April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

And raising the HI again? Are you mad? The people who - funded by the infamous "Anonymous Donor" - were solemnly proposing to create a curriculum for school children that was packed with climate change misinformation?

Are you sure you want to talk about this? Because I cannot imagine a single reason why since it is an excellent illustration of my exact point.

I get the sense, GSW, that you are simply flailing around with your pig's bladder on a stick because you don't know what else to do. Careful you don't trip over it and end up on your arse.

I can’t trump that BBD, brilliant!

I don't want you to trump it; I want you to prove that it is incorrect.

And I know you cannot do that.

But I *can* provide evidence. See eg Brulle (2013) or any of the links Jeff posted upthread. You really should read the material people here link, GSW. You could then avoid making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public.

“I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

Donors Trust. Why does it exist unless my statement is true and correct?

Answer me, GSW. Why does Donors Trust exist?

I'm afraid BBD that being morally bankrupt means that Griselda can't tell the difference between one side promoting solutions in accordance with the best scientific evidence available, and the other side - Griselda's - lying and distorting and misrepresenting the science as well as manipulating elected officials to maintain the status quo.

You might as well hold a Rembrandt up to a blind man and ask their opinion.

@BBD

For goodness sake BBD do I have to spell everything out for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

"conspiracy theory noun: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups"

Your #96 reads

"I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret."

and guess what? you ideated it
;)

GSW

The problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language. As I have patiently (for me) explained to you several times now, conspiracist ideation is a fantasy process which goes well beyond matters of fact.

Since I only deal in matters of fact I cannot be guilty of conspiracist ideation.

You *still* seem incapable of understanding the meaning of conspiracist ideation.

Please try again.

It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How?

It is not.

It is simply a matter of fact.

The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact.

Do you understand this yet?

"Conspiracist ideation" means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.

Do you understand this definition now?

While you're waiting for more disingenuous piffle from Griselda, they understand only too well. That's why all the evasion.

The galactic-scale of offence taken at Lewandowsy's papers has shown us that cranks do not like to be told they're cranks or that they're recognised as cranks.

Griselda has many, many more moments of shoe-gazing to do before daring to look your question in the eye and respond with a plain answer.

While you’re waiting for more disingenuous piffle from Griselda

:-)

The galactic-scale of offence taken at Lewandowsy’s papers has shown us that cranks do not like to be told they’re cranks or that they’re recognised as cranks.

Oh yes. I suspect the climate crankery and the sense of self are closely intertwined, hence the savage reaction when the whole stinking mess is tonged out of the midden and held up, dripping foully, for public inspection.

Meanwhile in the world of reality GHGs have continued to rise

THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

Increases in the abundance of atmospheric greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are mainly the result of human activity and are largely responsible for the observed increases in global temperature [IPCC 2007].

Looks like nobody from STW is going to come over and give me the Mary Whitehouse treatment for potty-mouth.

But then they wouldn't, because that is the difference between confected outrage and the real thing.

On a reading of the recent posts here and the ensuing semantic argument, I decided I might check up the definitions of conspiracist and ideation:
conspiracist
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a conspiracy theory. ; plural noun: conspiracists
1. a group or organisation which believes in or supports a conspiracy theory.
&

i`de•a′tion, n.

i•de•ate (ˈaɪ diˌeɪt)
v. -at•ed, -at•ing. v.t.
1. to form an idea, conception, or image of.
v.i.
2. to form ideas or images; think.

As GSW pointed out @ # 2; this comment here by BBD does indeed fit the definition :
"I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret."
Much of what Jeff Harvey writes on the previous page also fits that definition.
So perhaps both sides of this enviro/climate/political debate are engaging in some conspiracist ideation?

2stupid
The identification of persons or organisations engaged as conspirators is dealing in established fact and not theory.

The identification has been carried out by John Mashey, Robert J Brule and others.

That is your illogical fallacy on display right there.

I can only presume that deniers are 2Stupid to understand the difference between established 'fact' and unsubstantiated 'theory'. Across multiple fora they all display the same elementary fallacy that 'conspiracy' = 'conspiracy ideation'.

Stu 2, it is quite often the case in English that the phrase of the form "A B" formed from word "A" and word "B" has a specific meaning beyond that implied by either A, B or their individual meanings combined.

(And speaking of recent context, pretending that this is not the case is one of Mr. Keyes' favourite ruses.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Apr 2014 #permalink

Further to my #12 above and as BBD has mentioned them several times, here is a page on Donors Trust .

Be sure to enlarge and examine the main graphic in detail. This is what the blowhards like Keyes are tring to blow smokescreens around. Who knows, he may even work as a solicitors clerk within associated machinery.

Chek, i really like your use of the terms "Keyster" and "Keysterism". It is obvious that Keyes hasn't a clue as to what they mean. This is hardly surprising since he hides his brain up his arse.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 15 Apr 2014 #permalink

2Stupid

You are, inevitably, wrong and for the usual reasons: a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part. Go back and read what I wrote again. It is crystal clear. Do not create confusion where none exists. Do not claim that there are errors in my use of language where none exist. That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember?

With all due regards to Abbot & Costello, Ian!

O ffs Lou Abbott, of course.
No!, No! Bud!
Bud Abbott.
Why you...

As GSW pointed out @ # 2; this comment here by BBD does indeed fit the definition :
“I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”

Brulle (2013).

Donors Trust.

Matters of fact are not theories. Read the words, Stupid.

Read the previous page, Stupid. Don't be so lazy. Read the links, Stupid. It will save pain later.

Remember what happened with Abbot & Pierrhumbert, Stupid. You don't want a repeat of that.

Keister was what I though chek had in mind.

Yes, I was alluding to the more old school version, recalled from old movies, combined with an '80's onwards fashion for the '-ster' name suffix.
But I'm very pleased to see Ian's definition offers the correct spelling and retains the general meaning.

Are you aspiring to be the dullest fuck ever, Griselda?
Or what?

Oh, this is old school.

;-)

keister

keis·ter
[kee-ster]
noun Slang.
the buttocks; rump.
Also, keester.

Origin:
1880–85; earlier, as underworld argot, handbag, suitcase, safe; of obscure origin, but words meaning “chest, box” are frequently adduced as sources, e.g., kist1 , German Kiste, Yiddish kestl, etc.

Plus ça change...

#26

When you ain't got an argument and you just got thumped, what do you do?

Oh...

You take your bullshit to another blog and repeat it as if nothing had happened.

@BBD

"You take your bullshit to another blog and repeat it as if nothing had happened."

Well BBD, I'd be very surpised if the meaning words had changed overnight -But then there are few things one can be truly certain of; death, taxes and your continued ignorance of absolutely everything.

Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?

Come on, GSW, play the game.

What is the difference between an imagined conspiracy and a real one? Why does the phrase conspiracist ideation even exist?

What does it mean?

From an SkS article by Cook and Lewandowsky:

Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation

Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:

1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.

2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.

3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.

4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.

5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.

6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.

Oh for fuck's sake, as if on cue Stu2 comes in with a dictionary and a distinct lack of anything that can be described as a fucking clue.

Guys, you don't get it! The only way to last as a denialist troll is to evade the issues permanently. Your dungeoned idol knew that much, at least -- he just weaseled away from anything substantive.

You've now dipped your toes into actual issues several times and came out looking like complete, utter, abject morons. I repeat: you are too fucking stupid to have these grown-up discussions. Just confine yourselves to drooling and smileys. Much safer that way.

By the way, the outrage over how the Heartland documents were obtained is absolutely precious. Who cares what's in them? THEY FIBBED TO GET THEM! THE HUMANITY!

Somehow, I'm reminded of certain service records, a fairly recent US election and Dan Rather. This should come as no surprise, guys. If people happily re-elect a proven deserter because, erm... KERNING!, this is easy grist for the lunacy mill.

I'm always astonished that someone as bone-stupid as GooSeyW can be so smugly convinced that he's scoring points. You ain't, doofus! You're just another tedious DK posterboy... but in your jejeune little mind you're a legend in your own lunchtime.

Pathetic. And so, so boring.

It's notable that shub disappeared when the risibility of his position became so obvious even he couldn't keep dragging himself on. But our resident hypertrolls are just too thick to ever comprehend how daft they truly are - which is a mercy for GooSey, of course, because if he could really understand what a mind-numbing fool he appears...

BBD @ # 32.
If I read Jeff Harvey's comment @ # 40 previous page & your comment @ # 67 previous page, they match up rather well with the Cook & Lewandowsky section you copied.
BTW much of the speculation here about why the RF paper was refused publication also bears a remarkable resemblance to your copied piece. Especially but not exclusively point 2.

Whilst the 2Stupids of the world continue with their inane posture there is further evidence for climate change from the genetic adaptation of a small attractive butterfly the Brown Argus.

In the UK this butterfly was thought to be in decline in southern England where it laid its eggs on the favoured rockrose plant. As the country further north has\warmed so this butterfly has moved into places previously too harsh and changed its food plant species to geranium.

Scientific tests by putting individuals of each type Northern and Southern Brown Argus under cover with both food plants has revealed that the northern Brown Argus has genetically adapted to use the geranium in preference to rockrose with its southern relative choosing the reverse.

British butterfly defies doom prediction to thrive in changing climate. Why do sub-editors feel the necessity to string words such as doom, defies and prediction together in this way?

Good news for the Brown Argus sure but this does not mean that other invertebrates will be able to evolve to cope with a rapidly changing climate.

I notice that bastion of scientific rectitude, the IPA, have dispatched Pat Michaels to Oz to ring the bell to get the woofers salivating. I couldn't help but notice that Pat doesn't mind a bit of the old conspiracy ideation - after all he is the author of "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.

Woooo, the unnamed "they", scary! Or, calling card of someone in tinfoil millinery

I also notice the IPA have their own book called "Climate Change: The Facts 2014". Apart from Dr Michael's no-doubt stellar contributions, it is co-authored by Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, Rupert Darwall, Nigel Lawson, Alan Moran, Mark Steyn, John Roskam and Willard Anthony himself, so I presume the use of the word "fact" in the title is some new usage the kids have these days, like when "bad" meant good. Either that or they are trying to tap the burning irony as a new fuel source...

On second thoughts, maybe the IPA are trying to assemble a critical mass of stupid, whose infinite density will open a wormhole to another planet, allowing them to escape when they've fucked this one up.

