of the fallacy. Bear in mind that credulous people LOVE a pattern-based “argument” whose “coherence” derives entirely from the Koran-like repetition of phonemes and lexemes. Such people would likely never be fooled if Cook had chosen his words honestly; even the dullest mind would surely perceive the bare-naked arbitrariness of a pronouncement like this:
Not quite so persuasive now, is it?
3. To state the obvious: Cook’s formula is a lie.
You do not “need a con[sensus|silience] of evidence” in order for a majority of scientists to vote in favor of a given idea. Cook just made this up. Not only is there zero analytical basis for believing his claim (particularly once his deceptive vocabulary is corrected), there’s also no shortage of empirical proof that it’s FALSE. Modern scientific history is full of majority opinions that arise in the absence of “many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.” Such beliefs have even been known to remain popular in the scientific community in the presence of many different measurements disproving them.
4. The motive for Cook’s lie is self-explanatory. It’s the same motive that launched the whole ‘consensus science’ publishing genre (associated with authors like Naomi Oreskes) in the first place.
But I’ll spell the obvious out anyway, for slower thinkers.
The point is as follows.
Once they succeed in fooling you—once they’ve made you believe you need a consilience of evidence in order to get a consensus among scientists—then it follows (from this delusory principle) that a consensus among scientists proves that a consilience of evidence exists to support it.
The consensus itself then does the work of evidence.
(If you don’t believe me, ask chek. Chek will tell you, with a straight face: the scientific consensus itself indicates the strength of the argument.)
Who needs physical measurements, who needs instrumental data—who needs a scientific argument at all—when the public is just as happy to be convinced by an opinion survey of climate scientists?
This new / medieval, PostNormal / pre-scientific epistemological arrangement is a wet dream come true for the climate industry.
This is the “logic” it needs the taxpaying public to acquiesce to.
This is the “logic” it needs you to acquiesce to.
Don’t.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science....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. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field." - Frank Luntz, Republican Party apparatchik and language mangler
"Brad" here still thinks there's mileage in that old dog yet by insisting there is no validity to the scientific consensus So far thousands of words and inordinate volumes of wordsoup from "Brad" insisting so have failed to sway anybody here.
It must be very disappointing for him, but the insane will persist in the same method hoping for a different result. It's what defines them.
chek,
quick comprehension test: which scientific consensus view do I not agree with personally?
Also, do you get the important difference between disagreeing with the majority scientific view and disagreeing with the argument that we should agree with what the majority of scientists think, at least if we're clueless about the science ourselves? (You articulated the latter argument rather well yesterday, if I recall—did you see my response?)
Oops—I meant "the Michael Sandusky of Jerry Menn." *
And they say I'm unable to admit my mistakes!
*Strictly speaking, "Jerry Männer."
David,
It occurred to me that I left a premise unspoken in the argument above. Depending on how much logic you've studied, the following might or might not already be obvious, but just in case it's not...
Evidence can be thought of (simplifying slightly) as information that modifies the likelihood you assign to a given proposition. For instance:
— evidence for X, a.k.a. evidence that X, is information which forces you to find X more plausible than you did before
— proof of X, a.k.a. proof that X, is information which forces you to believe X
In rhetoric, there is no functional difference between
— evidence for X
and
— proof that there is evidence for X.
Each is just as cogent as the other.
Either of them would force you to increase the likelihood you assigned to X, i.e. to consider X more plausible.
Thus, if you allow a consensus among scientists to act as proof of the existence of a consilience of supporting evidence, then you're allowing the consensus among scientists to act as evidence.
Which, as I said before, would be a dream come true for bad scientists.
Hi everybody, let's meet "Brad". Hi "Brad".
Hi, scienceblogs:deltoid folks
Now "Brad" here is with us as yet another contender only this time with no scientific argument whatsoever. Is that correct "Brad"?
That's right, chek
Ah, another one. So "Brad", what's your gameplan?
Well chek, first I'm gonna fuck with words, then I'm gonna gangbang the language until it means what I want it to mean.
So no science?
Not one iota
None at all?
Not a sausage.
Just for the sake of crystal clarity then "Brad", you have no scientific argument whatsoever to offer, here on a scienceblog?
Nothing at all, chek. Zero, zilch and zip on that front chek. Nothing, nada and nihil sciencewise. No science at all will be polluting my discourse. I'm confident that pure wordfuckery will see me through, just as it has on all my other attempts elsewhere.
Yes, we've seen. OK, thanks "Brad", I think that's all we need to know.
chek,
good one!
:-)
Isn't it amazing, though, how much vitriol, choler and bile I can milk from you people without even making a scientific argument?
By the way, you're conspicuously dodging my quick comprehension test: which scientific consensus view do I not agree with personally?
Hardly rational to assert "how much vitriol, choler and bile I can milk from you people" when your past messages have astounding amounts of vitriol, choler and bile. You really aren't managing to do anything here.
And yes, the antiscience bullshit crowd is not welcome here.
Very few people knowingly oppose science.
