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.
What dismissal? I recommended the book to Chameleon.
In any case thank you, Jeff, for realizing that I have read it. BBD's dismissal of the fact that I've read it—a fact which is not remotely controversial—is a clear sign of denial.
A fine summary of the work of Ruddiman and others.
Thanks for that, I have been studying Ruddiman for a few years now (having suspected the case for some time before finding Ruddiman on to it) and have a couple of his books. As I don't have access to that work you cited I'll check back when final publication is in.
I have read Broecker too, and of course Alley but more context on Rudiman's line is provided by the works of Jared Diamond.
Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty Bradley:
Once again, refuse to answer key questions that, were you to address them substantively and in good faith would immediately and irrevocably demolish your 'position:
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!
Actually, while we are talking about books and Bill Ruddiman, he wrote possibly the best paleoclimate/climate textbook currently available: Earth's Climate, past and future, now in its second edition. Very highly recommended, especially to Brad.
I think it's meant to be a hint. It's not enough to agree with them about climate change, you actually have to hate people who disagree with them—hate us in a "put 'er in the hotbox fer runnin' away from the plantation", "stakes and bundles of firewood" kind of way, like BBD—or else be prepared for Wow el al. to call you a
double-fuckwit talking bollocks asinine idiocy stupid twunt of no use to man or beast.
Indeed, that is one I have, and still studying, rather allot to it if one ponders on the implications rather than just reading it. My copy is in similar weight paper to my copy of Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science which is also highly recommended for climate and planetary systems (Earth's systems) neophytes. Then progress onto Pierrehumbert's, 'Principles of Planetary Climate', first mentioned by David way up thread.
James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity' is also recommended for the explanations of climate sensitivity and a counter to Lindzen's nonsense. Lindzen must be getting used to being wrong, such a shame for a clearly talented physicist to have to dwell in and live off the brown-lash. Darned good quote from Feynman too, which sheds a spotlight on Lindzen's type of argument.
Much of which Lindzen, only dare repeat to lay-audiences or sneak into the type of media 'balanced' debate knowing that a gish gallop is tough to refute in a couple of minutes on such (Richard Alley is king of this sort of refutation), especially with a hostile, to climate science, chair.
It's likely because - and "Brad's" the perfect example - they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.
Unfortunately, he's been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol' Rich, but there ya go.
Meanwhile, "Brad's" lips will be subvocalising at twenty to the dozen as he tucks another one under his belt to misuse at some point. Jackass that he is.
BBD: Yes. By the same method homeopaths could use him to bolster their case.
Remember also that Deniers will be the first to tell you that they're deeply opposed to arguments from authority... apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority is just fine, though.
you lack the subtlety of mind to know what's wrong with this statement, so I'll just explain it to you:
Remember also that Deniers will be the first to tell you that they’re deeply opposed to arguments from authority… apostophised [sic] posthumous irrelevant authority is just fine, though.
Oh FFS, bill! Argument from authority is completely illegitimatein science. And I've never said—nor has any other denier ever said—that it would be "just fine" to cite Feynman's authority in science. That's a private auditory hallucination of yours.
We don't cite his authority in science. We don't even cite his authority about science (metascientifically). But we are fond of quoting his metascientific sayings—apparently more fond than believers. Why? Because Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders, in a crystal-clear Brooklyn register that anyone can understand. Even Arts graduates.
By the same method homeopaths could use him to bolster their case.
Really? I'd be amused and indebted if you could regale us with an impression of a hypothetical homeopath quoting Feynman "to bolster their case."
It’s likely because – and “Brad’s” the perfect example – they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.
More CFC emissions. Yawn.
You have no idea how much I know about science and you've never asked, so your speculations aren't worth shit.
Unfortunately, he’s been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol’ Rich, but there ya go.
So you think James Hansen is an ignorant jackass? :-)
ROFL....
You just don't know when to control your emissions, do you chek?
BK, #98:
"Correctamundo. I wonder: does this suggest, by analogy, what a scientist should understand before she tries to teach a non-scientist about scientific reasoning?"
BK: The question would never arise, as she would be too wise to attempt to explain something so difficult. :-)
Seriously, I am inclined to suspect that most scientists are actually rather poor in terms of their understanding of scientific reasoning. At least, insofar as that relates to epistemological issues, and the philosophy of science. (I remember my own early encounters, in third-year physical chemistry lectures, with the philosophy of science: I have never been able to shake off the feeling I had then that nearly all my classmates were deeply uninterested.)
But what is meant by “scientific reasoning”? If I may be permitted to make ritual obeisance to the wisdom of Feynman, here is something he once had to say:
“Scientific reasoning requires a certain discipline, and we should try to teach this discipline, because even on the lowest level such errors [as are associated with the mis-interpretation of results] are unnecessary today.” (R.P. Feynman, “The Meaning of it All”)
I commend this endorsement of everyday commonsensical consideration of the interpretation of data to- just to take a purely random example!- those folk who cherry-pick a series of temperature measurements to show (for example) that the Earth has been "cooling for the last 16 years”, or some such nonsense. They should ask themselves “what’s up?” with that kind of interpretation of data. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be capable of such critical reasoning.
~ BEST OF THE MINORS ~
For those who haven't checked the lesser threads, here are some of the more important, thoughtful points raised in the periphery today.
chek:
As far as I can determine, Calumny’s sole purpose is to act as a weathervane for what the stupids are being fed.
It’s a shit job for a piece of shit, but hey, somebody has to do it.
Bernard J:
Your husband must have been drunk when he met and married you.
Vince Whirlwind:
Bernard, I think her husband enjoys taking photos of sea walls.
Brad Keyes:
Brad has been placed in moderation because of repeated violations of the rules.
Yikes! Given the low, low standards of commentary now permitted to be associated with the National Geographic brand, I shudder to think how vile this "Brad" fellow's remarks must have been to attract censorial attention. What a misogynist adolescent he probably is.
Sarcasm aside, I have to agree with mike on the less-popular thread: Bernard's comment #89 was unbelievably stupid and ugly. Please do something about it.
Have look back over the previous 35 pages of this thread and the umpteen other pages of attempts to reason with BK on other threads that precede it.
If your frustration is borne of the belief that those efforts were simplistic or prematurely abandoned, you are mistaken. This is the end-game, where we are done with trying.
Do, please, read the thread before passing snap judgements - if that is indeed what has happened here.
I presume that peterd's accurate use of Feynman's writing (in his thought-provoking comment #18) is yet another instance of the class of acts that "signifies the would-be user is an ignorant jackass" in your mind.
'Eclectikus' is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don't talk about *climate science*. Something I learned years ago in the unpleasant world of business negotiation is never let the other side control the discourse.
Eh, it's all there, isn't it? Climate agnosia (but rejection of the standard position), refusal to discuss the evidence, intensive reliance on obfuscatory misdirection and the shades of P & F, endless insinuations that climatology is pseudo-science etc etc etc.
I''m surprised the mods haven't shitcanned Ek. They should.
‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don’t talk about *climate science*.
Oh, how gasp.
Forgive my obtuseness, but when did we agree dat dis wud b a *climate science* thread? Is ur monomania supposed 2b respeckted by da rest of us because... well, just because?
‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould.
Were it not signs that English could be a second language I almost thought 'Eclectikus was a sock for 'Brad Keyes' as he likes to throw out words such as 'disquisitions. What is it about pretentious language and 'purple prose that makes one shudder?
PS BK read Hansen yourself as there is more than one reference to Feynman WRT Lindzen, following Lindzen's trail may help you understand our disgust.
Ah - the old Cliff Richard classic.
"Tergiversation and obfuscation,
I want the world to know that you can't better me.
Manipulation to peroration
I want the world to know how slippery I can be".
Sorry to hear that, Lionel. May I also wish you a speedy recovery.
I also noticed the BK-ishness of Ek, and also wondered if we aren't being treated to a dazzling display of sockpuppetry complete with 'foreign accents'. Who knows?
The song remains the same.
And bloody hell, does check nail it nicely! Hats off!
in refusing to apologise to Chameleon (as any normal commenter invested in their own credibility would do) you take refuge in silly counterfactual subjunctives:
I would have made the same comment if you admitted to being a married male, and I’m sure that in that case your umbrage and Mike’s would have been non-existent.
Coulda shoulda woulda. You made the comment you made, Bernard, and it sucked, like you.
And let’s just remember the kind of operation the likes of Brad is engaged in:
[followed by instructions for astroturfing]
Of course, you're not accusing me of astroturfing, are you Vince? Nah, that—having the cojones to tell a simple lie—isn't your style, is it? The best you can muster is to accuse "the likes" of me of being engaged in a "kind of" operation like astroturfing ...whatever that means.
Brave, brave Sir Vincent spinning bravèly,
His arms a weasel hurlant on lines nebuly!
I seriously think obvious astroturfers should be deleted out of hand, their IPs permanently blocked.
What I did notice in that exchange David, was the marked difference between those who want to know and those who don't.
By the by, fulling (a wool treatment process) long ago was carried out by a fuller, tramping around ankle deep in piss. It seems some still fully live up to the surnames they've inherited.
you seem to be understandably reluctant to defend this stupid theory about quoting Feynman:
It’s likely because – and “Brad’s” the perfect example – they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.
As I pointed out, you have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.
You then let slip this gobsmacking prejudice:
Unfortunately, he’s been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol’ Rich, but there ya go.
It follows that you think James Hansen and peterd are ignorant jackasses. Care to comment?
Is Keyes’ [sic] still struggling to understand why his behaviour indicates excessive narcissism?
LOL... now you can be too narcissistic, according to resident pop-psych dilettante Dr J!
This may come as a shock to a hyponarcissistic nobody like yourself, Bernard, but my self-esteem is one of the things that most draws people to me.
By the way, would your latest struggle against English punctuation be an example of whatever chek meant by "apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority," I wonder? Anyone here speak slovak?
I think it’s meant to be a hint. It’s not enough to agree with them about climate change, you actually have to hate people who disagree with them
I don't think you are contemptible because you disagree with me Brad. You are contemptible because you *refuse* to substantiate your ‘argument’ by answering key questions.
This reveals you to be a lying, posturing, denialist toe-rag conducting a monumental exercise in bad faith on this thread. Which is contemptible.
Along with tergiversation, dishonesty, framing, projection, misrepresentation and misdirection, deniers - bereft of any scientific argument - are also obliged to rely on game theory, eg # 7.
Oh, and to preëmpt the inevitable shrill demands for proof, this:
my self-esteem is one of the things that most draws people to me.
... is simply one of the leading explanations I've heard as to why I'm so well-liked—which is one subject on which I'm not inclined to dispute the consensus!
It's hard to miss the fact that you're none too keen to answer this question (my emphasis):
"‘Eclectikus’ is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don’t talk about *climate science*."
Shocking!
But hang on: when did we agree this was a *climate science* thread? Is your monomania supposed to be respected by the rest of us because… well, just because?
Just a reminder to "Brad" that climate change isn't some future hypothetical but is happening now and affecting real people.
And just as with money, you can't eat word soup.
There is no modification in my position as per those quotes; I stated it differently, but not inconsistently.
David # 16:
Thanks for the link.
On superficial reading (sorry, very pressed for time right now) there are some obvious questions about the article's logic, e.g.
1. if the atmosphere in Australia is "moister," how can it be more conducive to bush fires?
2. how can the various potential anthropogenic factors in bush fire genesis (land management, backburning, arson, AGW) be disentangled, and did the article make any effort to do so?
3. why does the article claim an increase in "extreme" weather events only to show a graph in which the increase in warm "extremes" is exactly offset by a decrease in cold "extremes"?
"Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders"
Come on Brad. Now you are getting a bit desperate. For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn't tell good science from that on a fortune cookie. They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs (e.g. many of the prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll) and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society. They want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it and in this context the idea that the planet is quickly heading for an abyss is impossible to reconcile.
I think its a massive abuse of science and of the scientific community to consider a tiny number of mostly obscure, mediocre scientists (as there are very, very few statured scientists who deny the reality and seriousness of AGW) as well as a larger number of citizens with no real interest in science as defenders of scientific integrity. This is the paradigm shift writ large. The anti-environmental lobby has tirelessly used a coterie of PR strategies to give the impression that they are the 'true' environmentalists (whilst working hard to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit), and your claiming the moral and scientific high ground amongst deniers on the issue of climate change is just par for the course. But it is total and utter b*.
Come on Brad. Now you are getting a bit desperate. For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie.
I don't belong to a "climate change denial community," but—assuming you mean the CAGW denial community—exactly the same statistical observation could be made of the other half of the population: most of the CAGW belief community has no idea what the scientific method is and therefore couldn't tell good science from that on a fortune cookie or a policy white-paper.
They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs (e.g. many of the prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll)
Many prominent believers are on the same payroll (again, assuming you mean [dis]believers of CAGW). And the biggest corporation of all—the US government—employs the vast majority of climate scientists, on both "sides."
and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society.
Of course, all things being equal, people may not enjoy feeling guilt—the popularity of Catholicism notwithstanding—but do you have any evidence that suppression of guilt is the motivating factor that makes the difference between belief and denial [of CAGW]?
You decided this was a climate science thread, Brad, when you decided to try to snow this blog under with your idiotic opinions about climate science.
The fact your opinions rely on your repeating crud from crank blogs, and defended by appeals to authority in the form of mangled quotes is a problem of your own making.
You've told us the consensus view is wrong.
You've told us sensitivity is 1.5.
The evidence says you are wrong.
You present no counter-evidence of your own, but instead engage in diversion and the attacking of straw men, as though faulty debating techniques were a valid way of advancing science.
All you've managed to prove is that you are either ignorant or a liar. Likely both.
Vince,
This blog and this thread is about political and public opinions on policies that are using the climate and/or the environment as a platform.
Even JeffH has clearly ponted that out at #55.
I'm interested to how JeffH would define a 'true' environmentalist?
I may be incorrect but it appears he believes it is a movement based on politics?
His theory also reads a bit like a melodrama with the attendant black hats/white hats that we need to collectively and unanimously boo/cheer :-)
I actually agree that the politics is melodramatic, but I also think that the type of accusatory, motherhood statements that JeffH makes above are fuelling the melodrama, not dousing it.
A "true" environmentalist is a person of "true" conservative values.
Not a tea party activist, not a LaRouchian conspiracy-theorist, and not a crypto-communist posing as a "Green" in order to impose their sociophobic compulsions on the rest of us.
As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry. So, fewer perhaps but certainly more extreme precipitation events in Queensland but at the same time drier conditions further south; more bush fires irrespective of (mis)management regimes.
It is a near truism that science is a form of inquiry that has produced, and is likely to continue to produce, the most credible beliefs and belief systems purporting to realize certain fundamental epistemic and pragmatic aims of contemporary culture. However, with a few exceptions among the historically oriented philosophers, most epistemology of science has been concerned with the analysis of extant scientific concepts and static relations of evidence, and not with systematic procedures for the production of concepts or evidence. As is well known, the 'context of discovery' is sometimes thought to be beyond the reach of logic and epistemology. The subject of discovery is then left to historians, psychologists and social scientists.
However, the epistemological problem of systematic inquiry has been of interest to a number of important philosophers in the western tradition and again is receiving the attention of philosophers of science. ...
Synthese
January 1988, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 19-46 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00869617?LI=true
You decided this was a climate science thread, Brad, when you decided to try to snow this blog under with your idiotic opinions about climate science.
"Idiotic"? That's a heroic description, given that my assessments of climate science stand conspicuously unrefuted.
My opinion of the climate, which is far less certain, was extorted by the repetitive, plaintive and obsessive entreaties of BBD. The only snow job is the one you're attempting when you imply I thrust my climatic views in your face.
You’ve told us the consensus view is wrong.
Er, no, I've told you:
1. that consensus is not evidence (in science)
2. that you've yet to show any good evidence for the (irrelevant) premise that there's a scientific consensus in favor of climate alarm—and as a result, it's far from clear that I disagree with any consensus that may exist
You’ve told us sensitivity is 1.5.
Because BBD begged me to.
And then when he presented evidence to the contrary, I said it might not be 1.5.
In other words, I've behaved honestly, skeptically and properly at all times. If only the same could be said of you, the conversation would probably be relatively advanced by now.
You present no counter-evidence of your own,
Maybe because I’d rather hear from people who know and care more about the climate than me.
but instead engage in diversion and the attacking of straw men,
What the fuck ever, you fraudulent halfwit.
as though faulty debating techniques were a valid way of advancing science.
Yeah, that’s right, I’m what stands in the way of your winning a Nobel Prize for the advancement of science through blog commentary.
As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry.
OK, thanks David—that could (if true) rescue the logic of the article. Paragraph 2 is infelicitous:
"All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago,” the report warned. “The basic features of the climate system have now shifted and are continuing to shift.”
I don't consider a multinational corporation that hires big PR guns on the one hand to give the impression that it is engaged in sustainable, environmentally friendly practices (e.g. via Greenwashing) whilst investing considerably more money on the other to reduce government regulations that limit tits profit-making capacity as being 'environmentalists'. Yet this is what has happened, thanks to E. Bruce Harrison and corporate PR efforts waged through a good-cop bad-cop strategy. Essentially, a company will donate 30,000 dollars to WWF or Greenpeace or another so-called environmental group and then this allegedly kind-gesture will be highly publicized (just look at some of the Earth Day corporate sponsors), but then , on the other hand, the same corporation will invest ten times as much money in lobbying members of Congress, or in supporting astroturf groups, in an attempt to defeat legislation protecting the environment from its activities. The very fact that these astroturf groups often use environmentally friendly names when they are working hard to undermine the protection of important habitats (such as wetlands) is clear evidence of this. I recall the National Wetlands Coalition, a group (thankfully now defunct) that had a duck flying over a wetland as its logo on its web site. To the layman, it was an environmental group that aimed to protect wetlands. But in reality, it was a corporate front group funded by a range of industries and developers and set up by a PR firm whose sole aim to lobby members of the US government to reduce laws protecting wetlands from development. In other words, to undermine the comprehensive wetlands protection act, singed during the 1980s as a means of protecting watersheds and other important habitats which harbor high biodiversity. Developers saw this as a major impediment to their actions and thus profits, but instead of being honest, they used subterfuge to mislead the public as to their true intent. Wise Use groups do this in the US all of the time. Thus this is hardly an exception, but its now a very common practice. Check out the web sites of the Greening Earth Society or C02 Science and you'd get the impression that they are pro-science environmental sites whose aim is to ensure that woodlands are protected. In reality, they are linked with the Western Fuels Association, a cola industry lobby groups with scientists on its payroll which argues that the burning of coal is good for for nature because it puts more C02 into the atmosphere and this benefits plant growth and cascades up through the food chain. Of course this is overly simplistic drivel, but these sites are not aimed at scientists but at the general public. And of course the aim is to ensure that we continue burning coal in vast quantities, which benefits the coal extraction industries.
There are countless more examples of this kind of nefarious and dishonest behavior. I have lectured on it for many years. But if you and Brad by now don't understand what a true environmentalist is, or think that people who downplay the seriousness of AGW are 'friends of science' and 'scientific integrity', then you are both more simple than I thought. I have tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt, but some of your comments are so utterly naive that they defy any form of rudimentary logic.
Shouldn't you have moved on to a different mot du jour by now, BBD? You've been accusing me of "tergiversation" for more than 24 hours. The problem is, if you take another look at your Word A Day calendar, you'll see that tergiversating requires conflicting statements, self-contradiction and vacillation, none of which is to be seen in my #54.
As always you attempt to maintain your contrarian stance (# 53) simply by *denying* the evidence and refusing to discuss your reasoning.
Because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you in on a secret:
this insult of yours is weak, and weak-sounding, which makes you seem weak and look weak, because you completely fail to say what evidence I'm denying, and because the reader who then looks at my #54 can't help but notice that I'm not denying any evidence. I'm appealing to totally uncontroversial logic.
But if you and Brad by now don’t understand what a true environmentalist is, or think that people who downplay the seriousness of AGW are ‘friends of science’ and ‘scientific integrity’, then you are both more simple than I thought.
But I don't think that, and I'm pretty sure Chameleon doesn't either.
People who downplay the seriousness of AGW are no better than those who upplay it. They all belong in Science Jail. The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight.
Perhaps all this might be clearer with a few simple data visualisations.
1/ Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of the TOA radiative imbalance *increasing* as a result of *increasing* CO2 forcing ends up in the global ocean.
2/ GHG forcing (predominantly CO2) has become increasingly dominant since the early 1960s. Here you can see global surface average temperatures (top) compared to forcings. 'WM - GHG' indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. The net of all forcings is indicated by the heavy red line. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions (negative forcing). Solar can be seen to be rather less significant than is frequently supposed by contrarians.
Contrarians generally fail to understand that overall, 'AGW' is only just starting to happen which is why the effects to date have been *minimal*.
What is required is that one looks at the *forcings*. If CO2 forcing continues to increase it is very obvious indeed that energy will continue to accumulate in the climate system at a similarly increasing rate. It is impossible to see why the extreme weather events that have characterised the first decade of the C21st will not become increasingly frequent and increasingly severe. The implications for global agricultural productivity are serious, especially as global population is predicted to reach ~ 9bn by mid-century.
And the disruptions will not stop. Contrarians frequently behave as if CO2 will automatically stabilise at ~550ppmv later this century without policy intervention and all will be well. ECS is 'only' 2.5C - 3C and we'll 'adapt' to our emerging new world of extreme weather, infrastructural attrition and endemic food insecurity.
We will struggle with all this. And I haven't even mentioned post-C21st sea level rise.
The scaling and offset have failed on the OHC graph. Bitter experience with this data viewer tells me there is nothing I can do about this. Values are not preserved in the postable link. You can scale the Y axes using the vertical blue bar and and offset with the pink (?) bar. Click just above or below the green tab.
"The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight".
And those that are doing so are ther statured scientists who argue that their are potentially serious consequences of inaction on AGW and that, on this basis, we ought to be doing something about it. True scientists work on probabilities and not on absolutes, hence why most who agree on AGW argue that the C part is a possibility of inaction to deal with the problem. Deniers, on the other hadn downplay the A part and totally ridicle any notion of serious consequences. This explains why the ranks of those who downplay the seriousness of AGW is full of bitter old retired academics with little pedigree in any field, who published few papers and were rarely cited. And even amongst active researchers today, very few of the AGW downplayers have much in the way of pedigree. If one bothered to look through the Web of Science they'd find the sceptical camp full of scientists wtih 20 or less publications over m,any years, less than 500 citations of their work, and people who are generally obscure in science. The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider mydelf to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32. But this does notput me at the head of the pack for researchers with my tenure in my fieid. I would probably be in the 10-20% near the top, but that's a lot of people ahead of me. But in climate science, you have veritable bottom-feeders getting underserved attention in the media and in sceptical blogs simply because they downplay AGW.
This is the crux of the problem. And its time you and Chammy realized it.
because you completely fail to say what evidence I’m denying
Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty:
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!
2. the fact that in Latin, it means to turn 180 degrees
I checked, and the *very first* one that comes up in google is this:
When I need to check, I use Dictionary.app on my Mac.
1
: evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement :
Ah! So you're ascribing to me behaviour which is indistinguishable from genuine indecision / sincere uncertainty / bona fide agnosticism.
Fair enough.
I assumed you were being pejorative or accusatory in some way.
Silly me.
: equivocation
Oh! So you are accusing me of something?
It raises the question: did you use the word "tergiversation" to prevaricate? Are you using ambiguous language to conceal the truth or avoid committing yourself? I think you're Vince's ferrety banner-man, aren't you, BBD!
Not his being caught with his usual sleight of hand
Michaels says:
In what is always a bad sign for solid science, they found that any connections between blocking frequency and global warming are highly dependent upon the methodology they used.
(Emphases added.)
Wait a minute. Paper discusses amplitude and Michaels makes a claim about frequency? Um, bullshit. Of the standard Michaels variety.
Drat. Nested blockquotes don't seem to work, unless...?
"Michaels says:
" In what is always a bad sign for solid science, they found that any connections between blocking frequency and global warming are highly dependent upon the methodology they used."
(Emphases added.)
Wait a minute. Paper discusses amplitude and Michaels makes a claim about frequency? Um, bullshit. Of the standard Michaels variety."
Snarkasm aside, thanks for taking the time to get those visualisations together. A projection, graph or image of one's mental model does wonders to dispel misunderstandings such as we're obviously and mutually labouring under.
OK, thanks David—that could (if true) rescue the logic of the article. Paragraph 2 is infelicitous:
Well the news for you is that IT is TRUE. Which you would discover if you bothered to read from some of the publications recently cited in this thread, and recently at that.
Please describe exactly why, or in which way, Paragraph 2 is infelicitous?
Can I expect more tergiversation?
Tergiversation: equivocation, prevarication. Also an instance of this, an evasion, a subterfuge. OED Shorter (two large volumes) 5th Ed.
Please describe exactly why, or in which way, Paragraph 2 is infelicitous?
I would've thought this was obvious, particularly thanks to my high-tech use of bold tags within blockquote tags. ;-)
I repeat, paragraph 2 states:
“All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago,” the report warned. “The basic features of the climate system have now shifted and are continuing to shift.”
This directly contradicts David's apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.
Can I expect more tergiversation?
Expect what you like; but if you think you'll be getting prevarication, evasion, equivocation or subterfuge from me you're going to be disappointed.
For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn’t tell good science from that on a fortune cookie.
As I pointed out before, most of the entire population wouldn’t know the scientific method if it robbed a bank and held them hostage, and therefore couldn’t tell good science from that found in a fortune cookie, spraypainted by Banksy or printed in a policy white-paper.
However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community. Unfortunately the bar for most such studies is set quite a bit lower than what we would call scientific methodological understanding. But notwithstanding this limitation, the results leave you with little basis for thinking (or would leave you with little basis for thinking, if you were thinking this) that people on my “side” are any less discerning of real versus faux science than people on your “side.”
They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs
Has a “denier” ever admitted this? And if not, how do you know it’s true?
Meanwhile, by contrast, there certainly are public figures on your “side” who, by their own admission, are ideologically and/or politically motivated to assert human impacts on climate.
and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society.
Sorry, Jeff, but this instrumental explanation doesn’t appear to make a lick of sense—possibly because I’ve never felt the guilt you describe, but more likely because it’s just illogical.
Why do you characterize our society as ecologically rapacious and over-tubercular?
Is it:
a) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate and despoiling ecosystems in the process
b) because we’re causing CAGW
or
c) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate, despoiling ecosystems in the process and causing CAGW?
If the reason is A, what conceivable difference would it make whether CAGW were real or not? The fact that CAGW is make-believe does nothing to change the fact that our society is committing said crimes against the environment.
If the reason is B, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.
If the reason is C, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.
If the reason is D (none of the above), then what is it?
They want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it and in this context the idea that the planet is quickly heading for an abyss is impossible to reconcile.
Just out of curiosity, is this (the words in bold) something you’ve believed for a long time? Did you believe it even before the evidence came along for CAGW?
I think its a massive abuse of science and of the scientific community to consider a tiny number of mostly obscure, mediocre scientists (as there are very, very few statured scientists who deny the reality and seriousness of AGW) as well as a larger number of citizens with no real interest in science as defenders of scientific integrity.
Why? Not that I’m conceding the correctness of your premise (that there are few serious scientific seriousness-deniers), of course, but even if I did for argument’s sake, why would it be abusive to consider a minority to be on the side of scientific integrity?
What do you think “scientific integrity” is, Jeff?
No, hang on, that’s a potentially tricky / trappy question, so allow me go first:
Scientific integrity is what you describe when you talk about that incident early in your career, when a reviewer didn’t believe your findings, so you tried to send them all your data, which they refused to look at, and I called you “the opposite of Michael Mann.” That’s scientific integrity, in a nutshell.
[Y]our claiming the moral and scientific high ground amongst deniers on the issue of climate change is just par for the course. But it is total and utter b*.
Well, yes, that would be total and utter b*. But I don’t pretend to tower over other deniers morally or scientifically. (Is this what you meant?) Plenty of deniers are better persons than me, and plenty of deniers are better scientists than me, and plenty of deniers are better persons and better scientists than me.
This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.
And there we have one English literalist approach to science in a nutshell. While it is undeniably true that warmer air can absorb more moisture, it is not axiomatic that it will, as other factors are also to be accounted for. Dry inland air when warmed up has no source of moisture and what began as dry air can only become yet warmer dry air. The ever-warming atmosphere over desert areas does not magically induce moisture because of its temperature.
Brad pretends (or maybe really doesn't understand) this in pursuance of his simpleton denial and thinks offering up uninformed and thus faulty 'logic' scores a point. Idiot that he is.
Can I expect more tergiversation?
Indeed it is only be expected, along with "Brad's" tnew heme song.
"Tergiversation and obfuscation,
I want the world to know that you can’t better me.
Manipulation to peroration
I want the world to know how slippery I can be"
You may try to corner me with your science,
But that only reinforces my defiance
I'm only interested in your compliance
With my deniance*
As' long as I'm here".
"Tergiversation and obfuscation" etc.
(*h/t to Horatio Algeranon. the master of lyricism and this expedient addition to the language)
You have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.
The worst I might ever have to do these days is kick shit out of the way. I certainly don't argue with it "Brad". Something to do with its consistency is repulsive. Something you seem intent on replicating.
As the Hadley cells expand (due to global warming) the poleward edge of the cells marches further poleward. So at the descending edges, the poleward ends, deserts expand polewards and contract somewhat equatorwards.
This tends to agree with the data so far, wherein the process as only just begun. What the data firmly shows is the large increase in precipitation in the tropics and the more modest increase in mid and high latitudes.
The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider myself to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32.
Congratulations, Jeff.
You're so equal, you're like the Albert Einstein of scientists!
That's 125 more papers than Michael Mann had to his name when he was hailed for overturning the MWP theory and chosen by the President of the US as his personal science advisor.
Sure, you're a fair way behind Richard Lindzen, but still: your credibility is impressive, I won't deny it.
When you say stuff about the climate, it's 63.5 times truer than MBH98, and more than half as true as what Professor Lindzen says!
"[pretty pictures] dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under."
Mutually? How so?
Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say [what you've said too many times to count on this thread]:
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
As I've explained (so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now), I don't dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether there's any rational basis to think it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to whine about when there are other, clear and present dangers to deal with.
Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say... well, I dunno an example; but I'm sure if you think hard enough, there must be some occasion on which I've failed to comprehend your POV. Not as catastrophically as you've misunderstood mine, perhaps; but still, I must have misunderstood you at some point.
Calling the incomprehension "mutual," therefore, was what's known as a polite presumption.
However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community. Unfortunately the bar for most such studies is set quite a bit lower than what we would call scientific methodological understanding. But notwithstanding this limitation, the results leave you with little basis for thinking (or would leave you with little basis for thinking, if you were thinking this) that people on my “side” are any less discerning of real versus faux science than people on your “side.”
…I didn't mean that the Kahan et al. work itself wasn’t of a scientifically high standard!
What I meant was that the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really was a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect of the questionnaires in this genre of study is essentially to place the population on a curve based on how much high-school and socially-topical science trivia they have at their command.
Dan Kahan's research impresses me because he’s skeptical of his own findings, he actually refines his own hypothesis from one paper to the next, he seeks out interaction with deniers—and so, to paraphrase the homage I paid to you, Kahan is “the opposite of Stephan Lewandowsky”—he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist, and he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)
Abbot [sic] is still going to punish you for daring to introduce [the carbon tax], though, and will rip it out and “compensate” the ones “damaged” by it
Punish whom?
The ALP?
Boo-fucking-hoo.
I can't wait. People who look the electorate in the face and feed us a read-my-lips lie deserve no mercy.
That's my ethics platform. Then again, I'm a denier, and we're notoriously zero-tolerant on liars.
”This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.”
And there we have one English literalist approach to science in a nutshell.
Gosh, chek’s sure put me in my place for expecting scientific reports to mean what they say! How will I ever live down such a naïve mistake?
While it is undeniably true that warmer air can absorb more moisture, it is not axiomatic that it will, as other factors are also to be accounted for.
What a trivial and irrelevant thing to say. Nobody is debating whether or not warmer air is inevitably moister air.
The only question of interest to anyone but chek is: why does the scientific report quoted in David’s article claim that all extreme events are occurring in a moister climate when those very events supposedly include an increase in bushfire frequency—a problem which (as David himself has no difficulty grasping) implies conditions that are drier, or at least not wetter, than they were before?
Both David B. Benson and I evidently know exactly what we’re arguing about; perhaps this ought to serve as chek’s cue not to butt in lest he further embarrass himself with his spectacular talent for point-missing.
Dry inland air when warmed up has no source of moisture and what began as dry air can only become yet warmer dry air. The ever-warming atmosphere over desert areas does not magically induce moisture because of its temperature.
Damn—that’s a great point, because:
1. Tasmania—the State singled out in the article for record bushfires—is well-known for its vast desert areas!
2. Bushfires are the scourge of Australia’s deserts!
And chek’s peculiar brand of complete f—king c—p and content-free condescension just keeps coming:
The worst I might ever have to do these days is kick shit out of the way. I certainly don’t argue with it “Brad”. Something to do with its consistency is repulsive. Something you seem intent on replicating.
Chek, mate, you’re really struggling to keep a lid on your CFC emissions, aren’t you?
Lionel, your “emphases” aren’t being “added.” Simple bold tags within the block quote do the trick.
I appreciate that other tags are required for emphasis such as the 'i' italic and 'strong' for bold. If you had been paying attention you would have appreciated that in turn.
On nesting quotes, yes using quotation marks is an answer which I have used and I was trialling nested blockquotes to see if that helped but at first was not sure if it was failing because of mistyping - banana like fingers and not picking up the mistype by feeling grotty which was affecting my vision. Unfortunately 'Page Source' did not reveal where the error, if any, was.
Also, if you referred back to the original source on which my comments were based you would have understood who was writing what.
Expect what you like; but if you think you’ll be getting prevarication, evasion, equivocation or subterfuge from me you’re going to be disappointed.
And you have proven beyond any doubt that this is all you have - tergiversation. Here's why.
You repeat your mantra about Paragraph 2 being infelicitous WRT David's statement, this can only be true if you snip as you did so as to use only the non-emphasised part of the full statement:
As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry. So, fewer perhaps but certainly more extreme precipitation events in Queensland but at the same time drier conditions further south; more bush fires irrespective of (mis)management regimes.
Tergiversation - overmuch, lots, the cup of this thread runneth over with examples of your indulgence in such.
Get out of that without more tergiversation.
Besides, the main point is that you are arguing from false premise, why, because you clearly have not studied, or chose to ignore, the relevant literature examples of which you have been pointed at which explain these points about changing climate regimes.
Hi. Are you out of hospital and feeling better—or at least less grotty? I hope so.
I appreciate that other tags are required for emphasis such as the ‘i’ italic and ‘strong’ for bold.
Or just 'b' for bold—there ya go, I saved you some time!
Unfortunately ‘Page Source’ did not reveal where the error, if any, was.
Been there. I once made a whole thread irreversibly italic by accident. To make the most of the situation, I quipped that the content of climate-alarmist websites seemed to be "chronically slanted." Big mistake! That unleashed an earnest barrage of indignation about the right-wing, pro-Faux bias of the denialist flat-earthosphere. I should have listened when they warned me cults don't have a sense of humor... hehe ;-)
BTW. How far have you got with the reading list?
Uh, which of many are you referring to? I've pasted several lists of books and articles I'm supposed to read into a single text file, but unfortunately I didn't record who recommended what. :-( Chances are I haven't gotten around to whatever you told me to read yet, sorry mate.
"They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs
Has a “denier” ever admitted this? And if not, how do you know it’s true?"
They don't have to SAY it Brad. The very fact that a large majority of them are associated with libertarian/free market think tanks funded by the same industries with a vested interest in the status quo and attend shindigs should say it ALL. The information is out there is you bother to look for it. Sadly for the deniers, they just can't help but wear their idealogical hearts on their sleeves. You think they'd try and keep a million miles away from the PR/think tank/astroturf groups if they wanted to retain even a sliver of credibility but they just cannot resist. That's why most of the dolts who support them must share the same idealogical and political views: support for free market absolutism and de-regulation. To eviscerate the role of the government in the economy.
Read Sharon Beder's book ALONE and the story should be easy, Brad. You just don't want to face up to the truth of it. That's your problem. Moreover, for every Kahan there are hundred's of Mann's, Hansen's, Mahlmann's, Treneberth's et al. Those downplaying the human impacts of warming are tiny and are growing smaller ever year as more data come in.
... and Brad, we aren't discussing Kahan, the Professor of Psychology are we here?
I suspect we are, in which case your argument is shredded further. I explained above that very, very few statured scientists are climate change sceptics. By that I mean most of the sceptics have mediocre CVs. There are FEW exceptions.
That should say something. To you and Chammy, apparently, a medicocre pedigree doesn't mean much. Well... it should.
"However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community"
No it sure as hell hasn't. And it also hasn't shown that the climate change denial community is large. Because it isn't. It hasn't shown that the climate change denial community is made up of statured scientists for the most part, because it isn't. It hasn't shown that the deniers publish much in the way of evidence in peer-reviewed journals to support their arguments because they don't. And it hasn't shown that many, perhaps most of the scientists in the denial community are not ideologically driven, because there is a lot of evidence that a large number of them are, as evidenced by their associations with corporate front and PR groups. You need to do a bit more reading, Brad.
I'm going to wind this up by saying that its important to be polite, and at least to me Brad has been. That being said, his views are clearly gleaned from very few sources. Chammy is perhaps worse in this regard. Debating Brad and Chammy will only achieve something if they can bring something new to the table. They can't. Its the same old stuff packaged and re-packaged as some kind of pseudo-intellectual discourse, when there is abundant information available - that neither of them has sourced - which bring down their thin arguments like a house of cards. Until I see them produce something new, its a waste of time. Science has moved on, as evidenced by the sheer volume of studies published in the world leading scientific journals (the latest one I sourced yesterday in SCIENCE).
I also defend my statement. The planet is heading towards hell in a hand-basket in my honest, personal opinion as a senior scientist with some pedigree, based not only on climate change, but on a suite of human induced stressors that are undermining the health and resilience of the complex adaptive systems upon which civilization depends. The evidence for this is even more clear cut, except of course among largely the same band of pseudo-intellectuals who run blogs and have love-ins with corporate funded think tanks. I've battled these people for the past 15 years and I will continue to do so. More scientists need to take the lead from Edward O. Wilson, George Schaller, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich, Tom Lovejoy, Peter Raven, Stuart Pimm, James Hansen, Jared Diamond and others who have stepped outside of the laboratory and lecture hall to communicate the predicament to the general population. They knew what they were likely to face when they did so (as I did over Lomborg), but they felt that they were meeting a public responsibility. They indeed are.
"However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community”
No it sure as hell hasn’t.
Jeff, the Abstract of the best-known paper by Kahan (who's a CAGW believer, by the way) begins:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
(Emphasis as in original.)
And it also hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is large. Because it isn’t.
I know—it's tiny, because the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.
It hasn’t shown that the climate change denial community is made up of statured scientists for the most part, because it isn’t.
I know—the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.
Jeff, climate change denial doesn't exist. It's a straw-man (though I don't think your intention is to use it as one).
I’m going to wind this up by saying that its important to be polite, and at least to me Brad has been.
Why the hell wouldn't I be? :-) You've always been polite to me!
(I must admit, however, that I'm not crazy about your repeated claims that Chameleon is dumb—she isn't, and I'm far from convinced that you're paying sufficiently close attention to what she's actually arguing, as opposed to what you might stereotypically expect her to be arguing.)
Besides, the whole concept that people could raise their voices at each other and / or come to blows about the climate is supremely stupid, and would have been unbelievable to a previous generation. The weather is meant to be the prototypical topic of polite conversation.
However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community.
Dat ain't necessarily so, the things that your liable to read ....is clarified over here.
Besides, how do you explain chameleon, Duff, GSW, OP, Jonas, PentaxZ, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all. And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.
"However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community.
Typical unsupported "Brad" bullshit. Let's look at this, his most stupidissimus of moronic assertions with something approaching objectivity here before once again dismissing "Brad" as the premier-dumbass, cock-blatteringly paleo-imbecilic, meme-regurgitating, know-nothing blot on the space-time continuum.
Apologies regulars, but "Brad's" unfailing and repeated stupidity is bringing out the hyphenated li'll mike in me.
your cute little pie chart has fuck-all to do with the topic, which (as I've already pointed out!) was summed up nicely by Kahan himself as follows:
On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly LESS likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
(Emphasis added in the forlorn hope of imparting comprehension to you, which so far has proven to be very much like transfusing blood to a stone.)
If only the cheks hadn't mated themselves for centuries, perhaps they wouldn't be cursed with such feeble-minded descendants.
What I'm trying to say is that you're a retard.
Without a pie-chart, though, I suspect you won't even understand that.
Apologies if you've already answered the following, but as I can't find a response to it I'd like to gently :-) remind you that I've asked you this a couple of times:
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?
If I seem overly-insistent on hearing your thoughts about this, it's because I've never had any trouble changing the minds of AGW deniers myself. So I'm dying to know what difficulties you're encountering, and who knows: perhaps I can suggest a way 'round them?
The [denier] count seems to have suddenly declined around here. Coincidence, do you think?
No, I don't think it's a coincidence, Señor D. Byrd.
I think it's an intuitively-obvious epiphenomenon of the fact that CAGW infidels are socially adept (esp. compared to unsophisticated avian advocates of the capnophobist orthodoxy), and therefore have lives, and therefore have weekends.
"The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones".