"Good news for the Brown Argus sure but this does not mean that other invertebrates will be able to evolve to cope with a rapidly changing climate."

Including those dependant on the Brown Argus visiting a particular flower, like parasites and the flower itself.
Good news for this particular species, but a species stands never alone. What is described here, is an ecological instability. Same may easily give rise to plagues AND mass extinctions. Adstruction: http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/03/climate-change-sends-beetles-overdri… .

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 16 Apr 2014 #permalink

On FrankD's revelation above here is Pat Michaels spewing forth at Forbes, you know that 'scientific journal' that deniers and liers for hire (DELIERS perhaps) now have to resort to to get published:

Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?

-

Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.

Is Garth Paltridge still a respected atmospheric scientist?

He has his own entry at Sourcewatch - Garth Paltridge.

That's some stellar array of expertise that CCTF2014 has harnessed there Frank. It's almost a black hole of goonery as it is. A few more like-minded souls and it would likely have imploded.

A few more like-minded souls and it would likely have imploded.

Is Piers Corbyn NOT amongst the invited speakers? For shame then, I'll not be going.

@All

Brad has an update to an earlier post up at climatenuremberg(Getting denialistic about climate skepticism.)
"BBD Goes Full Conspiracist"
http://climatenuremberg.com/2013/12/11/bbd-goes-full-conspiracist/

"But the patient himself, BBD, maintains a contrarian view. Although he is unqualified to do so, he argues he is healthy—and so, in accordance with our ‘False Balance’ policy, we have offered BBD space on ClimateNuremberg to lay out his alternative, crank reasoning."

GSW, how do you know this? Are you Brad?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 16 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW, how do you know this? Are you Brad?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 16 Apr 2014 #permalink

(oops, #51 not intended, while I don't see how it happened)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 16 Apr 2014 #permalink

Unfortunately, Brad is a sociopathic liar who made a stupid mistake and now will not admit it. Nor will GSW. Neither clown has yet answered the following simple question:

Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?

The answer is, no, of course not. Therefore the conspiracies were *imaginary*.

So there's nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there?

“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.

Obviously not.

So Brad (like GSW) is stuffed. Unlike GSW, Brad is clever enough to realise this so he goes on the attack. But he knows, and I know, and everybody bar the morons who has read this knows who got their arse kicked. Again.

It's interesting that the scum have decided to deny that there is any difference at all between imaginary conspiracies and matters of fact, eg Donors Trust.

Can they really be that stupid, or is this simply a deliberate lie with the sole intention of smearing me?

I think we know the answer to that one as well.

It's the standard Fox tactic: bleat your nonsense long enough, loudly enough, stupidly enough and obnoxiously enough that people who don't have the time or inclination to look into details are turned off by the entire discussion and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Acting moronically and getting called on it is not a bug, it's a feature.

GSW

Re your fantastically funny comment at Eli's, you do realise that Brad must have been reading this thread because he has posted most of it at RR now don't you?

So your remark about paranoid imaginings on my part may be among the most stupid you have ever made.

@BBD

"Brad must have been reading this thread because he has posted most of it at RR now don’t you?

You're in a catch 22 situation BBD ;) I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he's been banned for your protection. So what new conspiracy are you preparing to ideate from these newly discovered set of "facts"?

Brad

Getting into bed with a moron like GSW makes you look, if possible, even worse. Opportunistic and vicious and dishonest are an unlovely combination.

Do, please, feel free to reproduce this observation on you blog.

You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD

What are you talking about, idiot?

What you have to realise BBD is that being too stupid to see their own stupidity, what stupid does for entertainment is go to stupid's blog and crow about how stupid the stupid over there is being. Without realising that you'd have to be stupid to do that.
Plus it saves them feeling stupid about what they haven't understood because their own crank version makes them feel that anyone using the stupid hereonin as used by stupid must be as equally stupid as the stupid.
Hence the smug stupid from Griselda and Brad, caught in a world of stupid they succeed in making even more stupid as long as you're as stupid as them.
But if you aren't well stupid is as stupid does and reads.

From Eli's:

GSW said...

@BBD

"And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck"

Remember BBD, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
;)
16/4/14 3:55 AM

So an orchestrated smear campaign then.

Thanks for being so frank about it. Brad's just denied this over at Eli's, so you two need to synchronise brains. Except that's going to present a problem, what with you involved, eh, GSW?

You know, one would think that Brad Keyes (or whoever the hell he is) is some prominent well known scientist who has views that are profoundly influential in terms of science and policy, at least based on the number of blogs in which he pops up.

The truth, it turns out, is quite different. He's a nobody, a schmuck with apparent delusions of grandeur who nobody in the scientific world has probably ever heard of (me and a few others excepted).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Apr 2014 #permalink

@BBD

"What are you talking about, idiot?"

Don't you read books BBD? It's a very well known quotation from a book by Joseph Heller.

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Ask for copy at the book shop when you're getting your dictionary.

So why did you use it if not to indicate that this is a concerted smear campaign?

That was the question I asked you. So answer it.

@jeff

There's one there for you as well jeff:

"Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With [Jeff Harvey] it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”

?

;-)

The Griselda guide to the re-defining of humour.
Find something nasty, put it in the same sentence as your target.
And that's it folks.
No language skill, no clever inversion, no word play, no allusions, no parallels, just plain dumb spite... which is what Griselda does, everytime. But then anything requiring or pertaining to intelligence is off-limits for obvious reasons.

You can see why the admiration for Jonarse and the Keyster know no limit for Butthead and his Beavis.

Hopefully the silence indicates that GSW has finally realised what he has done.

GooSey, you know what I said about you being an idiot?

I've just realised, upon re-reading his posts and sort-of shrinking my mind to fit; GooSey is indeed so daft that he doesn't know what 'a Catch 22 situation' is!

You could not make it up!...

But then Griselda could well be a Major Major type who wouldn't get it even after it was explained in all caps..

Brad, at Eli's, unsynchronised with his new BF:

Relax! ClimateNuremberg is asking you this out courtesy. We're not out to get you.

Emphasis added for fun.

bill

As we know to our cost, GSW is too stupid to understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a matter of fact. Brad isn't, so one has to assume he's just pretending that he doesn't.

Oh, GooSey really likes ALL CAPS, that's why he's now Bradley's NUMBER ONE FAN.

Poor old Jonas must be rolling in his thread...

No. El Keyster isn't quite as stupid as he appears.

He is however clueless and completely marinated in denier theology and a vile, maniplulative personality and given to or taken by a false and thus laughable sense of grandeur.

But no, he's not dumb as a shitpost like Olap and Griselda

Bill @ # 71.
Here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

"A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power."

That's reasonably straightforward don't you think?
Considering GSW commented thus:
"You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD ;) I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection."

I think GSW does indeed understand the meaning of a Catch 22 situation and perhaps you might need to brush up or explain what you think it means?
BTW.
The scrapping over semantics and definitions here and at other places is becoming outright Orwellian at the moment.
While language is somewhat organic and it does grow and adapt with us and therefore new terminology is a part of our language; basic and agreed definitions do still matter.
Otherwise none of us would be able to communicate via the spoken and written language at all.

Pid, now you're defending our resident nong! Methinks your desire to contradict distorts your reading comprehension.

I know exactly what a Catch 22 situation is. When BBD asked 'what are you talking about, idiot? with regard to doofus' claim he was in one, here's the reply.

So, what, a Catch 22 situation is where just because they say you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you? No, it ain't. BBD ain't in one.

Bill.
Read the definition and then read GSW's original comment.
That is a Catch 22 situation.

Also Bill. I am not defending any person - I am pointing out the meaning of a Catch 22 situation.

Oh, and on your account, BBD could only be in a Catch 22 situation if he - BBD - had just expressed some desire for Brad to comment here. That's why he has no idea what GooSey is on about.

And it's not a 'quotation', it's a term that has become popularised as a flip way of describing an inescapably self-cancelling dilemma. What GooSey gives by way of explanation, on the other hand, is a quotation.

I am pointing out ...

Best not, eh?
The one thing you, Keyster, Olap and Griselda can be sure of is that you're not the smartest in the room.

GSW (gormless), I guess you'd know all about mediocrity eh? But then again, maybe not. I don't think you even reach that high in terms of intelligence... so my advice for you is to strive to attain mediocrity, although it may well be beyond you.

I guess me calling out Keyes hit a nerve with gormless and his ultra right wing views. But if one compares what he and I have achieved in our careers, then I think I can safely say that I know who is in front. That's well enough for me. If I am mediocre, then I am happy with that. As I said, this places gormless way down the totem pole.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

Stu2: get a life.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

For Stu 2's benefit, the term "Catch-22 situation" has nothing to do with the quotation GSW provided.

What it *has* to do with is the kind of situation described in the book (from Wikipedia)
"...any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in making the request and thus cannot be declared insane."
and
""They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."
"What law says they don't have to?"
"Catch-22"."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

@jeff

"If I am mediocre, then I am happy with that."

Yes, I expect you probably would be.

@rest

One more Heller quote:

“[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

You could do it as a crowd source project, get your dictionaries out, discuss the entriy for each word, then get the meaning completely arse about tit when you put them all together - as usual.
;)

GSW projects again. News at 11.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

Best not, eh?
The one thing you, Keyster, Olap and Griselda can be sure of is that you’re not the smartest in the room.

The thing that really gets up my nose is that not a single one of them is as stupid as they pretend to be.

They deliberately choose to ignore facts and knowledge and to follow wherever their personal preferences lead - even if that's to downright nonsense. Irresponsible nonsense.

Just like all those idiots who claim that speed limits and stop signs have no reason or logic behind them except governments collecting fines. They do have stirrings in the back of their minds that these things are well-founded which they choose not to listen to. Nevertheless, they're the ones who kill and maim themselves along with others by acting in accordance with their own preferred ignorance.

“[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch 22

This reminds of opening up an edition of The Australian at an airport on Tuesday - Graeme Lloyd was setting off the IPCC published opinion against some Lomborg quotes.

Lomborg, FFS, and Graeme Lloyd is so professionally defective he fails to question himself about the suitability of using the opinions of a man who was found by his country's top science body to have been scientifically dishonest.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

Note, Pid, that even after you valiantly struggled to give him an (albeit tenuous) out, he still has no idea what just happened.