It's not unusual, however, for people who only vaguely understand what science is to find themselves inadvertently fighting against it with all their might, despite claiming (and believing) they're on its side.
To put it another way, we all think we're on the side of science.
Unfortunately we can't seem to agree which side that is.
:-)
Yup, you don't know anything.
*****THIS AUTOMATED REPEAT COMMENT FUNCTION IS ACTIVATED BY FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS*****
I’m not here, really. This is just a repeat:
On reflection, there was one other thing I should have said. Which was that you still haven’t answered my questions.
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt >2C globalised warming episodes during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.
****SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT FEATURE******
At:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Keyes continues his noisome attack on John Cook by attempting to ridicule this:
Just because you don't agree with it does not make it invalid, no matter how many times you repeat.
Now answer this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
and this,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
without using posts reeking of oleaginous hypocrisy.
Aside.
Can he do it?
"Just because you don’t agree with it does not make it invalid,"
To Bray's narcissism, that is the ONLY definition of "invalid": he doesn't agree with it.
Lionel A:
Yes I know.
What make it invalid are the errors of fact and logic from which it suffers.
Some of them are detailed here.
Lionel A:
Now finish my case study for me. It's due on Monday. Cheers.
To put it another way, we all think we’re on the side of science. Unfortunately we can’t seem to agree which side that is.
Says "Brad" who immerses himself in crank blogs. Idiot.
To be fair, not everything I fail to agree with is invalid.
A lot of it is simply false.
A further fraction of it is indeterminate, so I don't reject it either.
And of course 1% or so of what I don't accept is true / valid. (If I knew which 1 percent it was, I'd accept it.)
chek:
Tim is a crank?
Heh. Let's recall that your single attempt at discussing science here on scienceblogs petered out in a flurry of evasion and ignorance from you. That'd very likely be due to your being 'on the side of science', astounding as it may seem,, at crank and denier blogs elsewhere with primary literature not even being a consideration on 'your side' of science.
Lionel:
Hey, that's how unbelievers roll. We attack people by ridiculing their arguments.
(I've noticed that believers aren't quite as good at this game. They often get mixed up, and try to attack arguments by ridiculing their people. It rarely works.)
Anyway Lionel, a very rough introduction to the ways in which John Cook's paragraph is ridiculous can be found at #72, with an addendum at #76.
By the way Lionel,
How would you like it if I ran around calling you "A"? Please refer to me as "Brad." I know it's a bit soon to be friends, but if we can at least be friendly it's bound to improve the debate, if nothing else.
You're not still mad at me for getting you conflated with Ian Forrester, are you? I admit there's no good way to spin that—except perhaps by pleading that at least I didn't get you mixed up with Stu...? That's gotta drop the heinousness down one or two echelons in the pyramid of depravity!
:-)
Anyway Lionel, a very rough introduction crank interpretation by a fully-fledged anti-science crank to the ways in which John Cook’s paragraph is ridiculous can be found at #72, with an addendum at #76.
FTFY.
# 91
;-)
chek:
Er, your recall is playing tricks on you. I've discussed science several times here.
Or perhaps, in your dialect, "science" is an abbreviation for "climate science"—in which case you must be referring to l'affaire ECS...
...and your memory is still malfunctioning. That wasn't my attempt at discussing anything. The fact is, I took pity on BBD and his fellow petitioners, whose obsessive inquiries after my opinion on climate sensitivity finally wore me down. So I made the fatal miscalculation of thinking we could discuss it cursorily, they'd get it out of their system and we could move on.
Scroll up 10 comments or so and you can see how that worked out!
;-)
Like I said. Obsessed.
Like I said. Obsessed.
What, like a horticulture blog is 'obsessed' by gardening, or a food blog is 'obsessed' by cooking, you mean "Brad"? Or perhaps you mean like you're 'obsessed'; with making a fool of yourself at every turn.
So it was written:
And so it came to pass:
And so it came to pass:
So, you refuse to answer straight questions.
In that case, seeing as your time is too precious to go look up stuff about that which you continue to argue from ignorance whilst it has NOT been a WASTE OF OUR TIME in trying to get you to stop making a twerp of yourself!
What an arrogant, bad mannered fool you are who thinks he is oh so clever sparing with words. 'Too clever by half', springs to mind.
I'll leave you to play with your sand, have fun.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
And so it came to pass:
Indeed it did "Brad", with the unstated qualifier 'in light of your history here'.
Had it been before such, you'd have a point.
But it wasn't, and you don't.
Jeff Harvey:
Where are these climate change denial blogs? I keep hearing about them but I don't think I've had the... uh... pleasure of coming across one in my life. Do they offer ANY justification at all for the prima facie heroically improbable, ahistorical assertion that the Earth's climate is static? Weird.
"Brad's" descent into semi-educated cretinisation continues unabated.
And so it came to pass:
"“Brad’s” descent into semi-educated cretinisation continues unabated."
"Brad" pretends he doesn't have a history here which informs opinion.
But of course he does, and his descent into cretinisation continues on, whilst fooling nobody but himself.