This means, of course, squat. Did Kahan poll the scientists doing the actual research? ow did he and his co-auhors evaluate ' scientific literacy'? Were they all herded into a lecture theater and given exams covering a range of fields in science? Or one about climate? This paragraph you cited is. for lack of a better word, bullshit. It doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a person's knowledge threshold exceeding a specific level in the field of climate science. I am sure that in terms of general knowledge, a lot of people would score well in what they know about basic ecology and /or evolutionary biology. But if you were to go beyond the surface veneer and get into more detailed theories and hypotheses that are taught to professional scientists in the field, they'd be blank. The fact is that there are few qualified climate change sceptics who are top scientists with a strong pedigree in the field. Just as there are very few top scientists who are creationists amongst scientists studying ecology and evolutionary biology.
End of story, Brad. Game, set and match. What this means is that Kahan needs to up the ante and increase the expertise threshold in his vapid research. I couldn't give a damn if people with a high school education knew as much about climate science as people who had business degrees. Neither group knows as much as scientists trained in the field. And as I said, most of those with the best qualifications agree (1) that humans are forcing climate, and (2) that the potential consequences of business-as-usual may be dire.
As I said, Kahan's work is a distraction. A meaningless exercise. He ought to learn a bit of science himself before writing more such piffle.
"On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones”
Please refer to my last posting. How does Kahan evaluate from members of the general public, "scientific literacy"? Did he give all respondents a questionnaire? Make them take an exam on general science and climate science? Ask them what their level of science education was?
In the end, it boils down to what qualifications the respondents possess in the relevant fields. I have a PhD, but I would not say that this gives me greater acumen in quantum physics than a person with a high school science education when it comes to theories in that field. I never studied physics, and admit that I know very little about it in spite of my science education to doctorate level. My degree relates to what I studied: ecology and evolutionary biology. And even there, I have been forced to specialize.
Essentially, Kahan has created a strawman of immense proportions with his throwaway puff-piece. No wonder that the denial weblogs went viral with it. No wonder you dredge it up. But as I said, it means diddly-squat, because a supposedly better education in science in no way can be correlated with a better knowledge of climate science. To go there, Kahan would have to evaluate the credentials of people up the chain and in that field. And then his little thesis would come unglued.
As I said, a worthless distraction. You'd think psychologists would have better things to do, but if they want to gain attention from the usual suspects, then again writing said pieces are a way to do it, even when they mean squat.
all your questions about Kahan's work are answered in the paper. No, he didn't question the scientists themselves, because he was interested in the public perception of climate change risks. The inescapable downside of this approach (which you go a little overboard in calling "vapid" and "piffle") was noted by me in a message to you on the previous page:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
... the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really is a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect in this genre of study is essentially to place the population on a curve based on how much high-school and socially-topical science trivia they have at their command.
Dan Kahan’s research impresses me because he’s skeptical of his own findings, he actually refines his own hypothesis from one paper to the next, he seeks out interaction with deniers—and so, to paraphrase the homage I paid to you, Kahan is “the opposite of Stephan Lewandowsky”—and he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist. Plus he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I mentioned his findings as they are directly responsive to your criticisms of the "denier" community as a whole, not just the minority of us who happen to be scientists.
When you say,
But if you were to go beyond the surface veneer and get into more detailed theories and hypotheses that are taught to professional scientists in the field, they’d be blank.
Who would? Non-scientists? Yes, of course, but that means nothing and could be said of both “sides” identically.
The fact is that there are few qualified climate change sceptics who are top scientists with a strong pedigree in the field.
Not being a dog-breeder myself, I’ll have to take your word on their pedigree. However, the prior question must be: what do you imagine a qualified climate change sceptic is, in a world in which all scientifically-educated people are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual?
Did you also see my response to your argumentum ad curriculum vitae :-) , Jeff?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider myself to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32.
Congratulations, Jeff.
You’re so equal, you’re like the Albert Einstein of scientists!
That’s 125 more papers than Michael Mann had to his name when he was hailed for overturning the MWP theory and chosen by the President of the US as his personal climate advisor.
Sure, you’re a fair way behind Richard Lindzen, but still: your credibility is impressive, I won’t deny it.
When you say stuff about the climate, it’s 63.5 times truer than MBH98, and more than half as true as what Professor Lindzen says!
And that’s how the scientific method works, kids!
Right?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
You seem to suspect Kahan of being motivated by a desire to make CAGW skeptics look better than they are, but if you read his paper you’ll see he started out fully subscribed to the SCT, the Science Comprehension Theory, in which people (like me) who don’t see climate change as a threat know less about basic high-school science than people (like him) who are seriously concerned about climate change.
You allege that
Essentially, Kahan has created a strawman of immense proportions with his throwaway puff-piece. No wonder that the denial weblogs went viral with it. No wonder you dredge it up. But as I said, it means diddly-squat, because a supposedly better education in science in no way can be correlated with a better knowledge of climate science. To go there, Kahan would have to evaluate the credentials of people up the chain and in that field. And then his little thesis would come unglued.
But my response would be:
1. you don’t know what the results would be until someone actually asks those questions
2. you have no evidence that Kahan wanted to overturn the SCT—indeed, as a CAGW believer himself, he fell into the natural inclination to assume the SCT was true (as you can see in his Results section) until he actually analysed the answers
3. if you think a higher-level version of the SCT would fare better empirically (e.g., that climate-worrying climate experts have a better knowledge of climate science than climate-apathetic climate experts), then why not let Prof Kahan know about your hypothesis on his blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog)—I guarantee he’d consider your idea with an interested and open mind as a possible research direction
[pretty pictures] dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under.
Mutually? How so? Which are you admitting to? What misapprehensions do you believe I am labouring under? Keep the focus on the data. Don't be evasive. Don't indulge in tergiversation ;-)
***
Incidentally, a long time ago I said to you that if we ignored Mann’s work the big picture would not change.
And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.
As a Renaissance man, I pursue both of them with equal avidity.
Aye, I guess that calling yourself a "rennaisance man" is a lot better for your ego than "clueless moron on multiple topics".
Your assertion is likewise complete bullshit as Lionel pointed out with respect to your displayed apathy for the denialist slug horde here. You only care about being right and someone who agrees with you for ideological reasons (the aforementioned slug horde) do that. so you don't deign to notice what they do.
Your desire for science is entirely to degrade the reality to stave off actions you abhor because you're a libertarian idiot.
Sorry - here are the pretty pictures that go with # 19:
1/ Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of the TOA radiative imbalance *increasing* as a result of *increasing* CO2 forcing ends up in the global ocean.
2/ GHG forcing (predominantly CO2) has become increasingly dominant since the early 1960s: forcings and global average surface temperatures (5yr means; top). 'W-M GHG' (purple) indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. 'All' (red) is the net of all forcings. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions. Solar (yellow) can be seen to be rather less significant than is sometimes supposed.
"[pretty pictures] dispel misunderstandings such as we’re obviously and mutually labouring under."
Mutually? How so? Which are you admitting to? What misapprehensions do you believe I am labouring under?
Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say, as you've said too many times to count:
1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.
As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say… well, I can’t think of an example; but I’m sure if you really furrow your brow, there must be some occasion on which I’ve failed to comprehend your POV. Not as catastrophically as you’ve misunderstood mine, perhaps; but still, I must have misunderstood you on some matter.
Calling the incomprehension “mutual,” therefore, was what’s known as a polite presumption.
So, was that it? All that typing in order to discover that the neo-Renaissance wunderkind believes that ECS is 1.5C because... well, because he just does?
The argument for the estimate I gave [S< 1.5C for 2 x CO2] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you of this, so I’m not trying to do so.
Since then, Brad has resolutely refused to answer question number two:
2/ On what specific evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
Your assertion is likewise complete bullshit as Lionel pointed out with respect to your displayed apathy for the denialist slug horde here. You only care about being right
Not so. I also care about not being wrong.
I think these are both excellent goals in life. In fact I consider it our duty, as apes privileged with rational consciousness, to do everything in our power to be
1. right
and
2. not wrong
about as many things as possible.
You should try it one day.
and someone who agrees with you for ideological reasons (the aforementioned slug horde) do that. so you don’t deign to notice what they do.
Wait—I do or I don't notice that my fellow deniers also seek to be right about shit?
Try and slow down, make up your mind and write coherently.
Your desire for science is entirely to degrade the reality to stave off actions you abhor because you’re a libertarian idiot.
LOL! I can just imagine "Degrade the Reality" becoming a slogan as resonant, binding and universally-recognized as "Hide the Decline," if only I'd said it.
And how many times do I have to explain to you, Wow:
I'm no more of a libertarian than the next guy. If you think adults should be free to drink a glass of red wine at dinner without the Mutawat or Elliot Ness kicking in the front door, if you believe adults have a right to get tattoos without making themselves persons of interest to the Ministry For The Promotion of Virtue and The Prevention of Vice, then congratulations: you’re a “libertarian idiot.”
I won’t deny it: like many educated people, I read John Stuart Mill's seminal book in college. I agreed with the basic premium he placed on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which must be pursued on the individual's own terms and in his / her own best judgement), but I also accepted that these rights should be upheld only to the extent that one doesn’t infringe on the identical rights of one’s fellow human beings.
And none of these ideas is remotely controversial in the Western world today, Wow. They might have raised eyebrows in Victorian England, but today, everyone you know is a libertarian.
Reading Mill’s Libertarianism did not make me want to vote Ron Paul.
Furthermore, no aspect of libertarianism is incompatible with the idea that the government is entitled and obliged to intervene where necessary to protect citizens from common harm.
And yes,that means I support laws against industrial pollution. Anyone who ”abhors” such legislation has got serious issues.
If you think any of this makes me unusual among CAGW deniers, I’m afraid you’re confused.
Consider the denier Freeman Dyson, the “Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources”:
Coal, Dyson says, contains “real pollutants” like soot, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, “really nasty stuff that makes people sick and looks ugly.” These are “rightly considered a moral evil,” he says, but they “can be reduced to low levels by scrubbers at an affordable cost.” He says Hansen “exploits” the toxic elements of burning coal as a way of condemning the carbon dioxide it releases, “which cannot be reduced at an affordable cost, but does not do any substantial harm.”
Regulations are absolutely necessary for us humanoids, including environmental regulations. Otherwise, we’re pigs as a species; every river would be full of filth. It is a question of degree, not of the underlying need or justification for regulations. We need them, there’s no doubt of that. ...
Regulating CO2 is an incredibly stupid idea, but even if it weren’t, the EPA is not set up to handle it. Congress, you need to act here …
There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”
There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.
The argument for the estimate I gave [S< 1.5C for 2 x CO2] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature..."
LOL !.... how far back did you have to go in the paleocommentary record to dig up that gem? As I've said countless times since that day of yore, I no longer think all the evidence points to a low ECS, and I explicitly recognize that you've cited evidence which would argue for a higher value.
But go ahead—keep assailing a position I no longer hold if it's the best you can manage.
Since then, Brad has resolutely refused to answer question number two:
2/ On what specific evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
I won't belabor the point Brad. I do enjoy reading your responses. You put a lot of effort into them as well as thought. I will, however make a couple of point here.
First re: Kahan's research. A couple of years ago there was a small controversy in Holland because the Minister of Education suggested that the teaching of "Intelligent Design" alongside evolutionary theory might not be a bad idea. She was prompted by the fact that fundamentalist christians in the United States see Holland as a sort of European 'beachhead' to promote creationist nonsense. Her statement was rightfully condemned by the scientific community by-and-large in this country. However, coincidentally, they took a poll amongst staff (teaching, scientists and catering) at Wageningen University (WU) on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. WU is one of the top 70 universities in the wold according to the latest rankings and is of profound interest to me because the research institute where I work is next door to it and I collaborate with scientists there.
It turns out that almost 50% of tenured staff (teaching and science in various disciplines`) actually supported some form of intelligent design theory, whereas the lowest support incredibly enough for this theory (28%) came from the general catering staff. I and many of my colleagues were shocked and dismayed at this poll, but does it indicate that the higher level of scientific education amongst those supporting the theory of intelligent design are correct? Of course not. Many of those who supported it worked in research that has no evolutionary underpinning, like agriculture, Essentially, the point I am making is that one can read whatever they want out of so-called polls. I stand by what i said and believe that Kahan's findings belong in the bin.
As far as scientific pedigree goes, its interesting that you bring up Richard Lindzen. Ah, good old Richard Lindzen. The one and same who once had to testify before Congress that he received 2,500$ a day in consulting fees from the fossil fuel lobby? By dredging up Lindzen, of course you have shot yourself in the foot. A point I make repeatedly is that the climate change denial/sceptic/downplay/ignore/adapt or whatever-you-call-it lobby has long had to rely on a few statured scientists in defending their arguments. For twenty years or so its been primarily Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Baliunas, Soon, the Idso clan, Michaels, Singer, Balling and a few others. In 1998 a memo was leaked from the American Petroleum Institute in which the API were worried that the climate change denial lobby would "lose credibility" if it relied on the same tired, old faces to promote their point of view. So where are we, 15 years later? Relying on the same tired, old faces of denial. Given the bags of money at their disposal, if there was a huge groundswell of support amongst respected climate scientists defending the arguments of Lindzen and co., we'd sure know about it. With corporate money backing them, it would be shouted from every vestibule of denial. Yet, here you are dredging up the name of one 73 year old and clearly controversial scientist who once received consulting money (a pretty hefty fee as it turns out at the time) from the fossil fuel lobby.
You are standing on ever thinner ice, Brad. Be careful or the ice will break beneath you and there won't be any more to defend.
I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge "I'm a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind".
Hell, I can imagine him saying it to the arresting officer whilst still dripping blood and gore.
"I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge “I’m a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind”.
Hey Wow, this sounds like a quote from Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama - ANY recent prime minister or president for that matter. Its called "double-speak" and would make Orwell cringe.
He says Hansen “exploits” the toxic elements of burning coal as a way of condemning the carbon dioxide it releases, “which cannot be reduced at an affordable cost, but does not do any substantial harm.”
Before endorsing a statement claiming that Hansen exploits the toxic elements in coal, which should include mercury and also radiation hazards, maybe you should just read Hansen, 'Storms of my Grandchildren' would be a good start. Then you will appreciate that Dyson is oversimplifying to diminish one who should be a colleague.
Similarly frequently Lindzen takes a tilt at other, non-specified because he doesn't want to lose his pants in a lawsuit, scientists accusing them of fraud.
One trail that follows Lindzen can be found by following from here: Lindzengate – one year on. Which starts by reviewing again Lindzen's appallingly obfuscatory presentation at Westminster about this time last year. His presentation is riddled with erroneous conclusions and ill founded assumptions. He only got away with this because the lay audience heard what they wanted to hear.
Lindzen has his very own button at SkS (as do Michaels, Spencer and Christy, of whom the latter has recently added a further strike not yet recorded therein): Lindzen Illusions.
The problem is that you appear not to have created an accurate and more complete cognitive framework of not only the multiple scientific aspects, diverse fields of research, that underpin what we (the broad community of the scientist involved and those of us who have studied much literature over many years) currently understand about the climate and where it is heading but also of the attempts of industry (many and varied) to finance a coterie of one time scientists willing to create the fog of doubt.
You asked which of the reading list supplied should be consulted, the short answer is all of the above, although I, and David, have made some specific suggestion along the way.
Having enjoyed my time at sea, although any 'weather' (Force 11 and 12 through the Pentland Firth and The Minch, hurricane off Cape Hatteras and other interesting times) was mostly a backdrop to my day to day activities, if not disabled I would love to have a shot at practical Oceanography.
My journey studying weather and climate started whilst at university, as a mature student, with a 1985 print of the Fourth edition of this book Atmosphere, Weather and Climate.
BTW citations involving WUWT do not impress, that you should use such raises another red flag to add to your frequent use of CAGW which originated with such, propaganda, sources (also listed in a nearby thread). It is propaganda, under the badge of advocacy, that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Christy and Plimer are now engaged, not science. Indeed with some it goes back to the early 1990s and even earlier - check out Michaels - Greening Earth - Western Fuels.
Coal should be phased out ASAP, if not sooner, not least because of the CO2 connection but also because of the damage to terrain, ecosystems and water supplies caused by its extraction. By the same token, tar sands and shale gas (fracking) is utter madness and should cease forthwith.
Well, Blair's used the "If I did wrong, then God will judge me".
BULLSHIT.
I don't remember seeing God at the bloody polling booth.
And if that was an acceptable method of sorting out justice, then why not just off Tony and if he done wrong, then God will sort him out, and if he done good, then God will give him a reward, right?
Ah, no, it seems that even the godbotherers would rather wait and get a reward after THEY managed a full and active life.
Pity he didn't let others do the same and not invade.
Calling the incomprehension “mutual,” therefore, was what’s known as a polite presumption.
No, it's what I'd call a calculated misrepresentation. I am not labouring under any misconceptions regarding this conversation. I dislike this sort of sly shit, Bradley.
As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won't explain on what basis you do so. Hence the term 'denier'.
Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control ('an incredibly stupid idea'; 'it's just stupid') but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Is is politics?
Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it's abundantly clear that this is not the case?
***
Not a word about Marcott? You surprise me. I told you the Mannean hockey stick was an irrelevance and so it is. Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann.
Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it’s abundantly clear that this is not the case?
I might well ask what motivates you to *secretly hate* Belgians, BBD? Sure, you'll deny considering or treating them any worse than any other ethnic group til you're blue in the face; we know, we know. You can spare us the innocent act, BBD, for no matter how many times I prove to you that a Belgian is a genetically, karyotypically complete person like any other, no many how many mDNA studies I show you confirming the theory of our common ancestry, deep down you have no intention of ever changing your mind and viewing Belgians as real, full human beings, do you?
Is it politics?
Is that where your unspoken and unacknowledged Belgophobia comes from?
Lindzen has 218 papers in his career, and the most citations his work has ever received in one year is just over 300 (for comparison I had 516 citation last year for my own scientific papers). Michael Mann's work was cited almost 1,000 times last year, and although he is 25 years younger than Lindzen he already has 154 publications and virtually the same number of total citations as Lindzen.
If this was a tennis match, the score would be Mann-Lindzen 6-2, 6-1, 6-4.
If Lindzen is the poster boy for denial, then that lot really is in trouble.
All Lindzen (and Spencer's) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.
Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):
Oops. Too many links = automoderation. Let's chop this one up:
All Lindzen (and Spencer’s) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.
Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):
you accuse me of a premeditated deception (emphasis added):
“Calling the incomprehension “mutual,” therefore, was what’s known as a polite presumption.”
No, it’s what I’d call a calculated misrepresentation. I am not labouring under any misconceptions regarding this conversation. I dislike this sort of sly shit, Bradley.
But it wasn’t a deliberate untruth, or an inadvertent untruth, or even an inadvertent half-truth. It was the truth. I’ve explained to you too many times to count—so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now—that:
you misunderstand me every single time you say, as you’ve said too many times to count:
“1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required.”
As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again. The only mystery that remains is:
Was that a calculated attempt to misrepresent my views, or the result of a persistent inability to understand English?
”The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.”
Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS.
Nonsense. ECS is just a temperature range—it couldn’t possibly “say” (imply, indicate, entail, mean or prove) that AGW will be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with even if AGW were going to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.
Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’)
Enough of your fictions, BBD. I grow tired of having to rebutt the argumentum ad imaginationem.
I describe emissions control as “stupid” because I’ve considered it, not because I’ve refused to do so.
Readers who look back at my actual comment can see for themselves how dishonest it is to use that second quote (“It’s just stupid.”) in service to the insinuation that I refuse to consider emissions control. They can see for themselves that I meant emissions control was just a stupid idea as opposed to an a priori abhorrent idea. My claim, which you’ve mangled, was that CAGW deniers have no ideological motive to refuse to consider emissions control.
but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Is is politics?
No.
Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it’s abundantly clear that this is not the case?
That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.
Not a word about Marcott? You surprise me.
That’s simply another way of admitting that you don’t understand the very basics of my thinking or behavior.
If you did, you’d be aware that I’m loath to comment on papers I haven’t read.
I told you the Mannean hockey stick was an irrelevance and so it is.
Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.
Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann.
You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?
Let me guess: because he’s so irrelevant.
So irrelevant that you’ll defend the scientific propriety of his, ahem, methodological and ethical innovations to the hilt.
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/rainforests-not-at-risk-of-shrinki…
Found this under 'science stories' in google news this morning.
Haven't read the paper yet but this report does seem to indicate that this new research supports other recent papers re tropical scenarios.
Have been away ( & very busy) and have not had much time to catch up on conversations here.
I have noticed the conversation re Kahan however.
JeffH, you do realise that Kahan would be a 'supporter' of much of what you say and in much of what you believe don't you?
Also JeffH,
re comment #5
I absolutely agree that people should attempt to be polite.
May I respectfully suggest that indiscriminately using the term 'denier' for anyone who questions your statements and/or asks for clarification of some of your statements is not being polite?
And David B,
May I ask why you have linked this twice? http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthrop…
I don't really think there is any question that the planet and therefore the climate/environment would be different without the presence of mankind and the concurrent development of farming and agriculture.
Your second link also partly points this out.
One of the most natural things that mankind does (even from the caveman days) is to use and alter the environment to suit mankind.
It is not a perfect story and there have been mistakes, but in the big picture it is certainly not all a bad story.
IMHO much of current behaviour has seriously lost some perspective.
Farming and agriculture is one of the major reasons why the human race is such a successful species.
This is one of the most interesting comments so far—thanks.
Given how much harm a mere 0.8 K warming has done already I find a claim that 4 K ‘can be taken in stride’ preposterous.
1. Do you, in fact, think we have four to five times as much AGWahead of us as behind us?
2. If so, how long do you think it will take for the next 3.2—4.0 degrees' worth of AGW to occur, given the current levels (i.e. bugger-all) of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction?
3. What do you see as the principal harms and benefits of global warming so far? Has it been net detrimental?
For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.
Yes you can, due to the following combination of reasons:
1/ Goklany has no special qualifications in either climate science or risk management
2/ Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.
Hardly surprising to find Brad - yet again - sourcing his opinions from a crank blog.
2/ Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.
Anthony Watts emphatically acknowledges the reality of climate change, so the obvious question is whether the rest of your comment is any more trustworthy than the bold-faced lie above.
"Any suggestions for collective nouns?
A mendacity of deniers?
A pomposity of deniers?
An embarrassment of deniers?
A delusion of deniers?
A pustule of deniers?
A flock of deniers.
A confusion of deniers?
A benthos?
A Conspiracy of Deniers.
A baffle of deniers.
A glib of deniers.
A falsehood of deniers.
A crank of deniers.
A prattle of deniers.
a frauditorium full of deniers
a Bishop Hill of deniers
a junket of deniers
a lyin’s den of deniers"
Misologists really shouldn't attempt philology.
The answer is a liard of deniers. Four liards make one sou.
In reference to #34, an irrelevance of deniers. What a conga-line of Montfordian suckholes, and how better to give Tara an insight into their pathology...
More "Brad" mangling in progress. Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.
"Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann". You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?
Au contraire for despite denier attempted spin hiding behind a veil of sarcasm, Mann's reconstruction was the first time such an undertaking had been attempted and as such was groundbreaking. In that sense alone it added to the sum of human knowledge.
The point (as if you didn't know) that BBD is making is that Mann's findings have been replicated so many times now that despite denier fixation on his iconic heap-big-magic hockey stick totem - it's not the only one, but it's still the one the unwashed majority of deniers fixate on.
"Brad's" addiction to crankery, crank blog information and his curious reticence to substantiate his crank blog formed opinions continues apace. Nothing new (since about 2009 at the latest) there.
Goklany has long eben associated with corporate-funded right wing think tanks. He is a perfect example of a denier who cannot help but wear his political ideology on his sleeve. To be honest, he is one of the worst people that you could cite. Here is a rundown of Goklany's bonafides:
Career: 30 publications (since 1973), 139 citations TOTAL, and only 5 last year. Five! I get more in less than a week.
How desperate are you Brad? How far to the bottom of the barrel are you willing to scrape to come up with what ytou consider to be ligitimiate voices of denial? What this shows is that your arguments depend largely on a few dissenting voices, and those diussenting voices more often than not are or have been directly or indirectly on the corporate fossil fuel payroll at some point. And you expect rational responses to this?! Come on Brad. You are painting yourself into a corner. My advice is to leave here gracefully while you still have a thin veneer of credibility. The more you write, the deeper you sink.
Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again.
The questions are *not* 'falsely premised'. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me. Evasive and dishonest in equal measure.
That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.
WTF? You're calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.
As for the 'personalise and demonise' tactics you and your fellow lying denialists use against Mann and Jones - they fool nobody outside the denialist bubble. The rest of us understand that M&J are not proxies for climate science. We see the misdirection, the trickery, the dishonest rhetoric for what they are. Clearly we are cleverer than you, Brad. Or we don't share your motivations, at the very least.
You describe emissions controls as 'stupid' because you are motivated to do so by your worldview. You make idiotic remarks about ECS for the same reason. You are, as everyone can see, a denier motivated by your politics.
We'd have more time for you if you had the integrity to admit this openly instead of constantly lying about it.
I totally agree withg David Benson. The curret modest increase in atmsopheric C02 concentrations is already having serious consequences, and that's ifwe ignore temporal lags in some effects, such as those on antural systems which operate over larger scales. To think that humanity can 'adapt' to or 'manage' a 3-4C rise is the sprint of folly. In other words, profoundly and dangerously naive and ignorant.
You describe emissions controls as ‘stupid’ because you are motivated to do so by your worldview. You make idiotic remarks about ECS for the same reason. You are, as everyone can see, a denier motivated by your politics.
ROFL!
Don't stop there, BBD! Go on, elaborate on what my political worldview is.* I insist.
I could do with a good laugh :-)
We’d have more time for you if you had the integrity to admit this openly instead of constantly lying about it.
Oh, like the way you candidly own up to your disturbing eugenicist ideas, BBD?
(Dear readers: for a masterclass in denial, observe how BBD now pretends he has no idea what I'm referring to. Ready... set... deny!)
*And please, BBD: don't shield yourself behind vacuous weaselries like "Libertarian! Cappuccino capitalist! Paleo-neo-Party-Of-Lincolnist! Extreme centrist!," or similar inanities applicable to every man and his dog. Have the dignity to take a falsifiable stab at the question: what are my politics?
Anthony Watts isn't a denier. Who knew?
And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn't a duck?
Perhaps Lotharsson was a bit harsh on you—you do show signs of high-school-level cortical functioning from time to time. For example, this précis was very insightful:
“WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now?”
Of course you’re a racist.
Racists never say they are a racist.
You’ve never said you were.
Bingo.
Rather like the way I avoid espousing right-wing ideology, voting right-wing, admitting I'm right-wing, or otherwise behaving so as to suggest right-wing sympathies, BBD likewise plays his racism extremely close to his chest. The duplicitous bastard!
You have not responded to my main point above. Evasive verbiage, yes. Substance, no.
I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won’t explain on what basis you do so. All you do is quote rubbish from WTFUWT. This is less than inadequate.
Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’) but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above. Please address this point directly
Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again.
It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* 'falsely premised'. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me.
It is extremely clear that you are being serially, persistently *evasive*.
"And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn’t a duck?"
Ah, that old canard.
Pay attention, chek, while I explain this as simply as I know how:
In Vince's words, in Vince's system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.
Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.
Get it? That's not "quacking," it's mooing. Barking. Neighing. But Vince inhabits an alternative reality. He's in a barnyard of his own. Technically, as you appear to agree with him, perhaps I should call it a folie à deux.
You ask David B. Benson this instead of answering my questions, which is irritating:
1. Do you, in fact, think we have four to five times as much AGW ahead of us as behind us?
2. If so, how long do you think it will take for the next 3.2—4.0 degrees’ worth of AGW to occur, given the current levels (i.e. bugger-all) of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction?
Obviously it all depends on emissions reductions. Which you think are a 'stupid idea'.
I hoped it was obvious from the question itself ("given the current levels [i.e. bugger-all] of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction") that I meant assuming little or no emissions reductions.
I'll try to remember to spoon-feed you next time, BBD.
Keyes, the slant of your continuing distorted view of the field of climate science (many disciplines) and of the history of the denial machine clearly indicates that your grounding in these topics is far from complete and you really need to do allot of reading to catch up hence our continuing attempts to bring relevant and worthy literature to your attention.
Your cognitive framework is distorted due to lack of understanding of many essential concepts.
Consider that achieving ECS is rather like collecting the gold at the end of the rainbow for as long as we continue to add CO2 then the point of equilibrium moves ever further into the future. The concept of a single doubling of CO2 (from pre-industrial levels), although meaningful in the context of a specific temperature increase is rather arbitrary in the context extended time.
Also the current rate of increase in CO2 levels (and other GHGs) is unprecedented.
I think that's the nub of it BBD.
Anything that "Brad" can say will only look stupid in daylight because it's either based on hopes'n'wisful thinking, or discredited (or easily discreditable) crank bullshit.
It's ostensibly easier to avoid and evade rather than confront, which is what "Brad" cannot face up to, hence these pusillanimous distractions and 'look squirrels' pointing to unskilled sources.
For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.
Why not?
You seem to have accepted it with no skeptical inquiry into it based solely on it saying AGW is nothing to worry about.
That's even less lucid and responsive than your usual fare, BBD.
Comment #58 reads, in its entirety:
"Nick tries his hand…
In reference to #34, an irrelevance of deniers. What a conga-line of Montfordian suckholes, and how better to give Tara an insight into their pathology…
BBD, I told you:
"Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again."
You replied, turning singular to plural for motives know only to yourself:
"It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* ‘falsely premised’. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me."
Yet the premise of this question, which you asked over and over, is false:
"1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required."
Here is the answer I have never refused to give, with apologies to David Benson and other readers for the tedious repetitiousness of the lesson I'm trying to convey:
"As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous."
In case that's not clear enough, what it means is that I fully appreciate the fact that AGW is potentially dangerous.
BK “That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it."
BBD “WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.”
Indeed, and that coming from someone (BK) who described John Cook as mongoloid.
Yes.
And?
As I've pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky's halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.”
So what's the implied (though non-exisent according to present knowledge) conditional, brainbox? We'll be saved by a cavalry charge of pink unicorns, you utterly ignorant, smug, scientifically illiterate moron?
As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
Such a vituperative display of inaccurate and factually wrong adjectives shows John Cook really succeeded in rattling your cage little man, and showed you for the worthless word merchant you are, "Brad".
And by showed, I of course mean to yourself, which is unforgivable in "Brad" world.
As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
And you are sick, seek professional help before continuing with more tergiversation.
Since you are too stupid and dishonest to write this down yourself, I am going to fix it for you:
As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW will turn out to be dangerous unless emissions are limited.
There, you lying fuckwit. That wasn't so hard was it.
BradK @#58,
:-) :-)
The behaviour at the March thread is indeed painful to read.
It appears that totally counter productive name calling is acceptable yet a comment like mine above @#51 was in moderation for nearly 24 hours.
No wonder there is such a backlash in the Australian electorate.
The WA election results indicate very bad news for the current Fed govt.
just when I thought you were becoming tolerant of heretics, the old Dominican instinct kicks in and you rant...
Since you are too stupid and dishonest to write this down yourself, I am going to fix it for you:
... followed by a declaration of a belief I don't believe, and am too lucid and honest to write myself:
I don’t dispute that AGW will turn out to be dangerous unless emissions are limited.
Why do you and your fellow domini canes feel the need to put words in people's mouths? Is it impossible to defend the orthodoxy honestly?
Even if the international community never lifts a finger to limit CO2 emissions (and presumably it won't), I am not remotely convinced that AGW is going to be net-harmful.
The most fascinating thing about your little forgery / ventriloquism, however, is that it suggests an awareness on your part that AGW has not yet proven "dangerous."
Perhaps the Inquisition and its victims are of a more similar mind on such matters than a certain party would like to admit, eh BBD? ;-)
"As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?"
Such a vituperative display of inaccurate and factually wrong adjectives shows John Cook really succeeded in rattling your cage little man, and showed you for the worthless word merchant you are, “Brad”.
Not at all, chek. Adjectives are just for fun!
As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an idiot, philistine and retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
"As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?"
And you are sick, seek professional help before continuing with more tergiversation.
Gosh, you're so right, Lionel—I really need to stop beating round the bush! Enough with the equivocation, prevarication, ambivalence, indecision, mealy-mouthed mustelism and umming-and-ahhing...
Note to self: stop being so damned polite. Tell us what you really think of John Cook.
Breathtaking example of denial from Brad here: who knew Anthony Watts was not a denier?
Who knew the man who said, "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong", and then refused to accept BEST's result, and continued to promote his fact-free and evidently incorrect premise, was in denial?
Who knew that Anthony Watts' "Surface Stations" schemozzle wasn't the epitome of denial in action?
Who knew that this crank blogger unfamiliar with further education and on the payroll of Heartland Institute, an organisation devoted to lying about climate change, wasn't a denier?
Who knew the man whose blog provides a platform to every cranky denialist in town, no matter how egregiously denialist, was a denier?
Who knew the man who even today claims the US temperature record is wrong, despite being proven wrong by 3 independent studies, including his own, is a denier?
Who knew that Anthony Watts' continued promotion of the serially-incorrect Lindzen as a valid source of climate-related information wasn't yet another symptom of his denial?
Moderator/s
Why have I been placed in moderation?
I was not warned and nor have I used bad language or been blatantly rude to anyone.
Have I made a mistake with an email address or have I inadvertently broken a rule or messed up a link or something like that?
further on the ‘dangerousness’ of AGW, I can’t resist quoting some choice pronouncements from Professor Mike Hulme—my emphasis:
‘Self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking… scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence.
Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.
The largest academic conference that has yet been devoted to the subject of climate change finished yesterday [March 12, 2009] in Copenhagen … [The] statement drafted by the conference’s Scientific Writing Team contained … a set of messages drafted largely before the conference … And the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically-motivated. All well and good.
There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups to latch on to, whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.
We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us… Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
Believe it or not, Hulme teaches science. He’s the founding director of the Tyndall Centre and Professor of Climate Change at the UEA. He prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author on the Climate Scenario Development chapter of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, as well as a contributing author on several other chapters.
Hey, since Bray thinks it's non science, indeed ANTI-science, to withhold your code, I wonder what you think now of Christy and Spencer withholding the code that they use for their satellite data conversion to temperature?
Hey, since [Brad] thinks it’s non science, indeed ANTI-science, to withhold your code, I wonder what you think now of Christy and Spencer withholding the code that they use for their satellite data conversion to temperature?
Short answer, minus crucial caveats:
I think it’s non-scientific, indeed anti-scientific.
Long answer, complete with crucial caveats:
1. I haven’t read anything about the incident but you're probably not telling the whole story. I don't say this because I regard Spencer and Christy as paragons of probity, but because I regard you as anything but. I’ll assume, though, for the sake of argument that you’re being totally honest and not leaving anything out that would reasonably be expected to alter my answer.
2. The scientifically-optimal course of action for C & S would be to disclose the source code.
3. Ideally they should do so by publishing the code (perhaps as an Appendix in the relevant scientific paper).
4. If, however, there are pragmatic, commercial or proprietary impediments to publishing the code, then the next-most acceptable practice would be to disclose it individually to anyone seeking to audit and/or replicate it. And by “anyone,” I mean on either “side” of the debate. This is a matter of principle, not partisanship.
5. Short of disclosing the code, one legitimate alternative would be to strictly perform the following steps:
— publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
— publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does, so that any interested, numerate and competent programmer can implement a functionally identical program without guesswork, and use said program to verify for him- or herself that it transforms the raw data into precisely the same temperature outputs that the authors got as their findings
6. The above principles assume they used in-house, hand-coded software. On the other hand, if they used off-the-shelf, closed-source commercial software, the requirements would be slightly different. In this case it may suffice to:
— publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
— publish the name and version number of the software product, and say exactly which features were used in which order—essentially, a “walkthrough” in enabling detail.
7. Short of satisfying any of the above conditions (unless I’ve overlooked some other scientifically legitimate solution), Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial.
Perhaps you recall that I mentioned Christy and Spencer and the 2005 UAH debacle to Brad a long time ago. Perhaps he didn't really understand the full implications.
The most fascinating thing about your little forgery / ventriloquism, however, is that it suggests an awareness on your part that AGW has not yet proven “dangerous.”
We've been through this. CO2 forcing is only beginning to have an effect. You've seen the graphs.
Contrarians generally fail to understand that overall, ‘AGW’ is only just starting to happen which is why the effects to date have been *minimal*.
What is required is that one looks at the *forcings*. If CO2 forcing continues to increase it is very obvious indeed that energy will continue to accumulate in the climate system at a similarly increasing rate. It is impossible to see why the extreme weather events that have characterised the first decade of the C21st will not become increasingly frequent and increasingly severe. The implications for global agricultural productivity are serious, especially as global population is predicted to reach ~ 9bn by mid-century.
And the disruptions will not stop. Contrarians frequently behave as if CO2 will automatically stabilise at ~550ppmv later this century without policy intervention and all will be well. ECS is ‘only’ 2.5C – 3C and we’ll ‘adapt’ to our emerging new world of extreme weather, infrastructural attrition and endemic food insecurity.
We will struggle with all this. And I haven’t even mentioned post-C21st sea level rise.
And what does Brad think about policy intervention?
There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”
There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are staggeringly dishonest?
According to you:
What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.
But why, Brad? Why is everybody else wrong? What special knowledge do you have?
And how, if you accept a slightly conservative ECS estimate, do you think we are going to keep warming below 2.5 - 3C without emissions regulation?
Something you *explicitly state* is 'just stupid'. Don't bother trying to lie your way out of this again - I will simply quote your own words at you. Again.
It's beyond a muddle. It is an incoherent mess. You are all over the place man. So much for your supposed intellectual gifts, eh?
...further on the ‘dangerousness’ of AGW, I can’t resist quoting some choice pronouncements from Professor Mike Hulme—my emphasis...
Hum!
BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..
Whatever I have fixed your statement to more truly reflect your actions:
I can’t resist quote mining from some choice pronouncements...
So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as “experts” whose statements on climate science are valid?
Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.
As I told some three-lettered somebody weeks ago, I don't think I've ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it, let alone cited it as the "expert" truth.
(The strikethrough is due to the fact that you don't know what the word "cohort" means.)
But you go looking for incidents that may “prove AGW science a scam”.
Don't use quotation marks unless you're quoting me, which you're not.
You're fabricating and misattributing to me an idea I don't even believe and have certainly never tried to ""prove.""
The Phil Jones reference indicates that our wordy interlocutor, far from being widely read or informed, merely picks up and then regurgitates speed-read denier chum chunks. Forget "Brad" having any comprehension - original, insightful or otherwise - of the issue. Stilted, talk-point repetition is all there is.
Slightly further back in the trhread was mention of how the intelligent can be in denial just as deep as the stupid. I disagree, in that intelligence that is indistinguishable from stupidity is still stupid. It may be stupidity with a wider vocabulary or skillset, but somehow I don't think nature awards extra points for those.
BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..
Whatever I have fixed your statement to more truly reflect your actions:
"I can’t resist quote mining from some choice pronouncements…"
Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources, I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.
Brad Keyes --- So far this century over 100,000 Europeans died prematurely due to heat waves. In addition agriculture has been severely disrupted. Is not yet possible to attribute either to global warming, but it is certainly implicated.
Extreme storms are definitely becoming more extreme and this is attributable to global warming. Not to mention Greenland melt and arctic sea ice loss. The latter is certainly affecting weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.
For those who don't yet know - including obviously "Brad" here -" The Hockey Stick Illusion." is a conspiracy novel which purports incompetent crank 'analyst' Steve McinTyres is a 'hero' by the GWPF and Scottish Oil Barons (I kid you not) connected rural accountant nutter and noted conspiracy crank Andy Montford. Footnotes and the illusion of 'research' do not decouple it from the Dan Brown or Von Daniken shelf at your fave bookstore.
Any moronic anti-AGW science motif, and ol' "Brad's" right in there like Flynn. Along with his sock doxy.
I should add that cranks like stories by other cranks.
It entertains them.
It's reality that they find too dull or difficult.
Better to rage against the evil that is embodied in Mike Mann or Phil Jones than the RF forcing spewed out by planetary-wide complicity with Exxon or Koch Industries.
Really, we're deling with arrogant children unwilling to put away childish things and grow up.
"In your words, in your system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.
Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer."
Yes, in *your* reality, Watts is an “affirmer”, because of the vast reams of solid science about climate change that he denies.
No, in my reality, i.e. reality, he's a climate change affirmer because he affirms that climate change is real.
He denies the temperature record. He denies the results of scientific research, including – hilariously – his own.
Mmm. That would be hilarious.
When you've got a minute, Vince, would you please tell us how you think science works? Close your eyes, imagine a bunch of "science" occurring and describe what you visualise.
This turgid crap resonates will all the credibility (and facility with English) of a book review by Peter Gleick or Dana:
For those who don’t yet know – including obviously “Brad” here -” The Hockey Stick Illusion.” is a conspiracy novel which purports incompetent crank ‘analyst’ Steve McinTyres is a ‘hero’ by the GWPF and Scottish Oil Barons (I kid you not) connected rural accountant nutter and noted conspiracy crank Andy Montford ...
Any moronic anti-AGW science motif, and ol’ “Brad’s” right in there like Flynn.
Allow me to quote someone who can both read and write:
"If you can bring yourself to read Montford's book you won't find an attempt to 'debunk' AGW because that's not what the book is about.
"It's about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.
"In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider's 'honest vs effective' mindset gets out of control."
BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..
Fine, Lionel; I suppose I’ll enzymatically deplimerize it for you, will I? Lazy bastard. ;-)
Without further ado, I present the unelided Mike Hulme: same awful taste, now harder to digest!
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.
Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to ‘identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much.’
This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The idea of climate change has become so powerful and visible that, according to Hulme, it has really penetrated to all aspects of culture, politics and society. “There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups, to latch on to whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.”