How many times have GooSey and Oily been warned that trying to be a smartarse in a second language is just a primrose path to fail, as the young folk do say?...

GSW #55, roger that.
Meantime, brad seems quite interested in 'Merchants of Doubt'. I wonder what evidence is in that book, or referred to, that makes him that interested.
We know more every day.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

His thing on MoD was that it's anti-Semitic, because Oreskes picked on people with names that 'sounded Jewish'.
When it comes to low-lifes, you really have to lower the bar a long way down to accommodate the Keyster.

#92 chek, well, one would need to have an eye out for that. I didn't notice. I don't care, really. But perhaps a Hebrew word for 'pleasantness', e.g. 'naomi', might irk him a little bit, especially after a recent (unsurprising) DNA revelation on the descent of Eva Braun, or just because of 'pleasantness'.

Nah, it's a vehicle. There is something more concrete in the book. Maybe his real name.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW, As I said, if I am mediocre, then that makes you positively benthic. In terms of science, you don't reach up to my shoelaces, if that. You're a twit through and through whose world is a sordid combination of right wing pundits, anti-environmental blogs, and sheer stupidity. The fact that you write in here, where you and your views are loathed, is proof positive of that.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2014 #permalink

Channeling GooSey for a moment: Ha Ha Ha, I don't know who this ben is who you think is really thick, Jeffie, but Ha Ha Ha I'm actually really smart so the jokes on you, Ha Ha, smiley, smiley, smiley.

@jeff

"GSW, As I said, if I am mediocre, then that makes you positively benthic."

That isn't what you said Jeffrey, you said if you were mediocre you'd be happy, and I imagine you would - everyone should have a goal in life. Ha, Ha,
;) ;) ;)

Have you worked out the difference between matters of fact and conspiracist ideations yet, GSW?

Do let us know when the penny drops.

I bet Brad will think twice before supporting your rubbish again, GSW.

From my comment at Eli's:

"The original discussion arose from GSW's confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact."

You have both made utter clowns out of yourselves. And not for the first time, as veterans of the Brad thread will recall.

Griselda, why not get one of them there university compiled dictionaries off the Keyster and look up the word "context".

Then who knows? You might progress enough to eventually understand it to some degree and evolve beyond your usual Butthead level of understanding.

The only reason a smiley-using fuckhead like you thinks you're being smart is because you're a fuckhead, as is now shown plainly at the Rabetts by you're being a dumb little follow-my-leader fuckhead..

Sadly, my satire falls short of that little pile of The Stupid that is GooseSez'Wha?'...

Hey, Pid - this doofus is your peer! You sure you're on the right path in life?...

Bill @ # 1
My answer to your question (if it was indeed obliquely directed at me) is that in the big picture I actually have a good life and I'm not particularly worried about the 'rightness' of some path that you seem to infer that I am on. I was born and raised in Australia. The last time I checked there was no such thing as whatever you are claiming is a 'right path in life' in Australia. We are fortunate in Australia and we do have some choices about 'paths in life' .
As I mentioned on the previous page, I was not defending any particular person, nor would I consider any particular person at this blog as my 'peer'.
You commented on the 'meaning' of 'catch 22' and I simply provided an easily accessible online definition of the term and pointed out that the original comment re 'catch 22' did fit the definition.
If you want to read something else into that, then that's your prerogative and therefore your issue.
Despite your , I don't regard you or GSW as some type of intellectual peer or, for that matter, some type of intellectual enemy.

GSW, see if you can challenge my statement that you are loathed by most contributors on Deltoid. Aside from meatball and perhaps Stu2, I don't there's much disagreement there.

You're a right wing lunatic who has a kindergarten level grasp of science. You spend an unhealthy amount of time on denier blogs where it appears you pick up most of your scientific 'expertise'. Your latest stunt here is to spew out trash from Brad Keyes, another blogger, as if that legitimizes it.

If you have such strong opinions, my suggestion is that you dump your right wing political affiliations, go back to school and get something of a relevant education. Clearly what you've got so far doesn't enable your arguments to stand up to much scrutiny. In terms of publication out put and citations, I would surmise that my career thus far is quite some distance from mediocre, but I leave my peers to decide that. But compared with you I am in another league altogether. Your tally reads: 0 publications, 0 citations, 0 conference lectures and 100% anonymity. Well below mediocre.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2014 #permalink

2Stupid

You commented on the ‘meaning’ of ‘catch 22′ and I simply provided an easily accessible online definition of the term and pointed out that the original comment re ‘catch 22′ did fit the definition.

No it didn't, imbecile. You have an unfortunate habit of repeating your bullshit instead of paying attention to what is being said.

It's interesting the way that deniers are fundamentally reliant on specious argument, frequently over the most insignificant details, in order to maintain their presence at the table.

There is nothing of substance. Just endless conspiracist ideation, lies and nit-picking,

Those who consider themselves towering intellects seem extraordinarily blind to this very obvious matter of fact.

The rest of us see it clearly, which is part of the reason why we regard deniers as the lunatic fringe. That and the fact that it is evident that deniers do not understand the scientific evidence they seek to deny.

As long as energy in keeps exceeding energy out, all deniers have is their specious arguments and quibbling.

And if they don't get that fundamental reality, no matter how 'clever' they may believe themselves to be, they're stupid. Stupid as stupid can possibly be.

BBD re #4: yep, clearly going back and actually parsing the exchange is beyond him. Maybe not quite as beyond him as beyond GooSey, but, who knows?...

BBD @ # 4 & @ # 5
Despite your 'ideating' otherwise - my comment was related to an accepted definition of the term 'Catch 22' and had absolutely nothing at all to do with my 'ideation' of you or Bill or GSW or anyone else for that matter.
Neither does it have anything to do with some 'ideated' denier demographic that you are 'ideating' that I subscribe to.
Your theory or hypothesis about me and therefore what you are 'ideating' about me has absolutely nothing at all to do with a widely accepted definition of the term 'catch 22'.
Put simply, with no attempted 'ideation' on my part re the motives of the commenter at the time, the original comment by GSW did indeed fit an widely accepted definition of a 'catch 22'.
While language is indeed somewhat organic as it grows and develops with its users, basic definitions do still matter if you intend to engage in either written or verbal communication.

A (not an!) widely accepted definition!

GSW said somebody could see comments but not respond to them.
Not a skerrick of "Catch-22" in that.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 18 Apr 2014 #permalink

hffffft...

Craig Thomas @ # 11
This is the GSW comment:
"You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection."
This is an easily accessible online definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
“A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.[1][2] Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the “catch-22″ have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.”
The comment by GSW does as a 'matter of fact' contain substantially more than a skerrick of a 'catch 22" situation.
In case you are struggling with this - let me make it a bit clearer for you. The 'catch 22' is that BBD has the power to comment about Brad Keyes at Deltoid without fear of any return comment from Brad Keyes because of the:
" rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over."
For comparison - at Rabbet that particular 'catch 22' that GSW highlights is not operating and therefore the two protagonists in the aforementioned 'catch 22' at Deltoid (Brad Keyes and BBD) can comment directly to each other.
Anyone's opinion, or theory or their 'ideation' of whether that is a 'right path' or not or who I may or may not consider a 'peer' or any other 'ideation' you may like to attach to my comment was not the purpose of my original comment and therefore would merely be an 'ideation' constructed from the comment.

Oh, for God's sake...

2Stupid, you really need to read more because you really don't get it. Whether that's because you're too infatuated with ideated victimhood for your fellow travellers or what, I don't know.

This is the GSW comment:
“You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection.

being a boring troll”

Right, now that that's corrected, here's the Catch 22 situation.

Keyster is permitted to comment, as long as he doesn't troll. Otherwise his comment will be instantly deleted.
But Keyster is a boring troll who can't help trolling so his boring troll comment is instantly deleted.
He's not forced to troll but he does, it's his nature so his boring troll comment is deleted.
He needn't troll, but he does so his boring troll comment is deleted.
He really wants to comment but it comes across as more boring trolling, he can't help it. His comment is deleted.
He can comment but not be a boring troll but every comment he makes is boring trolling .
Much easier to quarantine him than devote time to policing him because he's not going to cease boring trolling.
That's his Catch 22.

Yes! - Well done Chek @ # 15
Despite your apparent willingness to engage in a surprisingly similar 'catch 22' situation (albeit a little tweaked by yourself) - at least you have recognised that it is indeed a 'catch 22'.

You're forgetting one important point Stu2:

BBD is correct whereas Keyes is totally and utterly wrong in just about everything he says.

Now, if you consider that a catch 22, then go right on ahead. This about sums up the entire AGW debate. One side has science and pretty much the entire scientific community on their side (those who argue that humans are primarily responsible for forcing recent climate change) and those who don't (the deniers). But the deniers have, for the most part, the corporate media, think tanks, the PR industry, lobbyists, and many other well-funded groups working for them. This is simply because the big money is flowing from industry.

But, whichever way you cut it, one side is correct and one isn't. And BBD is on the correct side.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Apr 2014 #permalink

Oh, for God's sake x2

How does my pointing out that accusing me of paranoia when BK demonstrably WAS reading comments here equate with a catch-22?

Answer: it doesn't.

Topic closed.

Also, see the magic little blue 6 with the underscore below this post to the right?

Click it and, through the marvels of technology, you can travel back in time, and try reading the exchange without your overwhelmingly strong priors incapacitating your comprehension* - paying particular attention to #64 - and then the notable behaviour of the dog in the nighttime after you offer your feeble straw at #77.

*Which, of course, you will be unable to do.

Jeff Harvey @ # 17.
I was not focusing on BBD or Brad Keyes for that matter.
I was focusing on Bill's comment re 'catch 22'.
However, I find your comment to me a bit strange.
I would suggest, with respect, that both BBD and Brad Keyes are sometimes right and sometimes not, along with just about everybody else.
As far as the definition of 'conspiracist ideation' goes, and BBD's questions and aggressive assertions in regard to his definition, I would suggest, again with respect, that it is very likely one of those occasions when BBD is in the aforementioned 'sometimes not' category.
BBD and Brad Keyes were debating a definition and not AGW.
I would also suggest that your tendency to argue about 'sides' has very little to do with anything particularly scientific and much more to do with politics.
BTW, despite many accusations to the contrary, I agree that humans impact the environment, the weather and the climate.
I am 100% certain if there was no such thing as the human race, the planet would be different on all three counts.