I would ask all of the deltoids a similar question BradK,
There is apparently some sort of ratings system about the blogs that leads them all to make claims like JeffH has done.
BBD has completely lost the plot over the same issue at the Feb thread.
I think I will just paraphrase JeffH and just say there is no point in wasting my time in responding to BBD's inappropriate and personal attack.
I am also completely stunned that the moderator/s at this blog would allow Wow's comment re the 'bum etc. . . ' to stay up.
Apart from the fact that Wow did exactly as was predicted, it is also a toxic comment.
So the toxic nature of that comment totally overshadows the delicious irony.
I'm starting to suspect you're right and that Wow is paid by the 'other side' (whoever that is)
:-)
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consilience
consilience of evidence makes no sense. And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
to replace convergence is certainly new to me. I opine that Brad Keyes is making far to much out of the choice of a word.
All too often those who do not know formal logic misuse proof. In careful writing it should only be used in the sense of a mathematical, i.e., deductive argument. It should not be conflated with the inductive logic's weight of the evidence. In any case I prefer weight to convergence and that to consilience or consensus.
There is a good case to be made, at least for some sciences, that evidence is partly subjective. In those cases consensus of evidence is appropriate.
In any case, I view the whole matter as a tempest in a teapot.
Calumny - quelle surprise - has no problem with li'll 'mike's ' alluding to child sex abuse or allegations of racism in relation to Jeff Harvey' s visit to Sri Lanka. What a stupid, dumbass, fully ignorable piece of shit 'she' is.
Chameleon
You bluffed and got caught. My best advice, then as now, is not to do it again.
BBD:
You said you were going away.
Yet here you are.
Again.
Now we see what the word of a believalist is worth.
Again.
I guess you might rationalise your promise-breaking on the grounds that chameleon's criticism of you was (in your opinion) illegitimate, giving you the grave moral duty and natural human right to respond inline.
In which case, I'll tell you what you told me the last time I followed that (perfectly sensible) principle: F___ off. In the name of good manners.
For f___'s sake!
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
*** ;-) ***
BBD,
Why so tetchy?
Why does it matter where you think I found the research?
Maybe I found the link from a reference to geo physical at RC or Tamino?
Would that make any difference?
Maybe I'm not the liar you assert and I read the paper at the exactly the same link that I posted here?
You have seriously lost the plot on this one BBD.
You need to explain where you think I have misrepresented the paper.
The rest of your pseudo psycho/political waffle is totally irrelevant and counter productive.
What chek said. Chebbie, you're a partisan idiot, defending degenerates.
bill,
thanks for reminding us that CAGW is an existent belief system, and not just some "straw man":
;-)
Brad, you're a boring sophist.
You're too cowardly to answer the substantive questions you've been asked, and so are reduced to carrying on with cheap point-scoring that would embarrass a third-rate debating team.
Which, come to think of it, you are on.
Toodles.
chameleon:
I know. The good people at NatGeo must be thrilled to have their brand associated with Wow's vile emissions.
If he isn't, then the forces of Denial are getting all that brilliant advertising for free. And the ironic perverse unbelievably absurd fact is that the troletariat thinks its worst ambassador since 10:10 is actually doing a good job! ROFL.
Think I'm joking? Check out BBD's oblivious encomium to him on the minor thread!
The only possible explanation for why partially-rational beings would make such a maladaptive choice of spokesmodels is that they just count his comments and don't bother reading them.
Dear homo deltoides,
Ready for the clue-bat upside your robust skull?
Here's what you yourselves thought about Wow when you last made the mistake of thinking it was possible to reason with him about something.
You’re gonna need to be a bit clearer if you want to be understood.
How does this sentence connect in any way with what I wrote?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, tediously wrong. Perhaps you only saw “saw what you wanted” in my comment?
Your mindreading skills are appallingly ineffective.
Either you communicated really poorly, or you were deeply offensive for no obvious good reason. I’m hoping for the former.
But on this fear thing you are apparently operating from a fundamental definitional error… assessing the effectiveness of a fear is a category error…
Wake me up when you decide to address the reasons rather than pretend they weren’t given.
Aren’t you embarrassed by that pathetic misdirection attempt? True, it is a lovely strawman you’ve skewered. But how about you try dealing with what was actually said?
This is a well understood concept – at least by people other than you.
And yet, Rebecca gave reasons. Your claim to the contrary was an assertion that is trivially rebutted by noting that yes, Rebecca actually gave reasons.
You didn’t even argue that her given reasons weren’t rational or weren’t valid or the like – you merely asserted they didn’t exist, and then questioned her mental health on that basis. If you’re going to speculate on that front you’re arguably looking in the wrong direction.
Let me fix your black and white strawman which might be getting your thinking stuck, and then see if the light dawns:
This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me.
Given that this has been explained to you already, we’re apparently into flat out denial...
I repeat, this is basic high school English comprehension.
Your entire attack seems to rest on hyper-fine parsing which has the added demerit of being incorrect – not to mention an incredible tone-deafness.
I’d consider seeking help. One could start with a High School English teacher.