Hulme and like-minded scientists are concerned about the commercialisation of various aspects of climate change. “Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along. It provides a new way in which commodification happens. The idea of carbon market is one of the examples; the idea that how this commodity has to be priced. By doing so we actually create a new vehicle for capitalists. We see the same thing happening in the case of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) proposal, a new plan for private companies and wealthy nations to pay poorer nations to keep their tropical forest intact.” According to him carbon offsetting is a big business, and a very attractive one. Ahead of the Copenhagen negotiations, Hulme thinks it is vital for everyone to understand the valid reasons for why there is disagreement about climate change.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I have no problem with scientists offering clear political messages as long as they are clearly recognised as such; and the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically motivated. All well and good.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In doing so, he successfully argues that these explorations can inspire a collective change in communication. "Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be 'solving' the idea of human rights or liberal democracy," he writes. "It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come." But Hulme is not merely advocating intellectualism. Rather, he ultimately issues a John F. Kennedy-like call to action: "We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us."
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
SOURCE: Hulme, M., Why We Disagree About Climate Change, 2009 (p. 326)
"Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion"
Excellent? To whom? A denier? GM isn't a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form. Calling it 'excellent' reveals exactly where you are coming from, Brad.
GM isn’t a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form.
Who's GM?
Anyway, the argument is about the use and abuse of statistics, Jeff—you don't need to be a climate scientist to know that all is not well in the house of palaeoclimatology.
The reason BBD insists that "Mann and Jones aren't proxies for climate science" is that BBD knows as well as I do what it would say about climate science if they were.
They're not, of course. The median, mean, modal or model climate scientist has less to hide. But Mann and Jones are proof of what you can get away with in climate science and still keep your job.
It WAS done for MBH. "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is a work of fiction. It is as real as "The DaVinci Code".
Read MBH98/99, not what some crank wrote about it.
2. If Spencer and Christy don’t do so either
What's with the "If"? You don't bother putting "If Mann didn't....".
That's because you don't want it to be true, but have to pretend you're being "reasonable" so can't deny it.
There is no "If".
And you refuse to act upon that.
Because you're a hypocrite? Or is it because you're a liar? Or both?
Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Oh, FFS, you know not whereof you crap on. That's no more relevant than telling someone who wants to know if there is anything hidden in the bible to read "The DaVinci Code".
Read MBH98/99, not what some crank wrote about it.
Also, read what Andrew Montford wrote about it.
(If you can “bring yourself” to do so, that is. As BBD put it.)
”2. If Spencer and Christy don’t [publish in enabling detail] either”
What’s with the “If”? You don’t bother putting “If Mann didn’t….”.
Right. Because I know he didn’t.
That’s because you don’t want it to be true, but have to pretend you’re being “reasonable” so can’t deny it.
So you agree that I’m behaving the way a reasonable person would.
Guess what, Wow: that’s because I’m reasonable.
There is no “If”.
And you refuse to act upon that.
Upon what? Upon the fact that there is no “if”?
LOL.
OK Wow.
Out of morbid curiosity: what actions, exactly, were you waiting for me to take?
Because you’re a hypocrite? Or is it because you’re a liar?
Keep guessing. I’ll let you know when you’re warm.
“If they’re obstructing efforts to audit their calculations” Why the If?
Didn’t you just ask—and answer, to the best of your poor ability—that question?
“they’re “the Phil Jones” of CAGW denial because Jones wrote the immortal email:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?””
Neither they nor you answered that question.
OMFG.
If you understood the first thing about science, Wow, you’d be aware that the question answers itself.
Because my aim is to try and find something wrong with it,that’s why you should make your data available to me.
Even actors who portray scientists on television know this! Jones is too unscientific even to do a half-assed job of impersonating a scientist.
”Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.”
You sick fuck.
*Sigh.*
Would someone like to explain the “when did you stop beating your wife” meme to Wow?
They don’t pay me enough for this.
”I’ve ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it”
You have used their names to prop up your fantasy interpretations of reality. Just because you “forget” doesn’t stop that from being the case.
And just because you “remember” doesn’t stop it from being make-believe, Wow.
Of course, there’s really only 1 (one) way to resolve the question that must be going through readers’ minds right now, if they’re not already familiar with your schtick: “Is ‘Wow’ just making this shit up, or did ‘Brad’ actually cite Christy and Spencer’s work?” …and that is to quote me citing it.
Which you haven’t done, will never do, and couldn’t do if your life depended on it.
Because you’re making this shit up.
How much is HI paying you to lie so ineptly?
(The strikethrough is due to the fact that I don’t know what the word “cohort” means. FTFY.
Nope, you succeeded only in FTUFY.
I’m not sure how well you grasp the whole Internet concept, but people can still read what you wrote before. It doesn’t disappear just because you’re too embarrassed to quote yourself. We can still see your confused, semi-literate attempt to use “cohort” in a sentence:
So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as “experts” whose statements on climate science are valid?
Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.
Yes indeedee you betcha.
I'm morbidly curious: which supernumerary persona do you suspect of being Chameleon's handiwork? Given that she and I are for all intents and purposes the only 2 realists participating here (except maybe on Jonas' thread, which I've never visited), the theory is …bizarre. To put it delicately.
It bores me how wrong this conspiracycomplicity theory is:
Better to rage against the evil that is embodied in Mike Mann or Phil Jones than the RF forcing spewed out by planetary-wide complicity with Exxon or Koch Industries.
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso*.
Alarmist or denier?
*Exxon-Mobil is called Esso in the UK.
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society.
Alarmist or denier?
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached….
What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a 'strategic partnership' with the T[yndall] C[entre], broadly equivalent to a 'flagship alliance' in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
2. Shell's interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to 'real-world' activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
Alarmist or denier?
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Subject: BP funding
...dear TC colleagues, it looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge University? Cheers, Simon
BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EMISSIONS STUDY
Well, now that you’re being so civil, rational and personable, I’d be only too happy to rectify that lapse in my thoroughness, BBD!
:-)
See, isn’t this much more pleasant?
#5:
Everything you say is dishonest shite.
I know you are, but what am I?
#6:
And what does Brad think about policy intervention?
“There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”
There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.
It’s just stupid.”
Good point.
(Are you suggesting there is something intrinsically bad about it, BBD?)
#7:
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are staggeringly dishonest?
THATS WHAT SHE SAID LOL
And how, if you accept a slightly conservative ECS estimate, do you think we are going to keep warming below 2.5 – 3C without emissions regulation?
Maybe we won’t.
Something you *explicitly state* is ‘just stupid’. Don’t bother trying to lie your way out of this again – I will simply quote your own words at you. Again.
And it was so devastating the last time.
;-)
It’s beyond a muddle. It is an incoherent mess. You are all over the place man. So much for your supposed intellectual gifts, eh?
This rhetoric can only be characterised as a disingenuous, jesuitical and ultimately see-through bid to downplay or dissimulate the fact that you’re a poopy head.
I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.
Well I did try but your regurge was a mish-mash of bits from here there and everywhere as far as I could see, probably from a number of sources. But then I had so many hits on just one string that it was hard to discover the precise source of that. So going looking for a number of such was likely to be a time waster. Hence my Plimer reference.
I think moderation bin gets anything with more than three, or four links besides anything tarred by specific words. Maybe even certain URLs invoke a trip to the spam bin.
So this:
Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources,
is more bull. 'Actively punishes' indeed. Oh! Poor little Brad is being picked on (NOT). Shame.
One thing is for sure, once the context is found Hulme does not conclude what you think he does, or what you make out he does.
It's illuminating to see where Brad actually got his Hulme pastiche from.
The reason why Bradley's links don't work is because he never went to the primary documents and his actual source does not supply them (wonder why?). The decontextualised snippets came from this purveyor of tripe. The posts either side are entitled Eco-imperialism - Every environmentalist's Dream and UN IPCC: Rotting from the Head down. Yup; one of *those* sites.
Not only do the decontextualised snippets match those provided in Brad's comment, right down to the emphasis, Brad has lifted his description of Hulme almost verbatim from the same place.
Here's Brad:
He’s the founding director of the Tyndall Centre and Professor of Climate Change at the UEA. He prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author on the Climate Scenario Development chapter of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, as well as a contributing author on several other chapters.
Here's the 'source':
Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios, and reviewer for UKCP09), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters.
Just more evidence that Brad is primarily motivated by politics and knows next to nothing about climate science.
Politics. Politics. Politics. Won't say what they are!
;-)
Just admit it, Brad. We all know anyway, so it's only a formality.
Keyes once again shows his dishonesty (page 37 #97)by cherry picking and attempting to smear a well regarded scientist. Here is the context for the cherry pick he made re Mike Hulme:
Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much".
This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.
This shows a far different view point than the one Keyes tries to portray with his dishonesty. I wonder if he lives alone, never goes out, since he can't have any friends when he shows such a flagrant dislike for the truth. How does he manage to be employed, the first thing I looked for in any employes who worked for me was honesty?
The Mike Hulme quote is from an opinion piece in the Guardian:
WRT non-links - I got that, don't worry. Otherwise why would you end up (like me) searching for text strings? And finding zillions of hits, all to contrarian sites, and nothing to the source quoted by BK.
I agree David B.
That piece is well written and it also looks at the practical application (or maybe impractical is a better word?) of some of our policies.
OK moderator/s,
if you are not prepared to explain where you think I have used a 'sock' (which I assume means a sock puppet?) then you are exhibiting extremely poor behaviour!.
I do not intend to waste my time arguing that I didn't do what I didn't do.
I have NOT commented at Deltoid under any other name and every comment made by chameleon is made by the same person , as in me.
That is my first and only comment re the baseless accusation that I have used a 'sock'.
I would prefer to continue being able to comment at this site but will not do so if you insist on moderating me for absolutely no reason.
It’s illuminating to see where Brad actually got his Hulme pastiche from. ... Brad has lifted his description of Hulme almost verbatim from the same place.
This Earth Hour, illuminate yourselves by seeing where I "actually got" my "description of Hulme almost verbatim from":
Here is the context for the cherry pick [Brad] made re Mike Hulme:
“Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to “identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much”.
“This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.”
Reading this, I get an overwhelming sense of deja vu—almost as if I’d quoted THAT ENTIRE PASSAGE AND MORE just a few hours ago. On this very thread.
In fact, if I didn’t know better, I’d almost think a certain Forest Troll had just embarrassed himself with a premature aspersion on my integrity.
BBD throws in his lot with a mendacious forest-mongoloid:
The reason why Bradley’s links don’t work is because he never went to the primary documents and his actual source does not supply them (wonder why?).
ROFLMAOABOTR.
Readers interested in the anthropology of lying bush-cretins are invited to click on the links provided at comment #28 and speculate as to why BBD and his forest familiar say they don't work, don't refer to primary sources, don't give adequate context, etc.
Bill,
When it is no longer in moderation: see above :-)
HOW DOES ONE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN?
WHAT IS THE POINT OF ARGUING THAT I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING I DID NOT DO?
And ask yourself a very pertinent question. How did I get from where I was in 2011 to where I am now?
Well, let’s retrace the inspiring, meteoric trajectory of your personal growth:
In 2011 you:
- associated with non-alarmists and debated alarmists politely and in good faith
- identified Mann, Jones et al. as “activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public” in the name of “catastrophism”
- realized that the Hockey Stick “was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the 'right' result: a hockey stick,” that the various ostensible corroborations of their finding recycled the same skewed proxies over and over again, and that “This is not correct scientific practice.”
- recommended Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’
- understood that, while the contrived fabrication of the graph itself obviously “doesn't 'falsify' AGW,” this wasn’t the point. Rather, “it is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable” and “reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote 'their' hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.”
- called Stephen Schneider out on the “breathtaking intellectual arrogance” that lay behind his “self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism”
In 2013 you:
- associate with alarmists and biliously harangue non-alarmists as crypto-political liars and/or self-deceiving fools
- quietly try to decouple climate science from the likes of Mann and Jones
- exhibit no interest in what you once called “the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick”
- absent yourself from all discussion of Montford’s book
- pretend that the HS is irrelevant
- make no comment on Schneider’s ethical innovations
- in short, appear to have taken up the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism with breathtaking intellectual arrogance
How do you think I achieved that?
I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD.
On second thought, accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry might make a warped kind of sense from your POV. After all, you do belong to a movement in which actual psychologists give paranoid suggestions like this ...
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.
All the best, Stephan
... but remember—in normal, secular society anyone who wrote the above (to an imaginary correspondent, no less) would score 5mg of haloperidol and a straitjacket.
Whoever came up with the saying the lunatics are running the asylum, they were obviously thinking about climatism.
Your # 41 was insubstantial, evasive tripe. Try again.
According to you:
What I don’t accept is the apocryphally “majority” view that AGW is a major net problem for the world community.
1/ Why not? You have the ECS estimates and and the graphs showing the relationship between RF and OHC and GAT. We have had weeks of evasion. Please now explain your reasoning.
2/ Unless you have access to information not available to the rest of the world, you are apparently in denial. If you cannot answer (1), then explain your motivation. Is it politics or fear that has caused to to flip into denial?
3/ Why do you state that emissions reduction is "an incredibly stupid idea"?
I've been asking you these questions in one form or another for weeks without ever getting satisfactory answers.
What are you hiding?
Why are you being so evasive?
This rhetoric can only be characterised as a disingenuous, jesuitical and ultimately see-through bid to downplay or dissimulate the fact that you’re a poopy head.
It's a great shame that several decades of hysterical misrepresentation by ENGOs and grassroots activists have made the only proven, scalable low carbon baseload technology we have impossibly expensive and politically toxic.
I wish it were otherwise, but these are the cards on the table.
I'd be interested to see how many are likely to take Geoff's dietary representations seriously, despite the fact they're every bit as logical and thunk-through. Prediction? Zero.
Maybe the Chinese will prove Gen 4s will work, be safe, won't cost a fortune, don't have a galactic opportunity cost, won't be a massive boondoggle, will be able to be effectively cooled etc. etc..
The market simply isn't interested in them - they'll have to be a social!st or quasi-social!st enterprise if they do happen.
However, you may recall there was this place called Fukushima, and that very same blog called what happened there wrong over and over and over. My cat could currently run a successful NIMBY campaign to keep one of those away from any neighbourhood or regional centre in Australia. People think windmills are killing them, remember? ;-)
John Quiggin's place is good for this debate when he allows it to run occasionally. Other than that I can only say I think your hope is only somewhat justified and is almost certainly wholly Quixotic.
There's a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ and the 40-year old obsolete junk at Fukushima. Using this as an argument against modern nuclear is profoundly illogical.
All the credible projections of the evolution of the energy mix come up with the much the same numbers: roughly 25% renewables and 25% nuclear by mid-century if we go flat out for both. The other 50% is *still* FF and that's still too much. But without nuclear, it rises to ~75%.
We cannot afford to sideline nuclear on ideological grounds. It's energy pragmatism or CO2. Everything must stay on the table, like it or not.
The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they'll not be safe.
Secondly, the reactor design at Fukishima was touted at the time as a "safe modern design". Just like the "new safe modern designs".
Third, those "new safe modern designs" have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.
Nuclear, even if safe, has a lead-time of 10+ years and a required operational time of 30-40 years minimum. Given we aren't sure if the infrastructure will remain stable over the next 50 years and that locations for a nuclear power station are usually near shores for water cooling (how much sea level rise have we dialled in for the next 50 years?), we cannot afford to choose nuclear power.
Like this example Wow: Dawkins v Wendy Wright ... BK is now sailing very close to this wind.
Shucks. Funnily enough, you wouldn't be the first person to make that comparison. I suspect it’s because we’re both triple threats: top-notch verbal and mathematical IQs plus patrician good looks—though Dawkins is somewhat full of himself whereas I have, if anything, the opposite problem (not arrogant enough).
I’m also the veteran of my share of wars of attrition with the creationist “mind.” Unlike Dawkins, though, I outgrew the great sport of hick baiting in my early twenties—around the time I learned you can’t win an argument by sighing and condescending. It’s no longer my apostolic mission to make stupid people confess their stupidity.
Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that I let anyone get away with scientifically-illiterate thinking; regulars around here know I don’t suffer that $#!1 gladly! But I part ways with Dawkins here: by resolving to hate the illiteracy, not the illiterate. (To be sure, I’m only human and often losing my patience… but like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: take a minute to thank your local fundagelical, literalist, truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argument. The day we’re dumbfounded by the sheer fatuity of our disputant’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, in my opinion. By forcing us to clarify, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function with their muddled questions and baseless objections.
This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
On second thought, accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry might make a warped kind of sense from your POV.
No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.
Let's just say I'm genuinely skeptical of the claims that perfection has now been achieved because, as Wow points out, that's what GE said at the time.
But that's hardly the point. My cat could almost certainly defeat any project in Australia by wandering into town with a Fukushima postcard tied around its neck - the ACF has plenty of people more articulate and persuasive than my cat.
And plenty of perfectly sane people are highly skeptical of both the economics and the actual capacity to make any meaningful difference in a timely manner.
I'll also add that if we ever built reactors I'd bet that Australia's CO2 output would immediately skyrocket because a far-from-altruistic public would happily believe the whole Greenhouse problem had just been solved - 'we're getting/we've got nukes now, remember; me for a bigger SUV!' - aided and abetted in their cornucopian delusions by the deniers, many of whom love nuclear because it's an plutocrat's dream and keeps the world just the way they like it!
But that's just a hypothetical because in Australia it's simply not going to happen. Wishing for things that can't happen is just too stressful...
I'll add that that thread at Joe Romm's seems like the ideal place to be discussing this - certainly more appropriate than here. I notice, for instance, that DBB is over there.
BBD - one, I suggest you take it over to Romm's where it may make some difference.
Two: you know, that's rather my point to you - the fact is that in this country nuclear power is dead (if it was ever alive!). That's a social reality that no amount of 'being right' is likely to change. You can hold me responsible for this personally if that helps. Prove me wrong, by all means, but I don't suggest starting here.
Hell, we'll happily export the stuff, of course, even to people who won't sign the NPT, but - whaddya know? - even the Roxby expansion just fell in a hole! Nearly as big as the one it was going to create...
I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD.
More of a dereliction.
If you weren't hopelessly sunk in lies and denial you would get the point, which is that research modifies POV. Unfortunately, you reject new information and cannot modify your POV, which is why I mock you. Stunted thing that you are.
What “we all know” is that your cluelessness about my politics is rivalled only by your ignorance of the future of the climate, you pompous twat.
It will get warmer. If emissions exceed ~550ppmv, average global temperature will probably exceed 3C.
Since you refuse to admit what you really are, we are obliged to make certain (minor) assumptions. If you don't like those assumptions, feel free - no, feel very strongly urged - to set the record straight.
Why you refuse is puzzling, unless of course you are hiding something from us.
No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock.
Uh, no.
No he's not.
That would make TL insane. TL may be a lot of things, but last time I met him he was lucid and oriented.
(Excuse the digression: wouldn’t it be a bit redundant to impute that a “toe-rag” was a sock? Have you ever considered proof-reading, BBD?)
And so are the rest of us.
Suuuure. That's why this is the first anyone has mentioned the accusation to me, right?
Let's get this straight. For more than 24 hours everyone else has been accusing ME of puppetry by the oblique literary device of writing the following things TO CHAMELEON…
"You used a sock"
"Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.
Yes indeedee you betcha."
"Oh – and Chebbie – sock-puppetry; explanation, please."
...and by moderating her comments.
But it was you, BBD, of all the deltoids, who first had the razor-like intellect to think of addressing the accusation to ME, the actual suspect, and not to a random bystander of a different sex.
Gotcha.
LOL!!! :-)
Please try to remember that TL can see your IP. Or perhaps these technical details are over your head?
Thank you so freaking much for that refresher, BBD. Cos, you know, when I think of Tim Lambert, I merely think of the UNSW lecturer who gave me 97.0 in a subject that wasn't mainly about Internet protocols! It never even occurred to me that he might *also* be into computery, technical stuff and know all about IP addresses and shit. What a Renaissance man.
Hey—just thinking aloud here—but maybe, just maybe, that’s why he’s NOT ACCUSING ME OF USING A SOCK.
It's impossible to take you seriously any more, BBD.
The domestic you’re having with reality is too rich even for the other Deltoids’ taste. When they won’t even back you up, that ought to tell you something, dude. Time to adjust your meds ‘cos, 10 to 1, you’re in the grip of a florid psychosis.
This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they’ll not be safe.
Is *countered* by this:
Third, those “new safe modern designs” have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.
No, because the overruns are why it WILL take 10-20 years to build these new designs BECAUSE the designs were *designed at the time* to be safe, but when it comes to putting the metal up, the designs weren't as foolproof as thought.
Here's a programming example.
You design a program. Perfection. Foolproof. State that this design is complete. Everyone believes you.
Then when you start writing the program, you say "Hang, on, this bit needs changing". Then more changes are needed. And each change means that you're further away from the original design.
If that original design were perfect, you're no longer designing to it.
But you implement it eventually, and now it runs.
And a few users find bugs.
And some failure modes.
And it turns out that you weren't actually that competent at programming or design as you asserted earlier.
So back to nuclear: each plant is now going to be years late (no reduction in CO2 *now*) and much more expensive (meaning less money spent on other carbon-free alternatives in the meantime). And the designs still haven't been tested, and their failures at implementation mean that you have no proof that the designs ARE safe.
6. A significant increase in the deployment of RE by 2030, 2050 and beyond is indicated in the majority of
the 164 scenarios reviewed in this Special Report.11 In 2008, total RE production was roughly 64 EJ/yr (12.9% of
total primary energy supply) with more than 30 EJ/yr of this being traditional biomass. More than 50% of the scenarios
project levels of RE deployment in 2050 of more than 173 EJ/yr reaching up to over 400 EJ/yr in some cases (Figure
SPM.9). Given that traditional biomass use decreases in most scenarios, a corresponding increase in the production level of RE (excluding traditional biomass) anywhere from roughly three-fold to more than ten-fold is projected. The global primary energy supply share of RE differs substantially among the scenarios. More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary energy supply in 2030 rising to more than 27% in 2050. The scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050. [10.2, 10.3]
The language is convoluted and confusing but means 'about 30% renewables by 2050 in the most plausible scenarios'. Why would I bullshit? I'm not *against* renewables or *pro* nuclear. My sense is that you are creating a strawman and trying to have a fight with it.
One more thing. I believe the German renewables experiment is bordering on disastrous in terms of emissions, cost to consumers and damage to the German economy. However, I *know* the rubbish coming out of Scotland is just that: rubbish. You are being *excessively credulous*.
There are various projection for nuclear capacity by 2050. They centre around 25%. The 2010 IEA Nuclear Road Map is a representative non-industry example:
The IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 BLUE Map scenario (IEA, 2010) projects an installed
nuclear capacity of almost 1 200 GW in 2050, compared to 370 GW at the end of 2009, making nuclear a major contributor to cutting energy related CO2 emissions by 50%. This nuclear capacity would provide 9 600 TWh of electricity annually by that date, or around 24% of the
electricity produced worldwide. In BLUE Map, by 2050 nuclear power becomes the single largest source of electricity, surpassing coal, natural gas, hydro, wind and solar (Figure 6).
Although reaching 1 200 GW of nuclear capacity in 2050 is an ambitious goal, multiplying the installed nuclear capacity by well over three times during a period of 40 years is certainly achievable from technical and industrial perspectives. Assuming that by 2050 all reactors in operation today will have been decommissioned, some
30 units of 1 GW each would need to enter operation on average each year between 2010 and 2050. Similar rates of construction were achieved (albeit briefly) in the 1970s and 1980s, even though fewer countries were implementing nuclear programmes and industrial capabilities were less developed at that time.
I believe the German renewables experiment is bordering on disastrous in terms of emissions
And this is based off it going nuclear free, right? And because of that you're using it as "proof" that going nuclear free is not credible, right?
Circular reasoning.
Germany think they can do it. Scotland, Denmark, others think they can.
But you "believe" otherwise. Except you're wrong. You can't even counter the facts of the huge lag time and great (and overrunning) expense, and instead insist that "all credible projections say that we have to have nuclear".
Credible meaning "saying we have to have nuclear", right?
when you produce vapid garbage like this I can only assume you're hell-bent on giving the refrigeration industry a run for its money:
The bastion of scientific integrity “Brad” is referring to is Andy “Bishop” Montford.
Oh my sides. I think I need a lie down.
Your comment is complete fucking crap.
Content-free condescension.
Take a Bex and a long lie down, you walking ozone hole.
Hey: while you're horizontal, maybe you could READ 'Illusion.'
As BBD says:
If you research the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick you will find alarmist bias everywhere. If you can bring yourself to read Montford's book you won't find an attempt to 'debunk' AGW because that's not what the book is about.
It's about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.
In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider's honest vs effective mindset gets out of control....
The same proxies turn up again and again in paper after paper and (surprise!) yield broadly the same results.
Unless you take time to find out about the commonalities behind the mass of mutually-supporting paleo reconstructions you won't realise just how flimsy that particular consensus actually is.
David MaKay is often touted by pro-nukes as an "indepentent voice" and his book touted as "reasoned and informed".
But when you point out that his entire screed has been slanted to push nuclear power and belittle and reject renewables (in the Hot Air case, wind), it gets pooh-pooh'd.
David is pushing an agenda.
Which for people like you is an acceptable one, therefore overlooked ("because he does say renewables are slightly useful, that's proof he's fair-minded!!!").
There are several similarities between this and BK's bullshit. Since he *likes* the rhetoric of McIntyre, he doesn't SEE the bias. Even when pointed out to him.
Actually, I'll go further than that. You grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay. I'm willing to bet you haven't read the book, and you are ranting because you don't like the fact that a detailed, fact-based analysis demonstrates that renewables alone aren't going to come close to providing enough energy. I'd stop, *now*, before you make matters any worse.
I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that allegedly make a difference don’t add up.
Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional (for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks about numbers. Or if they do mention numbers, they select them to sound
big, to make an impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than to aid thoughtful discussion.
This is a straight-talking book about the numbers. The aim is to guide the reader around the claptrap to actions that really make a difference and to policies that add up.
Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional (for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks about numbers.
For example, if we'd adjourned to Romm's place we'd have to contend with someone called Merrelyn Emery, who's "arguing" (if that's the right word) that nuclear power
could be free and I would still reject it. It is an anti-life technology and a mistake born of human hubris, ignorance and utter disrespect for Earth, ME
Oh, and:
Dr Emery is considered a serious climate-change academic and adult in Australia.
Finished reading. Hickey's weightless, opinionated, number-free 'critique' is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.
And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK. You are on very thin ice with that shite.
You've only insisted that we have to have nuclear.
And ignored that we have AT LEAST 10 more years before the "new and safe" designs have been built and run as a commercial size TEST, not an actual commercial product.
And that having been built, they will HAVE to run for 40 years.
And that while we're pouring money and concrete into this, there's nothing left to put in to renewables.
Moreover, the industry itself demands a much-higher-than-current *guaranteed* ROI from government coffers or they will not bother.
Apparently the industry doesn't think it's worth it either.
You, however, do.
Because you won't look. Won't think. Won't change.
Uh, OK, I'll put some numbers to it to the same standard as you do:
2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables. We have ZERO safe and tested new design nuclear power plants, only prototypes that have overrun by 10 years and looking to go on for 14 year overrun.
" 2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables.
Rubbish. "
Fine.
Now I can say to you:
Finished reading. Your weightless, opinionated, number-free ‘critique’ is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.
Go on, tell the world why he picked the % of land used that he did, despite the FACT that the occupied space is so small. Then, when THAT didn't preclude wind power doing it, reduced it by a factor of four and then after all this predicated cherry picking said "This proves Wind Power cannot do it! THEREFORE WE MUST GO NUCLEAR!!!!".
Oh, and used turbine designs that were already obsolete (small) and insisted they would be used for the next 30 years, despite current designs being much more efficient.
(then go look at the DUKES study, which shows that generation/nameplate is about 60% for nuclear)
Because mainland Britain is small, and mostly owned by people, or inaccessible, or wilderness reserve (we call them National Parks) or otherwise unsuitable for commercial scale wind generation. You haven't read the text.
Nowhere does MacKay say 'we *must* go nuclear. WTF? This is a grotesque misrepresentation. Read the text.
MacKay's analysis shows that realistically installable onshore wind doesn't have the necessary capacity or anything close. So *offshore* wind is invoked to increase UK wind capacity potential. Which happens to be exactly what is being built as we speak.
Oh FFS wow. Large turbines on 400m masts have to be spaced further apart. The capacity factor gain for *onshore* wind isn't anything like as great as you think.
reports that ministers and EDF are discussing a minimum or "strike" price for the nuclear-generated electricity of a little under £100 per megawatt hour – nearly double the current market rate. However ministers will be hoping that their regular meetings with EC officials will make it more likely that a full inquiry will be avoided.
Under the proposals, a nuclear power station – the first for a generation – will be built at Hinkley in Somerset, and the government will guarantee a minimum price for the electricity produced for 30-40 years, a deal which could cost customers a billion pounds a year or more.
And despite claims you read it, you didn't apparently, else you would have noted this:
"In "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air", Professor MacKay compares an energy demand of 490 GW with his calculated British renewable resource of 450 GW, and comes to the conclusion that Britain cannot power itself from renewables. But in reality, British energy demand is 205 GW. That's the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use). That's less than half the demand figure used in the book, when looking at whether his calculated renewable resource is enough. When we compare the renewable resource with the current demand figure, we see that the resource is more than double current energy demand: and that's before any energy efficiency measures. And that makes a huge difference: by using the real figure for demand, we see that the UK renewable resource is much higher than current energy demand, so Britain could comfortably power itself from its own renewables."
So, if there’s a bigger gap between them, they use up less land.
Eh? You need to take a breather.
And wow, your shrill but fact-free rejection of MacKay's analysis is rather too close to BK's rejection of ECS etc for comfort. You are projecting like a fire hose.
Just imagine how great it'll be in a few hours—I really do have to hit the sack now, but can't wait to see what kind of psychedelic consensus you two scholars have hammered together by morning!
I shall sleep soundly, knowing that The Science™ is in the hands of such rational, Skeptical, responsible interpreters.
Sigh. Read Patrick Stewart's comment to the Energy Numbers article - he nails it exactly. Slow down, go back and read. And I repeat - you clearly have not read MacKay. Nobody who has read MacKay would ever say anything as ridiculous as this:
Why did he lie?
Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind).
You are making a colossal prat out of yourself. Again, I urge you to *stop* now.
I guess on this subject, "Number free" means "No numbers I will deign to note", right?
Tell you what, instead of CLAIMING that you read Hickey’s post, in the same way Bray CLAIMS to have read Merchants Of Doubt, why don't you actually READ IT, hmm?
And where the fuck is this patrick stewart you keep bleating on about? He's a great actor, but he doesn't seem to be posting at the guardian or small-time blogs.
Here we’ll reflect on our estimates of consumption and production, compare them with official averages and with other people’s estimates, and discuss how much power renewables could plausibly deliver in a
country like Britain.
The questions we’ll address in this chapter are:
1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct? What is the average consumption of Britain? We’ll look at the official energy-consumption numbers for Britain and a few other countries.
2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential? We’ll compare the estimates in the green stack with estimates published by organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the Centre for Alternative Technology.
3. What happens to the green stack when we take into account social and economic constraints?
Why not familiarise yourself with the text? It is obvious you've never read it.
You haven't even read your own reference, have you? Hickey links to Energy Numbers - you quote this above at # 29. RTFR, including comments, and you will answer your own question. But first - # 45.
That's rich. "It is obvious you’ve never read it." from you?
Mr "Number-free"? It is to laugh.
David claims 450TW is needed. Only 205TW is. Does it stack up? Hell no!
If your assinine assertion that a bigger wind turbine requires more space and negates the per-acre-production, WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE BUY BIGGER TURBINES????
MacKay makes up a worse-than-worst-case scenario, reduces it by a factor of four, doesn't explain WHY he picks the numbers and goes "Viola! Wind energy doesn't do it. Go nuclear, it's great".
That's like pointing to WTFUWT and demanding "Respond substantively to what you find there!".
You DO know that, using impeccable maths, you can PROVE you never get to work, right? Subtract the weekend (48 hours) from the hours in a week, then subtract the travel to work, then subtract how long you eat, subtract....
And eventually, you find that over a week, there are no more hours left!
His red column adds up.
But it DOESN'T add up to what renewables have to do.
Do some maths yourself. You know, where you do more than one sum. You'll find he's talking shit.
Well, obviously, YOU won't because you won't even try.
And the green bar doesn't add up, because he's pulling WRONG NUMBERS out of thin air.
Hell, I could show that the atomisation of all the hydrogen on the planet isn't enough to power my home if I get to put wrong numbers on the energy budget.
Remember to drop that figure since ICE is ~20% efficient (less losses getting the petrol to the pump), whilst electric engines are 60%, including losses getting the power to the battery.
You are wittering. Read the reference and respond substantively. MacKay revises demand estimates downward throughout his analysis. If you were only to read it, you would see this. The Energy Numbers 'critique' (Hickey's *only* substantive reference) is essentially meaningless noise, very much in the WTFUWT mould.
Now, come on:
- How much energy (kWh/d does MacKay use for the five energy plans? (red stack).
- Is MacKay's original estimate of renewable energy (p103; green stack) too high or too low? Clue here.
This is getting ever-more tedious. You need to read the reference.
And additionally, the bare fact of the matter is it is far too late for playing with nuclear power and we haven't the time or the money to waste on the boondongle.
Nuclear power would kill our chances of avoiding the worst of climate change.
I haven't had the time to read your references yet chaps, but I'd like to throw into the mix (from a position of almost total ignorance I may add) that one of the reasons that Gen 4 reactors seem attractive to me is their ability to consume the waste that's been accumulated from traditional (weapon-producing) reactors and which will otherwise remain hazardous for hundreds of millennia, whilst not facilitating weapon technology either.
That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone. Without that tech, the present alternative seems to be hope that the longevity and integrity of our current storage systems outlive any previous human civilisations by a factor of several thousands
"That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone."
Problems still abound. Proliferation is still a huge problem, whether it will actually work with enough of the output of previous generations (it doesn't work like the little Mr Fusion in Back To The Future, you know), and the fact that years late and horrendously over budget, the two test reactors are still years away from getting online.
Doesn't matter how good the tech, when it gets built, actually is.
It's thinking about grouting the bath when your car is out of control: yes, you'd need to do it if you survive the oncoming truck, but it's hardly time to be thinking about it at the moment.
There are no benefits to rapid global warming which are not vastly outweighed by the harm done. In particular, warmer air holds more moisture so when it rains it rains harder; often much harder destroying crops and even washing away soils.
BBD?
No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.
???
Are you now accusing me of being BradK and commenting under Chameleon?
And who are 'the rest of us'?
Wow and Bill and Chek?
The accusation was clearly made at the bottom of my question to the moderator/s that I used a 'sock' and that is why my comments have been held up in moderation.
Bill and chek have both clearly accused me of same and want an explanation from me.
You appear to be the one who claims you know what's going on re my comments.
Please point me to the comment/s that you claim are 'sock' comments from me.
In particular, warmer air holds more moisture so when it rains it rains harder; often much harder destroying crops and even washing away soils.
The first thing I notice about the logical structure of this claim is that, if it's true, it's true no matter how fast or slow AGW is.
This compels the question: are we...
a) ...at the best possible temperature now? In which case, was It a providential deity Who so arranged the universe?
b) ...already too warm? In which case, how far back in time does the climate need to shift to return to the ideal temperature? What was the best year on record for air wetness / rainfall softness / crop rain-resistance / dirt rain-resilience?
c) ...still below the optimal temperature? In which case, how much AGW do you recommend?
All right, BBD, now that we've shared some laughs at Wow's expense you can keep making nice to me if you really want to—it's certainly preferable to your usual abrasive polemicism—but it'll only take you so far. We can be as chummy as you like, I'm still not about to forget that you've accused me, and accused everyone else of accusing me, of using a sock-puppet.
David B? @#84?
Your answer implies that there is such a thing as a climate utopia.
While I heartily wish that was true, can you at least clarify what you would consider a 'benchmark' for acceptable and/or harmless global average temperature?
BTW your earlier link re solar panels and the associated logistics has sparked a fiery debate between BBD and Wow.
It does indeed advocate nuclear energy and it also outlines the future conundrum re energy that BBD seems to have grasped but Wow and to a lesser extent Bill seems to have missed.
If you feel inclined, I would be interested in you furthering your perspective on the practical applications of planning for future energy requirements
here's another credal contradiction of yours that's been bugging me.
Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?
One of the facts you explained (rather well) was
the point about the Hockey Stick. Which is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the 'right' result: a hockey stick.
It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.
I reiterate that I agree this doesn't 'falsify' AGW. Obviously. But it reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote 'their' hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.
This is not correct scientific practice.
So far so good.
But if you know the IPCC's actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:
Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?
This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?
Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.”
Thank you. I’m aware of that.
I know it does. On certain things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.
But this is not one of those topics. The truth of this:
This [conduct by the IPCC et al.] is not correct scientific practice.
does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.
PS: If you insist on knowing, and still haven’t guessed, why I have so little interest in your trivial pursuit questions about ECS it’s because climate science per se bores the Christ out of me. I don’t mean to denigrate your hobby, and I’m sure it’s a fascinating discipline in its own special way. (Well, maybe.) And one needs to be at least minimally conversant in it just to argue about the Climate Wars. But my real interest here is in science itself.
When you’ve got a minute, Vince, would you please tell us how you think science works? Close your eyes, imagine a bunch of “science” occurring and describe what you visualise.
Well, we're talking about Anthony Watts here, so in this "reality" of yours, science goes like this:
- get a TV weatherman
- get an internet blog and fill it with cranks
- get the TV weatherman to post utter nonsense to the blog full of cranks on a daily basis
Of course, in *my* reality, science is somewhat different, involving as it does some actual scientific research.
I started trying to compile a list of all the actual science that Brad has admitted he has avoided reading, but then I realised it would be much quicker to simply list everything hs has read:
- Naomi Oreskes, "Merchants of Doubt",
end of list
(although his claim to have read it arrived so soon after his initial admission that he hadn't that we've pretty much agreed he probably got at most 25% comprehension from it.)
clearly you're stinging from my gentle jibes about your scientific naïveté, but still—what the God are you crapping on about here:
(although his claim to have read it arrived so soon after his initial admission that he hadn’t that we’ve pretty much agreed he probably got at most 25% comprehension from it.)
I think I can say on behalf of everyone here that we'd be fascinated to see this "initial admission that [I] hadn't" read 'Merchants of Doubt.'
I don't suppose it exists though, does it Vince?
No? Pity.
Oh well, I guess the closest thing to a dignified next move for you would be to change the topic and pretend you never said it. Let's all pass over in embarrassed silence the fact that you just got your internal psychodrama mixed up with historical reality, blurted out a transparent untruth and made a goose of yourself. Try not to beat yourself up. The embarrassment will fade... in time.
How many fucking times do I have to teach you this? Just because it took you 13 hours to listen to the CD set of 'Merchants Of Doubt,' it doesn't follow that an experienced reader can't knock the book off in much less time.
The key is not to subvocalise—or if that's too big a word, let me put it like this: try not to move your lips as you read. Even a developmentally-delayed dropout like you will find itself reading at 250, 300 or even 350 w.p.m. in no time just by following this one WEIRD tip the audio-book industry doesn't want you to know!
The problem all along has been that you haven't read what MacKay actually wrote.
Had you RTFR as I repeatedly suggested (see # 61) you would have noticed that MacKay begins - like any good scientist - by questioning his initial assumptions.
You ignored what was written even though I took the trouble to quote it for you, rather than simply provide a link.
Here it is again:
1. Is the size of the red stack roughly correct? What is the average consumption of Britain? We’ll look at the official energy-consumption numbers for Britain and a few other countries.
2. Have I been unfair to renewables, underestimating their potential? We’ll compare the estimates in the green stack with estimates published by organizations such as the Sustainable Development Commission, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the Centre for Alternative Technology.
I have now also emboldened relevant sections of the quote in an attempt to punch it through your bony head.
Had your bothered to RTFR for just over one page you would have come to this:
Our estimate of a typical affluent person’s consumption (figure 18.1) has reached 195 kWh per day. It is indeed true that many people use this much energy, and that many more aspire to such levels of consumption.
The average American consumes about 250 kWh per day. If we all raised our standard of consumption to an average American level, the green production stack would definitely be dwarfed by the red consumption stack.
What about the average European and the average Brit? Average European consumption of “primary energy” (which means the energy contained in raw fuels, plus wind and hydroelectricity) is about 125 kWh per day per person. The UK average is also 125 kWh per day per person.
Now FFS read the rest of it. I cannot do it for you. If you had done this in the first place, you could have avoided making such a tit of yourself in public.
As we know (because I told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference) MacKay used 125kWh/d/p in the five energy plans he presents later in the book.
What you are doing here is simply crude strawmanning. But you were wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.
Now, as you also know, because I have told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference, your claim about offshore wind makes exactly no sense at all. Mind you, shrilling that MacKay is shilling for Big Nuke is completely insane, so this relatively minor in comparison.
This nonsense could only have been written by an energy illiterate who has not read the fucking reference:
Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.
From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.
I set you straight in detail at # 78. Oddly, you don't actually mention this above. But once again, you were completely wrong.
It is very clear that you do not understand this topic and are not competent to argue it. It is equally clear that you have not read the reference and you are wasting my time.
Sort yourself out and admit your repeated errors which are demonstrated in black and white above. It's too late to stop you making a prize pillock of yourself, but frankly, you deserve the embarrassment.
I have just started reading through the very interesting David MacKay document but would like to direct further comment to the March Open Thread where I think any further discussion could be continued.
Brad Keyes & chameleon --- The best global temperature is that in which modern (industrialized) agriculture originated. After a return to that of course slow changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.
By the way David, I always enjoy your contributions so could you please make them here and not on the March 2013 "Open" Thread, where I'm apparently not allowed to respond to you?