Stu2, why spend day after day after day arguing over pedantics? Who gives a rat's ass who is correct over the definition of 'catch 22'?! In my research, its like arguing incessantly over the meaning of terms like 'functional response' or 'frequency-dependent selection' or 'anautogeny' etc.

As for human impacts on the environment, the real question is not whether humans impact it (of course we do), but what the consequences these impacts are for biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and stability - with these then being linked to the well being of humanity via the supply of provisioning ecological services. Now, here's a question for you: what do you think the effects of human alterations across the biosphere are for us?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

Jeff #22: "Stu2, why spend day after day after day arguing over pedantics?"

Why has he produced a string of substance-free posts? Presumably trying to maintain his 100% record. I haven't seen a post of his all year that has been anything but pointless circle-jerking. "Catch-22" is just the latest effort to distract from the usual level of low-substance comment.

Now if people could just move on from paying GSW any notice at all, we could talk about something interesting. Engagment is what they want.

Jeff Harvey @#22.
In answer to your question :
Some of the alterations are negative and some of them are positive for us AND for the biosphere and/or the environment.

Garth Paltridge at The Quadrant online

Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?

It takes a certain ignorance or dishonesty to pen that opinion.

How is it Mr Paltridge, that a supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable 'scientist' can write such deviously worded baffle gab and think that they are an honest broker.

In short, Mr Paltridge, there is more than enough evidence from multiple strands of scientific inquiry to support the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that the build up in atmospheric GHGs because of human activity is responsible for the imbalance of the energy budget which is causing that warming. Perhaps the AAS should have a word in your ear.

Stu@,

Wrong answer. Of course one that I expected from a layman lacking any kind of qualifications in the field. Truth is, that humans have simplified vast swathes of the biosphere, reducing the capacity of natural systems to sustain themselves and mankind. Aside from short-term benefits primarily for the privileged few, the only species that are thriving in the Anthropocene are weedy species, extreme habitat generalists and invasive species. The world is great thus for cattle, many r-selected early successional annual plants, brown rats, house mice, starlings, house flies and species filling vast niche spaces or which thrive in filthy human environments. The vast majority of the rest are doing a heck of a lot worse.

There you go Stu2. And coming from someone with relevant training and expertise (me). Hopefully you will learn something. But given that most contrarians exhibit pathological symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect, my guess is that you think you are well equipped to evaluate areas in which you have no formal education. You thus join Olaus, GSW et al. in that club.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

Stu2

As far as the definition of ‘conspiracist ideation’ goes, and BBD’s questions and aggressive assertions in regard to his definition, I would suggest, again with respect, that it is very likely one of those occasions when BBD is in the aforementioned ‘sometimes not’ category.

Yup. I misread Lewandowsky. Conspiracist ideation doesn't necessarily imply that the conspiracy is imaginary.

Rather than the definitional squirrel, I should have concentrated on the real point: there is evidence that the denial industry is covertly funded and there is no evidence that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW.

That's just the ubiquitous contrarian tinfoil. From GISTEMP to "Climategate" (the clue is in the name!), pseudosceptics engage in inventing imaginary conspiracies.

I don't. I simply pointed out a real one.

And some people didn't like that at all.

Surprise, surprise.

Jeff Harvey @ #26.
This was your question:
"what do you think the effects of human alterations across the biosphere are for us?"
It was a very general question and the very general answer remains unchanged:
" Some of the alterations are negative and some of them are positive for us AND for the biosphere and/or the environment."

I absolutely agree that some of the human alterations have created negative impacts for us and for the biosphere but, despite your assertions, it is far from an all encompassing negative. Of course urban environments have almost completely trashed what you term "swathes of the biosphere' but I would suggest, with respect, that your sense of scale and your almost exclusively negative (and almost misanthropic) focus about human behaviour is somewhat lacking perspective because it is based on your political beliefs.
The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment.
And BTW, I have no membership in a 'denier club' and I would question your baseless assertions about 'formal education'. Once again, from reading your comment, I suspect your perspective on this is very narrow and coloured by your political views rather than a science education.
BBD @ # 27.
Yes it does appear that you did misread.
I suspect that you may have also misread the way the word 'climategate' has been used.
As per the "watergate' analogy, it's more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency and not so much about - 'that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW. "

2Stu

BBD @ # 27.
Yes it does appear that you did misread.
I suspect that you may have also misread the way the word ‘climategate’ has been used.
As per the “watergate’ analogy, it’s more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency and not so much about – ‘that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW. “

From the blurb:

When over a thousand emails were leaked from a prestigious climate research centre in England, it rocked the world of climate science and changed the fight over global warming forever.

Leaked?

Rocked?

Forever?

Confected?

Conspiracy theory?

ClimateGATE?

You can see that I will admit errors. You never have.

it’s more about covering up for incompetent, contradictory behaviour and a lack of transparency

Wtf has Wegman got to do with climate science or what it tells us? Other than he fronted for an armada of cun*s (the same cringing armada that were shocked to find nobody liked or trusted them) at Barton's request to misrepresent and deny.

Ah, so ClimateGate isn't used to suggest "that the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW."

I guess I must have imagined the entire avalanche of usages suggesting pretty much that, eh?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson @# 32
Yes it is ALSO used to suggest that SOME but not all in the earth sciences have been inclined to exaggerate or maybe overly enthusiastic to protect their patch.
But the analogy with Watergate is more about covering up.

Stu 2, the analogy does not control the use to which the term has been put.

From what I've seen the term has been PRIMARILY and PREDOMINANTLY used to suggest that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to exaggerate and fake their results. I don't see many users of the term in effect saying "it's not the [non-]fraud or the alleged exaggeration, it's merely the cover-up that concerns me".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

Has Stu2 managed to explain exactly how Keyes ability to read but inability to post is in any way, shape or form paradoxical?

You'd think that after days of people trying to explain to him that he had failed to understand the nature of Catch-22, he would have twigged to what it really means.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

James Halliday is a climate dunce:
Read what he says here, and *think* about what he is thinking to say this: it is very revealing about what the Libs are up to on climate change and PR:
"It does not matter that he says ‘Yes, global warming is real and mostly man-made’ because he adds ‘our policies have failed, predictably and spectacularly’."

http://www.winecompanion.com.au/news/news-articles/2013/may/global-warm…

By craig thomas (not verified) on 20 Apr 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson @# 34, perhaps you may need to get out and about more often. You may surprised how concerned people are about the lack of transparency in bureaucracies, in political organisations, in other government bodies, in NGO's and in corporations.
Craig Thomas @# 35. I think most here have moved on from the 'catch 22' comment.
I supplied a definition and explained the relevance to GSW's original comment. Unless, of course, you have a different definition you want to offer?

Stu2,

Wrong answer again. Your perspective is utterly myopic and largely baseless. You write,

"The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment"

This may be true for indigenous peoples, but for industrial societies it is utterly false. You write as if local environments need to be managed for their own good; this is utter trash. Industrial society has done a piss-poor job of managing nature. Derrick Jensen in his writings has detailed this very well. The two are incompatible, and there is abundant evidence to show this. Every natural indicator of ecosystem health across the biosphere is in decline. There are no exceptions. Between 10 and 40% of well known species - meaning vascular plants and vertebrates - are declining or endangered. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) showed, human activities have seriously degraded more than 60% of critical ecosystem services. Humans co-opt more than 40% of net primary production and over 50% of net freshwater flows, leaving less and less for nature. In essence, humans and the natural world are on a collision course and have been for the past half century, with most systems showing severe fraying. Marine ecosystems are in serious trouble from a suite of human assaults.

And against this background you write utter piffle about examples where humans do enhance the local environment. Sure there are some, but unfortunately, these examples are few and far between and are vastly overwhelmed by evidence of a global assault on nature by our species.

Stu2, you are well out of your depth on this issue. Your post did not provide any grist for the mill; its just nonsense that could be parroted from feel-good books by Bjorn Lomborg or Julian Simon. If you want me to give you more numbers to crunch, I will. But again, I can see from your last post that your are totally and utterly clueless.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

PS Stu2:

My education in relevant fields dwarfs yours, and as a senior scientist I base my opinions on the empirical evidence. Your last post contained nothing but wishful thinking. Don't waste my time with your time-wasting pedantics until you can prove that you have some idea of what you are talking about.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

Stu2, you explained nothing.
All you did was demonstrate your non-understanding of what a Catch-22 actually is.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

Jeff Harvey.
I have no doubt that in your relevant field you are well educated.
That was not under question.
Craig Thomas.
Would you care to provide an alternative definition for 'catch 22'? I provided an easily accessible definition which did fit with GSW's original comment

Oh, for God's sake x n.

You may surprised how concerned people are about the lack of transparency in bureaucracies, in political organisations, in other government bodies, in NGO’s and in corporations.

So much so that they're willing to sign on to an anti-science bandwagon and cheer on illegal disclosure of private communications in order to express their concerns?

Pull the other one!

The causation does not tend to flow in that direction for most people. It's almost always the other way around, indeed one might say it is transparently so.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

2Stupid displays why he earns that title once again by positing from ignorance:

The natural ecology and humans can and do coexist . There is plenty of evidence that human impacts on the environment have also enhanced the environment, particularly when humans gradually learn to better understand and then actively and responsibly manage the local environment

It is way past time that you educated yourself about the realities of the human impact on ecosystems, impact that goes way back.

Just taking the oceans here are some helpers here especially the first two listed:

Essential reading from Callum Roberts

and Jeff Harvey's introduction of Derrick Jensen is well received, so again a book list:

Books by /e/B001JOY0DY">Books by Derek Jensen. Thanks Jeff I must look up some of those myself, when the dust from the last delivery of books settles. Her indoors is becoming unsettled by the extent of my library, mostly non-fiction, which covers eclectic interests. Thus I could add the following to the enlightenment of 2Stupid:

William Ruddiman, especially 'Plows, Plagues and Petroleum' and his recent 'Earth Transformed'.

Books on early civilizations will be useful background to that latter title, a compact and comprehensive introduction can be found in:

'The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations' by John Haywood

And you have been following threads here long enough to have heard of Jared Diamond so this is a reminder.

Do not forget that all good books come with Bibliographies and often source notes - these should not be ignored. Following such is second nature to anybody who has progressed beyond school education, how about you 2Stu?