You’re way too good at fooling yourself by asserting false assumptions. That allowance doesn’t mitigate your driven determination to misinterpret Rebecca – or your complete tone deafness.
It is denying the context, and denying the clear enough intent of the writer. Doing so may indicate a significant difficulty English comprehension, or some other issue.
————————————————
:-) ;-) :-)
Newsflash, believers:
Wow has not gotten any better.
Every time he opens his mouth HE COMES ACROSS JUST AS OBNOXIOUSLY STUPIDLY TO US AS HE DID TO YOU the last time you bothered to listen to him.
bill,
this is about as content-free and unpleasant as we've come to expect from you:
You mean, other than the one I've firmly answered with total certainty every single time BBD dements and re-asks it: "On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based?"
For the last fucking time, BBD, I'm perfectly aware that AGW is potentially dangerous. This is a trivial, truistic motherhood statement.
You must mean the question I keep "dodging" and "feigning agnosia" on, right?
Wrong. Your problem, bill, is that you're getting cowardice mixed up with the perhaps-related concept of courage. I know the distinction might be tricky, so let me clarify. I have been serially asked the same question, to which I'm not sure what the correct answer is, and rather than take the easy, craven and lazy route of professing whatever opinion would satisfy my interrogator and disarm his ideological immune response against me, I've exhibited integrity and probity by serially telling the truth: I'M NOT SURE.
Quite apart from the plain counterfactuality of this attempt at a put-down, the analogy you construct is noticeably confused. (Maybe you've never watched a debate.) A third-rate debating team would be proud to score cheap points, not embarrassed.
David:
Fair enough, David, but it’s not actually a new idiom. Even Naomi Oreskes knows it.
As a metaphor it makes about as much sense as convergence, confluence, etc., surely.
Cook’s “choice of a word” was symptomatic either of an amazingly-naive category confusion on his part, or of a cynical intent to miseducate millions of people like Sou (or lower) who genuinely don’t know that consensus refers to opinion, not evidence. (I know it takes a bit of a leap of empathy, but try to imagine how Cook’s argument would sound if you were as uneducated as them.)
Either of these possible causes of Cook’s solecism would be pretty troubling, I’m sure you’ll agree. So I think it’s difficult for you to claim that I shouldn’t draw so much attention to his “choice of a word.”
Secondly, was the irony deliberate when you voiced the following complaint straight after opining that I was “making far to[o] much out of the choice of a word”? :-)
Ah, how frustrating it must be for semantic purists to have to witness the almost daily neglect, by some writer somewhere, of the technical criteria for appropriately using such a term! Hehehe. ;-)
No, seriously, I feel your pain.
However, if you’re suggesting that I misused the word “proof,” no. I didn’t.
I used it in the context of a “deductive argument”—a syllogism—exactly as you prescribe.
Namely: that if Cook were telling the truth (which he isn’t) and you ”needed” a whole heap of consilient evidence in order to get a consensus of scientists (which you don’t), then a consensus of scientists would prove that there was a whole heap of consilient evidence lying around somewhere, wouldn’t it?
Really?!
Let me guess: you consider a prime candidate for one of these subjectively-evidenced sciences to be … climate science. Right?
(This is a pretty enlightening conversation so far!)
I’m not so sure I agree 100% with your policework there Lou.
To have a consensus—a majority opinion—of scientific evidence would require said evidence to the subject of the cognition. Evidence would have to be people, or at least one of the smarter species of monkey.
But it isn’t. Even if scientific evidence were a subjective matter (you said it, not me :-) ), or even “a matter of opinion” so to speak, “a consensus of evidence” would still be categorically-confused word-salad because evidence isn’t capable of having opinions.
You can have a consensus of Christian Scientists or sweet scientists or Home Science teachers, but not of evidence.
Again: really?
I LOVE science and I’m afraid I can’t share your insouciance about the strategic deflation, debasement and dumbing-down of public language around scientific knowledge.
Thanks, nevertheless, for your thoughtful and responsive comments so far!
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/consensus
just means general agreement. Being an American scientist and not a Brit schooled philosopher I have no difficulty with the general agreement of the evidence.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/consensus
While I personally would use that phase, I see nothing misleading about consensus of the evidence. Obviously what is meant (only some overly pure philosophers disagree) is the general agreement of those who know the evidence about what it means (or implies). I suspect that most actual scientists would agree with me that this issue of word choice is a tempest in a teapot.
As for subjective evidence, consider the history of determining the properties of the electron. (I choose not to attempt to repeat Millikan's experiment on his original apparatus.) But even more profound is the fact that the ability to even see the facets of a stained gram-negative micro-organism has to be trained. One only sees what the instructor has presented.
Neither example has much to do with climatology wherein the difficulties are those of any historical science such as meteorology or geology. The difficulties are largely objective in that everybody shares the same ones.
Your syllogism is: X is necessary for Y. Y holds. Therefore X does as well. Impeccable modal logic provided one accepts the S4 axioms or a similar system. So under that assumption, yes, a proof.