The moderators seem to be cracking down on me for getting uppity and wandering off-plantation.
I risked further punitive censorship tonight by posting the following on the March open thread, where Wow is being puerile even by his purulent standards. It'll never see the light of day there but I thought you might like to read it:
Mods,
far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?
#63 Wow
March 16, 2013
And you really shouldn’t call Anthony Watts a paedo child sex trafficer like that, it’s a libellous claim, Olap!
#64 Wow
March 16, 2013
Even if it could be true.
Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.
thanks for this (characteristically!) polite, honest and committal articulation of your POV:
Brad Keyes & chameleon — The best global temperature is that in which modern (industrialized) agriculture originated. After a return to that of course slow changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.
It raises more questions than it answers, however—which is not necessarily a bad thing. ;-)
1. At what global temperature did modern (industrialised) agriculture originate? Approximately? Or, since that might not be known, perhaps I should ask: what year's climate are we talking about, approximately? How far back in time is the reference point?
2. How rapidly would you like us to return to that year's climate, if you had a magic wand with which you could cause global cooling?
3. When you say "the current warming is far too rapid," does the word "current" include the past 15 years?
4. If “the current warming is far too rapid,” would it not be reasonable to assume that rapid cooling is equally undesirable, and that you’d therefore prefer us to return to the ideal year’s climate very, very slowly (if you had the magic wand I just postulated)? And by “very, very slowly,” I presumably mean even more slowly than the current so-slow-it’s-virtually-imperceptible rate of temperature change.
5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed two examples (just paraphrasing from memory—and I hope I'm doing so accurately): more frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves. Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single factor: the instantaneous “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves, are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?
I learned in a half-dozen classes to read with complete comprehension and retention (as complete as "normal", anyway) at about 500 words per minute, with good comprehension and retention at about 700 wpm, and okay at 1300 wpm. And by okay, I mean better than the comprehension one would get by "skimming" the page using "slow reading" techniques.
Frankly, its hard work, and that top speed is really only useful for a few pages before the comprehension and retention falls away to the point of being useless. Reading for pleasure, I prefer to loaf along at 350 wpm and enjoy the process as well as the content.
MoD has around 150,000 words (~340-odd pages x ~450 words per page), so one would need to read at about 650 wpm to get through it in four hours. I've only read snippets, but it seems to be written in a fairly straightforward style without any challenge to comprehension. A sustained 650 wpm is too much like hard work for me, but its entirely possible for a less lazy reader.
I have very little interest in who has actually read or comprehended Merchants of Doubt. For mine, most of the opera on this thread have been Wagnerian in their dullness, but we have been offered a few interesting divertimenti. People who choose to spend more time here that I do might find their investment more profitable if they did not simply deny what they find unlike at first glance, and concentrated on substantive errors by their antagonists. Just sayin'.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled rancour.
5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed three examples: more frequent extreme weather events, excessively hard rainfall that damages crops and erodes soil, and heat-waves causing human deaths. (I’m just paraphrasing from memory—but I hope I'm doing so accurately.) Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single variable: this year’s “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “of course slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, crop-ruining rainfall and fatal heat-waves are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?
6. To simplify, but hopefully not to oversimplify, I think I detect some incoherence—or at least fuzziness—in your beliefs. (Don’t take this criticism personally; the irony is that I’m picking on you because you’re much clearer, not less clear, than your fellow believers!) Which of the following, exactly, is your position:
You could be part of the solution if you stuck around.
*On reading speed, I think you approach the nettle without quite grasping it. Namely: it's a misconception that reading speed is inversely related to comprehension and retention.
To take this myth to its reductio ad absurdum, one would have to believe that the uneducated cowboy in the Western, the guy who can only read the "Wanted" poster by painfully sounding it out letter by letter, is the character who understands and remembers it better than anyone in town! Of course the truth is exactly the reverse. If you could take in a whole sentence, or better yet a whole paragraph, at a glance, then you'd see the structure of the argument rather clearly indeed. I'd go so far as to say that was the key to grokking serious texts.
The only catch, as mentioned by FrankD, is that this skill is hard work.
And, at the risk of attracting the attention of the auto-moderator, here’s an interesting piece on the (un)holy alliance between AGW denial and creationism – sorry; ‘Intelligent Design’ – targeting the school room.
Or, 20th century Creationism hybridizes with its 21st Century equivalent…
Try advancing this conspiracy “(un)holy alliance” theory bullshit Down Under and see how far it gets. Sadly for you, the best-known, best-loved intellectual scourge of the Creationists here in Australia is Ian Plimer—who was a televisual darling of the secular left until he made the doctrinal faux pas of questioning CAGW.
You may be interested to know that Lionel A flattered me not long ago with a comparison to Richard Dawkins:
Like this example Wow: Dawkins v Wendy Wright … BK is now sailing very close to this wind.
Funnily enough, I get this quite a bit. I suspect it’s because we’re both triple threats: top-notch verbal and mathematical IQs plus patrician good looks—though Dawkins is somewhat full of himself whereas I have, if anything, the opposite problem (not arrogant enough).
I’m also the veteran of my share of wars of attrition with the creationist “mind.” Unlike Dawkins, though, I outgrew the royal sport of hick baiting in my early twenties—around the time I learned you can’t win an argument by sighing and condescending. It’s no longer my apostolic mission to make stupid people confess their stupidity.
Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that I let anyone get away with scientifically-illiterate thinking; regulars around here know I don’t suffer that $#!1 gladly!
But I part ways with Dawkins here: by resolving to Hate The Illiteracy, Not The Illiterate. (Of course I’m only human and often lose my patience… like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: we should take a minute to thank our local literalist, fundagelical, Truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argumentation. The day we’re made speechless by the sheer fatuity of our interlocutor’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, I think. By forcing us to enunciate, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function, with their muddled questions and confused objections.
Here’s a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable right to talk (among other things) crap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
“Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been dissecting the Marcott et al. paper and corresponding with lead author Shaun Marcott, raising constructive and important questions.”
What a nerve! But let’s hope for the best!
... why would the Affirmative side be worried?
Science can only be done by actual scientists, not septuagenarian squash bloggers! If you don't believe me, ask noted science virgin Vince Whirlwind!
You know, I did suggest, right at the start, it was a good idea not to mention the war.
This debate has been banned at various other blogs, or confined to specific threads and allowed no leakage. There’s a good reason why. See above.
David BB – here’s a hint. The above, and the similar result on the other thread, are the entirely predictable outcome on attempting to force this (off-)topic into discussion.
So enlighten us, birdbrain: what is the (on-)topic of an open thread?
I suspect the "good reason why” BBD and Wow aren’t allowed to have this debatewar on most threads of most blogs is that just by having it, they remind the world that 1 in every 2 believers is an irrational, intractable, intransigent fanatic.
if you wish to label anyone who disagrees with you in this matter a ‘denier’ that’s up to you, but, again, if you wish to make any converts to your cause you’re going about it in an odd way to my mind.
Be that as it may – you’re doing it again. This conversation really can serve no purpose anymore – if it ever could.
I fully support the anti-rancor policy of both Luke Skywalker and FrankD. Why can't we just get along? But if South Africa has taught us anything, and it probably hasn't, it's that reconciliation goes hand-in-hand with truth. So we need to be clear:
You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.
(Falsely, obviously.)
This puts you in a trilemma. A real trilemma, logical and ineluctable. Not just a moral one, not a matter of a pinion—so don't try to wing it because you don't have a prayer.
You must (and I use the metaphysical "must") do one of the following:
1. produce some evidence against Chameleon
2. contritely admit you were wrong
or
3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread
Brad Keyes --- Too many questions. First on electric power generation denial. There are many in denial of the most cost effective solutions; I don't particularly find it where (with one notable exception).
As for suitable global temperature, about 0.8 K cooler than now would be appropriate. To obtain that requires removing over 500 gigatonnes of carbon from the active carbon cycle (while not adding any more). That feat will require some time, centuries at best.
Slow changes in the future might then be either up or down (a bit) depending upon the future understandings of climatologists, ecologists and agriculturalists.
You were taught by Tim Lambert?! It's a small world ;-) (Page 38 # 87:)
[BBD: TL is accusing you, BK, of using a sock]
[BK:] No he’s not.
That would make TL insane. TL may be a lot of things, but last time I met him he was lucid and oriented.
And:
Thank you so freaking much for that refresher, BBD. Cos, you know, when I think of Tim Lambert, I merely think of the UNSW lecturer who gave me 97.0 in a subject that wasn’t mainly about Internet protocols!
You assert that you are falsely accused of sock-pupptery. You claim that only I think this is the case:
Suuuure. That’s why this is the first anyone has mentioned the accusation to me, right?
And I still don’t believe that you’re female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong. And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too, and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk. There’s also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.
Shouls we pull down your bloomers and check Chameleon? Or is it Keyesmeleon?
But for me, the most interesting part is the moderation. All your comments appear in a block. Apparently you are in moderation just like Chameleon, whose comments also appear in a block, as far as I can tell at the same time as yours, although without time-stamped comments it's hard to be certain. Chameleon is in moderation because she is either a sock or using one. The obvious inference is that TL has put *you* in moderation because you are either a sock or using one. Perhaps we have this back to front and she's the real brains behind the operation and you are a toe-rag?
I'll take the absence of an abusive tone in your latest comment as contrition.
But I don't buy your conspiracy theory about a certain pair of commenters here. Not for a dollar. Not for a cent.
All your comments appear in a block. Apparently you are in moderation just like Chameleon,
Figured that out all by yourself, did you, BBD?
:-)
whose comments also appear in a block, as far as I can tell at the same time as yours, although without time-stamped comments it’s hard to be certain.
The (non-conspiracist) explanation is fairly obvious.
1. We live in the same timezone.
2. Comments are released from quarantine in bursts.
Chameleon is in moderation because she is either a sock or using one.
So they said. Falsely. Once.
They don't even have the courage of their conviction, though, do they?
As you indignantly pointed out, they keep allowing her (and me) to comment here.
The obvious inference is that TL has put *you* in moderation because you are either a sock or using one.
*Sigh.* I'll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I'd been placed in moderation. Hint: it wasn't for the same reason as Chameleon. It wasn't at the same time as Chameleon. I've been in moderation about a week longer than her because certain moaning bitches bitched and moaned to the moderators about my terrifying incursions into the minor threads.
Other than that though... great theory. You'd make a rad scientist, BBD.
Perhaps we have this back to front and she’s the real brains behind the operation ...?
I'm flattered that you ever thought otherwise.
"Suuuure. That’s why this is the first anyone has mentioned the accusation to me, right?"
It has been mentioned.
Not to me it hasn't.
Bernard J provides an illustrative example on the February open thread:
Forgive me if I haven't read all the comments directed to other commenters on threads not dedicated to me. I wouldn't have known Bernard J's latest attempt at pop psychology (or is it meant to be linguistic analysis?) even existed had you not brought it to my attention. Thanks for the laughs, BBD. But seriously, what does any of this shit mean:
And I still don’t believe that you’re female Chameleon. Your usage is wrong.
Only males use wrong usage?
And as BBD and others are pointing out your style is changing too,
What, females are renowned for their stylistic constancy? Has Bernard ever met one, I wonder?
and both usage and style are inconsistent with your little sentence-to-a-paragraph quirk.
How can someone's "usage and style" be inconsistent with their own quirk? Is Bernard J deliberately stultifying his own remarks to obscure the complete lack of a case here? I don't remember him ever being quite this moronic.
There’s also that little tag-team appraoch to subject matter that dissonates.
Ah, the tag-team "appraoch"! But isn't that a well-documented denier trope? ;-)
And pray tell: what subject matter "dissonates," exactly?
What denial[ism] have you witnessed on this thread, David, ...
Let's start with Page 1, post #8:
Brad says,
Vince points out that I’m “a pathetic liar” ...
Have I ever claimed to be good at lying? No.
and:
a certain deltoid pretended the Hockey Stick reconstruction of historical temperatures had been “confirmed” as “correct” by the BEST stud.
That's two examples right there, and it took no time at all to find them.
Considering I only looked through the first ten posts on the first page of this thread, I could, from that rate of denial make the projection that 40 pages at 100 comments per page could be expected to contain around 800 examples of Brad Keyes' denialism.
Civilian nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide: http://www.world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/rdresults.aspx?id=27569&Ex…
I make it about 70; somehow many different planners, economists and engineers have come to the definite conclusion that some NPPs are the best balanced way for them to provide electrical power.
Yes David B,
The same applies to hydro power worldwide.
Best and balance (ie logic) seems to be sadly MIA in the current Australian political climate.
The concept of sensible risk management and planning seems to be overly obstructed by a political misuse of the 'precautionary principle'.
I wish you could see my comments in a reasonable timeframe but apparently because BJ doesn't believe I am a female my comments have to wait approx 24 hours in moderation.
I don't know or care what Ian Plimer's nickname is, which element of the periodic table he thinks is at the core of the sun, or why you would think that was relevant.
Well: you are insanely unintelligent, so that might explain it.
You covered most of it! I think I have a better idea now of what you'd like to see happening, how fast it could be safely achieved and how much decarbonization it would take.
When was the climate 0.8K cooler than it is now, in your view? I.e. what's the ideal or target year to which you'd support a return, in climatic terms?
And I'd still like to know:
3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?
"So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?
ANSWER: YOU DON’T."
There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty.
And that is for me to secretly own the blog.
You got me, chek. You've exposed the Great Conspiracy.
My real name is Eustace B. Geographic III, better known at my old Yale stomping-grounds as That Party Legend who Deflowered the Bush Twins, and my family owns this blog. I've been moderating with my left hand and commenting with my right, playing you believalists and denialists off against each other for years like the chumps you are, while pa and his old college buddies raked in the wind-turbine dollars hand over fist!
And it was all going so well until the humblest and simplest of cretins, chek, saw through it with that special perspicacity unique to the retarded and feeble-minded.
You may marvel that anyone could be evil enough even to consider the use of sock puppets and other non-conventional discursive weapons, but if so, you’re a fool. You misunderestimate the thoroughness of my ethical dissolution. To playboys like me and Olaus (of the dish dynasty), you workaday muggles are little more than meat-puppets who exist for our amusement and profit.
Something very interesting just happened on the minor thread.
Someone's just posted what purports to be a "Highly recommended video that meticulously shreds Monckton’s performance in his 2011 debate with Richard Denniss:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0
What's the big deal? Well, it now appears that the climate movement has elected to do to the rules of debating what it did to the rules of science several years ago: misunderstand, misrepresent and change them. And for the same apparent reason: the rules were too hard. It was impossible to win under the normal rules. They kept losing.
As you may know, the point of a debate is that Richard Denniss gets a chance to shred his opponent Monckton's performance, if he can, in front of a live audience. The point is not for Denniss to fail miserably and leave it up to a video editor and production crew to shred it for him. 2 years later!
Can we look forward to Monckton's team putting together a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Richard Denniss' performance in the highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?
Can we then expect a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the video meticulously shredding Denniss' performance in the video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?
It's Climate Debating! Kind of like climate honesty, climate finance, climate ethics and climate science.
Meh. Watched it. I'd built it up into something much cooler in my mind. I doubt this idea has more than 1 or 2 sequels left in it. Monckton may not even bother countering this with a video of his own. Sorry for overhyping it guys.
'sfunny how bray whines on about the Great Conspiracy by Mann and Jones to "hide" the evidence of faking their work but gets all bent out of shape and complains of others that he strawmans into making a statement of conspiracy against him.
Mann and Jones used the decline-hiding trick SEPARATELY—Mann used it in Nature, and Jones used it for his WMO presentation—no conspiracy necessary.
Of course, the email in which Jones admits this was sent to 4 recipients, none of whom filed a complaint about what Jones had done. This is prima facie a conspiracy of silence. There has never been a non-conspiracist explanation for that email and I doubt there ever could be.
Anyway Wow, I was hoping you'd tell me what you think of my advice to the mods:
_________________________
Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?
#63 Wow March 16, 2013
And you really shouldn’t call Anthony Watts a paedo child sex trafficer like that, it’s a libellous claim, Olap!
#64 Wow March 16, 2013
Even if it could be true.
Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.
"Brad", you ceased having anything of even mild interest to say weeks ago. But you continue with your act anyway, in the face of yawning boredom and no return on time invested on this side.
Maybe it'd be better for you to continue the discussion with your hairdresser.
It's richly amusing to watch a sly, dishonest man getting angry about being accused of sly dishonest behaviour. If (and this is the really rich bit) you are actually *innocent* and Chameleon is your significant other, it makes no difference. I simply enjoy the spectacle of you being frustrated and angry. This is how you make other commenters here feel all the time with your endlessly morphing arguments and refusal to answer straight questions.
If (and this is the really rich bit) you are actually *innocent* and Chameleon is your significant other, it makes no difference. I simply enjoy the spectacle of you being frustrated and angry.
and then expect either of us to lift a finger to help you solve your little mystery. By your own admission, you're not interested in the truth but are purely driven by spiteful obnoxiousness.
I'm taking a Fuck You approach to all future questions about my and/or chameleon's personal lives.
I suggest you do the same, chameleon.
Still, I must admit your detective powers are a sight to behold, BBD:
I’m suggesting that you are either a sock created by Bradley, or you are his significant other.
So you've narrowed it down to either:
- chameleon doesn't sound like a female
or
- chameleon is my wife
Damn, if only the Keystone Kops of the Norwich Constabulary had had access to your brainpower they would have cracked the Purloined CRU Letters case in no time and the whistlehacker would be behind bars!
*Sigh.* I’ll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I’d been placed in moderation.
I did indeed miss it. Please provide a link.
It was a couple of weeks ago on the Feb thread. It was a comment under my name that simply said "Brad has been placed in moderation due to multiple violations of the rules."
Do as BBD bid you a long time ago and lay out your self justification for your denial. That is, in terms of the science, and not those nasty warmist blogs that inevitably find out you're not a fwend and proceed to treat you like shit of Olap's calibre. At least that would give us a good laugh.
Otherwise your future looks like endless content-free braying cries for attention. And nobody needs that.
Horrible but true: Bradley has inflicted himself on Tara's blog and is now replicating the Branglina Thread: 'there's no such thing as scientific consensus or there is but it's made of puppy dogs' tails and Vegemite' etc.
It’s interesting that you use pharmacology as an example. Perhaps you didn’t know that it’s the paradigmatic example of evidence-based, not consensus-based, medicine.
Good book. But first Bradley needs to stop pretending that there is such a thing as 'consensus-based' science per his strawman misrepresentation of climatology.
Science is *evidence-based* as we all know. Including the science of physical climatology. Brad is playing word games because that's all he's got. Hence the repeat of his trick over at Tara's. Obligate tactics for someone arguing the indefensible and bereft of a scientific case.
Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?
One of the facts you explained (rather well) was
the point about the Hockey Stick. Which is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick.
It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.
I reiterate that I agree this doesn’t ‘falsify’ AGW. Obviously. But it reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.
This is not correct scientific practice.
So far so good.
But if you know the IPCC’s actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:
Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?
This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?
Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.”
Thank you. I’m aware of that.
I know it does—on some things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.
But this is not one of those topics. The truth of your statement:
This [conduct by the IPCC et al.] is not correct scientific practice.
does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.
Vince Whirlwind --- In the case of Vogtle 3 & 4 the utility prepared a detailed report and convinced the state utility commission that these Westinghouse AP-1000 were the most beneficial choice. The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV) but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee).
In many of the represented countries the electric generators, grid, etc. are state owned.
"The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV)"
Uh, nope.
Insurance: paid for. Shortfall from accident: paid for. About 7.1Bn dollars a year, the benefits are worth.
"but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee)."
But if the fee were really substantial and a fair deal, then there would be private underwriters who would take it on, right?
Except they don't. Refuse point blank.
Indeed EDF requires a deal that would cost 100Bn, and guaranteeing a spot price for 40 years or they won't do it.
I don't think the prices are what you remember from ages and ages past, which would have been figures that the CFO and marketing department would have had, not the science department.
Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance. Private insurance doesn't attempt to compete with the federal government for those loan guarantees nor flood insurance.
That said, I don't know of a single country in which the actual entire cost of the electric utility (or utilities) is bourne solely by ratepayers. For some reason the politicians always stick in their oar at the expense of taxpayers. If someone knows a country in which that (largely, not entirely) is not the case I certainly would like to learn of it.
David, the USA has legislation transferring the risk from nuclear power stations to the taxpayer. The liability assumed by the industry is capped at a very low level.
Maybe have a look at the losses incurred by the Japanese economy as a result of Fukushima and tell us how much (or how little) of that is being covered by Tepco or its insurance?
And I'm sure it doesn't need to be pointed out that this externalised cost of risk has no equivalent in any of the renewable technologies: it is in effect a subsidy to nuclear that is not available to renewables.
The government of Ukraine has been trying to raise the $1 billion necessary to cover the cost of sealing the Chernobyl reactors. Meanwhile Byelorussia spends a two-figure proportion of its GNP every year in addressing nuclear cleanup issues.
If the Nuclear industry isn't an economic proposition without avoiding the costs of insuring its activities, then any positive comment about its economic viability is based on a lie.
The free market has decided the risk associated with the nuclear industry is uninsurable. That's good enough for me to reject it as a valid proposition.
Meanwhile, Yucca mountain has cost the taxpayers $100billion and has abjectly failed to provide any kind of solution to the nuclear industry's waste problem.
Over in the UK, a similar amount is being spent by the taxpayer on decommissioning.
More interestingly, the UK High Court found in 2007 that the nuclear Industry and its government puppets had broken the law in publishing dishonest information in the pro-nuclear 2006 government Energy review.
If nuclear were a valid economic proposition, its supporters would not find it necessary to be dishonest to the point of breaking the law.
Bottom line is, nuclear is dangerous, it's dirty, and it is fundamentally dishonest.
BBD @58,
I am suggesting you've just lost any chance of any credibility!
You're suggestions are completely unsubstantiated RUBBISH!
What a pity.
You were actually starting to discuss something useful and practical re future energy needs.
Now you've returned to pointless and counter productive name calling and paranoid suspicions about others.
And no doubt this comment will languish in moderation yet again.
Yucca Mountain characterization has cost taxpayers about US$8 billion. See http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2011/pdf/nv110427ym.pdf
Other than a place for otherwise unusable military radioactive materials it is a bad idea as once through nuclear materials can be further beneficially used in a fast reactor such as the GE-Hitachi PRISM. The problems in the UK are due to overly hasty bomb plutonium making; nothing whatsoever to do with civilian power reactors.
David B,
Hats off to you for your insistence in talking some sense re future energy needs!
May I suggest you apply similar common sense re the concept of a 'climate utopia'.
Also, IF THE EFFING MODERATOR/S WILL LET ME COMMENT IN SYNCH(!!!!!!!!!) I will happily further discuss the political roadblocks in Australia with you (re future energy needs).
Brad Keyes — Approximately the first half of the 19th century.
Great.
To test the benefits of this proposal of returning to a first-half-of-the-19th-century climate, could you nominate a decade in the first half of the 19th century in which the climate was preferable to that of the current past decade (2003–2013)?
Earlier I posted threes links which point out that decade by decade, the warming is relentless; there has been no pause since the 1950s.
Yep, I saw that post.
Is this by way of an affirmative answer to the question:
3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?
you guys seem to think Anthony Watts is a "climate change denier" because, among other things, he "denies the temperature record." (If I've unfairly included one of you among these 3 musketeers, just say so—I apologise.)
Now that Michael Mann himself has admitted this allegation is false and issued a retraction—see https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann: "Apparently #AnthonyWatts not denying instrumental record of warming, so I withdraw the claim."—do you still make it? Or are you at least as honest as Fauxbel-Prize claimant Michael Mann?
BradK @ 54,
Walter Starck calls that 'an academic pissing contest'.
I think it's a fairly apt (but rather crude) description.
It has got totally out of hand in the 'climate debate'!!! (IMHO)
And @ 64
If I was married to you I would need to be prosecuted for polygamy :-)
I also suspect from some of the things you have said here that we are not from the same generation or from the same area :-)
Despite the deltoids' paranoid refusal to beieve me, I am indeed female I am happily married,
(not to you however :-) ) I have 3 beautiful children and I am a resident of rural inland Australia.
David B,
I note you have graciously offered to continue your discussions about future energy requirements here and not at the March thread.
As I said in an earlier comment (WHICH IS STILL IN EFFING MODERATION!!!!)
If the moderator/s can get past pandering to the stupid unsubstantiated rantings of paranoid and misogynist/misanthropic/alarmist people like BJ, BBD, Chek, Wow and Bill, I will be happy to advance this discussion.
While I suspect that our perspectives are somewhat different, I do respect your courage of conviction and your method of engagement.
I'll look forward to the renewable industry being given an additional $10 billion to match the $10billion spent on the now-abandoned and worse-than-useless Yucca Mountain project then.
Vince Whirlwind --- It is only abandoned until Reid is no longer senator. And only US$8 billion has been spent so far. Chalk that up as part of the so-called national security budget; the military waste does have to be kept away from the environment for a very long time.
Sou's back with her unique brand of unfunny paranoia.
You don’t have to write to the authors to ‘prove’ climate science is a hoax.
I hate to ruin a good story but, as we all know, there's not a single denier out there trying to 'prove' climate science is a hoax. Sou is getting her private cinemascope reality confused with external, shared reality. What's new, eh?
And I'm afraid, dear readers, that's an ongoing theme in Sou's latest comment...
All you have to do is mention the name of a climate scientist
Really? That's all I have to do to win the prize and 'prove' climate science 'is' a 'hoax'? 'Thank' you for telling me, Sou—you're a really 'useful' addition to the human species! I don't tell you that often enough. Just thought I'd mention it, so that you feel 'appreciated.'
or say you’ve stolen some emails or mention you are sending an FOI demand, and the whole edifice of climate science crumbles to the ground (in Wattsville or CA-land).
I have to ask, Sou—does anyone but you think "the whole edifice of climate science" is at stake, in question, at issue, in contention or under attack?
Anyone at all? On the planet? In the blogosphere?
Second question: in your hallucinations, who is it that claims they've stolen some emails? You do realize that Peter Gleick—who stole printed documents, NOT emails, by the way—is one of your guys, right?
BTW – guess who was the one millionth poster on WUWT? None other than poptech! Couldn’t be more fitting if they tried.
Is there a punchline coming up? Sometime soon?
Oh, okay. That was the entire, ahem, joke.
Clap.
(Almost as good as winning the most ‘popular’ anti-science blog or getting a lifetime achievement award from the denier bloggies!)
Ah, the good ol' most ‘popular’ anti-science blog award. Which you just made up. Hilarious, hilarious stuff.
Did you really think that limp turd of a gag deserved an exclamation mark, Sou?
Hang on, I thought it was tree rings and modern thermometers that deniers hated.
Well, don't you feel stupid?
Have they moved onto hating alkenones now?
Nope.
What about ice cores and speleotherms – saving them for another day I suppose.
Nope.
And there we have it. Thanks for that, uh, contribution to the ...conversation, Sou.
I can't resist noting, in passing, that your return to this blog coincides with that of Lotharsson, who also can't tell a joke to save his life and just happens to have a rather similar pseudo-scientific bee in his bonnet about harmless, everyday carbon dioxide and how it's going to bring about the end times, the destruction of the Second Temple and the return of the Messiah. BBD, did you notice the remarkable timing too? Does it provoke any husband-and-wife / ventriloquist-and-dummy theories you'd like to share with us?
since you're pretending not to read this question over at Tara "The Aim Was to Shame the Skeptic" Sparks' site, I'm forced to repost it here in hopes that peer pressure will finally force you to answer it.
Having been caught trying to do exactly, literally what I told TinyCO2 believers sought to do (namely, to pass off consensus as evidence), you rationalized:
I see. So scientific consensus arises spontaneously in an evidential vacuum, does it?
I responded:
––––––––––––––––––
Obviously it can. Or it can arise in an evidential cornucopia. Or somewhere in between.
The ONLY scientific question is: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? The existence or absence of a consensus means nothing to a scientist. We don’t have opinion polls in science. For 250 years, until Naomi Oreskes came along, the idea of ascertaining whether all scientists agreed on a particular theory about nature would have been despised and ridiculed, and rightly so. By me and every scientist I know.
Tell me—since you’ve thus far refused to say:
1. what evidence was there, prior to Marshall and Warren’s experiment, that gastric and peptic ulcers were non-infective in aetiology?
2. what evidence was there, prior to Schechtman’s Nobel-Prize-winning work, that quasiperiodic crystals were non-existent, impossible, highly improbable, uninteresting and/or useless?
"Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance."
David has, as usual, got it wrong.
They purchase insurance for a fraction of losses, but an accident payout, as Vince says, is capped at some millions of dollars.
It's like insuring your house for $100 in case of accident then getting the government to underwrite the remaining $259,900 and claiming you're getting your own insurance, not leeching of the taxpayer.
In the USA alone, $7.1Bn a year is spent as subsidy to nuclear power.
You mean you're not a sock and not BK's significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?
Bradley really needs to get hold of a copy of Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.
I'll try to make time to read it, but you'll be relieved to know I'm under no illusions about the scientific purity of the drug business as it operates in the real world. But I'm at a loss to see how this helps your case. On the contrary, it puts the imprescindibility of the scientific method into razor-sharp focus. The moment drug researchers behave less like scientists—even a little bit—and more like climate scientists—even just a little bit like them!—pharmacology ceases to work as a science and innocent people die. At Tara's blog some wishy-washy self-styled denier is trying to convince me that pharmacology "ultimately relies on consensus," but what she doesn't grasp is that she's talking about bad pharmacology. The kind that kills people for no better reason than "9 out of 10 doctors have been killing their patients this way ever since they got out of med school." Good pharma relies on evidence and only evidence, because pharmacology in principle is a science.
I anticipate your disagreeing with something I've said, but as long as we keep it on a "Lionel"-"Bradley" basis (or better yet "Brad"), it'll be a pleasant and edifying conversation!
You mean you’re not a sock and not BK’s significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?
Huh? What do I know about her that's not public knowledge? (Someone had to tell me Chameleon was female, so that should be your tipoff that I didn't know her socially. Same happened with Sou the first time I called "him" a strawman-erecting hypocritical weaselly bastard.) The only privileged knowledge I've ever let slip is that Chameleon didn't sock-puppet. I know because I asked her. By email. (To which she had to ask, "what does sock-puppeting mean?!") Not that the complete bogusness of the accusation wasn't 97% obvious anyway—except perhaps to the more, ahem, conspiracist / paranoid ideators who might be among us. Present company excepted, of course. *cough.* Other than that, what would make you think we know each other privately or socially? I put my real name (cryptically) and email details in a comment—you all could have read it, solved it and been my inbox buddies right now. But by design, the encryption acted as a filter, so that only deniers had the IQ to work it out, and the only email friendship that blossomed from that point on was with the lovely, intelligent, overly-polite, frustratingly-honest, married Chameleon.
"Is romance in the air?" Er, doesn't she, like, have a husband? Wasn't she forced to mention that fact in response to a prurient, lubricious and salacious insinuation from one of you unwashed raised-by-wolves ruffians? That kind of language may fly down at the construction site but up here, in the rarefied towers of the climate debate, the watchwords are respect, chivalry, courtesy and amiability AT ALL FUCKING TIMES, YOU BELIEVALIST NEANDERTHALS, is that understood? There may be ladies present at any moment, without notice, so elbows off tables and flies up, please, gentlemen.
I checked Wikipedia, David, and the figures given for Australia are way out of date and do not match current data that show wind as being virtually half the cost of new coal, and cheaper than gas even.
I simply will not believe any of the Nuclear propaganda on there, as that industry is notorious for hiding costs, making wrong assumptions, and emitting bald-faced lies to support their uninsurable business activities that produce waste remains untreatable to this day.
The evidence of law-breaking in relation to misinformation inserted by the nuke lobby into the UK's 2006 government energy report characterises the trust that industry deserves from the taxpayer it intends to leach off: none whatsoever.
If they can build a nuclear power plant without any kind of government subsidy and with full, uncapped insurance obtained via the free market, I will support them all the way.
Obviously, it's never going to happen. Virtually any method of generating electricity is cheaper than nuclear once you include a full, honest balance sheet with no slippery externalising.
And no doubt this comment will languish in moderation yet again.
Oops! Slipped out of character there a bit....since when does a half-witted country-bumpkin unable to form paragraphs use a word like "languish" when "gets stuck" and "got blocked" are available?
Jeff:
What dismissal? I recommended the book to Chameleon.
In any case thank you, Jeff, for realizing that I have read it. BBD's dismissal of the fact that I've read it—a fact which is not remotely controversial—is a clear sign of denial.
David B Benson
Your tolerance toward BK is misdirected.
David,
Thanks for that, I have been studying Ruddiman for a few years now (having suspected the case for some time before finding Ruddiman on to it) and have a couple of his books. As I don't have access to that work you cited I'll check back when final publication is in.
I have read Broecker too, and of course Alley but more context on Rudiman's line is provided by the works of Jared Diamond.
Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty Bradley:
Once again, refuse to answer key questions that, were you to address them substantively and in good faith would immediately and irrevocably demolish your 'position:
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!
- We are all laughing at you!
No comfort in the Ruddiman hypothesis for proponents of low ECS to GHGs.
Actually, while we are talking about books and Bill Ruddiman, he wrote possibly the best paleoclimate/climate textbook currently available: Earth's Climate, past and future, now in its second edition. Very highly recommended, especially to Brad.
David,
When BBD tells you
I think it's meant to be a hint. It's not enough to agree with them about climate change, you actually have to hate people who disagree with them—hate us in a "put 'er in the hotbox fer runnin' away from the plantation", "stakes and bundles of firewood" kind of way, like BBD—or else be prepared for Wow el al. to call you a
Indeed, that is one I have, and still studying, rather allot to it if one ponders on the implications rather than just reading it. My copy is in similar weight paper to my copy of Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science which is also highly recommended for climate and planetary systems (Earth's systems) neophytes. Then progress onto Pierrehumbert's, 'Principles of Planetary Climate', first mentioned by David way up thread.
James Hansen's 'Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity' is also recommended for the explanations of climate sensitivity and a counter to Lindzen's nonsense. Lindzen must be getting used to being wrong, such a shame for a clearly talented physicist to have to dwell in and live off the brown-lash. Darned good quote from Feynman too, which sheds a spotlight on Lindzen's type of argument.
Much of which Lindzen, only dare repeat to lay-audiences or sneak into the type of media 'balanced' debate knowing that a gish gallop is tough to refute in a couple of minutes on such (Richard Alley is king of this sort of refutation), especially with a hostile, to climate science, chair.
Whilst writing about books here is a reasonable list from The Way Things Break .
I could add a few to that now after four years.
Lionel,
Could you tell us the quote?
Why are all deniers so obsessed with Feynman? Is it because he is dead and cannot repudiate their hijacking of his words?
It's likely because - and "Brad's" the perfect example - they can know fuck all about science, but man can they learn dem Feynman quotes and sound all meta-sciencey.
Unfortunately, he's been so misused that even if quoted accurately (but hardly ever in a useful context) it signifies the would be user is an ignorant jackass to me. Hardly fair on poor ol' Rich, but there ya go.
Meanwhile, "Brad's" lips will be subvocalising at twenty to the dozen as he tucks another one under his belt to misuse at some point. Jackass that he is.
BBD: Yes. By the same method homeopaths could use him to bolster their case.
Remember also that Deniers will be the first to tell you that they're deeply opposed to arguments from authority... apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority is just fine, though.
BBD - here's a current discussion at SkS on the Shanghaied Shades of Feynman & Popper vs. Reality.
bill,
you lack the subtlety of mind to know what's wrong with this statement, so I'll just explain it to you:
Oh FFS, bill! Argument from authority is completely illegitimate in science. And I've never said—nor has any other denier ever said—that it would be "just fine" to cite Feynman's authority in science. That's a private auditory hallucination of yours.
We don't cite his authority in science. We don't even cite his authority about science (metascientifically). But we are fond of quoting his metascientific sayings—apparently more fond than believers. Why? Because Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders, in a crystal-clear Brooklyn register that anyone can understand. Even Arts graduates.
Really? I'd be amused and indebted if you could regale us with an impression of a hypothetical homeopath quoting Feynman "to bolster their case."
The Angry Summer: Report Blames Climate Change For Australia’s Extreme Weather
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/05/1677531/australia-summer-cl…
*sigh*
chek:
More CFC emissions. Yawn.
You have no idea how much I know about science and you've never asked, so your speculations aren't worth shit.
So you think James Hansen is an ignorant jackass? :-)
ROFL....
You just don't know when to control your emissions, do you chek?
BK, #98:
"Correctamundo. I wonder: does this suggest, by analogy, what a scientist should understand before she tries to teach a non-scientist about scientific reasoning?"
BK: The question would never arise, as she would be too wise to attempt to explain something so difficult. :-)
Seriously, I am inclined to suspect that most scientists are actually rather poor in terms of their understanding of scientific reasoning. At least, insofar as that relates to epistemological issues, and the philosophy of science. (I remember my own early encounters, in third-year physical chemistry lectures, with the philosophy of science: I have never been able to shake off the feeling I had then that nearly all my classmates were deeply uninterested.)
But what is meant by “scientific reasoning”? If I may be permitted to make ritual obeisance to the wisdom of Feynman, here is something he once had to say:
“Scientific reasoning requires a certain discipline, and we should try to teach this discipline, because even on the lowest level such errors [as are associated with the mis-interpretation of results] are unnecessary today.” (R.P. Feynman, “The Meaning of it All”)
I commend this endorsement of everyday commonsensical consideration of the interpretation of data to- just to take a purely random example!- those folk who cherry-pick a series of temperature measurements to show (for example) that the Earth has been "cooling for the last 16 years”, or some such nonsense. They should ask themselves “what’s up?” with that kind of interpretation of data. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be capable of such critical reasoning.
~ BEST OF THE MINORS ~
For those who haven't checked the lesser threads, here are some of the more important, thoughtful points raised in the periphery today.
chek:
Bernard J:
Vince Whirlwind:
Brad Keyes:
Yikes! Given the low, low standards of commentary now permitted to be associated with the National Geographic brand, I shudder to think how vile this "Brad" fellow's remarks must have been to attract censorial attention. What a misogynist adolescent he probably is.
Moderators,
Sarcasm aside, I have to agree with mike on the less-popular thread: Bernard's comment #89 was unbelievably stupid and ugly. Please do something about it.
Why do you *sigh* David?
Have look back over the previous 35 pages of this thread and the umpteen other pages of attempts to reason with BK on other threads that precede it.
If your frustration is borne of the belief that those efforts were simplistic or prematurely abandoned, you are mistaken. This is the end-game, where we are done with trying.
Do, please, read the thread before passing snap judgements - if that is indeed what has happened here.
bill
Sks does not disappoint!
chek,
I presume that peterd's accurate use of Feynman's writing (in his thought-provoking comment #18) is yet another instance of the class of acts that "signifies the would-be user is an ignorant jackass" in your mind.
What does that say about you, chek?
"Do, please, read the thread before passing snap judgements"
There are several people who prefer not to think about whether the acts of others they don't agree with have a valid excuse.
Until much later when they have done it all over again and come to the exact same conclusion.
But they hardly ever say "I guess you were right being abrupt and brusque with them".
bill
'Eclectikus' is a classic denialist obfuscator/misdirector in the BK mould. When Feynman is in da house, we don't talk about *climate science*. Something I learned years ago in the unpleasant world of business negotiation is never let the other side control the discourse.
Eh, it's all there, isn't it? Climate agnosia (but rejection of the standard position), refusal to discuss the evidence, intensive reliance on obfuscatory misdirection and the shades of P & F, endless insinuations that climatology is pseudo-science etc etc etc.
I''m surprised the mods haven't shitcanned Ek. They should.
BBD:
Oh, how gasp.
Forgive my obtuseness, but when did we agree dat dis wud b a *climate science* thread? Is ur monomania supposed 2b respeckted by da rest of us because... well, just because?
Mot du jour:
Tergiversation.
Were it not signs that English could be a second language I almost thought 'Eclectikus was a sock for 'Brad Keyes' as he likes to throw out words such as 'disquisitions. What is it about pretentious language and 'purple prose that makes one shudder?
PS BK read Hansen yourself as there is more than one reference to Feynman WRT Lindzen, following Lindzen's trail may help you understand our disgust.
Probably something to do with 'enough' and 'rope'. The similarity with BK is striking though.
Sorry for loose punctuation, I am feeling quite rough today with a nasty day at hospital tomorrow, I may not be back for awhile.
Ah - the old Cliff Richard classic.
"Tergiversation and obfuscation,
I want the world to know that you can't better me.
Manipulation to peroration
I want the world to know how slippery I can be".
Be well soon Lionel.
Lionel,
Good luck tomorrow. Hopefully it's not as rough as you think.
Take care—
Brad
Sorry to hear that, Lionel. May I also wish you a speedy recovery.
I also noticed the BK-ishness of Ek, and also wondered if we aren't being treated to a dazzling display of sockpuppetry complete with 'foreign accents'. Who knows?
The song remains the same.
And bloody hell, does check nail it nicely! Hats off!
'chek'. Sorry!
Bernard J,
in refusing to apologise to Chameleon (as any normal commenter invested in their own credibility would do) you take refuge in silly counterfactual subjunctives:
Coulda shoulda woulda. You made the comment you made, Bernard, and it sucked, like you.
Vortical Vince:
Of course, you're not accusing me of astroturfing, are you Vince? Nah, that—having the cojones to tell a simple lie—isn't your style, is it? The best you can muster is to accuse "the likes" of me of being engaged in a "kind of" operation like astroturfing ...whatever that means.
Brave, brave Sir Vincent spinning bravèly,
His arms a weasel hurlant on lines nebuly!