So, please 2Stu, no more blarney from you - go educate yourself.

Craig, does James Halliday have some link to the Liberal Party?

I only skimmed his linked article, but one needs to note that the italicised text (including some that you quoted) is by Lomborg. Halliday also appears to be a fan of those who spruik unrealistically low climate sensitivities (and is so grossly misinformed that he thinks that 1.2C per doubling is "generally accepted").

He also likes the it's-not-caused-by-CO2 proponents such as Abdussamatov whose claims that it's all largely due to increasing solar output have been comprehensively rebutted, IIRC).

I'm not familiar with Dr Gladstones whom Halliday claims to be a "disciple" of, but based on what Halliday say Gladstones is spruiking much the same stuff. And Halliday also cites Graham Lloyd a lot, without any apparent awareness of his record of making shit up.

SO it's clear that in many aspects Halliday doesn't know what he's talking about. One wonders whether he will post a retraction if the "little ice age" doesn't start by 2014 as his sources predict, given that article was written almost a year ago now.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

Callum Roberts' The Unnatural History of the Sea brilliantly expounds, among other issues, the 'generational horizon' problem; we lament the collapse of fish stocks across the globe from earlier in the 20th Century, but, of course, the early C20 fisheries were already massively impoverished - it's just that so few people remembered, or ever knew.

(You'll also discover that whatever his other merits may have been, Darwin's bulldog - Huxley - was a dickhead, and wrong, wrong, wrong, sounding exactly like his contemporary cornucopian descendents in the process.)

Anyone who is not a libertarian autist will doubtlessly benefit from reading such a book.

Craig and Lotharsson WRT Halliday and Gladstones within this:

At this point, he finds himself in agreement with Dr John Gladstones, who has long argued that the IPCC (or those who prepare the executive summaries of the IPCC work) have ignored changes in solar activity/irradiance that have made a major impact on warming and cooling over the past 1000 years.

It is clear that neither of them have read enough of the IPCC reports to realise that statement is total shite. The current solar impact being towards cooling rather than the reverse which would also be clear if either of them had studied the primary literature which underpins the IPCC reports.

Once again this is the unschooled, or lazy, avoidance of examining references within texts that I alluded to above when aiming at 2Stupid.

It is clear that neither of them have read enough of the IPCC reports to realise that statement is total shite.

Yep, I saw that. Note the disingenuous phrasing that falsely positions the factor as being absent from the IPCC reports and then tries to provisionally qualify it as being absent only from "executive summaries" (where, even if absent, its inclusion would make essentially no difference to the policy implications). This comes across as an engineered attempt to mislead.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

I note that Bernard J is also aware of a new post over at Eli's:

Fate of the World - PowerFlip 2036

which touches on how the shit could be on our way if the world keeps listening to these 'honest brokers' and their runners in the press assistants.

Then there are the cretins that pay attention to the messages of massage, if only because of they massage their egos to engage in argumentative nonsense as we see here and at Lew's recursive.

Notice how Stu2 won't even acknowledge the point I made at #27?

So I will have to repeat it, since we are clearly witnessing denial and selective mentation.

There is plentiful evidence that the denial industry exists and that it is covertly funded and there is no evidence that in the Earth system sciences are engaged in a massive, crypto-political conspiracy to exaggerate the risks of AGW.

That’s just the ubiquitous contrarian tinfoil. From GISTEMP to “Climategate” (the clue is in the name!), pseudosceptics engage in inventing imaginary conspiracies.

I don’t. I simply pointed out a real one.

* * *

Notice that 2Pid is *still* making baseless claims about "cover-ups" (Nerp! Nerp! ***Conspiracy theory****!!!!) while simply blanking the real problem.

Intellectual dishonesty.

I notice Stu2 attempting to obfuscate the problem about Climategate-the-clue-is-in-the-name. Let's sort this out too.

"Climategate" is contrarian framing. It automatically creates two associations from Watergate with climate science: conspiracy and scandal.

Yet their was neither. Just understandable anger at pseudosceptic bullying and an ill-judged attempt to thwart vexatious FOIA requests. But the pseudosceptics spun this into a narrative which includes the manipulation of climate data to mislead the public and to further political goals.

Now *that* would be a grand conspiracy.

But this is a confected scandal, manufactured to damage public trust in "climate science", which has been the aim of the climate denial industry from the outset.

When the science says something you don't like, attack the science. But, erk! Can't do that at a fundamental level so there is no scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. A tiny scatter of contrarian papers pushing outlier results obtained through questionable methodology isn't enough.

So we get "Climategate" and the attacks on individual scientists: Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Santer, Hansen etc. Nothing of any consequence ever gets published in the literature; instead we get endless accusations of fraud and deception and cover-ups which boil down to a conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it.

Science is combative. Scientific conclusions are provisional. If there were problems with the science they would be published and they would be recognised. And there's nothing.

And that's it. That is the contrarian "case". A bunch of insinuations based on nothing.

If CRU and GISS were playing jiggery-pokery with HadCRUT and GISTEMP then BEST would have ripped the curtain aside. BEST was a scientific check. Redundant, of course, but there it is, for all of us to see, confirming that the warming is real.

Nobody has mounted a serious challenge to the atmospheric physics, so the theoretical basis for the GHE effect is solid. Numerical models incorporating this radiative physics have emergent sensitivities clustering around ~3C for 2xCO2.

Paleoclimate behaviour supports the modelled estimates of ECS with a likely central value of about 3C for 2xCO2.

The most extensive multi-institutional collaboration on a millennial-scale temperature reconstruction substantially confirmed Mann's MBH99 results (PAGES-2K). There has been no sly attempt to "get rid of the MWP" by the IPCC. That's just another baseless conspiracy theory. The only thing that paleoclimatologists have done is striven to understand the nature of the MCA and the LIA better. And the only thing that the IPCC has done is to present reviews of this ever-improving scientific understanding.
And so on, and on.

Pseudosceptic discourse is wearying, counter-productive and intellectually dishonest. Just because you can't believe that we can alter the climate system by mistake doesn't mean that you are logically correct. Just because you don't like the policy implications doesn't mean that you are logically correct in denying the science with a blend of argument from personal incredulity, from ignorance, and from misrepresentation.

Conspiracist ideation about imaginary scientific misconduct and its imaginary political motivations is all you have left.

It's not a defensible position.

That's a neat summation. I'd just add 'and it's always projection'. And I predict squirrels...

But the analogy with Watergate is more about covering up.

What analogy?

It only makes sense if there is something to be covered up.

A somewhat arbitrary landmark, but also a mark of our collective failure:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/april-will-be-first-month-with-co2-l…

Make no mistake - we could have acted decades ago to mitigate carbon emissions but we didn't. It won't be happening any time soon and every year is another increment along the exponential trajectories of species extinction, loss of ecosystem function, and the ability of humans to maintain a global civilisation.

Lionel referred above to Eli's thread:

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fate-of-world-powerflip-2036.html

On it the poster John McCormick refers to Paul Kingsnorth, famous for instigating the Dark Mountain movement. I suspect that there will be more such commentary over the coming years... I've been convinced of the inevitability of serious consequence for about about 5 or 6 years myself, after AR3 failed to bring any discernible result.

There's a word that cropped up from Kunstler's writings - collapsitarian. It seems to mean different things to different people, but at its heart is the understanding of a collapse of the current cultural and ecological status quo. I predict that the new denialism (after AGW denialism) will be that which refuses to accept that a Diamond-style collapse is fast approaching, and to that end I'm happy to cop the collapsitarian label from the dumb-arses who don't understand the laws of thermodynamics or of ecology.

Watch in the future as the Hy-Brasilian Denialati sing-song their way (with the rest of us in tow) to the sinking of our global society and of much that sustained it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

OK, it was "TAR" rather than "AR3", but it was the one to which I was referring - after AR4 came out it was apparent that TAR/AR3 had been largely politically ineffectual, and that AR4 would be too.

And sadly my pessimism about AR5 seems to be coming to fruition, if the current Australian and international responses are anything to go by.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Apr 2014 #permalink

Stu2, it's now been almost a week, and you are *still* having to have this explained to you:
- A Catch-22 is a paradox
- GSW's scenario was not a paradox.

ergo, GSW had no idea what a Catch-22 is, and nor do you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Apr 2014 #permalink

Yes Bernard I was about to mention Kingsnorth specifically in a follow up but I suddenly had trouble with my new Linux install by the time I had sorted it I was being harangued with, 'are you coming to bed?'

Lemings have more sense than collective humanity.

I see that elsewhere, someone has been reduced to a seething mass of false claims about trivia. Nothing like hyperfocus on the irrelevant when you have no scientific argument at all.

I get an 'Untrusted' when attempting your link in #56 Bernard.

Addendum. 'Untrusted' only with Firefox on XP (with Kaspersky FWTW), no problems from Firefox on Linux (which was doing something else when I first tried).

Bernard J #55

Yes, that's pretty much my view these days.

Cop this for a non sequitur.

Bill Koutalianos, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party, thinks that because the ABC did not have any climate scientists on yesterday's episode of Q and A, there is not a consensus on the science of climate change.

https://twitter.com/NoDirectAction/status/458238454434770944

There's something wrong with a sytem that allows such logically disabled people to have positions of influence in our society.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Apr 2014 #permalink

His ignorance Koutalianos digs in with this:

Does the IPCC actually refer to a consensus? There's proof right there, it isn't #science they're conducting.

There is proof of his ignorance or dishonesty right there.

Now I guess Brad Keyes, who has chipped in there, will now complain about quoting stuff from the internets.

When Abbott became Prime Minister I roughly figured collapse odds at 50% by 2050, 90% by 2100. Unfortunately Stupid appears to be hard-wired into too much of the species - and then they constantly gloat that they're 'winning'!

Keyes on Koutalianos, groan more obfuscation. When will Keyes run out of acid [1]?

Injecting sulphuric acid into the burning oil, or onto the burning coal, of warships during WW1 was a method of generating smoke screens.

The most obvious of these is appealing to the right to be heard, to see both sides of the coin. Brandis hopes that our natural repulsion at excluding a particular view from the public arena will be aroused in support of climate science denial. This, however, ignores a vital characteristic of public debate: when ideas suffer body blows of sustained scientific refutation any attempt to maintain their status by appeal to an equal right of hearing is also an attempt to exempt them from evidential requirements and argumentative rigour.