Brad, the controversy over consensus with respect to climate change is 'manufactured' by those with vested interest in denial. From Media Lens UK:
"When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate 'scepticism', is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 'clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.'
Powell said:
'Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.'
Adding:
'Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.'
The notable US science writer Phil Plait 'marvelled' at Powell's 'persistence in unearthing the facts and figures', saying:
'His premise was simple: if global warming isn't real and there's an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.'
But Powell's findings were clear, says Plait:
'There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
'When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don't publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science. It's nonsense. And worse, it's dangerous nonsense. Because they're fiddling with the data while the world burns.'"
There you have it. 'Corporate-sponsoired' crap' stands out for me, speaking as a scientist, when we are talking about contrary evidence. What is remarkable is how successful those who deny AGW have been in giving the impression that the science is somehow 'controversial' or that the evidence is ' balanced'. Its is not - it is heavily skewed to the pro-AGW side.
David,
Thanks for clarifying the idea of partially-subjective evidence.
Regarding Millikan's oildrop experiment, bear in mind that there was also the complication of verecundia, that horror of contradicting authorities which especially afflicts the weak-minded. There's a nice quote (which I can't locate) to the effect that the median man would prefer to be wrong if everyone else was wrong than to be right alone.
Hehe. Actually, though, my logic was for all intents and purposes indisputable. We're talking about a public argument. Nobody who matters in the target audience for climate rhetoric is really likely to have any objection to the S4 axioms (even if they know what they are), are they?
On "consensus of evidence," you've demonstrated my point for me. :-)
Yet that's not at all what John Cook says it means.
Despite your confidence in the obviousness of "what is meant," you've interpreted the phrase wrongly (from the perspective of the author who coined it) !
This is the problem when people use words nonsensically.
They seduce you—but not me, because I have zero tolerance for quasi-sensical pseudo-arguments—into thinking they obviously mean blah blah blah, while someone else (even the author himself) is just as likely to think they mean yadda yadda yadda, where blah != yadda.
You've apparently opted to reconcile the incompatible words "consensus", "of " and "evidence" by reinterpreting them as "consensus about evidence."
Cook, on the other hand, appears to reinterpret them as "convergence of evidence," which he defines as:
If even you—a scientist, who lives and breathes concepts like evidence—can be confused by Cook's dodgy vocab, is it any surprise that simple folk like Sou internalise false ideas about how science works from him and his accomplices in science miscommunication?
Finally, I think you're right when you
but for the wrong reason.
It simply wouldn't occur to the average scientist that John Cook's abuse of words could mislead muggles, because to the average scientist it's "obvious" how scientific argument works—so even if Cook mangles the explanation, there's no harm done. What I suspect the average scientist fails to appreciate is that the average punter doesn't have any firm grip at all on the way evidence, knowledge, truth etc. function in science.
If you've been a scientist for decades you probably don't even remember how confusing, prestigious and mystical the language of scientific epistemology sounds when you don't speak it.
Jeff,
I recognize the existence (according to the physical evidence) of AGW.
Nobody of my acquaintance is unconvinced of AGW. I've met a couple of AGW disbelievers in my time but I had no real difficulty changing their minds, by which I mean: getting them to understand and (provisionally) accept the evidentiary argument for AGW.
Before you went to Sri Lanka, you mentioned that you have AGW-denying friends and that (to your credit as a human being!) you've managed to remain friends—a feat of common, everyday decency which I can't quite see Lotharsson accomplishing.
But did you see my followup message, the one in which I asked why your friends didn't believe in AGW, what you'd done to make them aware of the case for AGW, and why they remained unmoved by it?
bill,
Sorry, I neglected to thank you for this additional reminder that CAGW is an existent belief system, and not just some “straw man”:
Or to quote chek:
Glad we've finally sorted out the vexed issue of what we're allowed to call you.
:-)
"just means general agreement. Being an American scientist and not a Brit schooled philosopher I have no difficulty with the general agreement of the evidence."
No, you have to be a complete ignoramus like Bray not to get it. Brit Philosophy courses failed has nothing to do with Bray's incomprehension.
Why so coy?
Why did you lie about it if you don't think it matters?
Wow, you're an ignorant idiot:
No, especially since
— my name isn't Bray
— I'm not British
— I didn't fail any Philosophy courses
and
— I'm not the one suffering incomprehension
Seriously Wow, as Lotharsson has already put it to you: " This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me. .. consider seeking help. "
Unless of course, you're on the Heartland payroll, in which case I take my hat off to your skill and indefatigability in embarrassing the catastrophists.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
And stay in your kennel, you're not welcome outside it.
Roll up! Roll up! See the Amazing Brangelini twist words and warp logic with the power of his mind alone!
Be astonished by jaw-dropping displays of mendacity!
Witness mind-boggling evasions!
Brace yourselves for logic-defying displays of self-serving rhetoric!
********************************************
"Brangelini does not disappoint" - Gavin Schmidt
"Astonishing antics" - James Hansen
"More compelling that a six-lane pile-up" - New York Times Review of Blog Shite
"I knew Brad was gonna be huge but even I am stunned" - Tim Lambert
Earlier:
Lying fuck!