Oh well, there goes Reality Drop. :-) LOL !
http://planet3.org/2013/02/26/science-climate-change-linked-to-large-sc…
Noticed any large scale severe events recently?
What I did notice in that exchange David, was the marked difference between those who want to know and those who don't.
By the by, fulling (a wool treatment process) long ago was carried out by a fuller, tramping around ankle deep in piss. It seems some still fully live up to the surnames they've inherited.
re #20 BK
Are you serious? Shall we fish out some of your comments about Oreskes, then?
Hypocrite.
chek --- :-)
bill:
Yes.
You must do what you feel is right.
It will not avail you, of course.
But knock yourself out.
chek,
you seem to be understandably reluctant to defend this stupid theory about quoting Feynman:
As I pointed out, you have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.
You then let slip this gobsmacking prejudice:
It follows that you think James Hansen and peterd are ignorant jackasses. Care to comment?
Bernard J:
LOL... now you can be too narcissistic, according to resident pop-psych dilettante Dr J!
This may come as a shock to a hyponarcissistic nobody like yourself, Bernard, but my self-esteem is one of the things that most draws people to me.
By the way, would your latest struggle against English punctuation be an example of whatever chek meant by "apostophised posthumous irrelevant authority," I wonder? Anyone here speak slovak?
The sickening exhibition of dishonesty continues:
I don't think you are contemptible because you disagree with me Brad. You are contemptible because you *refuse* to substantiate your ‘argument’ by answering key questions.
This reveals you to be a lying, posturing, denialist toe-rag conducting a monumental exercise in bad faith on this thread. Which is contemptible.
@ 27
Fuck off or answer the questions.
Side-note:
Along with tergiversation, dishonesty, framing, projection, misrepresentation and misdirection, deniers - bereft of any scientific argument - are also obliged to rely on game theory, eg # 7.
Oh, and to preëmpt the inevitable shrill demands for proof, this:
... is simply one of the leading explanations I've heard as to why I'm so well-liked—which is one subject on which I'm not inclined to dispute the consensus!
;-)
BBD,
It's hard to miss the fact that you're none too keen to answer this question (my emphasis):
Just a reminder to "Brad" that climate change isn't some future hypothetical but is happening now and affecting real people.
And just as with money, you can't eat word soup.
chek:
Never heard of it. Is it a bit like word salad ("a consensus of evidence") with a side of alphabet soup ("apostophised")?
# 48
Tergiversation.
Please, respond to David B. Benson's # 16 and # 37...
With explicit reference to your stated position:
Subsequently modified to:
BBD # 53:
There is no modification in my position as per those quotes; I stated it differently, but not inconsistently.
David # 16:
Thanks for the link.
On superficial reading (sorry, very pressed for time right now) there are some obvious questions about the article's logic, e.g.
1. if the atmosphere in Australia is "moister," how can it be more conducive to bush fires?
2. how can the various potential anthropogenic factors in bush fire genesis (land management, backburning, arson, AGW) be disentangled, and did the article make any effort to do so?
3. why does the article claim an increase in "extreme" weather events only to show a graph in which the increase in warm "extremes" is exactly offset by a decrease in cold "extremes"?
David # 37:
No more than usual—should I have? Have you?
"Feynman articulated the rules and ethics of science, of which we see ourselves as conscientious defenders"
Come on Brad. Now you are getting a bit desperate. For their part, many, perhaps most, of the climate change denial community couldn't tell good science from that on a fortune cookie. They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs (e.g. many of the prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll) and/or because denial expunges some of the guilt people feel as being part of an ecologically rapacious over-consumptive society. They want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it and in this context the idea that the planet is quickly heading for an abyss is impossible to reconcile.
I think its a massive abuse of science and of the scientific community to consider a tiny number of mostly obscure, mediocre scientists (as there are very, very few statured scientists who deny the reality and seriousness of AGW) as well as a larger number of citizens with no real interest in science as defenders of scientific integrity. This is the paradigm shift writ large. The anti-environmental lobby has tirelessly used a coterie of PR strategies to give the impression that they are the 'true' environmentalists (whilst working hard to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit), and your claiming the moral and scientific high ground amongst deniers on the issue of climate change is just par for the course. But it is total and utter b*.
Jeff:
Thanks for speaking your mind!
I don't belong to a "climate change denial community," but—assuming you mean the CAGW denial community—exactly the same statistical observation could be made of the other half of the population: most of the CAGW belief community has no idea what the scientific method is and therefore couldn't tell good science from that on a fortune cookie or a policy white-paper.
Many prominent believers are on the same payroll (again, assuming you mean [dis]believers of CAGW). And the biggest corporation of all—the US government—employs the vast majority of climate scientists, on both "sides."
Of course, all things being equal, people may not enjoy feeling guilt—the popularity of Catholicism notwithstanding—but do you have any evidence that suppression of guilt is the motivating factor that makes the difference between belief and denial [of CAGW]?
You decided this was a climate science thread, Brad, when you decided to try to snow this blog under with your idiotic opinions about climate science.
The fact your opinions rely on your repeating crud from crank blogs, and defended by appeals to authority in the form of mangled quotes is a problem of your own making.
You've told us the consensus view is wrong.
You've told us sensitivity is 1.5.
The evidence says you are wrong.
You present no counter-evidence of your own, but instead engage in diversion and the attacking of straw men, as though faulty debating techniques were a valid way of advancing science.
All you've managed to prove is that you are either ignorant or a liar. Likely both.
Vince,
This blog and this thread is about political and public opinions on policies that are using the climate and/or the environment as a platform.
Even JeffH has clearly ponted that out at #55.
I'm interested to how JeffH would define a 'true' environmentalist?
I may be incorrect but it appears he believes it is a movement based on politics?
His theory also reads a bit like a melodrama with the attendant black hats/white hats that we need to collectively and unanimously boo/cheer :-)
I actually agree that the politics is melodramatic, but I also think that the type of accusatory, motherhood statements that JeffH makes above are fuelling the melodrama, not dousing it.
A "true" environmentalist is a person of "true" conservative values.
Not a tea party activist, not a LaRouchian conspiracy-theorist, and not a crypto-communist posing as a "Green" in order to impose their sociophobic compulsions on the rest of us.
As the world warms it will become wetter where it is wet (especially in the tropics) and drier where it is dry. So, fewer perhaps but certainly more extreme precipitation events in Queensland but at the same time drier conditions further south; more bush fires irrespective of (mis)management regimes.
SCOTT A. KLEINER
EROTETIC LOGIC AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
It is a near truism that science is a form of inquiry that has produced, and is likely to continue to produce, the most credible beliefs and belief systems purporting to realize certain fundamental epistemic and pragmatic aims of contemporary culture. However, with a few exceptions among the historically oriented philosophers, most epistemology of science has been concerned with the analysis of extant scientific concepts and static relations of evidence, and not with systematic procedures for the production of concepts or evidence. As is well known, the 'context of discovery' is sometimes thought to be beyond the reach of logic and epistemology. The subject of discovery is then left to historians, psychologists and social scientists.
However, the epistemological problem of systematic inquiry has been of interest to a number of important philosophers in the western tradition and again is receiving the attention of philosophers of science. ...
Synthese
January 1988, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 19-46
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00869617?LI=true
Vince,
as befits your coat of arms (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…), you've made a vertiginously ambiguous, mustelistically mealy-mouthed, mendacious allegation:
"Idiotic"? That's a heroic description, given that my assessments of climate science stand conspicuously unrefuted.
My opinion of the climate, which is far less certain, was extorted by the repetitive, plaintive and obsessive entreaties of BBD. The only snow job is the one you're attempting when you imply I thrust my climatic views in your face.
Er, no, I've told you:
1. that consensus is not evidence (in science)
2. that you've yet to show any good evidence for the (irrelevant) premise that there's a scientific consensus in favor of climate alarm—and as a result, it's far from clear that I disagree with any consensus that may exist
Because BBD begged me to.
And then when he presented evidence to the contrary, I said it might not be 1.5.
In other words, I've behaved honestly, skeptically and properly at all times. If only the same could be said of you, the conversation would probably be relatively advanced by now.
Maybe because I’d rather hear from people who know and care more about the climate than me.
What the fuck ever, you fraudulent halfwit.
Yeah, that’s right, I’m what stands in the way of your winning a Nobel Prize for the advancement of science through blog commentary.
Nutjob.
David:
OK, thanks David—that could (if true) rescue the logic of the article. Paragraph 2 is infelicitous:
# 54
Tergiversation.
As always you attempt to maintain your contrarian stance (# 53) simply by *denying* the evidence and refusing to discuss your reasoning.
Chammy,
I don't consider a multinational corporation that hires big PR guns on the one hand to give the impression that it is engaged in sustainable, environmentally friendly practices (e.g. via Greenwashing) whilst investing considerably more money on the other to reduce government regulations that limit tits profit-making capacity as being 'environmentalists'. Yet this is what has happened, thanks to E. Bruce Harrison and corporate PR efforts waged through a good-cop bad-cop strategy. Essentially, a company will donate 30,000 dollars to WWF or Greenpeace or another so-called environmental group and then this allegedly kind-gesture will be highly publicized (just look at some of the Earth Day corporate sponsors), but then , on the other hand, the same corporation will invest ten times as much money in lobbying members of Congress, or in supporting astroturf groups, in an attempt to defeat legislation protecting the environment from its activities. The very fact that these astroturf groups often use environmentally friendly names when they are working hard to undermine the protection of important habitats (such as wetlands) is clear evidence of this. I recall the National Wetlands Coalition, a group (thankfully now defunct) that had a duck flying over a wetland as its logo on its web site. To the layman, it was an environmental group that aimed to protect wetlands. But in reality, it was a corporate front group funded by a range of industries and developers and set up by a PR firm whose sole aim to lobby members of the US government to reduce laws protecting wetlands from development. In other words, to undermine the comprehensive wetlands protection act, singed during the 1980s as a means of protecting watersheds and other important habitats which harbor high biodiversity. Developers saw this as a major impediment to their actions and thus profits, but instead of being honest, they used subterfuge to mislead the public as to their true intent. Wise Use groups do this in the US all of the time. Thus this is hardly an exception, but its now a very common practice. Check out the web sites of the Greening Earth Society or C02 Science and you'd get the impression that they are pro-science environmental sites whose aim is to ensure that woodlands are protected. In reality, they are linked with the Western Fuels Association, a cola industry lobby groups with scientists on its payroll which argues that the burning of coal is good for for nature because it puts more C02 into the atmosphere and this benefits plant growth and cascades up through the food chain. Of course this is overly simplistic drivel, but these sites are not aimed at scientists but at the general public. And of course the aim is to ensure that we continue burning coal in vast quantities, which benefits the coal extraction industries.
There are countless more examples of this kind of nefarious and dishonest behavior. I have lectured on it for many years. But if you and Brad by now don't understand what a true environmentalist is, or think that people who downplay the seriousness of AGW are 'friends of science' and 'scientific integrity', then you are both more simple than I thought. I have tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt, but some of your comments are so utterly naive that they defy any form of rudimentary logic.
(oops, its and not tits!)
BBD:
Shouldn't you have moved on to a different mot du jour by now, BBD? You've been accusing me of "tergiversation" for more than 24 hours. The problem is, if you take another look at your Word A Day calendar, you'll see that tergiversating requires conflicting statements, self-contradiction and vacillation, none of which is to be seen in my #54.
Because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you in on a secret:
this insult of yours is weak, and weak-sounding, which makes you seem weak and look weak, because you completely fail to say what evidence I'm denying, and because the reader who then looks at my #54 can't help but notice that I'm not denying any evidence. I'm appealing to totally uncontroversial logic.
Jeff:
But I don't think that, and I'm pretty sure Chameleon doesn't either.
People who downplay the seriousness of AGW are no better than those who upplay it. They all belong in Science Jail. The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight.
Brad and Chameleon
Perhaps all this might be clearer with a few simple data visualisations.
1/ Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of the TOA radiative imbalance *increasing* as a result of *increasing* CO2 forcing ends up in the global ocean.
2/ GHG forcing (predominantly CO2) has become increasingly dominant since the early 1960s. Here you can see global surface average temperatures (top) compared to forcings. 'WM - GHG' indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. The net of all forcings is indicated by the heavy red line. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions (negative forcing). Solar can be seen to be rather less significant than is frequently supposed by contrarians.
3/ Forcings as above, this time shown with OHC 0 - 700m (top).
Contrarians generally fail to understand that overall, 'AGW' is only just starting to happen which is why the effects to date have been *minimal*.
What is required is that one looks at the *forcings*. If CO2 forcing continues to increase it is very obvious indeed that energy will continue to accumulate in the climate system at a similarly increasing rate. It is impossible to see why the extreme weather events that have characterised the first decade of the C21st will not become increasingly frequent and increasingly severe. The implications for global agricultural productivity are serious, especially as global population is predicted to reach ~ 9bn by mid-century.
And the disruptions will not stop. Contrarians frequently behave as if CO2 will automatically stabilise at ~550ppmv later this century without policy intervention and all will be well. ECS is 'only' 2.5C - 3C and we'll 'adapt' to our emerging new world of extreme weather, infrastructural attrition and endemic food insecurity.
We will struggle with all this. And I haven't even mentioned post-C21st sea level rise.
The scaling and offset have failed on the OHC graph. Bitter experience with this data viewer tells me there is nothing I can do about this. Values are not preserved in the postable link. You can scale the Y axes using the vertical blue bar and and offset with the pink (?) bar. Click just above or below the green tab.
Let's try the
OHC vs forcings graph again.
"The only people who deserve their freedom are those that play it straight".
And those that are doing so are ther statured scientists who argue that their are potentially serious consequences of inaction on AGW and that, on this basis, we ought to be doing something about it. True scientists work on probabilities and not on absolutes, hence why most who agree on AGW argue that the C part is a possibility of inaction to deal with the problem. Deniers, on the other hadn downplay the A part and totally ridicle any notion of serious consequences. This explains why the ranks of those who downplay the seriousness of AGW is full of bitter old retired academics with little pedigree in any field, who published few papers and were rarely cited. And even amongst active researchers today, very few of the AGW downplayers have much in the way of pedigree. If one bothered to look through the Web of Science they'd find the sceptical camp full of scientists wtih 20 or less publications over m,any years, less than 500 citations of their work, and people who are generally obscure in science. The trouble is, Brad, that you and Chammy appear to think that all scientists are created equal. Well, some are more eqaul than others. I consider mydelf to be a fairly respected scientist with 127 publications (since 1993), 2887 citations and an h-factor of 32. But this does notput me at the head of the pack for researchers with my tenure in my fieid. I would probably be in the 10-20% near the top, but that's a lot of people ahead of me. But in climate science, you have veritable bottom-feeders getting underserved attention in the media and in sceptical blogs simply because they downplay AGW.
This is the crux of the problem. And its time you and Chammy realized it.
Brad
# 67
Where are you getting your definitions from? I checked, and the *very first* one that comes up in google is this:
1
: evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement : equivocation
Synonyms
equivocation, shuffle, circumlocution
Related Words
quibbling; ambiguity, ambiguousness, equivocalness, murkiness, nebulousness, obscureness, obscurity, opacity
Near Antonyms
candor, directness, forthrightness, frankness, openheartedness, openness, plainness, plumpness, straightforwardness
Could this be more dishonest bollocks from you? Why yes, it could.
Your final paragraph at # 67 can be considered further tergiversation.
BK
Time for you to demonstrate anew your denial, bad faith and dishonesty:
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!
- you aren't a nice guy, Brad!
BK statements:
[quibble, quibble quibble # 54] Subsequently modified to:
...And no mention of # 69 and Jeff Harvey's # 72.
BBD:
1. the fact that I know Latin
2. the fact that in Latin, it means to turn 180 degrees
When I need to check, I use Dictionary.app on my Mac.
Ah! So you're ascribing to me behaviour which is indistinguishable from genuine indecision / sincere uncertainty / bona fide agnosticism.
Fair enough.
I assumed you were being pejorative or accusatory in some way.
Silly me.
Oh! So you are accusing me of something?
It raises the question: did you use the word "tergiversation" to prevaricate? Are you using ambiguous language to conceal the truth or avoid committing yourself? I think you're Vince's ferrety banner-man, aren't you, BBD!
Indeed, and one of the key players there was Pat Michaels who pops up in that article linked to by David B Benson here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/#comment-1….
Not his being caught with his usual sleight of hand
Michaels says:
(Emphases added.)
Wait a minute. Paper discusses amplitude and Michaels makes a claim about frequency? Um, bullshit. Of the standard Michaels variety.
Check out the role of Western Fuels.
Drat. Nested blockquotes don't seem to work, unless...?
BBD:
Snarkasm aside, thanks for taking the time to get those visualisations together. A projection, graph or image of one's mental model does wonders to dispel misunderstandings such as we're obviously and mutually labouring under.
Well the news for you is that IT is TRUE. Which you would discover if you bothered to read from some of the publications recently cited in this thread, and recently at that.
Please describe exactly why, or in which way, Paragraph 2 is infelicitous?
Can I expect more tergiversation?
Tergiversation: equivocation, prevarication. Also an instance of this, an evasion, a subterfuge. OED Shorter (two large volumes) 5th Ed.
Lionel, your "emphases" aren't being "added." Simple bold tags within the block quote do the trick.
And you're not being clear about who's speaking when. In my experience the only way to "nest" quotations is with quotation marks. :-(
Lionel A:
I would've thought this was obvious, particularly thanks to my high-tech use of bold tags within blockquote tags. ;-)
I repeat, paragraph 2 states:
This directly contradicts David's apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.
Expect what you like; but if you think you'll be getting prevarication, evasion, equivocation or subterfuge from me you're going to be disappointed.
Come on chammy!
Discuss specifics.
# 69. # 72.
Get on with it.
Portkey for BK to "Storms of My Grandchildren", by James Hansen
Jeff,
Let’s quickly go back to this remark:
As I pointed out before, most of the entire population wouldn’t know the scientific method if it robbed a bank and held them hostage, and therefore couldn’t tell good science from that found in a fortune cookie, spraypainted by Banksy or printed in a policy white-paper.
However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community. Unfortunately the bar for most such studies is set quite a bit lower than what we would call scientific methodological understanding. But notwithstanding this limitation, the results leave you with little basis for thinking (or would leave you with little basis for thinking, if you were thinking this) that people on my “side” are any less discerning of real versus faux science than people on your “side.”
Has a “denier” ever admitted this? And if not, how do you know it’s true?
Meanwhile, by contrast, there certainly are public figures on your “side” who, by their own admission, are ideologically and/or politically motivated to assert human impacts on climate.
Sorry, Jeff, but this instrumental explanation doesn’t appear to make a lick of sense—possibly because I’ve never felt the guilt you describe, but more likely because it’s just illogical.
Why do you characterize our society as ecologically rapacious and over-tubercular?
Is it:
a) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate and despoiling ecosystems in the process
b) because we’re causing CAGW
or
c) because we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate, despoiling ecosystems in the process and causing CAGW?
If the reason is A, what conceivable difference would it make whether CAGW were real or not? The fact that CAGW is make-believe does nothing to change the fact that our society is committing said crimes against the environment.
If the reason is B, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.
If the reason is C, people who don’t believe in CAGW have no reason to feel guilt in the first place, and our disbelief can’t be explained as a means of expunging something we never felt.
If the reason is D (none of the above), then what is it?
Just out of curiosity, is this (the words in bold) something you’ve believed for a long time? Did you believe it even before the evidence came along for CAGW?
Why? Not that I’m conceding the correctness of your premise (that there are few serious scientific seriousness-deniers), of course, but even if I did for argument’s sake, why would it be abusive to consider a minority to be on the side of scientific integrity?
What do you think “scientific integrity” is, Jeff?
No, hang on, that’s a potentially tricky / trappy question, so allow me go first:
Scientific integrity is what you describe when you talk about that incident early in your career, when a reviewer didn’t believe your findings, so you tried to send them all your data, which they refused to look at, and I called you “the opposite of Michael Mann.” That’s scientific integrity, in a nutshell.
Well, yes, that would be total and utter b*. But I don’t pretend to tower over other deniers morally or scientifically. (Is this what you meant?) Plenty of deniers are better persons than me, and plenty of deniers are better scientists than me, and plenty of deniers are better persons and better scientists than me.
Bray isn't talking.
Maybe best leave it, he seems to have gone somewhere else to scream for attention.
# 80 Brad Keyes
Mutually? How so?
Incidentally, a long time ago I said to you that if we ignored Mann's work the big picture would not change.
Nor has it.
But perhaps Marcott et al. (2013) are just the latest recruits to the Team?
This directly contradicts David’s apologetic / explanatory statement that some extreme weather events (i.e. those in the already-dry half of Australia, e.g. bushfires) have increased because the climate is drier than previously, when it was already dry. Not moister, not more humid; less moist, less humid.
And there we have one English literalist approach to science in a nutshell. While it is undeniably true that warmer air can absorb more moisture, it is not axiomatic that it will, as other factors are also to be accounted for. Dry inland air when warmed up has no source of moisture and what began as dry air can only become yet warmer dry air. The ever-warming atmosphere over desert areas does not magically induce moisture because of its temperature.
Brad pretends (or maybe really doesn't understand) this in pursuance of his simpleton denial and thinks offering up uninformed and thus faulty 'logic' scores a point. Idiot that he is.
Can I expect more tergiversation?
Indeed it is only be expected, along with "Brad's" tnew heme song.
"Tergiversation and obfuscation,
I want the world to know that you can’t better me.
Manipulation to peroration
I want the world to know how slippery I can be"
You may try to corner me with your science,
But that only reinforces my defiance
I'm only interested in your compliance
With my deniance*
As' long as I'm here".
"Tergiversation and obfuscation" etc.
(*h/t to Horatio Algeranon. the master of lyricism and this expedient addition to the language)
You have no idea how much I know about science and you’ve never asked, so your speculations aren’t worth shit.
The worst I might ever have to do these days is kick shit out of the way. I certainly don't argue with it "Brad". Something to do with its consistency is repulsive. Something you seem intent on replicating.
Wow says...
...despite my having written 5 of the preceding 10 comments!
Nothing like denial, eh, Wow?
As the Hadley cells expand (due to global warming) the poleward edge of the cells marches further poleward. So at the descending edges, the poleward ends, deserts expand polewards and contract somewhat equatorwards.
This tends to agree with the data so far, wherein the process as only just begun. What the data firmly shows is the large increase in precipitation in the tropics and the more modest increase in mid and high latitudes.
Jeff:
Congratulations, Jeff.
You're so equal, you're like the Albert Einstein of scientists!
That's 125 more papers than Michael Mann had to his name when he was hailed for overturning the MWP theory and chosen by the President of the US as his personal science advisor.
Sure, you're a fair way behind Richard Lindzen, but still: your credibility is impressive, I won't deny it.
When you say stuff about the climate, it's 63.5 times truer than MBH98, and more than half as true as what Professor Lindzen says!
And that's how the scientific method works, kids!
Right?
BBD:
Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say [what you've said too many times to count on this thread]:
As I've explained (so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now), I don't dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether there's any rational basis to think it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to whine about when there are other, clear and present dangers to deal with.
Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say... well, I dunno an example; but I'm sure if you think hard enough, there must be some occasion on which I've failed to comprehend your POV. Not as catastrophically as you've misunderstood mine, perhaps; but still, I must have misunderstood you at some point.
Calling the incomprehension "mutual," therefore, was what's known as a polite presumption.
Wow:
Seriously dude, how much is HI paying you to make an idiot of yourself?
If you’re doing it for free, then I must reiterate Lotharsson’s advice to you:
“This is basic high school level comprehension. Ask a high school teacher if you don’t believe me. … I’d consider seeking help.”
Jeff,
Just to disambiguate what I wrote here...
…I didn't mean that the Kahan et al. work itself wasn’t of a scientifically high standard!
What I meant was that the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really was a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect of the questionnaires in this genre of study is essentially to place the population on a curve based on how much high-school and socially-topical science trivia they have at their command.
Dan Kahan's research impresses me because he’s skeptical of his own findings, he actually refines his own hypothesis from one paper to the next, he seeks out interaction with deniers—and so, to paraphrase the homage I paid to you, Kahan is “the opposite of Stephan Lewandowsky”—he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist, and he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)
A palindromic pignoramus paid by HI prophesies:
Punish whom?
The ALP?
Boo-fucking-hoo.
I can't wait. People who look the electorate in the face and feed us a read-my-lips lie deserve no mercy.
That's my ethics platform. Then again, I'm a denier, and we're notoriously zero-tolerant on liars.
Gosh, chek’s sure put me in my place for expecting scientific reports to mean what they say! How will I ever live down such a naïve mistake?
What a trivial and irrelevant thing to say. Nobody is debating whether or not warmer air is inevitably moister air.
The only question of interest to anyone but chek is: why does the scientific report quoted in David’s article claim that all extreme events are occurring in a moister climate when those very events supposedly include an increase in bushfire frequency—a problem which (as David himself has no difficulty grasping) implies conditions that are drier, or at least not wetter, than they were before?
Both David B. Benson and I evidently know exactly what we’re arguing about; perhaps this ought to serve as chek’s cue not to butt in lest he further embarrass himself with his spectacular talent for point-missing.
Damn—that’s a great point, because:
1. Tasmania—the State singled out in the article for record bushfires—is well-known for its vast desert areas!
2. Bushfires are the scourge of Australia’s deserts!
And chek’s peculiar brand of complete f—king c—p and content-free condescension just keeps coming:
Chek, mate, you’re really struggling to keep a lid on your CFC emissions, aren’t you?
BK
I appreciate that other tags are required for emphasis such as the 'i' italic and 'strong' for bold. If you had been paying attention you would have appreciated that in turn.
On nesting quotes, yes using quotation marks is an answer which I have used and I was trialling nested blockquotes to see if that helped but at first was not sure if it was failing because of mistyping - banana like fingers and not picking up the mistype by feeling grotty which was affecting my vision. Unfortunately 'Page Source' did not reveal where the error, if any, was.
Also, if you referred back to the original source on which my comments were based you would have understood who was writing what.
BTW. How far have you got with the reading list?
BK
And you have proven beyond any doubt that this is all you have - tergiversation. Here's why.
You repeat your mantra about Paragraph 2 being infelicitous WRT David's statement, this can only be true if you snip as you did so as to use only the non-emphasised part of the full statement:
Tergiversation - overmuch, lots, the cup of this thread runneth over with examples of your indulgence in such.
Get out of that without more tergiversation.
Besides, the main point is that you are arguing from false premise, why, because you clearly have not studied, or chose to ignore, the relevant literature examples of which you have been pointed at which explain these points about changing climate regimes.
Lionel:
Hi. Are you out of hospital and feeling better—or at least less grotty? I hope so.
Or just 'b' for bold—there ya go, I saved you some time!
Been there. I once made a whole thread irreversibly italic by accident. To make the most of the situation, I quipped that the content of climate-alarmist websites seemed to be "chronically slanted." Big mistake! That unleashed an earnest barrage of indignation about the right-wing, pro-Faux bias of the denialist flat-earthosphere. I should have listened when they warned me cults don't have a sense of humor... hehe ;-)
Uh, which of many are you referring to? I've pasted several lists of books and articles I'm supposed to read into a single text file, but unfortunately I didn't record who recommended what. :-( Chances are I haven't gotten around to whatever you told me to read yet, sorry mate.
"They are ideologically driven to deny human impacts on climate based on their political and economic beliefs
Has a “denier” ever admitted this? And if not, how do you know it’s true?"
They don't have to SAY it Brad. The very fact that a large majority of them are associated with libertarian/free market think tanks funded by the same industries with a vested interest in the status quo and attend shindigs should say it ALL. The information is out there is you bother to look for it. Sadly for the deniers, they just can't help but wear their idealogical hearts on their sleeves. You think they'd try and keep a million miles away from the PR/think tank/astroturf groups if they wanted to retain even a sliver of credibility but they just cannot resist. That's why most of the dolts who support them must share the same idealogical and political views: support for free market absolutism and de-regulation. To eviscerate the role of the government in the economy.
Read Sharon Beder's book ALONE and the story should be easy, Brad. You just don't want to face up to the truth of it. That's your problem. Moreover, for every Kahan there are hundred's of Mann's, Hansen's, Mahlmann's, Treneberth's et al. Those downplaying the human impacts of warming are tiny and are growing smaller ever year as more data come in.
... and Brad, we aren't discussing Kahan, the Professor of Psychology are we here?
I suspect we are, in which case your argument is shredded further. I explained above that very, very few statured scientists are climate change sceptics. By that I mean most of the sceptics have mediocre CVs. There are FEW exceptions.
That should say something. To you and Chammy, apparently, a medicocre pedigree doesn't mean much. Well... it should.
"However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community"
No it sure as hell hasn't. And it also hasn't shown that the climate change denial community is large. Because it isn't. It hasn't shown that the climate change denial community is made up of statured scientists for the most part, because it isn't. It hasn't shown that the deniers publish much in the way of evidence in peer-reviewed journals to support their arguments because they don't. And it hasn't shown that many, perhaps most of the scientists in the denial community are not ideologically driven, because there is a lot of evidence that a large number of them are, as evidenced by their associations with corporate front and PR groups. You need to do a bit more reading, Brad.
I'm going to wind this up by saying that its important to be polite, and at least to me Brad has been. That being said, his views are clearly gleaned from very few sources. Chammy is perhaps worse in this regard. Debating Brad and Chammy will only achieve something if they can bring something new to the table. They can't. Its the same old stuff packaged and re-packaged as some kind of pseudo-intellectual discourse, when there is abundant information available - that neither of them has sourced - which bring down their thin arguments like a house of cards. Until I see them produce something new, its a waste of time. Science has moved on, as evidenced by the sheer volume of studies published in the world leading scientific journals (the latest one I sourced yesterday in SCIENCE).
I also defend my statement. The planet is heading towards hell in a hand-basket in my honest, personal opinion as a senior scientist with some pedigree, based not only on climate change, but on a suite of human induced stressors that are undermining the health and resilience of the complex adaptive systems upon which civilization depends. The evidence for this is even more clear cut, except of course among largely the same band of pseudo-intellectuals who run blogs and have love-ins with corporate funded think tanks. I've battled these people for the past 15 years and I will continue to do so. More scientists need to take the lead from Edward O. Wilson, George Schaller, Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich, Tom Lovejoy, Peter Raven, Stuart Pimm, James Hansen, Jared Diamond and others who have stepped outside of the laboratory and lecture hall to communicate the predicament to the general population. They knew what they were likely to face when they did so (as I did over Lomborg), but they felt that they were meeting a public responsibility. They indeed are.
Jeff:
Jeff, the Abstract of the best-known paper by Kahan (who's a CAGW believer, by the way) begins:
(Emphasis as in original.)
I know—it's tiny, because the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.
I know—the overwhelming majority of high-school graduates are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual.
Jeff, climate change denial doesn't exist. It's a straw-man (though I don't think your intention is to use it as one).
Why the hell wouldn't I be? :-) You've always been polite to me!
(I must admit, however, that I'm not crazy about your repeated claims that Chameleon is dumb—she isn't, and I'm far from convinced that you're paying sufficiently close attention to what she's actually arguing, as opposed to what you might stereotypically expect her to be arguing.)
Besides, the whole concept that people could raise their voices at each other and / or come to blows about the climate is supremely stupid, and would have been unbelievable to a previous generation. The weather is meant to be the prototypical topic of polite conversation.
BK:
Dat ain't necessarily so, the things that your liable to read ....is clarified over here.
Besides, how do you explain chameleon, Duff, GSW, OP, Jonas, PentaxZ, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all. And it strikes me that you are more interested in word wankery than science.
Lionel,
you couldn't be more wrong:
As a Renaissance man, I pursue both of them with equal avidity.
Sometimes I think you don't know me at all!
"However, the work by Kahan et al. and others has established that the “denier” community knows at least as much “science” as the “believer” community.
Typical unsupported "Brad" bullshit. Let's look at this, his most stupidissimus of moronic assertions with something approaching objectivity here before once again dismissing "Brad" as the premier-dumbass, cock-blatteringly paleo-imbecilic, meme-regurgitating, know-nothing blot on the space-time continuum.
Apologies regulars, but "Brad's" unfailing and repeated stupidity is bringing out the hyphenated li'll mike in me.
Well done "Brad". Once again.
chek,
your cute little pie chart has fuck-all to do with the topic, which (as I've already pointed out!) was summed up nicely by Kahan himself as follows:
(Emphasis added in the forlorn hope of imparting comprehension to you, which so far has proven to be very much like transfusing blood to a stone.)
If only the cheks hadn't mated themselves for centuries, perhaps they wouldn't be cursed with such feeble-minded descendants.
What I'm trying to say is that you're a retard.
Without a pie-chart, though, I suspect you won't even understand that.
Climate change dates back to dawn of first farmers
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthrop…
Jeff,
Apologies if you've already answered the following, but as I can't find a response to it I'd like to gently :-) remind you that I've asked you this a couple of times:
If I seem overly-insistent on hearing your thoughts about this, it's because I've never had any trouble changing the minds of AGW deniers myself. So I'm dying to know what difficulties you're encountering, and who knows: perhaps I can suggest a way 'round them?
Cheers Jeff!
Brad
A little birdie says:
No, I don't think it's a coincidence, Señor D. Byrd.
I think it's an intuitively-obvious epiphenomenon of the fact that CAGW infidels are socially adept (esp. compared to unsophisticated avian advocates of the capnophobist orthodoxy), and therefore have lives, and therefore have weekends.
Straight up this century
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-wa…
This goes back to the old physical/logical markup dichotomy.
Different blog 'engines' handle tags differently with 'b' for bold failing. Similarly for emphasis some will use 'i' others 'em'.
Let's make this bold and this too.
Now emphasise this example and now this one.
What tag soup will we end up with.
Well enough to know that you would continue with tergiversation.
"The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones".
This means, of course, squat. Did Kahan poll the scientists doing the actual research? ow did he and his co-auhors evaluate ' scientific literacy'? Were they all herded into a lecture theater and given exams covering a range of fields in science? Or one about climate? This paragraph you cited is. for lack of a better word, bullshit. It doesn't mean anything when it comes down to a person's knowledge threshold exceeding a specific level in the field of climate science. I am sure that in terms of general knowledge, a lot of people would score well in what they know about basic ecology and /or evolutionary biology. But if you were to go beyond the surface veneer and get into more detailed theories and hypotheses that are taught to professional scientists in the field, they'd be blank. The fact is that there are few qualified climate change sceptics who are top scientists with a strong pedigree in the field. Just as there are very few top scientists who are creationists amongst scientists studying ecology and evolutionary biology.
End of story, Brad. Game, set and match. What this means is that Kahan needs to up the ante and increase the expertise threshold in his vapid research. I couldn't give a damn if people with a high school education knew as much about climate science as people who had business degrees. Neither group knows as much as scientists trained in the field. And as I said, most of those with the best qualifications agree (1) that humans are forcing climate, and (2) that the potential consequences of business-as-usual may be dire.
As I said, Kahan's work is a distraction. A meaningless exercise. He ought to learn a bit of science himself before writing more such piffle.
"On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones”
Please refer to my last posting. How does Kahan evaluate from members of the general public, "scientific literacy"? Did he give all respondents a questionnaire? Make them take an exam on general science and climate science? Ask them what their level of science education was?
In the end, it boils down to what qualifications the respondents possess in the relevant fields. I have a PhD, but I would not say that this gives me greater acumen in quantum physics than a person with a high school science education when it comes to theories in that field. I never studied physics, and admit that I know very little about it in spite of my science education to doctorate level. My degree relates to what I studied: ecology and evolutionary biology. And even there, I have been forced to specialize.
Essentially, Kahan has created a strawman of immense proportions with his throwaway puff-piece. No wonder that the denial weblogs went viral with it. No wonder you dredge it up. But as I said, it means diddly-squat, because a supposedly better education in science in no way can be correlated with a better knowledge of climate science. To go there, Kahan would have to evaluate the credentials of people up the chain and in that field. And then his little thesis would come unglued.
As I said, a worthless distraction. You'd think psychologists would have better things to do, but if they want to gain attention from the usual suspects, then again writing said pieces are a way to do it, even when they mean squat.
Jeff,
all your questions about Kahan's work are answered in the paper. No, he didn't question the scientists themselves, because he was interested in the public perception of climate change risks. The inescapable downside of this approach (which you go a little overboard in calling "vapid" and "piffle") was noted by me in a message to you on the previous page:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
... the questions asked aren’t really difficult or deep enough to detect whether the subject really is a scientist (in which case they’d probably discriminate 4% of the population at most). The effect in this genre of study is essentially to place the population on a curve based on how much high-school and socially-topical science trivia they have at their command.
Dan Kahan’s research impresses me because he’s skeptical of his own findings, he actually refines his own hypothesis from one paper to the next, he seeks out interaction with deniers—and so, to paraphrase the homage I paid to you, Kahan is “the opposite of Stephan Lewandowsky”—and he consequently understands CAGW denial a million times better than the run-of-the-mill climate psychologist. Plus he’s a defender of scientific integrity. (That’s right! Despite being a believer!)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I mentioned his findings as they are directly responsive to your criticisms of the "denier" community as a whole, not just the minority of us who happen to be scientists.
When you say,
Who would? Non-scientists? Yes, of course, but that means nothing and could be said of both “sides” identically.
Not being a dog-breeder myself, I’ll have to take your word on their pedigree. However, the prior question must be: what do you imagine a qualified climate change sceptic is, in a world in which all scientifically-educated people are well aware that climate change is real, immemorial and perpetual?
Did you also see my response to your argumentum ad curriculum vitae :-) , Jeff?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Congratulations, Jeff.
You’re so equal, you’re like the Albert Einstein of scientists!
That’s 125 more papers than Michael Mann had to his name when he was hailed for overturning the MWP theory and chosen by the President of the US as his personal climate advisor.
Sure, you’re a fair way behind Richard Lindzen, but still: your credibility is impressive, I won’t deny it.
When you say stuff about the climate, it’s 63.5 times truer than MBH98, and more than half as true as what Professor Lindzen says!
And that’s how the scientific method works, kids!
Right?
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
You seem to suspect Kahan of being motivated by a desire to make CAGW skeptics look better than they are, but if you read his paper you’ll see he started out fully subscribed to the SCT, the Science Comprehension Theory, in which people (like me) who don’t see climate change as a threat know less about basic high-school science than people (like him) who are seriously concerned about climate change.
You allege that
But my response would be:
1. you don’t know what the results would be until someone actually asks those questions
2. you have no evidence that Kahan wanted to overturn the SCT—indeed, as a CAGW believer himself, he fell into the natural inclination to assume the SCT was true (as you can see in his Results section) until he actually analysed the answers
3. if you think a higher-level version of the SCT would fare better empirically (e.g., that climate-worrying climate experts have a better knowledge of climate science than climate-apathetic climate experts), then why not let Prof Kahan know about your hypothesis on his blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog)—I guarantee he’d consider your idea with an interested and open mind as a possible research direction
# 80 previous page Brad Keyes
Mutually? How so? Which are you admitting to? What misapprehensions do you believe I am labouring under? Keep the focus on the data. Don't be evasive. Don't indulge in tergiversation ;-)
***
Incidentally, a long time ago I said to you that if we ignored Mann’s work the big picture would not change.
Nor has it.
But perhaps Marcott et al. (2013) are just the latest recruits to the Team?
@ 13
Pub bores cannot be pub bores unless the go to the pub once in a while, eh Brad?
;-)
Aye, I guess that calling yourself a "rennaisance man" is a lot better for your ego than "clueless moron on multiple topics".
Your assertion is likewise complete bullshit as Lionel pointed out with respect to your displayed apathy for the denialist slug horde here. You only care about being right and someone who agrees with you for ideological reasons (the aforementioned slug horde) do that. so you don't deign to notice what they do.
Your desire for science is entirely to degrade the reality to stave off actions you abhor because you're a libertarian idiot.
Plain and simple.
Sorry - here are the pretty pictures that go with # 19:
1/ Most of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of the TOA radiative imbalance *increasing* as a result of *increasing* CO2 forcing ends up in the global ocean.
2/ GHG forcing (predominantly CO2) has become increasingly dominant since the early 1960s: forcings and global average surface temperatures (5yr means; top). 'W-M GHG' (purple) indicates well-mixed GHGs, predominantly CO2. 'All' (red) is the net of all forcings. The abrupt negative excursions are pulses of stratospheric aerosols from major volcanic eruptions. Solar (yellow) can be seen to be rather less significant than is sometimes supposed.
3/ Forcings as (2) and OHC 0 - 700m (5yr running mean) (top).
BBD,
did you even read the previous page?
Well, for instance, you misunderstand me every single time you say, as you've said too many times to count:
As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.
The point of contention—the only point of contention—is whether it probably will, on average, turn out to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
Likewise, I misunderstand you when I say… well, I can’t think of an example; but I’m sure if you really furrow your brow, there must be some occasion on which I’ve failed to comprehend your POV. Not as catastrophically as you’ve misunderstood mine, perhaps; but still, I must have misunderstood you on some matter.
Calling the incomprehension “mutual,” therefore, was what’s known as a polite presumption.
So, was that it? All that typing in order to discover that the neo-Renaissance wunderkind believes that ECS is 1.5C because... well, because he just does?
Talk about bathos.
bill
Interestingly, what BK actually said was this:
Since then, Brad has resolutely refused to answer question number two:
2/ On what specific evidence do you refuse to accept the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS range for 2xCO2? References required.
One has to smile.
The argument for a low ecs is thoroughly refuted by the evidence.
Wow:
Not so. I also care about not being wrong.
I think these are both excellent goals in life. In fact I consider it our duty, as apes privileged with rational consciousness, to do everything in our power to be
1. right
and
2. not wrong
about as many things as possible.
You should try it one day.
Wait—I do or I don't notice that my fellow deniers also seek to be right about shit?
Try and slow down, make up your mind and write coherently.