George Brandis ought to accept that the less credible a point of view, the less prominence it gets.

The rules of rational engagement demand evidence and argument, not repetitive appeals for a fair hearing. If the evidence in support of a view is not forthcoming, or if the arguments in its favour are weak, its public profile should diminish....

Brandis has confused the right to speak an idea with the non-existent right that the idea be given credibility.

Absolutely.

Bill Koutalianos, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party, thinks that because the ABC did not have any climate scientists on yesterday’s episode of Q and A, there is not a consensus on the science of climate change.

I totally agree. Furthermore, no one from the Islamic University of Medina was invited to explain how all we need to do is find the black pool the sun sets in and cool that. It's ridiculous that no outreach was done, and therefore, it is not science.

YOU ARE DUNCES AND SHILLS. The only reason anyone pays any attention at all is because there is a vested, well funded interest in pretending you have a point, and a lot of people sincerely believe that if they see it on TV, it must be true -- although it seems that with the average Fox viewer being 68 years old, that hopefully is a problem that will solve itself over the next decade or two.

Which brings us nicely to 2036, at which point the "nobody could have known" and "too late to do anything now" whining can fully engage.

Also, does this remind anyone of anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

Stu - "although it seems that with the average Fox viewer being 68 years old, that hopefully is a problem that will solve itself over the next decade or two."

Or as Max Planckis reputed to have said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die".

FrankD.

The trouble is that the average life expectancy of the Denialati is probably sufficient to see extremely serious damage inflicted on the planet. :-(

Even more sadly, both democracy and market mechanisms have also failed to manifest the change that was required. I suspect that the only way out now is a preempting, profound stochastic event that significantly disrupts Western/Asian society, or a political confection that does the same thing.

The only thing that is certain is that the middle to tail-end of the century is going to be Very Messy Indeed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Apr 2014 #permalink

The only thing that is certain is that the middle to tail-end of the century is going to be Very Messy Indeed.

Tolkienesque even. If you think that the scenario in 'The Lord of the Rings' is bad then give 'The Silmarillion' a spin.

The Kraken could wake before that.

"both democracy and market mechanisms have also failed to manifest the change that was required. I suspect that the only way out now is a preempting, profound stochastic event that significantly disrupts Western/Asian society, or a political confection that does the same thing."

We're not pessimists. We're realists. I agree.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 25 Apr 2014 #permalink

Certainly Bernard, since many denialati are younger than me, I expect to be adding my sequestered bionutrients back into the environment before "the science is settled" for real. And I plan to live long enough that, when these two facts are added together the conclusion must be that "Very Messy" probably makes you an optimist.

In quoting Planck, I don't mean to come off as glib - there was no "she'll be right" intended. My point was only to observe that for we who continue to fight ignorance with fact (as we should), the battle will not end before the current participants have shuffled off, to be replaced by a generation who ask "what was that bullshit even about?"

Even then...I am more inclined to history than science, and I recently read a passage that made me double-facepalm. In 1914, as the British Expeditionary Force was being assembled to fight in France and Belgium, doctors recommeneded soldiers be vaccinated against typhoid, which along with some fellow travellers like dysentry had killed more soldiers in previous wars than the enemy ever did. Despite proven effectiveness and few side effects, the vaccination program was opposed by the Anti-Vivisectionist League, and compulsory vaccination was not enforced for some time, during which time the British Army saw thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. Similar opposition in France delayed compulsory vaccination for over a year and contributed to over a hundred thousand cases and tens of thousands of deaths. Once implemented, such programs caused death rates from typhoid to plunge, ensuring many more soldiers would be fit to get blown to smithereens by the enemy, in the proper way (/sarc).

Regardless of whether the generals did a better job than the AVL on the whole "pointless deaths" thing, what struck me was that exactly 100 years later, we are still fighting that same bunch of moronic anti-vaxxers on the same moronic issue. It was at that point that I realised that, vis-à-vis climate, we're probably toast.

And the fun part is explaining this to my child.

My intemperate language and errors have been plastered about at Eli's, but it makes no fucking difference to the big picture at all.

Distraction is as distraction does.
And all the keyster's horses
and all the keyster's men
Couldn't come up with a fucking salient point between the lot of 'em.

The amount of time and energy and malice expended by BK on an irrelevance is astonishing. Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn't actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

The point that matters is that there is plentiful evidence that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is no evidence that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is "corrupting" climate science. That's denialist tinfoil.

And that was true before, during and after Brad's victory screeching at Eli's.

Some things have changed, however. Brad has now been banned from another blog, and his sock puppet at STW has been blocked. Brad has engendered considerable further ill-feeling at Eli's. Brad is loosing the war simply by being a manipulative sociopath in public view. It's as if he thinks nobody else is smart enough to recognise what he is. But then, that goes with the territory.

Willard mentioned Pyrrhic victories.

Eh. "losing"

The sheer diabolic nature of BKs dialogue is revealed by your exposure that Brad Keys and Darrell Harb are one and the same.

For the subject to make out that in the case in question, i.e. blog commenting monikers, IDs, whatever else BK would like to drag out of a thesaurus as a description, that a 'nom de guerre' and a 'sock puppet' are different is further evidence that the Sorting Hat would recognise the subject as a Slytherin.

It wasn't just me, Lionel. Sou spotted it, as did at least one other commenter. But I made the loudest fuss, and I don't think BK was very pleased. Which might in part explain the sustained kicking he gave me over the conspiracist ideation gaffe at Eli's. It's also possible that he hasn't forgiven me for exposing the fact that he didn't understand the difference between TCR and ECS on the Brangelina thread here. That did rather blow a hole in his Master Of Science™ posturing. I notice that he tends to steer clear of substantive arguments over the science and rely, instead, on 'Climategate' (The Clue is in the Name™) and sophistry.

But then what's a chap to do? There being no scientific counter-argument to the strong scientific consensus on AGW and all...

"Climate science is rubbish because they aren't proper scientists and hide their data" isn't a conspiracy theory, but neither is it demonstrable or defensible. It's just another smear by insinuation. It's also a good example of the way contrarians use "The Team" as a proxy for climate science as a whole. An argument from false equivalence.

Personalise and demonise. Mann, Briffa, Jones, Trenberth, Santer, Hansen etc. More recently, Marcott. Even I was surprised at all the crap - dozens of posts in total by WUWT and McI - flung at M13. And none of it substantive. But it does the job for the believers, who now are absolutely convinced that M13 was "debunked" by their cheerleaders. Explain that it wasn't and you get dragged back through a re-hash of all the wrong arguments in the original WUWT and McI posts. Rinse and repeat, forever and ever, amen.

The taunt that rational, pro-science commenters are "believers" in the "AGW cult" is one of the greatest projections of them all.

Chin up BBD.

The Keysters of this whole farrago (which wouldn't even be happening in a sane world) are merely over-educated dilettante nonentities too far up their own arses to realise their own stupidity. Very much like Jonarse in that regard.

I recall someone telling me a few years ago that they'd heard that the best way to deal with AGW was not to be over 40.

Well, fortunately for me I'm well past that particular filtration point, but I do have children and so far one grandchild which rather makes the point moot if I want them to at least enjoy the same kind of bountiful Earth that I've known. Which of course I do and more and better if at all possible.

I truly believe (because I must if I want to get out of bed day after day- but y'know, hey ho) that there are far more sane people (and, yes- I mean you Deltoids and elsewhere) than internet savvy loony's who are unable to face the future it's within our grasp to change.

Of course there are those who won't or can't recognise the predicament we're in, but they can only be discarded until such time as they recognise they've been fed lies or have some pathological hatred of human existence itself, driven by whatever forces.

Like with sea-sickness, the here-and-now may feel very unpleasant, but by keeping your sight fixed on the horizon, the unpleasantness (as realised by Watts/McinTyre and their imitators and droogs and fellow travellers and enablers) will pass.

I must say I have rather enjoyed willard slicing and dicing BK's output at Eli's. Willard appears to have dissected the rotten core of BK's schtick in record time.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Apr 2014 #permalink

Indeed, you cross words with Willard at your peril, nevermind he disliked my approach to the Keyster problem..

And since Bradley had cast willard in the role of the 'worthy opponent to be addressed politely and used as a stick to beat the others with' - rather as he did for a time with Jeff here - this made the excoriation just that piquant bit more exquisite...

Hey Brad!

Why didn't you quote mine this bit for reposting over at Eli's?

Bunnies want to know:

It’s also possible that he hasn’t forgiven me for exposing the fact that he didn’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS on the Brangelina thread here. That did rather blow a hole in his Master Of Science™ posturing. I notice that he tends to steer clear of substantive arguments over the science and rely, instead, on ‘Climategate’ (The Clue is in the Name™) and sophistry.

You are a dishonest little shit, Brad!

On a more general note, it's difficult to tell if Brad's wholesale misinterpretation of Willard's commentary in his latest irruption at Eli's is the result of careless reading or calculated dishonesty.

All we can be sure of is that Willard did not say what Brad says he said. As Willard will doubtless soon be pointing out to the egregious Mr Keyes.

Hey BBD!

"Why didn’t you quote mine this bit for reposting over at Eli’s"

"All we can be sure of is that Willard did not say what Brad says he said. As Willard will doubtless soon be pointing out to the egregious Mr Keyes."

Saw this and was wondering why you were cowering over here [where its safe] when your "conspiracy ideation" discussion was still raging over at Eli's?

Is it a cahonies issue?
;)

Nope.

Try again ;-)

And GSW, you are entitled to your little bit of schadenfreude, but please try to remember what this is really about.

Let me remind you.

Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

The point that matters is that there is plentiful evidence that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is no evidence that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

Got that or shall I repeat it again more slowly for you?

Read the words. We will not be having an irrelevant argument about an irrelevant definition again.

@ BBD #89
The question was rhetorical BBD, but thanks for answering anyway.
;)

If you think I'm afraid of BK, you will have to explain why I spent ~4000 comments dealing with his bullshit right here, on this blog.

Can you do that in a way which is consistent with a lack of cojones on my part? No, you can't.

So you would have to think of another explanation, but I see that this is beyond you. Never mind.

Enough irrelevant bullshit.

Do you understand and accept the points raised at #90?

Yes or no.

@BBD

"Do you understand and accept the points raised at #90?"