;-)
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what specific information is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. References required.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***
... the catastrophists.
So you sleepwalkers, deniers and liars think that you'll have earned immunity from resource depletion and climate change because you did your corporate duty? Good luck with that supposition.
More sand for Keyes
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/co…
Even more sand for Keyes:
An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces.
BBD
You said you were leaving the main thread.
Yet here you are. Again.
So we see what the word of a believalist is worth. Again.
You falsely call me a liar for stating the following facts:
1. I know AGW might turn out to be harmful.
2. I'm not convinced that it will turn out to be not only harmful, or very harmful, or more harmful than beneficial, but very much more harmful than beneficial.
3. I'm not convinced that more than 50% of the relevantly-knowledgeable scientists are convinced of it, either. You've suggested they are, but that didn't convince me. Whether you're telling the truth is of zero evidentiary significance about nature, of course. So nothing hangs on this—other than the question of your probity, which has already been answered beyond much doubt.
Fantasy.
The only world deniers will live in.
Bray, you won't stay in your kennel.
You won't answer questions.
You won't show any evidence.
You won't visit reality even for a second.
Poor little baby, so easily confused when others don't do as he petulantly demands.
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- I'm laughing at you!
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***
BK
Oh give over with your nonsense! I didn't 'give you my word'.
Being accused of bad faith by you is beyond funny.
BBD,
I believe Lotharsson's name for what you're doing at the moment is 'flouncing'.
Brad K has answered your question. Apparently you don't like the answer and hence you have decided to read something else into it?
You also outlined what you think the answer is at this thread and the Feb thread.
Your answer is not BradK's answer BBD.
Considering you were the asker (at the moment it looks more like some type of inquisition) and BradK is the answerer, then I think we could move on.
I guess you can enlighten us about why you don't like his answer if you think that may progress any discussion?
Hey Calumny, why are you so ashamed to admit you're up to your neck in, and get your information from, shit denier blogs?
The vast majority of scientists know almost nothing about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
They are far too busy practicing their discipline.
chameleon
You say:
There were three.
I think you are a lying toe-rag. If you disagree, you can make your case by quotation.
These are the questions. Read them carefully before selecting you best of The Great Brangelini!
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- :-) ;-) :-)
Rock the stadium, chameleon. Your audience awaits....
David:
I agree. Formal epistemology to a scientist is about as useful as formal grammar to a native speaker, or ornithology to a bird (apologies to Feynman). It doesn't mean scientists aren't epistemologists—they are, even if they've never heard of the word.
Uuuurp!
Oops! Sorry!
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- :-) ;-) :-)
***ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS CAN STOP THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION***
OK BBD,
I should have used the plural. My apologies.
Instead of 'question' please substitute 'questions' and also substitute the plural form of the rest of the words that refer to said singular now plural (eg 'them' for 'it')
And can you pleeeaaaaase stop doing what Lotharsson calls 'flouncing'.
BTW BBD,
I'm not even slightly concerned about your opinion of me. I don't know you anymore than you know me.
I am not judging you personally BBD. I am commenting on the topics under discussion and asking questions.
For all I know or you know, we could be friends or acquaintances or associates in the real world.
You personal attacks are totally unsubstantiated and tend to indicate more about you rather than whoever you are personally attacking.
BBD:
Yes, but how is this evasive:
I'm not going to answer your quiz, BBD.
It isn't. There's nothing evasive about it.
Oh, thank you Brad!
Uuuuurrrp!
Oops! Sorry!
Remember:
- repeated quizzing is diagnostic of obsession!
- reneging on your flounce is stalking!
- stalking is a sign of infatuation!
Can somebody help?
Help me understand this:
Uuuurrrp!
Ooops! Sorry!
It's al the chortling!
Lest we forget:
***SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS WILL DISABLE AUTOMATED COMMENT REPEAT***
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- :-) ;-) :-)
***ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS CAN STOP THE AWFUL PUBLIC HUMILIATION***
#46 Brad Keyes --- Point taken.
BBD --- You grow exceedingly tiresome.
My apologies, David.
I find BK exceedingly tiresome.
BBD:
"Help me understand this:
"
You seriously don't get it?
I'm standing my ground, stalker.
It's broad daylight. The whole street can see your erotomanic actions.
BK
What 'ground'? You haven't substantiated anything.
Erm... you've lost me here. 'Stalker'? 'Erotomaniac'?
WTF?
Sorry: 'erotomanic'.
Silly me.
Cool, we're on the part of the merry-go-round where Brad gets to tell us how many epistemologists it took to get Curiosity & Discovery to Mars.
Next stop: Brad avoids explaining how epistemology is relevant to his denial of the very real and concrete published results of many individuals work on climate science, representing as they do over 99% of the work being done in the field.
Future episodes: The Straw Man, Begging The Question, Diversion, and Denial.
Vince,
this is a curious claim:
So up to 1% of the work being done in the field is NOT the very real and concrete published results of the work of individuals?