LOL! I can just imagine "Degrade the Reality" becoming a slogan as resonant, binding and universally-recognized as "Hide the Decline," if only I'd said it.
And how many times do I have to explain to you, Wow:
I'm no more of a libertarian than the next guy. If you think adults should be free to drink a glass of red wine at dinner without the Mutawat or Elliot Ness kicking in the front door, if you believe adults have a right to get tattoos without making themselves persons of interest to the Ministry For The Promotion of Virtue and The Prevention of Vice, then congratulations: you’re a “libertarian idiot.”
I won’t deny it: like many educated people, I read John Stuart Mill's seminal book in college. I agreed with the basic premium he placed on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which must be pursued on the individual's own terms and in his / her own best judgement), but I also accepted that these rights should be upheld only to the extent that one doesn’t infringe on the identical rights of one’s fellow human beings.
And none of these ideas is remotely controversial in the Western world today, Wow. They might have raised eyebrows in Victorian England, but today, everyone you know is a libertarian.
Reading Mill’s Libertarianism did not make me want to vote Ron Paul.
Furthermore, no aspect of libertarianism is incompatible with the idea that the government is entitled and obliged to intervene where necessary to protect citizens from common harm.
And yes,that means I support laws against industrial pollution. Anyone who ”abhors” such legislation has got serious issues.
If you think any of this makes me unusual among CAGW deniers, I’m afraid you’re confused.
Consider the denier Freeman Dyson, the “Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources”:
Consider the denier Willis Eschenbach, who writes:
There is nothing—at all—about anti-carbon-dioxide legislation that we abhor besides this: it is an “incredibly stupid idea.”
There is nothing—at all—intrinsically abhorrent about it.
It’s just stupid.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
BBD:
LOL !.... how far back did you have to go in the paleocommentary record to dig up that gem? As I've said countless times since that day of yore, I no longer think all the evidence points to a low ECS, and I explicitly recognize that you've cited evidence which would argue for a higher value.
But go ahead—keep assailing a position I no longer hold if it's the best you can manage.
Indeed. :-)
BBD:
Hey, don't get me wrong—I didn't mean to suggest I have a social life these days. I don't—what I'm studying is incompatible with such frivolities. :-(
It’s just stupid.
Why? Because libertarian idiots say so?
I won't belabor the point Brad. I do enjoy reading your responses. You put a lot of effort into them as well as thought. I will, however make a couple of point here.
First re: Kahan's research. A couple of years ago there was a small controversy in Holland because the Minister of Education suggested that the teaching of "Intelligent Design" alongside evolutionary theory might not be a bad idea. She was prompted by the fact that fundamentalist christians in the United States see Holland as a sort of European 'beachhead' to promote creationist nonsense. Her statement was rightfully condemned by the scientific community by-and-large in this country. However, coincidentally, they took a poll amongst staff (teaching, scientists and catering) at Wageningen University (WU) on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. WU is one of the top 70 universities in the wold according to the latest rankings and is of profound interest to me because the research institute where I work is next door to it and I collaborate with scientists there.
It turns out that almost 50% of tenured staff (teaching and science in various disciplines`) actually supported some form of intelligent design theory, whereas the lowest support incredibly enough for this theory (28%) came from the general catering staff. I and many of my colleagues were shocked and dismayed at this poll, but does it indicate that the higher level of scientific education amongst those supporting the theory of intelligent design are correct? Of course not. Many of those who supported it worked in research that has no evolutionary underpinning, like agriculture, Essentially, the point I am making is that one can read whatever they want out of so-called polls. I stand by what i said and believe that Kahan's findings belong in the bin.
As far as scientific pedigree goes, its interesting that you bring up Richard Lindzen. Ah, good old Richard Lindzen. The one and same who once had to testify before Congress that he received 2,500$ a day in consulting fees from the fossil fuel lobby? By dredging up Lindzen, of course you have shot yourself in the foot. A point I make repeatedly is that the climate change denial/sceptic/downplay/ignore/adapt or whatever-you-call-it lobby has long had to rely on a few statured scientists in defending their arguments. For twenty years or so its been primarily Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Baliunas, Soon, the Idso clan, Michaels, Singer, Balling and a few others. In 1998 a memo was leaked from the American Petroleum Institute in which the API were worried that the climate change denial lobby would "lose credibility" if it relied on the same tired, old faces to promote their point of view. So where are we, 15 years later? Relying on the same tired, old faces of denial. Given the bags of money at their disposal, if there was a huge groundswell of support amongst respected climate scientists defending the arguments of Lindzen and co., we'd sure know about it. With corporate money backing them, it would be shouted from every vestibule of denial. Yet, here you are dredging up the name of one 73 year old and clearly controversial scientist who once received consulting money (a pretty hefty fee as it turns out at the time) from the fossil fuel lobby.
You are standing on ever thinner ice, Brad. Be careful or the ice will break beneath you and there won't be any more to defend.
"Not so. I also care about not being wrong."
You keep running into it and hugging it close to you, with a love that knows no borders.
Your actions prove your statement absolutely wrong.
I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge "I'm a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind".
Hell, I can imagine him saying it to the arresting officer whilst still dripping blood and gore.
Wow:
What can I say? Not being wrong is my wife. Being right is my mistress.
That's the skeptical way.
"I can just imagine after hacking up some schoolkids with a machette and in court telling the judge “I’m a man of peace and abhor violence of any kind”.
Hey Wow, this sounds like a quote from Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama - ANY recent prime minister or president for that matter. Its called "double-speak" and would make Orwell cringe.
BK citing Freeman Dyson
Before endorsing a statement claiming that Hansen exploits the toxic elements in coal, which should include mercury and also radiation hazards, maybe you should just read Hansen, 'Storms of my Grandchildren' would be a good start. Then you will appreciate that Dyson is oversimplifying to diminish one who should be a colleague.
Similarly frequently Lindzen takes a tilt at other, non-specified because he doesn't want to lose his pants in a lawsuit, scientists accusing them of fraud.
One trail that follows Lindzen can be found by following from here: Lindzengate – one year on. Which starts by reviewing again Lindzen's appallingly obfuscatory presentation at Westminster about this time last year. His presentation is riddled with erroneous conclusions and ill founded assumptions. He only got away with this because the lay audience heard what they wanted to hear.
For another window on Lindzen, and Singer try this:
If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it. .
Lindzen has his very own button at SkS (as do Michaels, Spencer and Christy, of whom the latter has recently added a further strike not yet recorded therein): Lindzen Illusions.
There is also a Climate Misinformers hall of fame.
The problem is that you appear not to have created an accurate and more complete cognitive framework of not only the multiple scientific aspects, diverse fields of research, that underpin what we (the broad community of the scientist involved and those of us who have studied much literature over many years) currently understand about the climate and where it is heading but also of the attempts of industry (many and varied) to finance a coterie of one time scientists willing to create the fog of doubt.
You asked which of the reading list supplied should be consulted, the short answer is all of the above, although I, and David, have made some specific suggestion along the way.
Having enjoyed my time at sea, although any 'weather' (Force 11 and 12 through the Pentland Firth and The Minch, hurricane off Cape Hatteras and other interesting times) was mostly a backdrop to my day to day activities, if not disabled I would love to have a shot at practical Oceanography.
My journey studying weather and climate started whilst at university, as a mature student, with a 1985 print of the Fourth edition of this book Atmosphere, Weather and Climate.
BTW citations involving WUWT do not impress, that you should use such raises another red flag to add to your frequent use of CAGW which originated with such, propaganda, sources (also listed in a nearby thread). It is propaganda, under the badge of advocacy, that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels, Christy and Plimer are now engaged, not science. Indeed with some it goes back to the early 1990s and even earlier - check out Michaels - Greening Earth - Western Fuels.
Coal should be phased out ASAP, if not sooner, not least because of the CO2 connection but also because of the damage to terrain, ecosystems and water supplies caused by its extraction. By the same token, tar sands and shale gas (fracking) is utter madness and should cease forthwith.
Many may not agree but baseload can be supplied by nuclear, 3-gen for now until deployment of 4-gen which latter can consume the waste created by earlier generations of nuclear including 3-gen. Fusion is pie in the sky for now. This book: Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power: Technologies and Policies from the Future of Nuclear Power provides a good grounding in the technologies, management and policy issues.
But local power generation from renewables is an essential part of the mix.
Well, Blair's used the "If I did wrong, then God will judge me".
BULLSHIT.
I don't remember seeing God at the bloody polling booth.
And if that was an acceptable method of sorting out justice, then why not just off Tony and if he done wrong, then God will sort him out, and if he done good, then God will give him a reward, right?
Ah, no, it seems that even the godbotherers would rather wait and get a reward after THEY managed a full and active life.
Pity he didn't let others do the same and not invade.
Really?!
God is everywhere (vote early, vote often)—ask bill if you don't believe me!
BK
No, it's what I'd call a calculated misrepresentation. I am not labouring under any misconceptions regarding this conversation. I dislike this sort of sly shit, Bradley.
Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won't explain on what basis you do so. Hence the term 'denier'.
Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control ('an incredibly stupid idea'; 'it's just stupid') but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Is is politics?
Is this what motivates you to *secretly believe* that ECS is below 1.5C even though it's abundantly clear that this is not the case?
***
Not a word about Marcott? You surprise me. I told you the Mannean hockey stick was an irrelevance and so it is. Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann.
BBD,
I might well ask what motivates you to *secretly hate* Belgians, BBD? Sure, you'll deny considering or treating them any worse than any other ethnic group til you're blue in the face; we know, we know. You can spare us the innocent act, BBD, for no matter how many times I prove to you that a Belgian is a genetically, karyotypically complete person like any other, no many how many mDNA studies I show you confirming the theory of our common ancestry, deep down you have no intention of ever changing your mind and viewing Belgians as real, full human beings, do you?
Is it politics?
Is that where your unspoken and unacknowledged Belgophobia comes from?
Brad, one final point.
Lindzen has 218 papers in his career, and the most citations his work has ever received in one year is just over 300 (for comparison I had 516 citation last year for my own scientific papers). Michael Mann's work was cited almost 1,000 times last year, and although he is 25 years younger than Lindzen he already has 154 publications and virtually the same number of total citations as Lindzen.
If this was a tennis match, the score would be Mann-Lindzen 6-2, 6-1, 6-4.
If Lindzen is the poster boy for denial, then that lot really is in trouble.
All Lindzen (and Spencer's) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.
Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C02…
Lin et al. (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C00…
Harrison (2002)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F…
Fu et al (2002)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2009)/Spencer & Braswell (2009):
Trenberth et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
Lin et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Murphy et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Dessler (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf
Oops. Too many links = automoderation. Let's chop this one up:
All Lindzen (and Spencer’s) stuff on sensitivity is flawed. Badly so.
Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C02…
Lin et al. (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C00…
Harrison (2002)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F…
Fu et al (2002)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2009)/Spencer & Braswell (2009):
Trenberth et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
Lin et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Murphy et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Dessler (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf
I have a post pointing to Lindzen related material stuck in moderation, too many links I guess. It may drop through eventually.
It'll never drop.
Post again with no more than two links per post.
Brad Keyes's latest fails to carry through to the correct conclusion. Emitting excess CO2 indeed violates rights of others.
BBD,
you accuse me of a premeditated deception (emphasis added):
But it wasn’t a deliberate untruth, or an inadvertent untruth, or even an inadvertent half-truth. It was the truth. I’ve explained to you too many times to count—so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now—that:
Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again. The only mystery that remains is:
Was that a calculated attempt to misrepresent my views, or the result of a persistent inability to understand English?
Nonsense. ECS is just a temperature range—it couldn’t possibly “say” (imply, indicate, entail, mean or prove) that AGW will be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with even if AGW were going to be sufficiently net dangerous to justify all the bitching and moaning at a time when there are other, clear and present problems to contend with.
For example, Indur Goklany’s analyses of global warming impacts find that civilization could absorb 4C in its stride. I doubt you’ll agree with this finding, but the point is that a serious case has been made for it. You can’t wave it away a priori.
Enough of your fictions, BBD. I grow tired of having to rebutt the argumentum ad imaginationem.
I describe emissions control as “stupid” because I’ve considered it, not because I’ve refused to do so.
Readers who look back at my actual comment can see for themselves how dishonest it is to use that second quote (“It’s just stupid.”) in service to the insinuation that I refuse to consider emissions control. They can see for themselves that I meant emissions control was just a stupid idea as opposed to an a priori abhorrent idea. My claim, which you’ve mangled, was that CAGW deniers have no ideological motive to refuse to consider emissions control.
No.
That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.
That’s simply another way of admitting that you don’t understand the very basics of my thinking or behavior.
If you did, you’d be aware that I’m loath to comment on papers I haven’t read.
Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.
You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?
Let me guess: because he’s so irrelevant.
So irrelevant that you’ll defend the scientific propriety of his, ahem, methodological and ethical innovations to the hilt.
I believe you.
;-)
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/rainforests-not-at-risk-of-shrinki…
Found this under 'science stories' in google news this morning.
Haven't read the paper yet but this report does seem to indicate that this new research supports other recent papers re tropical scenarios.
Have been away ( & very busy) and have not had much time to catch up on conversations here.
I have noticed the conversation re Kahan however.
JeffH, you do realise that Kahan would be a 'supporter' of much of what you say and in much of what you believe don't you?
Also JeffH,
re comment #5
I absolutely agree that people should attempt to be polite.
May I respectfully suggest that indiscriminately using the term 'denier' for anyone who questions your statements and/or asks for clarification of some of your statements is not being polite?
And David B,
May I ask why you have linked this twice?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/03/02/anthrop…
I don't really think there is any question that the planet and therefore the climate/environment would be different without the presence of mankind and the concurrent development of farming and agriculture.
Your second link also partly points this out.
One of the most natural things that mankind does (even from the caveman days) is to use and alter the environment to suit mankind.
It is not a perfect story and there have been mistakes, but in the big picture it is certainly not all a bad story.
IMHO much of current behaviour has seriously lost some perspective.
Farming and agriculture is one of the major reasons why the human race is such a successful species.
Given how much harm a mere 0.8 K warming has done already I find a claim that 4 K 'can be taken in stride' preposterous.
What a hoot! You can wave it away a priori, you know, just like claims of finding diatoms in meteorites.
People, seriously, ask yourselves: why are you wasting your time here?
DBB:
This is one of the most interesting comments so far—thanks.
1. Do you, in fact, think we have four to five times as much AGW ahead of us as behind us?
2. If so, how long do you think it will take for the next 3.2—4.0 degrees' worth of AGW to occur, given the current levels (i.e. bugger-all) of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction?
3. What do you see as the principal harms and benefits of global warming so far? Has it been net detrimental?
Yes you can, due to the following combination of reasons:
1/ Goklany has no special qualifications in either climate science or risk management
2/ Goklany is a regular contributor to the crank-blog run by the crank meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is a climate change denier.
Hardly surprising to find Brad - yet again - sourcing his opinions from a crank blog.
Vortical Vince:
Anthony Watts emphatically acknowledges the reality of climate change, so the obvious question is whether the rest of your comment is any more trustworthy than the bold-faced lie above.
In short words, Vince: why should we trust what you say, or care what you say, when you tell a lie like that?
This is just painful to read:
"Any suggestions for collective nouns?
A mendacity of deniers?
A pomposity of deniers?
An embarrassment of deniers?
A delusion of deniers?
A pustule of deniers?
A flock of deniers.
A confusion of deniers?
A benthos?
A Conspiracy of Deniers.
A baffle of deniers.
A glib of deniers.
A falsehood of deniers.
A crank of deniers.
A prattle of deniers.
a frauditorium full of deniers
a Bishop Hill of deniers
a junket of deniers
a lyin’s den of deniers"
Misologists really shouldn't attempt philology.
The answer is a liard of deniers. Four liards make one sou.
But then, we already knew you people had no idea about the Middle Ages.
:-)o
Nick tries his hand...
"A shame stage of sceptics."
More "Brad" mangling in progress.
Ah, I see. Mann’s HS papers added nothing to human knowledge. That’s why the President of the USA chose Mann as his personal climate science advisor. That’s why Mann was cited twice as many times as Jeff Harvey himself last year.
"Perhaps now you will shut up about Mann".
You’re really keen not to talk about him, aren’t you?
Au contraire for despite denier attempted spin hiding behind a veil of sarcasm, Mann's reconstruction was the first time such an undertaking had been attempted and as such was groundbreaking. In that sense alone it added to the sum of human knowledge.
The point (as if you didn't know) that BBD is making is that Mann's findings have been replicated so many times now that despite denier fixation on his iconic heap-big-magic hockey stick totem - it's not the only one, but it's still the one the unwashed majority of deniers fixate on.
"Brad's" addiction to crankery, crank blog information and his curious reticence to substantiate his crank blog formed opinions continues apace. Nothing new (since about 2009 at the latest) there.
Brad, you really keep shooting yourself in the foot, don't you? Now you are citing Indur Goklany, a think tank shill if there ever was one:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Indur_Goklany
http://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/10/974842/-Climate-Denial-Wholly-…
Goklany has long eben associated with corporate-funded right wing think tanks. He is a perfect example of a denier who cannot help but wear his political ideology on his sleeve. To be honest, he is one of the worst people that you could cite. Here is a rundown of Goklany's bonafides:
Career: 30 publications (since 1973), 139 citations TOTAL, and only 5 last year. Five! I get more in less than a week.
How desperate are you Brad? How far to the bottom of the barrel are you willing to scrape to come up with what ytou consider to be ligitimiate voices of denial? What this shows is that your arguments depend largely on a few dissenting voices, and those diussenting voices more often than not are or have been directly or indirectly on the corporate fossil fuel payroll at some point. And you expect rational responses to this?! Come on Brad. You are painting yourself into a corner. My advice is to leave here gracefully while you still have a thin veneer of credibility. The more you write, the deeper you sink.
The questions are *not* 'falsely premised'. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me. Evasive and dishonest in equal measure.
WTF? You're calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure.
As for the 'personalise and demonise' tactics you and your fellow lying denialists use against Mann and Jones - they fool nobody outside the denialist bubble. The rest of us understand that M&J are not proxies for climate science. We see the misdirection, the trickery, the dishonest rhetoric for what they are. Clearly we are cleverer than you, Brad. Or we don't share your motivations, at the very least.
You describe emissions controls as 'stupid' because you are motivated to do so by your worldview. You make idiotic remarks about ECS for the same reason. You are, as everyone can see, a denier motivated by your politics.
We'd have more time for you if you had the integrity to admit this openly instead of constantly lying about it.
This claim is false.
I totally agree withg David Benson. The curret modest increase in atmsopheric C02 concentrations is already having serious consequences, and that's ifwe ignore temporal lags in some effects, such as those on antural systems which operate over larger scales. To think that humanity can 'adapt' to or 'manage' a 3-4C rise is the sprint of folly. In other words, profoundly and dangerously naive and ignorant.
"WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now?"
Of course you're a racist.
Racists never say they are a racist.
You've never said you were.
Therefore, as far as Bray is concerned, that proves you're a racist!
He doesn't know how proof or logical induction goes. He just knows where those words are in the dictionary.
@ 58
Or in a word, 'denial'.
BBD:
ROFL!
Don't stop there, BBD! Go on, elaborate on what my political worldview is.* I insist.
I could do with a good laugh :-)
Oh, like the way you candidly own up to your disturbing eugenicist ideas, BBD?
(Dear readers: for a masterclass in denial, observe how BBD now pretends he has no idea what I'm referring to. Ready... set... deny!)
*And please, BBD: don't shield yourself behind vacuous weaselries like "Libertarian! Cappuccino capitalist! Paleo-neo-Party-Of-Lincolnist! Extreme centrist!," or similar inanities applicable to every man and his dog. Have the dignity to take a falsifiable stab at the question: what are my politics?
Anthony Watts isn't a denier. Who knew?
And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn't a duck?
Wow,
Perhaps Lotharsson was a bit harsh on you—you do show signs of high-school-level cortical functioning from time to time. For example, this précis was very insightful:
Bingo.
Rather like the way I avoid espousing right-wing ideology, voting right-wing, admitting I'm right-wing, or otherwise behaving so as to suggest right-wing sympathies, BBD likewise plays his racism extremely close to his chest. The duplicitous bastard!
BK
You have not responded to my main point above. Evasive verbiage, yes. Substance, no.
Everything we know says it will, starting with ECS. Yet *still* you reject this sum of knowledge and *still* you won’t explain on what basis you do so. All you do is quote rubbish from WTFUWT. This is less than inadequate.
Not only that, but you refuse even to contemplate emissions control (‘an incredibly stupid idea’; ‘it’s just stupid’) but without it, the effects of increasing RF will become ever-more severe. See pretty pictures above. Please address this point directly
It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* 'falsely premised'. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me.
It is extremely clear that you are being serially, persistently *evasive*.
Why is this?
chek:
"Anthony Watts isn’t a denier. Who knew?"
Not you, fool.
"And more relevantly, how can you tell that the web-footed, waddling, swimming, flying, quacking Williwatts isn’t a duck?"
Ah, that old canard.
Pay attention, chek, while I explain this as simply as I know how:
In Vince's words, in Vince's system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.
Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.
Get it? That's not "quacking," it's mooing. Barking. Neighing. But Vince inhabits an alternative reality. He's in a barnyard of his own. Technically, as you appear to agree with him, perhaps I should call it a folie à deux.
You ask David B. Benson this instead of answering my questions, which is irritating:
Obviously it all depends on emissions reductions. Which you think are a 'stupid idea'.
You seem increasingly muddled.
*Sigh.*
I hoped it was obvious from the question itself ("given the current levels [i.e. bugger-all] of commitment worldwide to CO2 emissions reduction") that I meant assuming little or no emissions reductions.
I'll try to remember to spoon-feed you next time, BBD.
BBD
BK "That’s rich, coming from a racist who won’t even admit it.
BBD "WTF? You’re calling me a *racist* now? Desperate, dishonest and vile in equal measure."
Indeed, and that coming from someone (BK) who described John Cook as mongoloid.
Hypocrisy on top of continued tergiversation.
Keyes, the slant of your continuing distorted view of the field of climate science (many disciplines) and of the history of the denial machine clearly indicates that your grounding in these topics is far from complete and you really need to do allot of reading to catch up hence our continuing attempts to bring relevant and worthy literature to your attention.
Your cognitive framework is distorted due to lack of understanding of many essential concepts.
Consider that achieving ECS is rather like collecting the gold at the end of the rainbow for as long as we continue to add CO2 then the point of equilibrium moves ever further into the future. The concept of a single doubling of CO2 (from pre-industrial levels), although meaningful in the context of a specific temperature increase is rather arbitrary in the context extended time.
Also the current rate of increase in CO2 levels (and other GHGs) is unprecedented.
You [Brad] seem increasingly muddled
I think that's the nub of it BBD.
Anything that "Brad" can say will only look stupid in daylight because it's either based on hopes'n'wisful thinking, or discredited (or easily discreditable) crank bullshit.
It's ostensibly easier to avoid and evade rather than confront, which is what "Brad" cannot face up to, hence these pusillanimous distractions and 'look squirrels' pointing to unskilled sources.
Why not?
You seem to have accepted it with no skeptical inquiry into it based solely on it saying AGW is nothing to worry about.
BBD:
WTF?
That's even less lucid and responsive than your usual fare, BBD.
Comment #58 reads, in its entirety:
"Nick tries his hand…
A shame stage of sceptics.”
BBD, I told you:
"Yet you asked the same, falsely premised question over and over again."
You replied, turning singular to plural for motives know only to yourself:
"It is extremely clear that the questions are *not* ‘falsely premised’. I have to keep asking them because you refuse to answer me."
Yet the premise of this question, which you asked over and over, is false:
"1/ On what evidence is your rejection of the majority view that AGW is potentially dangerous based? References required."
Here is the answer I have never refused to give, with apologies to David Benson and other readers for the tedious repetitiousness of the lesson I'm trying to convey:
"As I’ve explained so often, even your fellow believalists must get the picture by now, I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous."
In case that's not clear enough, what it means is that I fully appreciate the fact that AGW is potentially dangerous.
And therefore your question was false.
A,
you're indulging in non-sequuntur again.
Yes.
And?
As I've pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky's halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
I don’t dispute that AGW might turn out to be dangerous.”
So what's the implied (though non-exisent according to present knowledge) conditional, brainbox? We'll be saved by a cavalry charge of pink unicorns, you utterly ignorant, smug, scientifically illiterate moron?
As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an illiterate idiot, imbecilic philistine and cretinous retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
Such a vituperative display of inaccurate and factually wrong adjectives shows John Cook really succeeded in rattling your cage little man, and showed you for the worthless word merchant you are, "Brad".
And by showed, I of course mean to yourself, which is unforgivable in "Brad" world.
BK
Yack yack yack.
Evasive, politically motivated dishonest denier.
Your fucking lies:
On, and on, and on, and on.
Lies.
Since you are too stupid and dishonest to write this down yourself, I am going to fix it for you:
There, you lying fuckwit. That wasn't so hard was it.
BradK @#58,
:-) :-)
The behaviour at the March thread is indeed painful to read.
It appears that totally counter productive name calling is acceptable yet a comment like mine above @#51 was in moderation for nearly 24 hours.
No wonder there is such a backlash in the Australian electorate.
The WA election results indicate very bad news for the current Fed govt.
BBD,
thanks for this unusually polite comment:
But motivated by what politics, BBD?
Come on, this thread could do with some comedy.
What are my politics?
BBD,
just when I thought you were becoming tolerant of heretics, the old Dominican instinct kicks in and you rant...
... followed by a declaration of a belief I don't believe, and am too lucid and honest to write myself:
Why do you and your fellow domini canes feel the need to put words in people's mouths? Is it impossible to defend the orthodoxy honestly?
Even if the international community never lifts a finger to limit CO2 emissions (and presumably it won't), I am not remotely convinced that AGW is going to be net-harmful.
The most fascinating thing about your little forgery / ventriloquism, however, is that it suggests an awareness on your part that AGW has not yet proven "dangerous."
Perhaps the Inquisition and its victims are of a more similar mind on such matters than a certain party would like to admit, eh BBD? ;-)
BBD,
you ruin the moment of ecumenical empathy with your foul mouth:
Aaaaand just like that, it's faggots and fomites again with the fascist enforcers of the Faith.
Why are chameleon's comments now mired in moderation for hours on end?
Surely no one here is worm enough to fear her polite questions.
chek:
Not at all, chek. Adjectives are just for fun!
As I’ve pointed out, Cook is Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy; an idiot, philistine and retard; how on earth does race enter into these facts?
Gosh, you're so right, Lionel—I really need to stop beating round the bush! Enough with the equivocation, prevarication, ambivalence, indecision, mealy-mouthed mustelism and umming-and-ahhing...
Note to self: stop being so damned polite. Tell us what you really think of John Cook.
Breathtaking example of denial from Brad here: who knew Anthony Watts was not a denier?
Who knew the man who said, "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong", and then refused to accept BEST's result, and continued to promote his fact-free and evidently incorrect premise, was in denial?
Who knew that Anthony Watts' "Surface Stations" schemozzle wasn't the epitome of denial in action?
Who knew that this crank blogger unfamiliar with further education and on the payroll of Heartland Institute, an organisation devoted to lying about climate change, wasn't a denier?
Who knew the man whose blog provides a platform to every cranky denialist in town, no matter how egregiously denialist, was a denier?
Who knew the man who even today claims the US temperature record is wrong, despite being proven wrong by 3 independent studies, including his own, is a denier?
Who knew that Anthony Watts' continued promotion of the serially-incorrect Lindzen as a valid source of climate-related information wasn't yet another symptom of his denial?
Not Brad.
Brad never knew.
Brad came down in the last shower.
(Or, he knew and he's just lying. Again.)
Where are my manners? I almost forgot:
Congratulations to the March 2013 thread on its 100th comment!
And we're still (just) under half way through the month!
(And they said giving me my own thread would kill popular interest in the minor threads! Ha! How wrong they were—for 100 reasons, and counting!)
Moderator/s
Why have I been placed in moderation?
I was not warned and nor have I used bad language or been blatantly rude to anyone.
Have I made a mistake with an email address or have I inadvertently broken a rule or messed up a link or something like that?
BBD,
further on the ‘dangerousness’ of AGW, I can’t resist quoting some choice pronouncements from Professor Mike Hulme—my emphasis:
Believe it or not, Hulme teaches science. He’s the founding director of the Tyndall Centre and Professor of Climate Change at the UEA. He prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC, and was co-ordinating Lead Author on the Climate Scenario Development chapter of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, as well as a contributing author on several other chapters.
Vince,
yes, you must think I was born yesterday. How else could you hope your shameless back-pedalling would go unnoticed:
Did you really think I’d forget that your original accusation was somewhat more specific than the inane epithet “denier”?
Did you really think I wouldn’t copy and paste what you actually typed?
As I’ve patiently taught chek:
In your words, in your system of reality, Watts is a climate change denier.
Meanwhile, in reality, Watts is a climate change affirmer.
The interesting question, Vince, is whether you’re lying to yourself or just to us.
Here it is again, expressed in terms even a denialist half-wit cannot possibly misinterpret:
Because ECS is *at least* 2C and probably higher,AGW will be dangerous unless emissions are reduced.
BBD,
Thanks for confirming you don't consider AGW dangerous yet. Why do you think David makes the following claim (my emphasis)?
Are you and David reading the same Science™?
Hey, since Bray thinks it's non science, indeed ANTI-science, to withhold your code, I wonder what you think now of Christy and Spencer withholding the code that they use for their satellite data conversion to temperature?
(prompted by a query over at rabett run)
BBD,
you probably don't need this explained, but just to head off the wrath of the PC brigade, I should clarify that when I wrote...
"Aaaaand just like that, it’s faggots and fomites again with the fascist enforcers of the Faith."
...I was merely paraphrasing your nostalgia for "stakes and bundles of firewood." Your patron saint must be so proud. ;-)
Wow,
this is a fair question:
Short answer, minus crucial caveats:
I think it’s non-scientific, indeed anti-scientific.
Long answer, complete with crucial caveats:
1. I haven’t read anything about the incident but you're probably not telling the whole story. I don't say this because I regard Spencer and Christy as paragons of probity, but because I regard you as anything but. I’ll assume, though, for the sake of argument that you’re being totally honest and not leaving anything out that would reasonably be expected to alter my answer.
2. The scientifically-optimal course of action for C & S would be to disclose the source code.
3. Ideally they should do so by publishing the code (perhaps as an Appendix in the relevant scientific paper).
4. If, however, there are pragmatic, commercial or proprietary impediments to publishing the code, then the next-most acceptable practice would be to disclose it individually to anyone seeking to audit and/or replicate it. And by “anyone,” I mean on either “side” of the debate. This is a matter of principle, not partisanship.
5. Short of disclosing the code, one legitimate alternative would be to strictly perform the following steps:
— publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
— publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does, so that any interested, numerate and competent programmer can implement a functionally identical program without guesswork, and use said program to verify for him- or herself that it transforms the raw data into precisely the same temperature outputs that the authors got as their findings
6. The above principles assume they used in-house, hand-coded software. On the other hand, if they used off-the-shelf, closed-source commercial software, the requirements would be slightly different. In this case it may suffice to:
— publish or disclose on request the full satellite data
— publish the name and version number of the software product, and say exactly which features were used in which order—essentially, a “walkthrough” in enabling detail.
7. Short of satisfying any of the above conditions (unless I’ve overlooked some other scientifically legitimate solution), Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial.
Wow
Perhaps you recall that I mentioned Christy and Spencer and the 2005 UAH debacle to Brad a long time ago. Perhaps he didn't really understand the full implications.
We've been through this. CO2 forcing is only beginning to have an effect. You've seen the graphs.
Everything you say is dishonest shite.
Yup. Here we go: Page 36 # 69
And what does Brad think about policy intervention?
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are staggeringly dishonest?
According to you:
But why, Brad? Why is everybody else wrong? What special knowledge do you have?
And how, if you accept a slightly conservative ECS estimate, do you think we are going to keep warming below 2.5 - 3C without emissions regulation?
Something you *explicitly state* is 'just stupid'. Don't bother trying to lie your way out of this again - I will simply quote your own words at you. Again.
It's beyond a muddle. It is an incoherent mess. You are all over the place man. So much for your supposed intellectual gifts, eh?
So will you stop putting either Christy, Spencer, or cohorts as "experts" whose statements on climate science are valid?
"1. I haven’t read anything about the incident"
You never look, do you.
But you go looking for incidents that may "prove AGW science a scam".
Why is that?
It's because you're ideologically opposed to the consequent actions required by the fact of AGW.
Hang on, that wasn't an option you were going to allow Mann to do. Why do these clowns get the option?
It's because you're ideologically predicated to accept their claims against AGW science.
That is done for the MBH98 and MBH99 paper. Apparently not good enough for you then, why is it good enough for Christy/Spencer?
See above.
— publish or disclose on request a full specification in enabling detail (as a patent attorney would put it) of what their program does,
That was ALWAYS available to McIntyre from the MBH98 paper. His competence at understanding the science wasn't Mann's fault.
"Spencer and Christy may as well call themselves the Phil Jones of CAGW denial."
Why are they "the Phil Jones"?
Surely they are "the Pons and Fleischmann". You haven't shown Phil Jones has having hidden his code or hiding anything else.
Hum!
BK I always wonder when I see many ellipses in a block of text what has been left out. Also you fail to cite your sources. This is called doing a Plimer..
Whatever I have fixed your statement to more truly reflect your actions:
I can’t resist quote mining from some choice pronouncements...
Brad you fail, fail and fail again and still you tergiversate which is also a characteristic of Plimer.
Wow:
Sure. Once I stop beating my wife.
As I told some three-lettered somebody weeks ago, I don't think I've ever read anything by Christy or Spencer, let alone cited it, let alone cited it as the "expert" truth.
(The strikethrough is due to the fact that you don't know what the word "cohort" means.)
Don't use quotation marks unless you're quoting me, which you're not.
You're fabricating and misattributing to me an idea I don't even believe and have certainly never tried to ""prove.""
Because you can't defend your POV honestly.
Wow:
If they're obstructing efforts to audit their calculations, then they're "the Phil Jones" of CAGW denial because Jones wrote the immortal email:
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
The Phil Jones reference indicates that our wordy interlocutor, far from being widely read or informed, merely picks up and then regurgitates speed-read denier chum chunks. Forget "Brad" having any comprehension - original, insightful or otherwise - of the issue. Stilted, talk-point repetition is all there is.
Slightly further back in the trhread was mention of how the intelligent can be in denial just as deep as the stupid. I disagree, in that intelligence that is indistinguishable from stupidity is still stupid. It may be stupidity with a wider vocabulary or skillset, but somehow I don't think nature awards extra points for those.
Lionel:
Given that this blog actively punishes commenters (or at least me and chameleon) for linking to sources, I thought I could reasonably expect you to look up those quotes yourself.
Good starting points for you (once this gets through moderation) would be http://mikehulme.org/category/articles-reviews-talks and http://mikehulme.org/category/archived-publications/.
Let me know if you think any of my elisions have unfairly mutilated Hulme's meaning.
Wow:
1. It wasn't done for MBH. Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill's blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.
2. If Spencer and Christy don't do so either, then they're stooping to the level of MBH, which is not excusable.
Oh, FFS, you know not whereof you crap on.
Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill's blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Moderator/s,
Can you please explain why my comments are spending up to 24 hours in moderation?
Have I broken one of your rules?
[You used a sock]
Brad Keyes --- So far this century over 100,000 Europeans died prematurely due to heat waves. In addition agriculture has been severely disrupted. Is not yet possible to attribute either to global warming, but it is certainly implicated.
Extreme storms are definitely becoming more extreme and this is attributable to global warming. Not to mention Greenland melt and arctic sea ice loss. The latter is certainly affecting weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.
And from everything I have seen Terra and its inhabitants are on track for at least 4 K warming. For a hint of just how bad that will be, read Mark Lynas's "Six Degrees":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatecha…
For those who don't yet know - including obviously "Brad" here -" The Hockey Stick Illusion." is a conspiracy novel which purports incompetent crank 'analyst' Steve McinTyres is a 'hero' by the GWPF and Scottish Oil Barons (I kid you not) connected rural accountant nutter and noted conspiracy crank Andy Montford. Footnotes and the illusion of 'research' do not decouple it from the Dan Brown or Von Daniken shelf at your fave bookstore.
Any moronic anti-AGW science motif, and ol' "Brad's" right in there like Flynn. Along with his sock doxy.
I should add that cranks like stories by other cranks.
It entertains them.
It's reality that they find too dull or difficult.
Better to rage against the evil that is embodied in Mike Mann or Phil Jones than the RF forcing spewed out by planetary-wide complicity with Exxon or Koch Industries.
Really, we're deling with arrogant children unwilling to put away childish things and grow up.
The Hockey Stick Illusion now? Priceless! You've nearly worn the bottom out of the barrel...
And, ooh - muppet uses sock! Intriguing. Did we see it?
I haven't kept up - has he cited The Oregon Petition yet? Slaying the Skydragon?
What a cartoon!
Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will 'explain' the necessity of using a sock.
Yes indeedee you betcha.
Vortical Vince:
No, in my reality, i.e. reality, he's a climate change affirmer because he affirms that climate change is real.
Mmm. That would be hilarious.
When you've got a minute, Vince, would you please tell us how you think science works? Close your eyes, imagine a bunch of "science" occurring and describe what you visualise.
Thanks in advance,
"Brad"
chek,
This turgid crap resonates will all the credibility (and facility with English) of a book review by Peter Gleick or Dana:
Allow me to quote someone who can both read and write:
"If you can bring yourself to read Montford's book you won't find an attempt to 'debunk' AGW because that's not what the book is about.
"It's about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.
"In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider's 'honest vs effective' mindset gets out of control."
Lionel A:
Fine, Lionel; I suppose I’ll enzymatically deplimerize it for you, will I? Lazy bastard. ;-)
Without further ado, I present the unelided Mike Hulme: same awful taste, now harder to digest!
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.
Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to ‘identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much.’
This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.cl…
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The idea of climate change has become so powerful and visible that, according to Hulme, it has really penetrated to all aspects of culture, politics and society. “There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups, to latch on to whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.”
Hulme and like-minded scientists are concerned about the commercialisation of various aspects of climate change. “Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along. It provides a new way in which commodification happens. The idea of carbon market is one of the examples; the idea that how this commodity has to be priced. By doing so we actually create a new vehicle for capitalists. We see the same thing happening in the case of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) proposal, a new plan for private companies and wealthy nations to pay poorer nations to keep their tropical forest intact.” According to him carbon offsetting is a big business, and a very attractive one. Ahead of the Copenhagen negotiations, Hulme thinks it is vital for everyone to understand the valid reasons for why there is disagreement about climate change.
SOURCE: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/plan/no-consensus-yet-climate-change-hulme-7…
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I have no problem with scientists offering clear political messages as long as they are clearly recognised as such; and the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically motivated. All well and good.
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946476.stm
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In doing so, he successfully argues that these explorations can inspire a collective change in communication. "Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be 'solving' the idea of human rights or liberal democracy," he writes. "It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come." But Hulme is not merely advocating intellectualism. Rather, he ultimately issues a John F. Kennedy-like call to action: "We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us."
SOURCE: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0908/full/climate.2009.70.html
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
SOURCE: Hulme, M., Why We Disagree About Climate Change, 2009 (p. 326)
David,
thanks.
1. If AGW has already killed 100,000 people, why does BBD speak of it becoming dangerous in the future tense?
2. How many deaths due to cold has AGW prevented?
3. What other benefits has AGW conferred so far?
4. You say that
Radical, dude!
But what does it mean?
Rarer?
"Let me second the excellent advice BBD gives at Bishop Hill’s blog: read The Hockey Stick Illusion"
Excellent? To whom? A denier? GM isn't a climate scientist in any way, shape, or form. Calling it 'excellent' reveals exactly where you are coming from, Brad.
I don't know what a sock is!
Can I please have:
a) a definition and
b) the comment where I have used a 'sock'.
? ? ?
Jeff:
Who's GM?
Anyway, the argument is about the use and abuse of statistics, Jeff—you don't need to be a climate scientist to know that all is not well in the house of palaeoclimatology.
The reason BBD insists that "Mann and Jones aren't proxies for climate science" is that BBD knows as well as I do what it would say about climate science if they were.
They're not, of course. The median, mean, modal or model climate scientist has less to hide. But Mann and Jones are proof of what you can get away with in climate science and still keep your job.
It WAS done for MBH. "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is a work of fiction. It is as real as "The DaVinci Code".
Read MBH98/99, not what some crank wrote about it.
What's with the "If"? You don't bother putting "If Mann didn't....".
That's because you don't want it to be true, but have to pretend you're being "reasonable" so can't deny it.
There is no "If".
And you refuse to act upon that.
Because you're a hypocrite? Or is it because you're a liar? Or both?
Oh, FFS, you know not whereof you crap on. That's no more relevant than telling someone who wants to know if there is anything hidden in the bible to read "The DaVinci Code".
Why the If?
Neither they nor you answered that question.
Phil Jones doesn't work for you or McIntrye as personal secretary.
You sick fuck.
That's true.
You have used their names to prop up your fantasy interpretations of reality. Just because you "forget" doesn't stop that from being the case.
FTFY.
Seems like you don't know what quotation marks mean.
So now you're in denial about your entire catalogue of bullshit you've posted on this blog, not just your use of Christy and Spencer.
Really? Prove it, else it's just your assertion.
Hmmm. You link in that very post.
You aren't very observant are you. And a brazen bare-faced liar to boot.
No, you don't think. That's your problem, bray.
BK
You ignore # 5 # 6 # 7.
RSVP.
And ask yourself a very pertinent question. How did I get from where I was in 2011 to where I am now?
How do you think I achieved that?
Wow,
this is sound advice:
Also, read what Andrew Montford wrote about it.