This is quite common BBD, the want/need for others to participate in the conspiracy ideation. Sufferer's try to seek confirmation that their "facts" are commonly agreed and that as a result, it can be argued they are not mentally ill/basket cases like you.

I'm not going to help you there BBD, your ideations, of amongst other things, opinion as nefarious intent, are all yours. You're just going to have to come to terms with the fact you're a nut job and live with it.
;)

@BBD

"Can you do that in a way which is consistent with a lack of cojones on my part?"

The evidence for a lack of cojones on your part is the fact you're sat moaning about your lot here, where Brad can't get you, and the action is taking place somewhere else.

Brad's made you look like a complete idiot BBD, you can't let him get away with that when he's still "dis"ing you over at Eli's, or can you?

I’m not going to help you there BBD, your ideations, of amongst other things, opinion as nefarious intent, are all yours.

Your bollocks exposed in two words:

Donors Trust.

Let's try again.

Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is *no evidence* that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

These are matters of fact. Do you understand and accept these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

And this time, answer the fucking question please.

* * *

Still too stupid to work out what's going on re: Brad I see.

Keep trying.

Oh, and GSW - and this is fair warning - before you post anything else, read this.

Be careful, GSW.

Let's get you started, shall we?

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding
and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Robert J. Brulle

Abstract This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United
States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is
evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Which brings us to Donors Trust:

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Evidence. Matters of fact.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

Since GSW has gone quiet, I will think out loud.

GSW behaves as if he is indeed denying these matters of fact but will not admit that this is what he is doing.

This renders his commentary intellectually incoherent.

Unless GSW will confirm by answering yes/no to the question "do you deny these matters of fact", he has placed himself outside the bounds of rational discourse.

OMG!
Fuck fuck fuck!!!
That's hilarious BBD!

Expecting Griselda to know what the fuck it's talking about? About anything? Ever?
Repeater bots don't do that shit, man.

It requires a brain set to cogitate, dude, not one set to soak up denier myth drool like lakes of piss on a restroom floor with its spongified mouthpiece and merely repeat it, which is all that Jonarse's stunted pet clown mafia can do.
It's all they ever have done, after all.
What's so different about them now?.

What is it with fluffers and cojones? ;-)

I see that Brad is still incapable of unselective quotation. And since he constantly advertises his reading here by his quoting there, bunnies have looked for themselves and they can see the depths of Brad's dishonesty too.

Brad is being as stupid as GSW.

And by endorsing GSW's nutty denial of matters of fact, Brad has revealed that he too is a nutter who denies matters of fact.

Not too clever.

Evidence denial by Brad continues, and now widens to include evidence of his evidence denial.

Brad is fucked.

Why don't you select this quote, Brad? Why are you so selective in what you quote Brad? What could the criteria for your selectiveness possibly be? Oh, what a mystery it is.

* * *

Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is *no evidence* that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

BBD (previous page):And GSW, you are entitled to your little bit of schadenfreude...

I suppose he is. But then we're all entitled to a little of that.
Starts with comment 39 - just ignore the pointless disruption of FrankSwifthack (no relation to me).

Despite hints, then warnings, then having it explained in words of one syllable, GSW never did get that he was the butt of the joke.

Unfortunately for GSW, the internet never forgets. And my freude over that schaden never seems to run dry. :-)

FrankD

Ha! Thanks for the light entertainment. I'm sorry I missed that.

Why does GSW come back?

And returning to the present, why does Brad endorse his insane comments by selecting them for quotation elsewhere?

It's a mystery.

Update

Brad is still trying to pretend that he isn't a dishonest little shit who quote mines selectively. Poor Brad is fucked.

The more so as he has just endorsed (by selecting it) a quote from GSW who is denying matters of fact. So we now have clear evidence that Keyes too, is denying matters of fact. That makes him a crank who can be mocked, openly.

I wonder if he will select this to quote? Or this:

Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?

The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial industry exists and that it is being covertly funded and there is *no evidence* that groupthink or a passive conspiracy of silence or an active conspiracy of scientific misconduct is “corrupting” climate science. That’s denialist tinfoil.

* * *

Brad's selective quotation has got him into rather serious trouble.

Keyster's meme is that all quotation is selective, therefore quote mining is as valid as any other selection for its purpose with no regard required for the intent of the original text.
Have I got that right?

It's the same kind of "reasoning" that led Brad to assert that a sock puppet wasn't a sock puppet in his special case, but merely a nom de guerre.

Just more specious fucking nonsense from a sociopath who, like all sociopaths, genuinely believes that rules are for the little people.

It's high time Eli pulled the plug on Brad.

The Brad trainwreck is well illustrated on the Free speech thread at
And Then There's Physics
.

Does BK like making himself such an obnoxious nuisance where one, by one, blog by blog, people cease being interested in what Brad must think is 'The Greatest Show on Earth'? Maybe he is angling for a show slot on some Murdoch like media outlet. At least Delingpole is so absurd he is sometimes amusing, Brad not so much.

You are making a prat out of yourself, Brad.

RTFL. Previous page.

Look at the SI for Brulle (2013) for the "increasing evidence".

Just because you are denying matters of fact (and generally don't have a fucking clue) doesn't mean you are correct.

Lionel

Brad is a sociopath. He cannot stop being what he is, which is why he gets banned so often and why everybody despises him.

Poor Brad.

Please, gents.

I see GSW is now opening his mouth elsewhere but he has not answered a question here.

What about your apparent denial of matters of fact?

When are you going to give us a simple, yes or no to whether you deny the matters of fact about the covert funding of the denial industry evidenced by the existence of Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund and set out in eg. Brulle (2013)?

I could put these thoughts over at Eli's but I consider that thread is becoming a drag on Eli.

Keyes' faffing about fully authentic poster ID's is rather odd., considerng wjhat we now know as to the veracity of his own handles. He is clearly so self obsessed that he has not bothered to go behind the monikers of the posters he has castigated for deception in this way. If he had he would have discovered that he has no grounds for such slights.

On the other hand, if one has taken the time to look behind the not necessarily and probably not true identity that claims to be, or not as the case may be, Brad Keyes and thus visiting his 'Blogger Profile' then it becomes clear what axe he is grinding.

Under 'Blogs I follow' for Brad Keyes we find The Friends of Carbon Dioxide

He follows but does he believe what he reads there?
Whatever, that in itself has been revealing.

Chek: "I consider that thread is becoming a drag on Eli."

What, and its not a drag here? Seriously guys, anyone who gives a flying fuck about Brad Keyes or your mutual jelly wrestling championship can read it over there. Brad doesn't post here, so why the fuck would you want to post about Brad here?

Cluttering two blogs with his horseshit would rather seem to be feeding his trolling special strengthening medicine. So feel free to STFU about an uninteresting self-important cock, and post something interesting...

FrankD,

Not Chek.
I'll own up to that one.
Whatever I figured that pointing out the blogs the subject follows was worth a wider audience.

FrankD

Agreed. It's time to shut the door.

FrankD

This is interesting in and of itself. A small recompense for the recent unpleasantness:

A 5.3Ma record of sea level and temperature

A taster:

The researchers found, for the first time, that the long-term trends in cooling and continental ice-volume cycles over the past 5.3 million years were not the same. In fact, for temperature the major step toward the ice ages that have characterised the past two to three million years was a cooling event at 2.7 million years ago, but for ice-volume the crucial step was the development of the first intense ice age at around 2.15 million years ago. Before these results, these were thought to have occurred together at about 2.5 million years ago.

I'm not sure what extraneous geological knowledge is necessary for that study to have more impact (it being well outside human existence) and/or relevance to our present, though obviously the finer discrimination between events is noteworthy and useful for its own sake..

But I still find it mind-blowing looking at those layers upon layers of rock, knowing each represents eons of Lovecraftian-scale time.

Craig, that has to be one of the shortest abstracts ever!

BBD, Rohling et al only goes to reinforce the fact that temperatures are warmer than they've ever been in human evolution, and that for > ~90-95% of that time the global temperature was much lower than now.

Quite simply, we're not adapted to the climate that we're creating.

Houston, we have another problem...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Apr 2014 #permalink

Why is GSW posting shite elsewhere when he has a question to answer here?

Are you denying matters of fact GSW? See previous page.

You are acting as though you are, so will you please confirm this by answering YES or NO.

Thanks.

BJ (reminds me of that clever MASH, hope you don't mind the comparison):

...that numpty could be entertained with a piece of paper that has 'PTO' printed on both sides.

Brilliant, but you owe me a new keyboard.

I recall an old joke about a guy who died of thirst because the water bottle had "See bottom for instructions" printed on the cap, and on the bottom it said "Open other end".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Apr 2014 #permalink

Did anyone else in the Uk notice the "Save The Children" adverts on the TV over Easter? I think they were part of this campaign:

"UK child poverty"
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/child-poverty/uk-…

The statement:

"Families living in severe poverty often have to choose between heating and eating as they struggle to live on less than £15,000 a year for a household of a couple and two children."

featured in both the TV adverts and online link. It's the choosing between "heating and eating" that caught my eye.

Age Uk has similar concerns about fuel poverty in the UK:
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/fuel-poverty-statistics--a…

"Worryingly, these latest figures show that the number of households in fuel poverty has remained stubbornly high. It is unacceptable that 4.5 million homes in the UK and 3.2 million in England are still struggling to pay for their electricity and gas – many of them older people who are particularly vulnerable to the cold."

Other than retardedly suggesting renewable technologies are going to solve the problem because they're cheaper, do any of you see moral issues with Carbon tax/Emissions trading "tokenism"? -Unlikely to achieve very much, while increasing the burden on those already struggling.

To be fair to Save the Children, they didn't specifically highlight environmental taxes, just rising prices.

This is an appeal in the UK obviously, quite a wealthy western nation, but I'm sure there are similar (worse?) issues/concerns in less prosperous countries.

GSW

You are dodging the question still. What about your apparent denial of matters of fact?

When are you going to give us a simple, yes or no to whether you deny the matters of fact about the covert funding of the denial industry evidenced by the existence of Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund and set out in eg. Brulle (2013)?

In the light of your sustained intellectual dishonesty:

Did anyone else in the Uk notice the “Save The Children” adverts on the TV over Easter? I think they were part of this campaign:

“UK child poverty”
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/child-poverty/uk-…

The statement:

“Families living in severe poverty often have to choose between heating and eating as they struggle to live on less than £15,000 a year for a household of a couple and two children.”

featured in both the TV adverts and online link. It’s the choosing between “heating and eating” that caught my eye.