What is it then?
Ah, yes, I forgot that part of the merry-go-round:
- parsing errors, ignorant and deliberate
(With a free 'Begging The Question' thrown in, evidently).
Vince:
If you don't want me to parse your errors, stop making them.
And at 'Parsing Errors', we have a detour into 'Tedious Repetition'.
Vince,
you advise Chameleon on the subsidiary thread:
Yes, if you're interested in the way such theories work, Oreskes' book is a very lightweight and unchallenging articulation of the meme that there's a consp, er, a concerted, well-orchestrated, well-funded, decades-long covert effort to discredit Science™ Itself.
While I recommend the tree-pulp version, slower thinkers may prefer the audio book, which apparently allows you 13 whole hours to take in the full ramifications of the novel's alt-history premise.
Just a word of caution to those contemplating the modest pecuniary and intellectual investment of reading Oreskes' conspiracy thriller The Merchant of Doubt:
if you're the kind of person who gets morally exercised by the Galileo Movement's mention of "banking families," nudge nudge, then you may lack the stomach for Oreskes' core "thought" that a tight-knit cabal of merchants (whose surnames just happen to share a particular ethnocultural connotation) have been pulling the strings of world history from behind the scenes for the last 50 years.
It's okay though: Naomi Oreskes is one herself, as someone on one of the obsolete threads assured me confidently.
Or at least, we can presume she is, given that the notoriously racist Hannah Arendt centre was willing to interview her!
*crosses eyes, whistles and makes circumtemporal twirling gesture with index finger*
Brad
You have never read MOD. This is just another of your many lies.
Bernard J:
Hehe. Can I borrow that eublasphemism? When bill is around one doesn’t want to be too overt, lest one attract epithets like “Hitchenist anti-ecclesiastical myth-hater!” (My usual “Mithras,” when placed on a stick, didn’t seem to be a sufficiently oblique metonym.)
Logic fail. You can only allege that Chameleon “tries to hang off every one of Keyes’ words” if you deliberately ignore the fact that she’s unaware of one of my most classic statements. That fact makes your theory, not Chameleon, look bad.
Anyway Bernard, you’ve tipped us off that you’re here, so no more evasiveness please (and in case BBD is stalking still, note that I’m using the word where it actually applies): hurry up and gives us that defense of your thesis that I’m somehow “borderline (at least) psychopathic.” I couldn’t care less about your dead cat, computer or whatever personal problem you’re using as an excuse: you owe us a discussion of me and my supposed indifference to fellow human beings.
Vince:
No, the Tedious Repetition has stopped, you’ll be glad to know—BBD appears to have taken David’s hint.
(Thanks again, David.)
BBD:
I have too. (And I read it at a perfectly normal w.p.m. for university graduates.)
This all happened a couple of years ago when a good friend and CAGW believer, whose intellect I respect, said in an email that Oreskes' vision of history was "interesting." I mistook this for a non-ironic endorsement of her book. You should have been a fly on the wall when I told my friend I'd made it all the way through, expecting perhaps a bit of gratitude on his part, only for him to confess he hadn't read it himself! LOL :-)
Anyway BBD, try to stop lying.
David, you're talking bollocks when you complain about BBD's insistence on being answered as "boring" yet have never said a word about Bray's antics.
And you go double-fuckwit when you say to the galloping donkey "point take". The arrogant little twat has never made a point in their entire tiresome screed here. Or elsewhere, apparently.
So, David, take your asinine idiocy elsewhere, you're a stupid twunt and of no use to man nor beast.
Wow,
David has managed in a few short posts to contribute more of value to this thread than you have in all your hundreds of comments, yet you have the cretinousness and (as has already been pointed out by Lotharsson) tone-deafness to pejorate David's intelligence in the most vulgar terms, e.g.:
As Lotharsson once told you:
I've long given up on "the former" myself.
Yep,
Deeply offensive for no obvious good reason.
Yep, to a rampant raving narcissist like you, a post that fluffs your ego is of MAJOR importance, isn't it.
BK
You know you haven't read it. I know you haven't read it.
We both know the truth ;-)
Your daily humiliation and exposure as a liar and denialist who refuses to answer questions because to do so would instantly and irrevocably demolish your 'position' must now resume:
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- :-) ;-) :-)
This exercise serves both to rub your face in your dishonesty and denial, and as a public example of what you are doing here.
It is regrettable that certain commenters find the process tedious, but it remains necessary.
I also enjoy laughing at you. And you don't like being laughed at, do you Brad?
;-)
I made you no *promise*! And I've pointed this out in response to this lie upthread. Yet you repeat it again!
You lying fuck!
;-)
Hell, Bray said he'd leave but he weaselled out of that and then asked "what's a weasel denier?".
Seems, like every narcissist, it doesn't count if it's him doing it.
wow
In all the time I've been debating liars like Brad, I don't think I've ever been confronted by something as hilariously *shameless* as BK's attempt to re-define standard English usage. Let's marvel over this once again.