(If you can “bring yourself” to do so, that is. As BBD put it.)
Right. Because I know he didn’t.
So you agree that I’m behaving the way a reasonable person would.
Guess what, Wow: that’s because I’m reasonable.
Upon what? Upon the fact that there is no “if”?
LOL.
OK Wow.
Out of morbid curiosity: what actions, exactly, were you waiting for me to take?
Keep guessing. I’ll let you know when you’re warm.
Didn’t you just ask—and answer, to the best of your poor ability—that question?
OMFG.
If you understood the first thing about science, Wow, you’d be aware that the question answers itself.
Because my aim is to try and find something wrong with it, that’s why you should make your data available to me.
Even actors who portray scientists on television know this! Jones is too unscientific even to do a half-assed job of impersonating a scientist.
*Sigh.*
Would someone like to explain the “when did you stop beating your wife” meme to Wow?
They don’t pay me enough for this.
And just because you “remember” doesn’t stop it from being make-believe, Wow.
Of course, there’s really only 1 (one) way to resolve the question that must be going through readers’ minds right now, if they’re not already familiar with your schtick: “Is ‘Wow’ just making this shit up, or did ‘Brad’ actually cite Christy and Spencer’s work?” …and that is to quote me citing it.
Which you haven’t done, will never do, and couldn’t do if your life depended on it.
Because you’re making this shit up.
How much is HI paying you to lie so ineptly?
Nope, you succeeded only in FTUFY.
I’m not sure how well you grasp the whole Internet concept, but people can still read what you wrote before. It doesn’t disappear just because you’re too embarrassed to quote yourself. We can still see your confused, semi-literate attempt to use “cohort” in a sentence:
chek:
I'm morbidly curious: which supernumerary persona do you suspect of being Chameleon's handiwork? Given that she and I are for all intents and purposes the only 2 realists participating here (except maybe on Jonas' thread, which I've never visited), the theory is …bizarre. To put it delicately.
chek,
It bores me how wrong this conspiracycomplicity theory is:
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Alarmist or denier?
*Exxon-Mobil is called Esso in the UK.
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Alarmist or denier?
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Alarmist or denier?
Name the climate scientist who wrote:
Alarmist or denier?
BBD:
Well, now that you’re being so civil, rational and personable, I’d be only too happy to rectify that lapse in my thoroughness, BBD!
:-)
See, isn’t this much more pleasant?
#5:
I know you are, but what am I?
#6:
Good point.
(Are you suggesting there is something intrinsically bad about it, BBD?)
#7:
THATS WHAT SHE SAID LOL
Maybe we won’t.
And it was so devastating the last time.
;-)
This rhetoric can only be characterised as a disingenuous, jesuitical and ultimately see-through bid to downplay or dissimulate the fact that you’re a poopy head.
BK
Well I did try but your regurge was a mish-mash of bits from here there and everywhere as far as I could see, probably from a number of sources. But then I had so many hits on just one string that it was hard to discover the precise source of that. So going looking for a number of such was likely to be a time waster. Hence my Plimer reference.
I think moderation bin gets anything with more than three, or four links besides anything tarred by specific words. Maybe even certain URLs invoke a trip to the spam bin.
So this:
is more bull. 'Actively punishes' indeed. Oh! Poor little Brad is being picked on (NOT). Shame.
One thing is for sure, once the context is found Hulme does not conclude what you think he does, or what you make out he does.
So Brad,
what do you think MBH stooped to? Pleasse explain in detail or should I expect more tergiversation .
I have lost count how many times I have prompted for an answer here.
Same goes for questions BBD has asked. Tergiversation, and its synonyms, should be your epitaph.
# 16
Neither link works.
It's illuminating to see where Brad actually got his Hulme pastiche from.
The reason why Bradley's links don't work is because he never went to the primary documents and his actual source does not supply them (wonder why?). The decontextualised snippets came from this purveyor of tripe. The posts either side are entitled Eco-imperialism - Every environmentalist's Dream and UN IPCC: Rotting from the Head down. Yup; one of *those* sites.
Not only do the decontextualised snippets match those provided in Brad's comment, right down to the emphasis, Brad has lifted his description of Hulme almost verbatim from the same place.
Here's Brad:
Here's the 'source':
Just more evidence that Brad is primarily motivated by politics and knows next to nothing about climate science.
Politics. Politics. Politics. Won't say what they are!
;-)
Just admit it, Brad. We all know anyway, so it's only a formality.
Keyes once again shows his dishonesty (page 37 #97)by cherry picking and attempting to smear a well regarded scientist. Here is the context for the cherry pick he made re Mike Hulme:
This shows a far different view point than the one Keyes tries to portray with his dishonesty. I wonder if he lives alone, never goes out, since he can't have any friends when he shows such a flagrant dislike for the truth. How does he manage to be employed, the first thing I looked for in any employes who worked for me was honesty?
The Mike Hulme quote is from an opinion piece in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.cl…
As I discovered earlier but forgot to mention through distraction and short term memory leakage (due to medics).
Whatever yet another example of TERGIVERSATION.
Lionel A
WRT non-links - I got that, don't worry. Otherwise why would you end up (like me) searching for text strings? And finding zillions of hits, all to contrarian sites, and nothing to the source quoted by BK.
You called it exactly right at # 12.
I think the following is well done:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/14/81000-truckers-for-solar/
I agree David B.
That piece is well written and it also looks at the practical application (or maybe impractical is a better word?) of some of our policies.
OK moderator/s,
if you are not prepared to explain where you think I have used a 'sock' (which I assume means a sock puppet?) then you are exhibiting extremely poor behaviour!.
I do not intend to waste my time arguing that I didn't do what I didn't do.
I have NOT commented at Deltoid under any other name and every comment made by chameleon is made by the same person , as in me.
That is my first and only comment re the baseless accusation that I have used a 'sock'.
I would prefer to continue being able to comment at this site but will not do so if you insist on moderating me for absolutely no reason.
BBD:
Oh, I'll happily tell you my politics.
After the hilarity of watching you guess.
Come on BBD, you're the one making the accusation: back it up with specifics. What politics are driving my CAGW denial?
What "we all know" is that your cluelessness about my politics is rivalled only by your ignorance of the future of the climate, you pompous twat.
Gee, everything Brad 'knows' about 'science' actually comes from the more feral denier blogs! Say it isn't so?! ;-)
Oh - and Chebbie - sock-puppetry; explanation, please.
BBD:
This Earth Hour, illuminate yourselves by seeing where I "actually got" my "description of Hulme almost verbatim from":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&q=Mike+Hulme,…+‘Climate+scenario+development’+for+the+Third+Assessment+Report+of+the+IPCC,+as+well+as+a+contributing+author+for+several+other+chapters
Forrester at #46:
Reading this, I get an overwhelming sense of deja vu—almost as if I’d quoted THAT ENTIRE PASSAGE AND MORE just a few hours ago. On this very thread.
In fact, if I didn’t know better, I’d almost think a certain Forest Troll had just embarrassed himself with a premature aspersion on my integrity.
Damn, if only I’d thought to point that out before Forrester did!
In, say, comment #28.
On this page.
Just for example.
That would have shown him for the mendacious Untermensch that he is!
BBD throws in his lot with a mendacious forest-mongoloid:
ROFLMAOABOTR.
Readers interested in the anthropology of lying bush-cretins are invited to click on the links provided at comment #28 and speculate as to why BBD and his forest familiar say they don't work, don't refer to primary sources, don't give adequate context, etc.
Bill,
When it is no longer in moderation: see above :-)
HOW DOES ONE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN?
WHAT IS THE POINT OF ARGUING THAT I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING I DID NOT DO?
Lionel:
Hopefully things are getting better (you didn't answer last time I inquired)? What have they got you on, if (and only if) you don't mind my asking?
Oh—and bill—accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry: evidence,* please?
*Ask your friendly neighborhood scientist if you don't know what this means.
Bill, don't forget, in Brad's little world, those science-denying crank blogs are run by "climate-affirmers".
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-03-13/concrete-poured-new-…
When, oh when, Aussies?
Very unlikely DavidB
Our policies seem intent on using up all those transport systems re your earlier link.
:-)
BBD:
Well, let’s retrace the inspiring, meteoric trajectory of your personal growth:
In 2011 you:
- associated with non-alarmists and debated alarmists politely and in good faith
- identified Mann, Jones et al. as “activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public” in the name of “catastrophism”
- realized that the Hockey Stick “was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the 'right' result: a hockey stick,” that the various ostensible corroborations of their finding recycled the same skewed proxies over and over again, and that “This is not correct scientific practice.”
- recommended Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’
- understood that, while the contrived fabrication of the graph itself obviously “doesn't 'falsify' AGW,” this wasn’t the point. Rather, “it is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable” and “reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote 'their' hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.”
- called Stephen Schneider out on the “breathtaking intellectual arrogance” that lay behind his “self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism”
In 2013 you:
- associate with alarmists and biliously harangue non-alarmists as crypto-political liars and/or self-deceiving fools
- quietly try to decouple climate science from the likes of Mann and Jones
- exhibit no interest in what you once called “the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick”
- absent yourself from all discussion of Montford’s book
- pretend that the HS is irrelevant
- make no comment on Schneider’s ethical innovations
- in short, appear to have taken up the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism with breathtaking intellectual arrogance
I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD.
More of a dereliction.
bill,
On second thought, accusing Chameleon of sock-puppetry might make a warped kind of sense from your POV. After all, you do belong to a movement in which actual psychologists give paranoid suggestions like this ...
... but remember—in normal, secular society anyone who wrote the above (to an imaginary correspondent, no less) would score 5mg of haloperidol and a straitjacket.
Whoever came up with the saying the lunatics are running the asylum, they were obviously thinking about climatism.
:-)
BK
Your # 41 was insubstantial, evasive tripe. Try again.
According to you:
1/ Why not? You have the ECS estimates and and the graphs showing the relationship between RF and OHC and GAT. We have had weeks of evasion. Please now explain your reasoning.
2/ Unless you have access to information not available to the rest of the world, you are apparently in denial. If you cannot answer (1), then explain your motivation. Is it politics or fear that has caused to to flip into denial?
3/ Why do you state that emissions reduction is "an incredibly stupid idea"?
I've been asking you these questions in one form or another for weeks without ever getting satisfactory answers.
What are you hiding?
Why are you being so evasive?
Tripe.
Answer the questions.
David B. Benson
It's a great shame that several decades of hysterical misrepresentation by ENGOs and grassroots activists have made the only proven, scalable low carbon baseload technology we have impossibly expensive and politically toxic.
I wish it were otherwise, but these are the cards on the table.
Why is the sock at # 50 still posting?
I'd be interested to see how many are likely to take Geoff's dietary representations seriously, despite the fact they're every bit as logical and thunk-through. Prediction? Zero.
Maybe the Chinese will prove Gen 4s will work, be safe, won't cost a fortune, don't have a galactic opportunity cost, won't be a massive boondoggle, will be able to be effectively cooled etc. etc..
The market simply isn't interested in them - they'll have to be a social!st or quasi-social!st enterprise if they do happen.
However, you may recall there was this place called Fukushima, and that very same blog called what happened there wrong over and over and over. My cat could currently run a successful NIMBY campaign to keep one of those away from any neighbourhood or regional centre in Australia. People think windmills are killing them, remember? ;-)
John Quiggin's place is good for this debate when he allows it to run occasionally. Other than that I can only say I think your hope is only somewhat justified and is almost certainly wholly Quixotic.
And I'd still like an explanation from the socker.
bill
There's a world of difference between a modern Gen III+ and the 40-year old obsolete junk at Fukushima. Using this as an argument against modern nuclear is profoundly illogical.
All the credible projections of the evolution of the energy mix come up with the much the same numbers: roughly 25% renewables and 25% nuclear by mid-century if we go flat out for both. The other 50% is *still* FF and that's still too much. But without nuclear, it rises to ~75%.
We cannot afford to sideline nuclear on ideological grounds. It's energy pragmatism or CO2. Everything must stay on the table, like it or not.
We still have the same people, BBD.
The failures were enabled by the same people and will be again. Until those at the top live in the nuclear power stations, they'll not be safe.
Secondly, the reactor design at Fukishima was touted at the time as a "safe modern design". Just like the "new safe modern designs".
Third, those "new safe modern designs" have been overrunning by 50%+ on time and budget because the safety inspections keep finding problems.
Nuclear, even if safe, has a lead-time of 10+ years and a required operational time of 30-40 years minimum. Given we aren't sure if the infrastructure will remain stable over the next 50 years and that locations for a nuclear power station are usually near shores for water cooling (how much sea level rise have we dialled in for the next 50 years?), we cannot afford to choose nuclear power.
"I do not intend to waste my time arguing that I didn’t do what I didn’t do."
And then you go right on and do it?
Lionel:
Shucks. Funnily enough, you wouldn't be the first person to make that comparison. I suspect it’s because we’re both triple threats: top-notch verbal and mathematical IQs plus patrician good looks—though Dawkins is somewhat full of himself whereas I have, if anything, the opposite problem (not arrogant enough).
I’m also the veteran of my share of wars of attrition with the creationist “mind.” Unlike Dawkins, though, I outgrew the great sport of hick baiting in my early twenties—around the time I learned you can’t win an argument by sighing and condescending. It’s no longer my apostolic mission to make stupid people confess their stupidity.
Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that I let anyone get away with scientifically-illiterate thinking; regulars around here know I don’t suffer that $#!1 gladly! But I part ways with Dawkins here: by resolving to hate the illiteracy, not the illiterate. (To be sure, I’m only human and often losing my patience… but like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: take a minute to thank your local fundagelical, literalist, truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argument. The day we’re dumbfounded by the sheer fatuity of our disputant’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, in my opinion. By forcing us to clarify, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function with their muddled questions and baseless objections.
This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
No, Wow. See # 71. You are ignoring the hard numbers. We cannot afford *not* to have nuclear.
Intelligent siting and slightly longer inflow/outflow pipes on the cooling loop solve the SLR problem without much fuss.
I'm not immune to the 'cheese-paring bastards at the top' argument. Not at all. But do you realise that this:
Is *countered* by this:
Finally, this is not worth much rebuttal:
You are asking us to accept that over four decades of R&D and build-out experience count as nothing. Which is absurd.
I reiterate: 50% FF by mid-century vs 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.
Carbon or nuclear.
More BK deliberate twisting:
No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.
BK
Please try to remember that TL can see your IP. Or perhaps these technical details are over your head?
Absolutely.
Let's just say I'm genuinely skeptical of the claims that perfection has now been achieved because, as Wow points out, that's what GE said at the time.
But that's hardly the point. My cat could almost certainly defeat any project in Australia by wandering into town with a Fukushima postcard tied around its neck - the ACF has plenty of people more articulate and persuasive than my cat.
And plenty of perfectly sane people are highly skeptical of both the economics and the actual capacity to make any meaningful difference in a timely manner.
I'll also add that if we ever built reactors I'd bet that Australia's CO2 output would immediately skyrocket because a far-from-altruistic public would happily believe the whole Greenhouse problem had just been solved - 'we're getting/we've got nukes now, remember; me for a bigger SUV!' - aided and abetted in their cornucopian delusions by the deniers, many of whom love nuclear because it's an plutocrat's dream and keeps the world just the way they like it!
But that's just a hypothetical because in Australia it's simply not going to happen. Wishing for things that can't happen is just too stressful...
bill
You choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.
You reject 50% FF by mid-century, complete with the *reduced* infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in the full-spectrum option.
You choose emotive argument over hard numbers.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the facts stay the same.
I'll add that that thread at Joe Romm's seems like the ideal place to be discussing this - certainly more appropriate than here. I notice, for instance, that DBB is over there.
And there's certain aspects of human behaviour that ain't ever going to be,um, flawless. Technologies that require something approaching human perfection always strike me as being ahistoric, to say the least... ;-)
BBD - one, I suggest you take it over to Romm's where it may make some difference.
Two: you know, that's rather my point to you - the fact is that in this country nuclear power is dead (if it was ever alive!). That's a social reality that no amount of 'being right' is likely to change. You can hold me responsible for this personally if that helps. Prove me wrong, by all means, but I don't suggest starting here.
Hell, we'll happily export the stuff, of course, even to people who won't sign the NPT, but - whaddya know? - even the Roxby expansion just fell in a hole! Nearly as big as the one it was going to create...
And all because I'm skeptical... ;-)
bill
Sure. Wrong thread, and you are entitled to your opinion, as I have said above.
Bradley didn't like getting caught out (# 55) over the Hulme nonsense did he?
Note all the frantic attempts to cover his sorry arse that followed ;-)
Bradley
WRT this:
If you weren't hopelessly sunk in lies and denial you would get the point, which is that research modifies POV. Unfortunately, you reject new information and cannot modify your POV, which is why I mock you. Stunted thing that you are.
Almost missed this:
It will get warmer. If emissions exceed ~550ppmv, average global temperature will probably exceed 3C.
Since you refuse to admit what you really are, we are obliged to make certain (minor) assumptions. If you don't like those assumptions, feel free - no, feel very strongly urged - to set the record straight.
Why you refuse is puzzling, unless of course you are hiding something from us.
Over to you, Bradley!
BBD:
Uh, no.
No he's not.
That would make TL insane. TL may be a lot of things, but last time I met him he was lucid and oriented.
(Excuse the digression: wouldn’t it be a bit redundant to impute that a “toe-rag” was a sock? Have you ever considered proof-reading, BBD?)
Suuuure. That's why this is the first anyone has mentioned the accusation to me, right?
Let's get this straight. For more than 24 hours everyone else has been accusing ME of puppetry by the oblique literary device of writing the following things TO CHAMELEON…
"You used a sock"
"Looking forward to how the ever-innocent and faultlessly reasonable Calumny will ‘explain’ the necessity of using a sock.
Yes indeedee you betcha."
"Oh – and Chebbie – sock-puppetry; explanation, please."
...and by moderating her comments.
But it was you, BBD, of all the deltoids, who first had the razor-like intellect to think of addressing the accusation to ME, the actual suspect, and not to a random bystander of a different sex.
Gotcha.
LOL!!! :-)
Thank you so freaking much for that refresher, BBD. Cos, you know, when I think of Tim Lambert, I merely think of the UNSW lecturer who gave me 97.0 in a subject that wasn't mainly about Internet protocols! It never even occurred to me that he might *also* be into computery, technical stuff and know all about IP addresses and shit. What a Renaissance man.
Hey—just thinking aloud here—but maybe, just maybe, that’s why he’s NOT ACCUSING ME OF USING A SOCK.
It's impossible to take you seriously any more, BBD.
The domestic you’re having with reality is too rich even for the other Deltoids’ taste. When they won’t even back you up, that ought to tell you something, dude. Time to adjust your meds ‘cos, 10 to 1, you’re in the grip of a florid psychosis.
Oops:
This is a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable human right to talk complete crap, among other things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
FTFM. :-)
Comedy Quote of the Month from - who else - but "Brad", of course.
#64 I wouldn’t call abandoning your defence of scientific integrity an achievement, BBD. More of a dereliction.
The bastion of scientific integrity "Brad" is referring to is Andy "Bishop" Montford.
Oh my sides. I think I need a lie down.
No, because the overruns are why it WILL take 10-20 years to build these new designs BECAUSE the designs were *designed at the time* to be safe, but when it comes to putting the metal up, the designs weren't as foolproof as thought.
Here's a programming example.
You design a program. Perfection. Foolproof. State that this design is complete. Everyone believes you.
Then when you start writing the program, you say "Hang, on, this bit needs changing". Then more changes are needed. And each change means that you're further away from the original design.
If that original design were perfect, you're no longer designing to it.
But you implement it eventually, and now it runs.
And a few users find bugs.
And some failure modes.
And it turns out that you weren't actually that competent at programming or design as you asserted earlier.
So back to nuclear: each plant is now going to be years late (no reduction in CO2 *now*) and much more expensive (meaning less money spent on other carbon-free alternatives in the meantime). And the designs still haven't been tested, and their failures at implementation mean that you have no proof that the designs ARE safe.
We cannot afford to have nuclear.
It won't happen for 10 years JUST TO START.
10 years where the money is pouring into nuclear and NOT into alternatives.
And then the design has to now prove it works. Another 10 years.
Then you have to build new plants in enough numbers, and that will take 20 years.
And they all have to run for 40 years to make sense economically.
So it is now 2100 and where you placed the power stations are now under 10ft of water.
We cannot afford nuclear power. It delays use far far FAR too long.
PS post 71 was just assertion.
Prove your figures because I call bullshit on them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/100-percent-renewable-by-2050.html
And they aren't the only ones with a plan for 100% renewable. Scotland and Germany are well on the way.
Wow
Please, read what I wrote again (# 71). You haven't taken my point:
All credible projections* indicate ~25% nuclear and ~25% renewables by mid-century if we go flat out for both.
Both. This is the point.
We can choose 75% FF by mid-century, complete with the infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in a non-nuclear option.
Or we can choose 50% FF by mid-century, complete with the *reduced* infrastructural emissions lock-in explicit in the full-spectrum option.
Anyway, enough. Bill is correct above. This is the wrong thread.
*Ecofys is not a credible projection.
"Please, read what I wrote again (# 71). You haven’t taken my point:"
Your point seems to be that you assert a statement.
I assert, and YOU MISS THIS POINT, that your assertion in #71 is bollocks.
"All credible projections* indicate ~25% nuclear and ~25% renewables by mid-century if we go flat out for both."
Bull.
Shit.
*Ecofys is not a credible projection.
a) Why?
b) I've already SAID they aren't the only ones.
Another from Australia:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Zero-Carbon-Australia-2020.html
Germany:
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/the-german-grid-operators-plan/1…
And Scotland:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-P…
though I fail to see why ecofys is not acceptable, unless the problem is the fact that they have a plan, not who they are...
Start with IPCC SRREN SPM and work on up.
The language is convoluted and confusing but means 'about 30% renewables by 2050 in the most plausible scenarios'. Why would I bullshit? I'm not *against* renewables or *pro* nuclear. My sense is that you are creating a strawman and trying to have a fight with it.
Please stop.
One more thing. I believe the German renewables experiment is bordering on disastrous in terms of emissions, cost to consumers and damage to the German economy. However, I *know* the rubbish coming out of Scotland is just that: rubbish. You are being *excessively credulous*.
BBD,
we've had the occasional difference of opinion, but as possessors of 3-digit IQs we probably have more in common than not.
So I'm torn between sympathy and Schadenfreude as I watch you suffer the magical experience of "reasoning," Wow style.
LOL...
If it makes you feel any better: I've had to wake up to this drivel every day since the black day I first heard of a certain pre-epsiloid blog.
There are various projection for nuclear capacity by 2050. They centre around 25%. The 2010 IEA Nuclear Road Map is a representative non-industry example:
I can believe that.
Yup, no problem, I can accept that various projections you've looked at centre around 25%.
Ecofys is just as non-industry.
THIS is where I call "BULLSHIT". You're apparently only accepting as "credible positions" as "only those that say we HAVE to have nuclear".
The horse goes BEFORE the cart.
And this is based off it going nuclear free, right? And because of that you're using it as "proof" that going nuclear free is not credible, right?
Circular reasoning.
Germany think they can do it. Scotland, Denmark, others think they can.
But you "believe" otherwise. Except you're wrong. You can't even counter the facts of the huge lag time and great (and overrunning) expense, and instead insist that "all credible projections say that we have to have nuclear".
Credible meaning "saying we have to have nuclear", right?
chek,
when you produce vapid garbage like this I can only assume you're hell-bent on giving the refrigeration industry a run for its money:
Your comment is complete fucking crap.
Content-free condescension.
Take a Bex and a long lie down, you walking ozone hole.
Hey: while you're horizontal, maybe you could READ 'Illusion.'
As BBD says:
Wow
Ecofys is a *renewables advocacy*. It is not comparable to the IEA in any meaningful way. That you think it is says it all.
If you really believe the wild end of claims made about renewable potential, then fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
If you wish to reject the ~25% estimate based on SRREN, fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Allow me to be entitled to mine: you are indulging in shouty, strawman rhetoric instead of taking an objective view of the evidence.
"Ecofys is a *renewables advocacy*."
And IEA is the energy equivalent of the RIAA.
"instead of taking an objective view of the evidence."
The only evidence YOU have is "I think it is so, as supported by sources that also think the same".
David MaKay is often touted by pro-nukes as an "indepentent voice" and his book touted as "reasoned and informed".
But when you point out that his entire screed has been slanted to push nuclear power and belittle and reject renewables (in the Hot Air case, wind), it gets pooh-pooh'd.
David is pushing an agenda.
Which for people like you is an acceptable one, therefore overlooked ("because he does say renewables are slightly useful, that's proof he's fair-minded!!!").
There are several similarities between this and BK's bullshit. Since he *likes* the rhetoric of McIntyre, he doesn't SEE the bias. Even when pointed out to him.
BBD,
Wow's got you dead to rights here!
Don't you know anything about reasoning Wow-style, BBD?
You need to cite sources that contradict you.
;-)
Sigh.
Tell me about it.
Actually, I'll go further than that. You grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay. I'm willing to bet you haven't read the book, and you are ranting because you don't like the fact that a detailed, fact-based analysis demonstrates that renewables alone aren't going to come close to providing enough energy. I'd stop, *now*, before you make matters any worse.
To Wow that's not a warning, it's a dare.
David MacKay has a message for you:
"You grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay."
Nope.
http://www.justmeans.com/-No-Hot-Air-About-Renewable-Energy-While-Blowi…
You know, BK does the same thing with McI/Watts/et al that you do with David MaKay here.
"David MacKay has a message for you:
I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about sustainable energy."
Yup, pretty obvious he has an axe to grind. At least one positive note: he's biased as much FOR nuclear as AGAINST renewables.
Some are just AGAINST renewables.
Eh, it'll be wasted on Wow.
I liked it though. Someone needed to say this:
For example, if we'd adjourned to Romm's place we'd have to contend with someone called Merrelyn Emery, who's "arguing" (if that's the right word) that nuclear power
Oh, and:
Dr Emery is considered a serious climate-change academic and adult in Australia.
"Lucky country" indeed.
BBD:
“You [Wow] grossly, offensively mischaracterise David MacKay.”
You know, it does the same thing with McI/Watts/et al that it does with David MacKay.
Yawn.
I'll leave you to it.
Good luck BBD. You'll need it.
Wow
You have completely lost the plot. Talk to yourself for a bit.
FWIW, I've met MacKay and you have grossly, offensively mischaracterised him. Your link is clueless btw.
MacKay teaches at Cambridge FFS.
BBD:
I have to deal with him every.
Fucking.
Day.
Finished reading. Hickey's weightless, opinionated, number-free 'critique' is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.
And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK. You are on very thin ice with that shite.
"You have completely lost the plot."
There was no plot.
You've only insisted that we have to have nuclear.
And ignored that we have AT LEAST 10 more years before the "new and safe" designs have been built and run as a commercial size TEST, not an actual commercial product.
And that having been built, they will HAVE to run for 40 years.
And that while we're pouring money and concrete into this, there's nothing left to put in to renewables.
Moreover, the industry itself demands a much-higher-than-current *guaranteed* ROI from government coffers or they will not bother.
Apparently the industry doesn't think it's worth it either.
You, however, do.
Because you won't look. Won't think. Won't change.
Nor do I appreciate BBD being put in the same league as me, Wow.
" number-free "
Uh, OK, I'll put some numbers to it to the same standard as you do:
2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables. We have ZERO safe and tested new design nuclear power plants, only prototypes that have overrun by 10 years and looking to go on for 14 year overrun.
There you go, lots of numbers.
"And Wow, I really do not appreciate the comparison with BK."
Because it doesn't show you in good light. One solution would be for you not to act like him and crawl out of your comfort zone.
Rubbish. You have already comprehensively demonstrated cluelessness on this topic, so it's time to leave you to talk to yourself.
Wow,
this criticism of BBD goes too far:
Not for the better, maybe. But his volte-face on climate change proves that an excess of consistency isn't his problem.
'Rubbish' - reference: IPCC SRREN. You are in strong disagreement with the IPCC!
" 2050, 100% of electricity can be generated from renewables.
Rubbish. "
Fine.
Now I can say to you:
Finished reading. Your weightless, opinionated, number-free ‘critique’ is a beautiful example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of. You have referenced opinion instead of fact.
Go on, tell the world why he picked the % of land used that he did, despite the FACT that the occupied space is so small. Then, when THAT didn't preclude wind power doing it, reduced it by a factor of four and then after all this predicated cherry picking said "This proves Wind Power cannot do it! THEREFORE WE MUST GO NUCLEAR!!!!".
I referenced the IPCC SRREN.
Did I warn you about Wow's echolalia?
Oh, and used turbine designs that were already obsolete (small) and insisted they would be used for the next 30 years, despite current designs being much more efficient.
(then go look at the DUKES study, which shows that generation/nameplate is about 60% for nuclear)
"I referenced the IPCC SRREN"
Yeah, you did. So what?
I referenced several sources with a plan for 100% renewable.
Because mainland Britain is small, and mostly owned by people, or inaccessible, or wilderness reserve (we call them National Parks) or otherwise unsuitable for commercial scale wind generation. You haven't read the text.
Nowhere does MacKay say 'we *must* go nuclear. WTF? This is a grotesque misrepresentation. Read the text.
MacKay's analysis shows that realistically installable onshore wind doesn't have the necessary capacity or anything close. So *offshore* wind is invoked to increase UK wind capacity potential. Which happens to be exactly what is being built as we speak.
This conversation is becoming ever-more bizarre.
Oh FFS wow. Large turbines on 400m masts have to be spaced further apart. The capacity factor gain for *onshore* wind isn't anything like as great as you think.
"Because mainland Britain is small"
Do you know what "percentage" means???
Why did he pick the %.
You're doing EXACTLY as Bray does.
"Oh FFS wow. Large turbines on 400m masts have to be spaced further apart."
Do you ALWAYS precede the blindingly fucking obvious with "Oh FFS"?
Here's a tip for you, kid: wind turbines go UP, not flat.
So, if there's a bigger gap between them, they use up less land.
Yup, exactly like Bray.
"Where did I ever claim I denied AGW!!!"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/14/nuclear-power-europea…
Which are in strong disagreement with the IPCC. When this happens, we usually ignore the other stuff, do we not?
And despite claims you read it, you didn't apparently, else you would have noted this:
"In "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air", Professor MacKay compares an energy demand of 490 GW with his calculated British renewable resource of 450 GW, and comes to the conclusion that Britain cannot power itself from renewables. But in reality, British energy demand is 205 GW. That's the confirmed 2008 number, from the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics. (see Table 1.1, Final Consumption minus Non-energy use). That's less than half the demand figure used in the book, when looking at whether his calculated renewable resource is enough. When we compare the renewable resource with the current demand figure, we see that the resource is more than double current energy demand: and that's before any energy efficiency measures. And that makes a huge difference: by using the real figure for demand, we see that the UK renewable resource is much higher than current energy demand, so Britain could comfortably power itself from its own renewables."
But you count this:
Number free???
Nope, it isn't. Chapter 10. Fig 10.26 includes several "No Nuclear" options.
Eh? You need to take a breather.
And wow, your shrill but fact-free rejection of MacKay's analysis is rather too close to BK's rejection of ECS etc for comfort. You are projecting like a fire hose.
Just imagine how great it'll be in a few hours—I really do have to hit the sack now, but can't wait to see what kind of psychedelic consensus you two scholars have hammered together by morning!
I shall sleep soundly, knowing that The Science™ is in the hands of such rational, Skeptical, responsible interpreters.
Why? Can't keep up?
Do you want to actually say something or just blather as if you're rebutting the statement? That's another thing Bray does constantly.
Crank reference. See Patrick Stewart in comments and the blustery non-response from the author.
Leave it, wow.
No, my point is that you have stopped making sense. More space between them = more land use. No?
You keep claiming using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Plenty of fact.
You just won't accept it.
No.
You've stopped thinking. It means that any facts that come your way afterward are not understood.
You need to read, not think with your gut.
And therefore since Bray posts here, that proves AGW is false???
Bullshit.
MacKay claims 450TW was needed in 2008. What was needed was 208TW.
Why did he lie?
Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind).
Sigh. Read Patrick Stewart's comment to the Energy Numbers article - he nails it exactly. Slow down, go back and read. And I repeat - you clearly have not read MacKay. Nobody who has read MacKay would ever say anything as ridiculous as this:
You are making a colossal prat out of yourself. Again, I urge you to *stop* now.
"You are making a colossal prat out of yourself."
Oh, how?
The full statement was:
"MacKay claims 450TW was needed in 2008. What was needed was 208TW.
Why did he lie?
Because he wants to push nuclear and demonise renewable (wind)."
But, like Bray, you snip out for no apparent reason then claim "YOU FOOL!".
Stop doing what Bray does.
I guess on this subject, "Number free" means "No numbers I will deign to note", right?
Tell you what, instead of CLAIMING that you read Hickey’s post, in the same way Bray CLAIMS to have read Merchants Of Doubt, why don't you actually READ IT, hmm?
It is patently obvious you haven't.
And where the fuck is this patrick stewart you keep bleating on about? He's a great actor, but he doesn't seem to be posting at the guardian or small-time blogs.
Nobody who had read MacKay and noted his made up figures for UK power requirements has NOT asked themselves why he lied about it.
Those who read the message, not the content, seem to be all adrift about where the lie is, even when pointed out to them.
You are becoming extremely tedious (h/t David B Benson).
Read. Start here:
Why not familiarise yourself with the text? It is obvious you've never read it.
# 43
You haven't even read your own reference, have you? Hickey links to Energy Numbers - you quote this above at # 29. RTFR, including comments, and you will answer your own question. But first - # 45.
That's rich. "It is obvious you’ve never read it." from you?
Mr "Number-free"? It is to laugh.
David claims 450TW is needed. Only 205TW is. Does it stack up? Hell no!
If your assinine assertion that a bigger wind turbine requires more space and negates the per-acre-production, WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE BUY BIGGER TURBINES????
You're a frigging fruitloop, kid.
Oh fuck off you tedious windbag.
Really.
Fuck right off.
MacKay is pushing nuclear and you LOVE it. That's all you're willing to hear.
MacKay makes up a worse-than-worst-case scenario, reduces it by a factor of four, doesn't explain WHY he picks the numbers and goes "Viola! Wind energy doesn't do it. Go nuclear, it's great".
Oh, GW, not TW.
The factor difference between David's claim and reality is still the same.
RTFR.
So lost even the semblance of language, hmmm?
Not at all. I'm waiting for you to RTFR (#45) and respond substantively to what you find there.
That's like pointing to WTFUWT and demanding "Respond substantively to what you find there!".
You DO know that, using impeccable maths, you can PROVE you never get to work, right? Subtract the weekend (48 hours) from the hours in a week, then subtract the travel to work, then subtract how long you eat, subtract....
And eventually, you find that over a week, there are no more hours left!
His red column adds up.
But it DOESN'T add up to what renewables have to do.
Do some maths yourself. You know, where you do more than one sum. You'll find he's talking shit.
Well, obviously, YOU won't because you won't even try.
And the green bar doesn't add up, because he's pulling WRONG NUMBERS out of thin air.
Hell, I could show that the atomisation of all the hydrogen on the planet isn't enough to power my home if I get to put wrong numbers on the energy budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
10 exajoules = 2.8x10^12kwh
60 million people, 365 days in a year.
128kwh per capita.
Remember to drop that figure since ICE is ~20% efficient (less losses getting the petrol to the pump), whilst electric engines are 60%, including losses getting the power to the battery.
You are wittering. Read the reference and respond substantively. MacKay revises demand estimates downward throughout his analysis. If you were only to read it, you would see this. The Energy Numbers 'critique' (Hickey's *only* substantive reference) is essentially meaningless noise, very much in the WTFUWT mould.
Now, come on:
- How much energy (kWh/d does MacKay use for the five energy plans? (red stack).
- Is MacKay's original estimate of renewable energy (p103; green stack) too high or too low? Clue here.
This is getting ever-more tedious. You need to read the reference.
Yes, I've responded substantively.
His figures are made up.
Fabricated.
Wrong.
And additionally, the bare fact of the matter is it is far too late for playing with nuclear power and we haven't the time or the money to waste on the boondongle.
Nuclear power would kill our chances of avoiding the worst of climate change.
Total energy use in the UK 128kwh/d/p. Not 195.
From offshore (shallow sea) wind ALONE can power THREE TIMES our energy requirements.
I haven't had the time to read your references yet chaps, but I'd like to throw into the mix (from a position of almost total ignorance I may add) that one of the reasons that Gen 4 reactors seem attractive to me is their ability to consume the waste that's been accumulated from traditional (weapon-producing) reactors and which will otherwise remain hazardous for hundreds of millennia, whilst not facilitating weapon technology either.
That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone. Without that tech, the present alternative seems to be hope that the longevity and integrity of our current storage systems outlive any previous human civilisations by a factor of several thousands
I still cannot follow your argument.
MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans of which 48kWh/d/p is electricity consumption. (Ref.)
MacKay initially estimates 20kWh/d onshore wind, 16kWh/d shallow offshore and 32kWh/d deep offshore. Big numbers. (Ref.)
Compare with estimates from other sources (ref as above)
Onshore wind (kWh/d)
IEE - 2
Tyndall - 2.6
IAG - 2.6
PIU - 2.5
CAT - 1
Shallow *and* deep offshore wind (kWh/d)
IEE - 6.4
Tyndall - 4.6
IAG - 4.6
PIU - 4.6
CAT - 21
?
"That ability seems to me a mighty plus point alone."
Problems still abound. Proliferation is still a huge problem, whether it will actually work with enough of the output of previous generations (it doesn't work like the little Mr Fusion in Back To The Future, you know), and the fact that years late and horrendously over budget, the two test reactors are still years away from getting online.
Doesn't matter how good the tech, when it gets built, actually is.
It's thinking about grouting the bath when your car is out of control: yes, you'd need to do it if you survive the oncoming truck, but it's hardly time to be thinking about it at the moment.
"MacKay uses 125kWh/d in the five energy plans"
Really? When you opined "Start here:" you linked to this:
Apparently, all this time you've been demanding that I read the shit you point me to, you haven't bothered reading it yourself...
His figure for offshore is an eighth of the actual reserves.
His calculations only work if you accept them.
I.e. he's proven he can add.
;-)
How then could I be so sure you were mistaken? I refer you to # 45 and # 62.
@ BK
Yes, yes, Night of the Living Game Theorists.
Brad Keyes --- I missed your questions earlier.
There are no benefits to rapid global warming which are not vastly outweighed by the harm done. In particular, warmer air holds more moisture so when it rains it rains harder; often much harder destroying crops and even washing away soils.
BBD:
Not so long ago, I seem to recall your congratulating Wow for his advocacy efforts in manning the thread against the denialist hordes.
Now do you understand why we laughed so hard?
Now do you get the joke about Wow being on the Heartland payroll?
David:
No worries, thanks for getting back to me.
My question was not about the theoreticohypothetical effects of "rapid global warming," but those of the AGW we've had so far.
Also, my question was not about what (IYHO) outweighs what, but about the gross / raw benefits that have accrued so far.
I can't agree that they were "vastly outweighed by the harm" unless I know what they were.
BBD?
No, you toe-rag. TL is accusing *you* of using a sock. And so are the rest of us. Stop pretending that you do not understand the obvious. You look bad enough already.
???
Are you now accusing me of being BradK and commenting under Chameleon?
And who are 'the rest of us'?
Wow and Bill and Chek?
The accusation was clearly made at the bottom of my question to the moderator/s that I used a 'sock' and that is why my comments have been held up in moderation.
Bill and chek have both clearly accused me of same and want an explanation from me.
You appear to be the one who claims you know what's going on re my comments.
Please point me to the comment/s that you claim are 'sock' comments from me.
David:
The first thing I notice about the logical structure of this claim is that, if it's true, it's true no matter how fast or slow AGW is.
This compels the question: are we...
a) ...at the best possible temperature now? In which case, was It a providential deity Who so arranged the universe?
b) ...already too warm? In which case, how far back in time does the climate need to shift to return to the ideal temperature? What was the best year on record for air wetness / rainfall softness / crop rain-resistance / dirt rain-resilience?
c) ...still below the optimal temperature? In which case, how much AGW do you recommend?
BBD:
Duh. It's hardly a secret that the alarmist movement depends on ignoring evidence that doesn't fit the narrative.
Still, it's refreshing to see you blurt this out so guilelessly and unapologetically.
BBD:
Hehe. ;-)
All right, BBD, now that we've shared some laughs at Wow's expense you can keep making nice to me if you really want to—it's certainly preferable to your usual abrasive polemicism—but it'll only take you so far. We can be as chummy as you like, I'm still not about to forget that you've accused me, and accused everyone else of accusing me, of using a sock-puppet.
Either justify your delusion or lose it.
David B? @#84?
Your answer implies that there is such a thing as a climate utopia.
While I heartily wish that was true, can you at least clarify what you would consider a 'benchmark' for acceptable and/or harmless global average temperature?
BTW your earlier link re solar panels and the associated logistics has sparked a fiery debate between BBD and Wow.
It does indeed advocate nuclear energy and it also outlines the future conundrum re energy that BBD seems to have grasped but Wow and to a lesser extent Bill seems to have missed.
If you feel inclined, I would be interested in you furthering your perspective on the practical applications of planning for future energy requirements
Moderator/s,
please restore my ability to comment in synch at the deltoid blog.
I have not and have no intention of using 'socks'.
BBD,
here's another credal contradiction of yours that's been bugging me.
Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?
One of the facts you explained (rather well) was
So far so good.
But if you know the IPCC's actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:
This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?
Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.”
Thank you. I’m aware of that.
I know it does. On certain things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.
But this is not one of those topics. The truth of this:
does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.
It was a statement of principle.
A principle you apparently hold all too cheap.