[BBD:] - evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
[BRAD:] Yes, but how is this evasive:
I’m not going to answer your quiz, BBD.
It isn’t. There’s nothing evasive about it. [all emphasis as original].
So in the mind of The Great Brangelini, refusing to answer questions that sit at the very heart of his 'argument' does not constitute an evasion. Let's just roll the tape again:
[BRAD:] There’s nothing evasive about it.
Yes, he really *did* say that!
This is how sunk in bad faith and denial our mutual friend really is.
While antics of this kind are funny on one level, they are repellent on another. There's something disquieting about watching an intelligent human being do this to themselves in public.
It's interesting watching BK getting rattled too. Like all narcissists and borderline psychos he cannot tolerate ridicule.
So keep on making mock and asking the questions he cannot answer except by destroying the lie he is pushing here.
Let's see how far beneath contempt Bradley is prepared to go!
BBD:
I know I have read it.
There's a word for "knowing" things that aren't true, even after it's been explained to you that they're not true: delusion.
I apologize for my previous suggestion that you were lying, BBD. It's clear you were, and are, simply in the grip of psychosis.
Let's look at one of your trivial exaggerations. You claim to have read MoD in under four hours.
Since I don't feel inclined to credit you with superpowers, you will have a reading speed of 250wpm with 70% comprehension.
My edition of MoD averages 10 words per line and has 39 lines per page. Excluding references it is 274 pages long, so let's call that 250 pages of text.
390 words per page x 250 = 97,500 words. To read this book and fail to comprehend nearly a third of it would take, on average, 6 hours 30 minutes.
Yet you claim perfect comprehension in under four hours. An exaggeration of this scale is indistinguishable from a lie!
Oh, and Bradley...
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
2/ On what specifc evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
3/ What abrupt globalised warming episodes ≥2C during an interglacial? To claim ‘other warming episodes’ were ‘beneficent’ you need one as an analogue. Please provide an example. References required.
Remember:
- evasiveness is evidence of bad faith!
- feigned climate agnosia is diagnostic of denial!
- unreferenced claims are worthless!
- :-) ;-) :-)
BBD:
1. Where the what are you getting those figures?
And before you tell me how fast the average American reads, let me repeat:
I read it at a perfectly normal w.p.m. for university graduates.
2. What the what do you mean by your construct of "70% comprehension"? Are you suggesting that I found every third word unintelligible? Every third concept? Every third sentence? Every third chapter?
Ah, the proportionateness and consistency with which the mind of the True Believer is synonymous. :-)
Can't you do even the most basic, trivial research yourself, Brad?
I'm not surprised you are so clueless about climate.
While you are verifying my figures by getting off your arse and checking for yourself, you can rustle up a number and a reference for this claim.
Brad, It's too bad that you don't appear to have read many other books which have closely examined the strategies of the climate change denial lobby, as well as other overt forms of anti-environmentalism, Books by David Helvarg, Andrew Rowell, Sheldon Rampton and David Stauber, Jeffrey St. Clair, Sharon Beder etc. make the case pretty clear. Besides, there is nothing remotely controversial in the Oreskes tome as far as I can see; perchance you just don't like the message?
Given your speed reading skills perhaps you ought to check out the wide and well referenced literature base. It might open your eyes just a tad.
Oh and Bradley, the reason I've ceased to bother being pleasant to you is because you *refuse* to substantiate your 'argument' by answering those pesky questions.
This is conclusive proof that you are a lying, posturing, denialist toe-rag conducting a monumental exercise in bad faith on this thread. And if there's one thing I cannot be doing with in this life it is bad faith. So I'll be poking you in the eye on a routine basis from now on.
Enjoy! You've earned it!
Jeff Harvey
Brad's in *denial*. He doesn't read things he doesn't want to know about. Thus maintaining his denial-enabling climate agnosia.
Jeff,
The Keyes problem is that he reads too fast to take in context, probably.
A,
1. Failing to take in context is not reading at all.
2. The assumption that reading speed and comprehension are inversely or negatively related is at best questionable.
He doesn't need to.
He already knows what he wants to think.
Brad Keyes --- You are welcome but it does not seem to have worked. :-(
BK, #46:
"Formal epistemology to a scientist is about as useful as formal grammar to a native speaker"
And formal grammar *is* useful to a native speaker when she must explain English grammatical constructions to a non-native speaker.
Jeff,
thanks for the author recommendations.
Have you had a chance to look at my questions: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
?
peterd:
Correctamundo. I wonder: does this suggest, by analogy, what a scientist should understand before she tries to teach a non-scientist about scientific reasoning?
The Anthropocene began 9,000 years ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthrop…
A fine summary of the work of Ruddiman and others.
BBD, I agree. That's why my post was written tongue-in-cheek. Brad's dismissal of the Oreskes book - which has nothing remotely controversial in it as far as I can see (I read it too, but not in 4 hours) - is a clear sign of denial. My point is that if one bothers to look further, there is plenty of information available showing that there is a well-organizws and funded anti-environmental lobby, in which climate change denial is just one (albeit large) facet.