:-(
PS: If you insist on knowing, and still haven’t guessed, why I have so little interest in your trivial pursuit questions about ECS it’s because climate science per se bores the Christ out of me. I don’t mean to denigrate your hobby, and I’m sure it’s a fascinating discipline in its own special way. (Well, maybe.) And one needs to be at least minimally conversant in it just to argue about the Climate Wars. But my real interest here is in science itself.
Brad asks,
Well, we're talking about Anthony Watts here, so in this "reality" of yours, science goes like this:
- get a TV weatherman
- get an internet blog and fill it with cranks
- get the TV weatherman to post utter nonsense to the blog full of cranks on a daily basis
Of course, in *my* reality, science is somewhat different, involving as it does some actual scientific research.
Oh, and some actual scientists.
I started trying to compile a list of all the actual science that Brad has admitted he has avoided reading, but then I realised it would be much quicker to simply list everything hs has read:
- Naomi Oreskes, "Merchants of Doubt",
end of list
(although his claim to have read it arrived so soon after his initial admission that he hadn't that we've pretty much agreed he probably got at most 25% comprehension from it.)
Vince,
clearly you're stinging from my gentle jibes about your scientific naïveté, but still—what the God are you crapping on about here:
I read it years ago, doofus.
Actually he hasn't read that either.
a) claims in four hours: not possible
b) no knowledge of its contents
Bray *may* have skimmed it, more likely read up mined quotes off his favourite crank blogs.
Uh, because you claim he said the power needs of the UK population was 125kwh/p/d when the VERY FIRST SENTENCE you link to says, and I quote:
The red stack in figure 18.1 adds up to 195 kWh per day per person.
You know, when you say one thing and the thing it says is something different, that's not ME being wrong.
On nuclear you're as in denial and as clueless in every word you pronounce as Bray.
I had thought we should move this to the Open Thread, but your antics are so Bray-like they really DO deserve to be here.
You YET AGAIN quote only part and apparently the only part you've read out of a statement you "respond" to.
The full statement was:
Please read ALL OF IT.
Get a grown up to help you with the words you don't like to see.
To drive the point home, you DID NOT READ this bit:
Do you see it now? Or are you only going to quote "Do you see it now?" because that's the only bit you'll let yourself read?
Vince,
I think I can say on behalf of everyone here that we'd be fascinated to see this "initial admission that [I] hadn't" read 'Merchants of Doubt.'
I don't suppose it exists though, does it Vince?
No? Pity.
Oh well, I guess the closest thing to a dignified next move for you would be to change the topic and pretend you never said it. Let's all pass over in embarrassed silence the fact that you just got your internal psychodrama mixed up with historical reality, blurted out a transparent untruth and made a goose of yourself. Try not to beat yourself up. The embarrassment will fade... in time.
Dear Friend,
How many fucking times do I have to teach you this? Just because it took you 13 hours to listen to the CD set of 'Merchants Of Doubt,' it doesn't follow that an experienced reader can't knock the book off in much less time.
The key is not to subvocalise—or if that's too big a word, let me put it like this: try not to move your lips as you read. Even a developmentally-delayed dropout like you will find itself reading at 250, 300 or even 350 w.p.m. in no time just by following this one WEIRD tip the audio-book industry doesn't want you to know!
ROFL
Wow
You are being an idiot.
The problem all along has been that you haven't read what MacKay actually wrote.
Had you RTFR as I repeatedly suggested (see # 61) you would have noticed that MacKay begins - like any good scientist - by questioning his initial assumptions.
You ignored what was written even though I took the trouble to quote it for you, rather than simply provide a link.
Here it is again:
I have now also emboldened relevant sections of the quote in an attempt to punch it through your bony head.
Had your bothered to RTFR for just over one page you would have come to this:
Now FFS read the rest of it. I cannot do it for you. If you had done this in the first place, you could have avoided making such a tit of yourself in public.
As we know (because I told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference) MacKay used 125kWh/d/p in the five energy plans he presents later in the book.
What you are doing here is simply crude strawmanning. But you were wrong to claim that MacKay distorted his figures.
Now, as you also know, because I have told you, because I had to, because you did not read the fucking reference, your claim about offshore wind makes exactly no sense at all. Mind you, shrilling that MacKay is shilling for Big Nuke is completely insane, so this relatively minor in comparison.
This nonsense could only have been written by an energy illiterate who has not read the fucking reference:
I set you straight in detail at # 78. Oddly, you don't actually mention this above. But once again, you were completely wrong.
It is very clear that you do not understand this topic and are not competent to argue it. It is equally clear that you have not read the reference and you are wasting my time.
Sort yourself out and admit your repeated errors which are demonstrated in black and white above. It's too late to stop you making a prize pillock of yourself, but frankly, you deserve the embarrassment.
BBD,
This is barely English:
Replace the present continuous tense with the simple present, however, and you've got yourself a sentence!
BBD
I have just started reading through the very interesting David MacKay document but would like to direct further comment to the March Open Thread where I think any further discussion could be continued.
Lionel A
Sure, I'm happy with that.
Of course you're happy, just like Bray is happy when someone pretends he's got something right.
Brad Keyes & chameleon --- The best global temperature is that in which modern (industrialized) agriculture originated. After a return to that of course slow changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.
David:
What denial[ism] have you witnessed on this thread, David, other than Wow's nuclear denial[ism]—or is that what you were alluding to?
By the way David, I always enjoy your contributions so could you please make them here and not on the March 2013 "Open" Thread, where I'm apparently not allowed to respond to you?
The moderators seem to be cracking down on me for getting uppity and wandering off-plantation.
I risked further punitive censorship tonight by posting the following on the March open thread, where Wow is being puerile even by his purulent standards. It'll never see the light of day there but I thought you might like to read it:
Mods,
far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?
Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.
David,
thanks for this (characteristically!) polite, honest and committal articulation of your POV:
It raises more questions than it answers, however—which is not necessarily a bad thing. ;-)
1. At what global temperature did modern (industrialised) agriculture originate? Approximately? Or, since that might not be known, perhaps I should ask: what year's climate are we talking about, approximately? How far back in time is the reference point?
2. How rapidly would you like us to return to that year's climate, if you had a magic wand with which you could cause global cooling?
3. When you say "the current warming is far too rapid," does the word "current" include the past 15 years?
4. If “the current warming is far too rapid,” would it not be reasonable to assume that rapid cooling is equally undesirable, and that you’d therefore prefer us to return to the ideal year’s climate very, very slowly (if you had the magic wand I just postulated)? And by “very, very slowly,” I presumably mean even more slowly than the current so-slow-it’s-virtually-imperceptible rate of temperature change.
5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed two examples (just paraphrasing from memory—and I hope I'm doing so accurately): more frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves. Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single factor: the instantaneous “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, and deaths due to heat-waves, are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?
I learned in a half-dozen classes to read with complete comprehension and retention (as complete as "normal", anyway) at about 500 words per minute, with good comprehension and retention at about 700 wpm, and okay at 1300 wpm. And by okay, I mean better than the comprehension one would get by "skimming" the page using "slow reading" techniques.
Frankly, its hard work, and that top speed is really only useful for a few pages before the comprehension and retention falls away to the point of being useless. Reading for pleasure, I prefer to loaf along at 350 wpm and enjoy the process as well as the content.
MoD has around 150,000 words (~340-odd pages x ~450 words per page), so one would need to read at about 650 wpm to get through it in four hours. I've only read snippets, but it seems to be written in a fairly straightforward style without any challenge to comprehension. A sustained 650 wpm is too much like hard work for me, but its entirely possible for a less lazy reader.
I have very little interest in who has actually read or comprehended Merchants of Doubt. For mine, most of the opera on this thread have been Wagnerian in their dullness, but we have been offered a few interesting divertimenti. People who choose to spend more time here that I do might find their investment more profitable if they did not simply deny what they find unlike at first glance, and concentrated on substantive errors by their antagonists. Just sayin'.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled rancour.
David,
Let me try paragraph 5 again:
5. When I asked you what harm AGW had already caused, you listed three examples: more frequent extreme weather events, excessively hard rainfall that damages crops and erodes soil, and heat-waves causing human deaths. (I’m just paraphrasing from memory—but I hope I'm doing so accurately.) Curiously, however, these harms seem to be functions of a single variable: this year’s “temperature” (or “state of the climate”), and not due to the RATE of “temperature” change (i.e. the first derivative of the “state of the climate”). Therefore it’s not clear to me why you’re happy to stipulate that “of course slow [warming] changes can then be accommodated thereafter; the current warming is far too rapid.” Surely frequent extreme weather events, crop-ruining rainfall and fatal heat-waves are bad things in and of themselves; what difference would it make whether it had taken us 50 years or 500 to get into this situation?
6. To simplify, but hopefully not to oversimplify, I think I detect some incoherence—or at least fuzziness—in your beliefs. (Don’t take this criticism personally; the irony is that I’m picking on you because you’re much clearer, not less clear, than your fellow believers!) Which of the following, exactly, is your position:
a. we’re warming too fast
b. we’re too warm
c. both
?
FrankD—
I agree on all counts.*
Thanks.
You could be part of the solution if you stuck around.
*On reading speed, I think you approach the nettle without quite grasping it. Namely: it's a misconception that reading speed is inversely related to comprehension and retention.
To take this myth to its reductio ad absurdum, one would have to believe that the uneducated cowboy in the Western, the guy who can only read the "Wanted" poster by painfully sounding it out letter by letter, is the character who understands and remembers it better than anyone in town! Of course the truth is exactly the reverse. If you could take in a whole sentence, or better yet a whole paragraph, at a glance, then you'd see the structure of the argument rather clearly indeed. I'd go so far as to say that was the key to grokking serious texts.
The only catch, as mentioned by FrankD, is that this skill is hard work.
bill,
Try advancing this conspiracy “(un)holy alliance” theory bullshit Down Under and see how far it gets. Sadly for you, the best-known, best-loved intellectual scourge of the Creationists here in Australia is Ian Plimer—who was a televisual darling of the secular left until he made the doctrinal faux pas of questioning CAGW.
You may be interested to know that Lionel A flattered me not long ago with a comparison to Richard Dawkins:
Funnily enough, I get this quite a bit. I suspect it’s because we’re both triple threats: top-notch verbal and mathematical IQs plus patrician good looks—though Dawkins is somewhat full of himself whereas I have, if anything, the opposite problem (not arrogant enough).
I’m also the veteran of my share of wars of attrition with the creationist “mind.” Unlike Dawkins, though, I outgrew the royal sport of hick baiting in my early twenties—around the time I learned you can’t win an argument by sighing and condescending. It’s no longer my apostolic mission to make stupid people confess their stupidity.
Don’t get me wrong—it’s not that I let anyone get away with scientifically-illiterate thinking; regulars around here know I don’t suffer that $#!1 gladly!
But I part ways with Dawkins here: by resolving to Hate The Illiteracy, Not The Illiterate. (Of course I’m only human and often lose my patience… like they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue!) And let me go one step further: we should take a minute to thank our local literalist, fundagelical, Truther or carbon catastrophist. After all, God created creationists to keep us evolutionists on our toes. Complacency is the enemy of good argumentation. The day we’re made speechless by the sheer fatuity of our interlocutor’s beliefs is the day we deserve to lose the debate, I think. By forcing us to enunciate, the stupid serve a valuable ecological function, with their muddled questions and confused objections.
Here’s a brilliant meditation by the badly-missed Hitchens (yes, bill: the war criminal and anti-religious bigot Christopher Hitchens) on the inalienable right to talk (among other things) crap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOck_bDb0JA
Wow, you are doing great! ;-)
B-b-b-but Olaus!...
... why would the Affirmative side be worried?
Science can only be done by actual scientists, not septuagenarian squash bloggers! If you don't believe me, ask noted science virgin Vince Whirlwind!
The above comment is faceti–, er, ironic sarcastic.
bill,
Apparently you feel both entitled and competent to tell other people what to discuss and what not to discuss on an open thread:
So enlighten us, birdbrain: what is the (on-)topic of an open thread?
I suspect the "good reason why” BBD and Wow aren’t allowed to have this debatewar on most threads of most blogs is that just by having it, they remind the world that 1 in every 2 believers is an irrational, intractable, intransigent fanatic.
Knock yourself out, bill.
Just bear in mind, as a little birdie once said:
OH, AND BILL:
I fully support the anti-rancor policy of both Luke Skywalker and FrankD. Why can't we just get along? But if South Africa has taught us anything, and it probably hasn't, it's that reconciliation goes hand-in-hand with truth. So we need to be clear:
You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.
(Falsely, obviously.)
This puts you in a trilemma. A real trilemma, logical and ineluctable. Not just a moral one, not a matter of a pinion—so don't try to wing it because you don't have a prayer.
You must (and I use the metaphysical "must") do one of the following:
1. produce some evidence against Chameleon
2. contritely admit you were wrong
or
3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread
CHEK:
You accused Chameleon of sock-puppetry.
(Which is false.)
This puts you in a trilemma.
You must (and I use the metaphysical "must”—that is, you necessarily will) do one of the following:
1. produce some evidence against Chameleon
2. contritely admit you were wrong
or
3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread
BBD:
You falsely accused
—me of using a sock-puppet.
—everyone else of falsely accusing me of using a sock-puppet.
This puts you in a trilemma.
You must (and I use the metaphysical "must”—that is, you necessarily will) do one of the following:
1. produce some evidence against me and against everyone else you accuse of having accused me
2. contritely admit to me and / or everyone else that you were wrong
or
3. forfeit the privilege of ever being taken seriously, or listened to in good faith, on this thread
Sorry guys, but I don't make up the rules of logic.
I just enforce them.
Lionel:
How many Deniers are there to a Sou?
LOL... Now I'm just being cruel—asking a warmist, of all people, a question about the Middle Ages!
Brad Keyes --- Too many questions. First on electric power generation denial. There are many in denial of the most cost effective solutions; I don't particularly find it where (with one notable exception).
As for suitable global temperature, about 0.8 K cooler than now would be appropriate. To obtain that requires removing over 500 gigatonnes of carbon from the active carbon cycle (while not adding any more). That feat will require some time, centuries at best.
Slow changes in the future might then be either up or down (a bit) depending upon the future understandings of climatologists, ecologists and agriculturalists.
If I missed a question, please ask again.
"Sorry guys, but I don’t make up the rules of logic.
I just enforce them ON OTHERS."
FTFY.
And apparently ignore them for yourself. Then again, deniers have to grow a second face otherwise they can't keep their bullshit going.
Which you know how?
The owner of the blog (who gets the IP address of the poster when they post) said that chubby had.
So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?
ANSWER: YOU DON'T.
"You falsely accused
—me of using a sock-puppet."
Nope, he didn't.
You really don't do this "reality" thing do you.
Bradley
You were taught by Tim Lambert?! It's a small world ;-) (Page 38 # 87:)
And:
You assert that you are falsely accused of sock-pupptery. You claim that only I think this is the case:
It has been mentioned. Bernard J provides an illustrative example on the February open thread:
But for me, the most interesting part is the moderation. All your comments appear in a block. Apparently you are in moderation just like Chameleon, whose comments also appear in a block, as far as I can tell at the same time as yours, although without time-stamped comments it's hard to be certain. Chameleon is in moderation because she is either a sock or using one. The obvious inference is that TL has put *you* in moderation because you are either a sock or using one. Perhaps we have this back to front and she's the real brains behind the operation and you are a toe-rag?
;-)
" the best-known, best-loved intellectual scourge of the Creationists here in Australia is Ian Plimer—"
You mean Ian "The Sun Is Made Of Iron" Plimer?
So how do you know better than the owner of the blog what went on in their blog?
ANSWER: YOU DON’T.
There is of course only one incontrovertible way "Brad" would know with such certainty.
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Globe Continues Hottest Decade Ever.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/15/globe-continues-hott…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_de…
BBD:
I'll take the absence of an abusive tone in your latest comment as contrition.
But I don't buy your conspiracy theory about a certain pair of commenters here. Not for a dollar. Not for a cent.
Figured that out all by yourself, did you, BBD?
:-)
The (non-conspiracist) explanation is fairly obvious.
1. We live in the same timezone.
2. Comments are released from quarantine in bursts.
So they said. Falsely. Once.
They don't even have the courage of their conviction, though, do they?
As you indignantly pointed out, they keep allowing her (and me) to comment here.
*Sigh.* I'll just assume you missed the comment announcing that I'd been placed in moderation. Hint: it wasn't for the same reason as Chameleon. It wasn't at the same time as Chameleon. I've been in moderation about a week longer than her because certain moaning bitches bitched and moaned to the moderators about my terrifying incursions into the minor threads.
Other than that though... great theory. You'd make a rad scientist, BBD.
I'm flattered that you ever thought otherwise.
Not to me it hasn't.
Forgive me if I haven't read all the comments directed to other commenters on threads not dedicated to me. I wouldn't have known Bernard J's latest attempt at pop psychology (or is it meant to be linguistic analysis?) even existed had you not brought it to my attention. Thanks for the laughs, BBD. But seriously, what does any of this shit mean:
Only males use wrong usage?
What, females are renowned for their stylistic constancy? Has Bernard ever met one, I wonder?
How can someone's "usage and style" be inconsistent with their own quirk? Is Bernard J deliberately stultifying his own remarks to obscure the complete lack of a case here? I don't remember him ever being quite this moronic.
Ah, the tag-team "appraoch"! But isn't that a well-documented denier trope? ;-)
And pray tell: what subject matter "dissonates," exactly?
...by making appeals to (false) authorities and false attributions by quoting nonsense from Anthony Watts' crank website.
You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on your right arse-cheek.
(Left arse-cheek already bitten by the similar unrecognised "science").
BBD?
No doubt this will languish in moderation BUT?
WTF are you claiming?
Yep it is in moderation.
Moderator/s, if your aim is to lose me as a commenter, you are about to succeed.
Brad asks,
Let's start with Page 1, post #8:
Brad says,
and:
That's two examples right there, and it took no time at all to find them.
Considering I only looked through the first ten posts on the first page of this thread, I could, from that rate of denial make the projection that 40 pages at 100 comments per page could be expected to contain around 800 examples of Brad Keyes' denialism.
What in fuck's name are those meant to be examples of, Vince?
Oh, and Vince:
I think I can say on behalf of everyone here that we’d be fascinated to see my “initial admission that I hadn’t” read ‘Merchants of Doubt.’
I don’t suppose it exists though, does it?
Pity.
It's amazing how pathetic a liar you are, given all the practice you've had.
Civilian nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/rdresults.aspx?id=27569&Ex…
I make it about 70; somehow many different planners, economists and engineers have come to the definite conclusion that some NPPs are the best balanced way for them to provide electrical power.
Yes David B,
The same applies to hydro power worldwide.
Best and balance (ie logic) seems to be sadly MIA in the current Australian political climate.
The concept of sensible risk management and planning seems to be overly obstructed by a political misuse of the 'precautionary principle'.
I wish you could see my comments in a reasonable timeframe but apparently because BJ doesn't believe I am a female my comments have to wait approx 24 hours in moderation.
BBD,
the comments appear in blocks BECAUSE they languish in moderation for up to 24 hours!
Mandelbrot found that price changes in financial markets did not follow a Gaussian distribution, but rather Lévy stable distributions having theoretically infinite variance. from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoit_Mandelbrot
long before (and far better than)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb#Praise_and_criticism
Wow,
I don't know or care what Ian Plimer's nickname is, which element of the periodic table he thinks is at the core of the sun, or why you would think that was relevant.
Well: you are insanely unintelligent, so that might explain it.
David, I'd suggest expert lobbying an a compliant subsidy-providing government would be the prime factors behind every one of those projects.
David,
thanks for your answers!
You covered most of it! I think I have a better idea now of what you'd like to see happening, how fast it could be safely achieved and how much decarbonization it would take.
When was the climate 0.8K cooler than it is now, in your view? I.e. what's the ideal or target year to which you'd support a return, in climatic terms?
And I'd still like to know:
3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?
"There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty."
But it would be proof that they ARE socks.
A double-fork conundrum for Bray!
"There is of course only one incontrovertible way “Brad” would know with such certainty."
But it would be proof that they ARE socks.
A double-fork conundrum for Bray!
Wow:
Because I asked her.
They mentioned no evidence for the charge and they don't even appear to believe it themselves.
Because I asked chameleon.
BECAUSE I ASKED CHAMELEON.
YES HE DID. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE HE ADDRESSED TO ME, IF YOU CAN BRING YOURSELF TO READ IT, AND THEN LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME HE DIDN'T ACCUSE ME OF SOCK-PUPPETRY, WOW. YOU REALLY DON'T DO THIS REALITY THING, DO YOU? YOU ARE BECOMING EXTREMELY TEDIOUS (H/T DAVID B. BENSON). YOU'VE ALSO MADE ME leave my caps lock on!
chek:
And that is for me to secretly own the blog.
You got me, chek. You've exposed the Great Conspiracy.
My real name is Eustace B. Geographic III, better known at my old Yale stomping-grounds as That Party Legend who Deflowered the Bush Twins, and my family owns this blog. I've been moderating with my left hand and commenting with my right, playing you believalists and denialists off against each other for years like the chumps you are, while pa and his old college buddies raked in the wind-turbine dollars hand over fist!
And it was all going so well until the humblest and simplest of cretins, chek, saw through it with that special perspicacity unique to the retarded and feeble-minded.
You may marvel that anyone could be evil enough even to consider the use of sock puppets and other non-conventional discursive weapons, but if so, you’re a fool. You misunderestimate the thoroughness of my ethical dissolution. To playboys like me and Olaus (of the dish dynasty), you workaday muggles are little more than meat-puppets who exist for our amusement and profit.
Something very interesting just happened on the minor thread.
Someone's just posted what purports to be a "Highly recommended video that meticulously shreds Monckton’s performance in his 2011 debate with Richard Denniss:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXS8l3_Yhh0
What's the big deal? Well, it now appears that the climate movement has elected to do to the rules of debating what it did to the rules of science several years ago: misunderstand, misrepresent and change them. And for the same apparent reason: the rules were too hard. It was impossible to win under the normal rules. They kept losing.
As you may know, the point of a debate is that Richard Denniss gets a chance to shred his opponent Monckton's performance, if he can, in front of a live audience. The point is not for Denniss to fail miserably and leave it up to a video editor and production crew to shred it for him. 2 years later!
Can we look forward to Monckton's team putting together a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Richard Denniss' performance in the highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?
Can we then expect a highly recommended video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the video meticulously shredding Denniss' performance in the video meticulously shredding Monckton's performance in the 2011 debate against Denniss?
It's Climate Debating! Kind of like climate honesty, climate finance, climate ethics and climate science.
Meh. Watched it. I'd built it up into something much cooler in my mind. I doubt this idea has more than 1 or 2 sequels left in it. Monckton may not even bother countering this with a video of his own. Sorry for overhyping it guys.
"And that is for me to secretly own the blog."
Or be chubby AND bray. Thereby proving that both of you are sockpuppeting.
'sfunny how bray whines on about the Great Conspiracy by Mann and Jones to "hide" the evidence of faking their work but gets all bent out of shape and complains of others that he strawmans into making a statement of conspiracy against him.
Those two faces of JAnus are talking shit again.
Wow,
how bad is your memory, exactly?
Mann and Jones used the decline-hiding trick SEPARATELY—Mann used it in Nature, and Jones used it for his WMO presentation—no conspiracy necessary.
Of course, the email in which Jones admits this was sent to 4 recipients, none of whom filed a complaint about what Jones had done. This is prima facie a conspiracy of silence. There has never been a non-conspiracist explanation for that email and I doubt there ever could be.
Anyway Wow, I was hoping you'd tell me what you think of my advice to the mods:
_________________________
Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but are you even reading this?
Maybe you should spend less time quarantining skeptical comments and more time mopping up Wow’s disgusting secretions.
"Brad", you ceased having anything of even mild interest to say weeks ago. But you continue with your act anyway, in the face of yawning boredom and no return on time invested on this side.
Maybe it'd be better for you to continue the discussion with your hairdresser.
Bradley
It's richly amusing to watch a sly, dishonest man getting angry about being accused of sly dishonest behaviour. If (and this is the really rich bit) you are actually *innocent* and Chameleon is your significant other, it makes no difference. I simply enjoy the spectacle of you being frustrated and angry. This is how you make other commenters here feel all the time with your endlessly morphing arguments and refusal to answer straight questions.
Suck it up!
@ 38 chameleon
I'm suggesting that you are either a sock created by Bradley, or you are his significant other.
Do, please, enlighten us all.
Bradley
I did indeed miss it. Please provide a link.
BBD,
you can't say this:
and then expect either of us to lift a finger to help you solve your little mystery. By your own admission, you're not interested in the truth but are purely driven by spiteful obnoxiousness.
I'm taking a Fuck You approach to all future questions about my and/or chameleon's personal lives.
I suggest you do the same, chameleon.
Still, I must admit your detective powers are a sight to behold, BBD:
So you've narrowed it down to either:
- chameleon doesn't sound like a female
or
- chameleon is my wife
Damn, if only the Keystone Kops of the Norwich Constabulary had had access to your brainpower they would have cracked the Purloined CRU Letters case in no time and the whistlehacker would be behind bars!
It was a couple of weeks ago on the Feb thread. It was a comment under my name that simply said "Brad has been placed in moderation due to multiple violations of the rules."
Either believe me or go find it yourself.
" “You falsely accused
—me of using a sock-puppet.”
Nope, he didn’t.
YES HE DID"
NO HE DIDN'T.
"Brad" enough of this.
Do as BBD bid you a long time ago and lay out your self justification for your denial. That is, in terms of the science, and not those nasty warmist blogs that inevitably find out you're not a fwend and proceed to treat you like shit of Olap's calibre. At least that would give us a good laugh.
Otherwise your future looks like endless content-free braying cries for attention. And nobody needs that.
Horrible but true: Bradley has inflicted himself on Tara's blog and is now replicating the Branglina Thread: 'there's no such thing as scientific consensus or there is but it's made of puppy dogs' tails and Vegemite' etc.
Alien mind parasite!
BBD WTR Bradley at Tara's,
Bradley really needs to get hold of a copy of Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.
Now that does not mean that I am a fan of alternative medicine, far from it and I could suggest some take downs of that stuff Acupuncture included.
Lionel A
Good book. But first Bradley needs to stop pretending that there is such a thing as 'consensus-based' science per his strawman misrepresentation of climatology.
Science is *evidence-based* as we all know. Including the science of physical climatology. Brad is playing word games because that's all he's got. Hence the repeat of his trick over at Tara's. Obligate tactics for someone arguing the indefensible and bereft of a scientific case.
What a loathsome reptile "Brad" is.
Repeating his one now broken riff but hoping for a different outcome.
BBD,
Remember how you went through that scientific integrity phase a couple of years ago?
One of the facts you explained (rather well) was
So far so good.
But if you know the IPCC’s actions were unforgivable, what excuse can you possibly have not only to forgive them but to suddenly start trusting their authority to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with them? How can you possibly place such credulity in an institution you yourself were telling us, only 2 years ago, could not to be forgiven for its actions:
This is borderline-type thinking. Are your principles really so shallow, labile and amnestic, BBD? Your loyalty to science?
Please don’t insult me with a cliché like, “research changes POV.”
Thank you. I’m aware of that.
I know it does—on some things. On contingent topics; matters of nature, matters of climate, and so on.
But this is not one of those topics. The truth of your statement:
does not depend on any empirical or experimental finding. It doesn’t matter how warm it is today; it doesn’t even matter what our planet’s ECS turns out to be: no amount of “research” would have “changed” your “POV” if you’d grokked how science works.
It was a statement of principle.
A principle you apparently hold rather cheap. :-(
Wow,
YES HE DID. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE HE ADDRESSED TO ME, IF YOU CAN BRING YOURSELF TO READ IT, AND THEN LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME HE DIDN’T ACCUSE ME OF SOCK-PUPPETRY, WOW. YOU REALLY DON’T DO THIS REALITY THING, DO YOU? YOU ARE BECOMING EXTREMELY TEDIOUS (H/T DAVID B. BENSON). YOU’VE ALSO MADE ME leave my caps lock on!
Vince Whirlwind --- In the case of Vogtle 3 & 4 the utility prepared a detailed report and convinced the state utility commission that these Westinghouse AP-1000 were the most beneficial choice. The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV) but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee).
In many of the represented countries the electric generators, grid, etc. are state owned.
Brad Keyes --- Approximately the first half of the 19th century.
Earlier I posted threes links which point out that decade by decade, the warming is relentless; there has been no pause since the 1950s.
"The government does not (directly) subsidize NPPs (unlike wind turbines and solar PV)"
Uh, nope.
Insurance: paid for. Shortfall from accident: paid for. About 7.1Bn dollars a year, the benefits are worth.
"but does provide loan guarantees (for which the utility company pays a substantial fee)."
But if the fee were really substantial and a fair deal, then there would be private underwriters who would take it on, right?
Except they don't. Refuse point blank.
Indeed EDF requires a deal that would cost 100Bn, and guaranteeing a spot price for 40 years or they won't do it.
I don't think the prices are what you remember from ages and ages past, which would have been figures that the CFO and marketing department would have had, not the science department.
Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance. Private insurance doesn't attempt to compete with the federal government for those loan guarantees nor flood insurance.
That said, I don't know of a single country in which the actual entire cost of the electric utility (or utilities) is bourne solely by ratepayers. For some reason the politicians always stick in their oar at the expense of taxpayers. If someone knows a country in which that (largely, not entirely) is not the case I certainly would like to learn of it.
David, the USA has legislation transferring the risk from nuclear power stations to the taxpayer. The liability assumed by the industry is capped at a very low level.
Maybe have a look at the losses incurred by the Japanese economy as a result of Fukushima and tell us how much (or how little) of that is being covered by Tepco or its insurance?
And I'm sure it doesn't need to be pointed out that this externalised cost of risk has no equivalent in any of the renewable technologies: it is in effect a subsidy to nuclear that is not available to renewables.
The government of Ukraine has been trying to raise the $1 billion necessary to cover the cost of sealing the Chernobyl reactors. Meanwhile Byelorussia spends a two-figure proportion of its GNP every year in addressing nuclear cleanup issues.
If the Nuclear industry isn't an economic proposition without avoiding the costs of insuring its activities, then any positive comment about its economic viability is based on a lie.
The free market has decided the risk associated with the nuclear industry is uninsurable. That's good enough for me to reject it as a valid proposition.
Meanwhile, Yucca mountain has cost the taxpayers $100billion and has abjectly failed to provide any kind of solution to the nuclear industry's waste problem.
Over in the UK, a similar amount is being spent by the taxpayer on decommissioning.
More interestingly, the UK High Court found in 2007 that the nuclear Industry and its government puppets had broken the law in publishing dishonest information in the pro-nuclear 2006 government Energy review.
If nuclear were a valid economic proposition, its supporters would not find it necessary to be dishonest to the point of breaking the law.
Bottom line is, nuclear is dangerous, it's dirty, and it is fundamentally dishonest.
BBD @58,
I am suggesting you've just lost any chance of any credibility!
You're suggestions are completely unsubstantiated RUBBISH!
What a pity.
You were actually starting to discuss something useful and practical re future energy needs.
Now you've returned to pointless and counter productive name calling and paranoid suspicions about others.
And no doubt this comment will languish in moderation yet again.
Yucca Mountain characterization has cost taxpayers about US$8 billion. See
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2011/pdf/nv110427ym.pdf
Other than a place for otherwise unusable military radioactive materials it is a bad idea as once through nuclear materials can be further beneficially used in a fast reactor such as the GE-Hitachi PRISM. The problems in the UK are due to overly hasty bomb plutonium making; nothing whatsoever to do with civilian power reactors.
Ten Times More Hurricane Surges in Future, New Research Predicts
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130318151519.htm
with 2 K warming.
David B,
Hats off to you for your insistence in talking some sense re future energy needs!
May I suggest you apply similar common sense re the concept of a 'climate utopia'.
Also, IF THE EFFING MODERATOR/S WILL LET ME COMMENT IN SYNCH(!!!!!!!!!) I will happily further discuss the political roadblocks in Australia with you (re future energy needs).
Vince, you're back!
Wonderful. This gives me a chance to ask you something:
We’d all be fascinated to see my “initial admission that I hadn’t” read MoD. A simple quote of, or link to, the admission would be fascinating.
I don’t suppose it exists though, does it?
Pity.
It’s amazing how pathetic a liar you are, with all the practice you’ve had.
David:
Great.
To test the benefits of this proposal of returning to a first-half-of-the-19th-century climate, could you nominate a decade in the first half of the 19th century in which the climate was preferable to that of the current past decade (2003–2013)?
Yep, I saw that post.
Is this by way of an affirmative answer to the question:
3. When you say “the current warming is far too rapid,” does the word “current” include the past 15 years?
?
Thanks for taking the time to answer!
Wow, chek, Vince,
you guys seem to think Anthony Watts is a "climate change denier" because, among other things, he "denies the temperature record." (If I've unfairly included one of you among these 3 musketeers, just say so—I apologise.)
Now that Michael Mann himself has admitted this allegation is false and issued a retraction—see https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann: "Apparently #AnthonyWatts not denying instrumental record of warming, so I withdraw the claim."—do you still make it? Or are you at least as honest as Fauxbel-Prize claimant Michael Mann?
BradK @ 54,
Walter Starck calls that 'an academic pissing contest'.
I think it's a fairly apt (but rather crude) description.
It has got totally out of hand in the 'climate debate'!!! (IMHO)
And @ 64
If I was married to you I would need to be prosecuted for polygamy :-)
I also suspect from some of the things you have said here that we are not from the same generation or from the same area :-)
Despite the deltoids' paranoid refusal to beieve me, I am indeed female I am happily married,
(not to you however :-) ) I have 3 beautiful children and I am a resident of rural inland Australia.
David B,
I note you have graciously offered to continue your discussions about future energy requirements here and not at the March thread.
As I said in an earlier comment (WHICH IS STILL IN EFFING MODERATION!!!!)
If the moderator/s can get past pandering to the stupid unsubstantiated rantings of paranoid and misogynist/misanthropic/alarmist people like BJ, BBD, Chek, Wow and Bill, I will be happy to advance this discussion.
While I suspect that our perspectives are somewhat different, I do respect your courage of conviction and your method of engagement.
I'll look forward to the renewable industry being given an additional $10 billion to match the $10billion spent on the now-abandoned and worse-than-useless Yucca Mountain project then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
is quite a decent overview. A discussion of liability and insurance for the civilian nuclear industry is included.
Vince Whirlwind --- It is only abandoned until Reid is no longer senator. And only US$8 billion has been spent so far. Chalk that up as part of the so-called national security budget; the military waste does have to be kept away from the environment for a very long time.
Sorry—Norfolk Constabulary.
God help us.
Sou's back with her unique brand of unfunny paranoia.
I hate to ruin a good story but, as we all know, there's not a single denier out there trying to 'prove' climate science is a hoax. Sou is getting her private cinemascope reality confused with external, shared reality. What's new, eh?
And I'm afraid, dear readers, that's an ongoing theme in Sou's latest comment...
Really? That's all I have to do to win the prize and 'prove' climate science 'is' a 'hoax'? 'Thank' you for telling me, Sou—you're a really 'useful' addition to the human species! I don't tell you that often enough. Just thought I'd mention it, so that you feel 'appreciated.'
I have to ask, Sou—does anyone but you think "the whole edifice of climate science" is at stake, in question, at issue, in contention or under attack?
Anyone at all? On the planet? In the blogosphere?
Second question: in your hallucinations, who is it that claims they've stolen some emails? You do realize that Peter Gleick—who stole printed documents, NOT emails, by the way—is one of your guys, right?
Is there a punchline coming up? Sometime soon?
Oh, okay. That was the entire, ahem, joke.
Clap.
Ah, the good ol' most ‘popular’ anti-science blog award. Which you just made up. Hilarious, hilarious stuff.
Did you really think that limp turd of a gag deserved an exclamation mark, Sou?
Well, don't you feel stupid?
Nope.
Nope.
And there we have it. Thanks for that, uh, contribution to the ...conversation, Sou.
I can't resist noting, in passing, that your return to this blog coincides with that of Lotharsson, who also can't tell a joke to save his life and just happens to have a rather similar pseudo-scientific bee in his bonnet about harmless, everyday carbon dioxide and how it's going to bring about the end times, the destruction of the Second Temple and the return of the Messiah. BBD, did you notice the remarkable timing too? Does it provoke any husband-and-wife / ventriloquist-and-dummy theories you'd like to share with us?
BBD,
since you're pretending not to read this question over at Tara "The Aim Was to Shame the Skeptic" Sparks' site, I'm forced to repost it here in hopes that peer pressure will finally force you to answer it.
Having been caught trying to do exactly, literally what I told TinyCO2 believers sought to do (namely, to pass off consensus as evidence), you rationalized:
I responded:
––––––––––––––––––
Obviously it can. Or it can arise in an evidential cornucopia. Or somewhere in between.
The ONLY scientific question is: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? The existence or absence of a consensus means nothing to a scientist. We don’t have opinion polls in science. For 250 years, until Naomi Oreskes came along, the idea of ascertaining whether all scientists agreed on a particular theory about nature would have been despised and ridiculed, and rightly so. By me and every scientist I know.
Tell me—since you’ve thus far refused to say:
1. what evidence was there, prior to Marshall and Warren’s experiment, that gastric and peptic ulcers were non-infective in aetiology?
2. what evidence was there, prior to Schechtman’s Nobel-Prize-winning work, that quasiperiodic crystals were non-existent, impossible, highly improbable, uninteresting and/or useless?
"Meanwhile, Yucca mountain has cost the taxpayers $100billion"
May be a lot less, but EDF want £100Bn from the UK gov to buid a nuclear plant. And cleaning up and decommissioning in the UK is now over £60Bn.
This isn't just nuclear's problem.
Exxon? Cleanup is, what, something north of $20Bb? BP's Deepwater error looks to be going north of that too.
"Wow has it wrong (again) at least for the USA. The utility companies purchase their own insurance."
David has, as usual, got it wrong.
They purchase insurance for a fraction of losses, but an accident payout, as Vince says, is capped at some millions of dollars.
It's like insuring your house for $100 in case of accident then getting the government to underwrite the remaining $259,900 and claiming you're getting your own insurance, not leeching of the taxpayer.
In the USA alone, $7.1Bn a year is spent as subsidy to nuclear power.
# 80 Chameleon
You mean you're not a sock and not BK's significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?
Do tell.
Lionel,
thanks for the rec:
I'll try to make time to read it, but you'll be relieved to know I'm under no illusions about the scientific purity of the drug business as it operates in the real world. But I'm at a loss to see how this helps your case. On the contrary, it puts the imprescindibility of the scientific method into razor-sharp focus. The moment drug researchers behave less like scientists—even a little bit—and more like climate scientists—even just a little bit like them!—pharmacology ceases to work as a science and innocent people die. At Tara's blog some wishy-washy self-styled denier is trying to convince me that pharmacology "ultimately relies on consensus," but what she doesn't grasp is that she's talking about bad pharmacology. The kind that kills people for no better reason than "9 out of 10 doctors have been killing their patients this way ever since they got out of med school." Good pharma relies on evidence and only evidence, because pharmacology in principle is a science.
I anticipate your disagreeing with something I've said, but as long as we keep it on a "Lionel"-"Bradley" basis (or better yet "Brad"), it'll be a pleasant and edifying conversation!
Dominic:
Huh? What do I know about her that's not public knowledge? (Someone had to tell me Chameleon was female, so that should be your tipoff that I didn't know her socially. Same happened with Sou the first time I called "him" a strawman-erecting hypocritical weaselly bastard.) The only privileged knowledge I've ever let slip is that Chameleon didn't sock-puppet. I know because I asked her. By email. (To which she had to ask, "what does sock-puppeting mean?!") Not that the complete bogusness of the accusation wasn't 97% obvious anyway—except perhaps to the more, ahem, conspiracist / paranoid ideators who might be among us. Present company excepted, of course. *cough.* Other than that, what would make you think we know each other privately or socially? I put my real name (cryptically) and email details in a comment—you all could have read it, solved it and been my inbox buddies right now. But by design, the encryption acted as a filter, so that only deniers had the IQ to work it out, and the only email friendship that blossomed from that point on was with the lovely, intelligent, overly-polite, frustratingly-honest, married Chameleon.
"Is romance in the air?" Er, doesn't she, like, have a husband? Wasn't she forced to mention that fact in response to a prurient, lubricious and salacious insinuation from one of you unwashed raised-by-wolves ruffians? That kind of language may fly down at the construction site but up here, in the rarefied towers of the climate debate, the watchwords are respect, chivalry, courtesy and amiability AT ALL FUCKING TIMES, YOU BELIEVALIST NEANDERTHALS, is that understood? There may be ladies present at any moment, without notice, so elbows off tables and flies up, please, gentlemen.
I checked Wikipedia, David, and the figures given for Australia are way out of date and do not match current data that show wind as being virtually half the cost of new coal, and cheaper than gas even.
I simply will not believe any of the Nuclear propaganda on there, as that industry is notorious for hiding costs, making wrong assumptions, and emitting bald-faced lies to support their uninsurable business activities that produce waste remains untreatable to this day.
The evidence of law-breaking in relation to misinformation inserted by the nuke lobby into the UK's 2006 government energy report characterises the trust that industry deserves from the taxpayer it intends to leach off: none whatsoever.
If they can build a nuclear power plant without any kind of government subsidy and with full, uncapped insurance obtained via the free market, I will support them all the way.
Obviously, it's never going to happen. Virtually any method of generating electricity is cheaper than nuclear once you include a full, honest balance sheet with no slippery externalising.
Chameleon:
Oops! Slipped out of character there a bit....since when does a half-witted country-bumpkin unable to form paragraphs use a word like "languish" when "gets stuck" and "got blocked" are available?