Age Uk has similar concerns about fuel poverty in the UK:
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/fuel-poverty-statistics–age-uks-response/

“Worryingly, these latest figures show that the number of households in fuel poverty has remained stubbornly high. It is unacceptable that 4.5 million homes in the UK and 3.2 million in England are still struggling to pay for their electricity and gas – many of them older people who are particularly vulnerable to the cold.”

Other than retardedly suggesting renewable technologies are going to solve the problem because they’re cheaper, do any of you see moral issues with Carbon tax/Emissions trading “tokenism”? -Unlikely to achieve very much, while increasing the burden on those already struggling.

To be fair to Save the Children, they didn’t specifically highlight environmental taxes, just rising prices.

This is an appeal in the UK obviously, quite a wealthy western nation, but I’m sure there are similar (worse?) issues/concerns in less prosperous countries.

Answer the question you have been asked time and time again.

The reason energy prices in the UK are so high is that the 'big six' energy companies have been ripping the public off. It has nothing to do with renewable energy and much to do with the extortionate price charged for gas.

As usual, the problem is corporate greed and as usual, the shills are trying to misdirect the public over the truth.

Families living in severe poverty often have to choose between heating and eating as they struggle to live on less than £15,000 a year for a household of a couple and two children.” <

Oh, there's a lot more 'choosing' going on than that referred to. Like 'choosing' not to buy new clothes/shoes until absolutely necessary, 'choosing' not to let your kids go on school trips or take part in any other extracurricular activities that cost money, 'choosing' no cultural or social life, and 'choosing' to worry about how the next unexpected bill to arrive will be coped with. Let alone regular expenses like birthdays, Christmas and Easter.

It’s the choosing between “heating and eating” that caught my eye.

Fuck off. Let's try instead 'the next talking point you've been given in a slow month' for size. There, that fits so much better. And it's both in character and more in line with your abilities.

Other than retardedly suggesting renewable technologies are going to solve the problem because they’re cheaper, do any of you see moral issues with Carbon tax/Emissions trading “tokenism”? -Unlikely to achieve very much, while increasing the burden on those already struggling.

Even the Daily Sturmergraph, champion of all things right wing, had to admit:
"Profits at Britain's 'Big Six' energy suppliers are five times higher than they were in 2009 as millions of households suffer record bills for their gas and electricity, regulators revealed today."
Ofgem said the 'Big Six' - British Gas, Npower, Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF - made a combined £1.2 billion in their household supply businesses last year, up 75 per cent on 2011 and five times higher than £221 million in 2009.

Tax and renewable charges account for 16% of electricity prices, while wholesale cost/distribution/transmission/profit account for 78%.

Your crocodile-teared concern for the 'burden' on the poor ignores everything we know about the harm, the expense and the finite nature of fossil fuels. Or how about the profits extracted from 'the poor' at every commercial level, such as card meters charging more per unit, and no discounts unlike those offered savings of GBP50 for direct monthly bank payment.

"Other than retardedly suggesting ...snip...
Oh, there's nothing "retarded" about your talk points, aimed at the stupidest fuckwits available to repeat, repeat, repeat..

@chek

The lady in the Save the Children video seemed quite genuine to me, i.e not a paid actress or one of the "shills" BBD is obsessed with. Her per day challenges are quite real I can assure you.

your;

" ‘choosing’ not to let your kids go on school trips or take part in any other extracurricular activities that cost money,"

shows just how out of touch with "real" life in the UK you really are. The food/heating "choices" are not because she and her family "holiday in Monaco" or as a result of her children's expensive "piano lessons", as I think you are suggesting.

From the Age UK link

"'Behind today’s statistics lie many stories of real human suffering as people face the misery of not being able to afford to keep adequately warm. Cold homes pose a serious risk to people's health, increasing costs to health and care services to treat worsened cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, and contribute to the high numbers of older people we see dying over the cold winter months in the UK."

"'Domestic energy prices have doubled since 2005, and the Government’s fuel poverty strategy has simply failed to keep up. "

"'We now have a new tax on carbon emissions which is ultimately paid for by all energy consumers"

I've no idea about your personal situations chek or BBD, but I don't get the impression that sticking a few extra quid on your weekly energy bill is going to make that much of difference. The elderly on a state pension, a single mum with 4 kids, they have to make "choices" every day and its not "What do you fancy this year, Orlando or Biarritz?"

GSW

You are dodging the question still.

What about your apparent denial of matters of fact?

When are you going to give us a simple, yes or no to whether you deny the matters of fact about the covert funding of the denial industry evidenced by the existence of Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund and set out in eg. Brulle (2013)?

“‘Domestic energy prices have doubled since 2005, and the Government’s fuel poverty strategy has simply failed to keep up. ”

“Profits at Britain’s ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers are five times higher than they were in 2009 as millions of households suffer record bills for their gas and electricity, regulators revealed today.”

What are you trying to say that wasn't already addressed?
That a Tory government (just like Lawson's) shouldn't jettison the poor at the earliest opportunity?
Or that fossil fuels would get forever cheaper and cheaper if it wasn't for those 'burdensome' renewables?
What cloud-cuckoo land are you promoting exactly?

And GSW

If, as I do, you believe that the current system of energy subsidy is effectively a regressive tax that penalises low income households, then you must do as I do, and work against it by lobbying your MP.

But you don't even live in this fucking country, do you, you worthless poseur?

@chek, BBD

The Save the Children campaign and the Age UK links are as posted, nothing's made up, they're there and they are what they are. If you want to "think differently"/deny reality/ or ideate "shills" to make it easy to believe otherwise, that's up to you.

"you don’t even live in this fucking country, do you"

If by that you mean "Neverland" with you and the rest of "lost boys", then no I don't.

GSW, you've already been shown it's not environmental taxes that cause these problems. It's price-fixing and greed. Why the fuck are you pretending otherwise?

Griselda, you're a fucking idiot who either can't read, or can only recognise what your GWPF fed brain can translate.

What Help the Aged actually say is this:

'The solution to fuel poverty has to be in making our homes more energy efficient so we get real benefit from the fuel we use. Yet in the last few months, the only tax-funded fuel poverty programme in England has been wound up, and we are now into unknown territory with the Green Deal.

'We now have a new tax on carbon emissions which is ultimately paid for by all energy consumers: it is high time the Government recycled the revenue that it raises into a vigorous home improvement programme to help households in fuel poverty save energy and keep warm.'

To be fair to both Help the Aged and Save the Children however, this piece of shit is entirely your own:
"Other than retardedly suggesting renewable technologies are going to solve the problem because they’re cheaper, do any of you see moral issues with Carbon tax/Emissions trading “tokenism”? -Unlikely to achieve very much, while increasing the burden on those already struggling".

What would decrease 'the burden' would be a revenue neutral Carbon Tax a la James Hansen which would tax hi-carbon users (the rich) and pay a dividend to lo-carbon users (the poor) without any income accruing to Government.

GSW

How vile of you to pretend that you give a shit about the struggles of low income households in the UK when all you are doing is distracting from the fact that you HAVE DODGED A QUESTION..

This is perhaps the single most contemptible thing I have yet seen you do.

Do you admit that you are denying matters of fact wrt the existence of a covertly funded denial industry?

YES or NO?

I *will* have an answer GSW. You aren't going to get away with this.

Glossary:

Shills = GWPF

Useful idiots = GSW

GSW and his crocodile tears about fuel poverty amongst the disadvantaged in the UK are sickening.

This has nothing to do with any so called green taxes but a long term, decades long, systematic policy of increasing the wealth gap whilst at the same time increasing the number in poverty.

Since the early 1980s I have been in positions where I have seen failed social, education and health policies in action.

After the RN I gained a Maths and Science degree and then went teaching in primary schools. But in the gap between RN and the degree course whilst applying for jobs during a recession, I put a hobby to use doing portrait photography by door to door canvassing. This took me around many different standards of housing and the abject poverty in some was shocking, especially on a 'sink estate' in Southampton. Parking a fairly smart motor, second hand Cavalier 1500, and then the occasional carrying of a photo' bag (I quickly reverted a nondescript back pack in such areas) ensured that I kept myself well aware of location and the behaviour of others around.

In one area a large number of former shipyard workers from Tynside and Clydeside had uprooted families – severing many social support ties – and travelled south on the promise of work in the dockyards. In other words they had headed the lame advice of a certain Norman Tebbit to 'get on their bikes and find work' only to have the rug pulled out from under them when the promised jobs evaporated.

But of course these were then amongst the 'lazy, shiftless doll grabbers' and thus not worth further consideration.

Teaching too me to South Wales, there was much abject poverty in 'The Valleys' and in the shadow of the Llanwern steel works where the pupils knew only to well what poverty was – undernourished and developmentally backward as a result. The children with 'many uncles' was another feature encountered in other geographical areas.

Whilst carrying out degree study I was expected to research and write assignments for a humanities course. The main lecturer here had first hand experience in the poorer areas of Central and South America and Asia. The impoverishing role, for most of the indigenous wherever they parked their operations, of multinationals was well brought to the surface as was their methods for maintaining increasing profitability at the expense of the indigenous and the environment in which they existed, one could scarcely describe it as living. No health care, no contracts, no education. Note how this which then, in the 1980s, was thought of as a 'third world' problem has been seeping back into our own supposedly affluent societies. That being a sick joke for some of course.

And yes I am familiar with the plight of the workforce in Britain which underpinned the 'Empire', the dreadful working conditions in factories, mines and shipyards, not to mention match factories – look up 'phossy jaw' [1]

From the Age UK you linked to:

'We now have a new tax on carbon emissions which is ultimately paid for by all energy consumers: it is high time the Government recycled the revenue that it raises into a vigorous home improvement programme to help households in fuel poverty save energy and keep warm.'

If there were any justice then the power utilities could be made to subsidise such home improvements but much housing stock will be difficult to improve without major structural changes. Solar panels are not worth installing on building not without a south facing side, until the efficiency improves to make this not so much of an issue. But many properties will require rectification work and electrical system upgrades – expensive and disruptive – to make it work satisfactorily.

And I have only scratched the surface of the simplistic thinking on display by you on this topic. But then that is par for the course for those at the Limbaugh-Hannity-O'Reilly level of ignorant idelogy such as YOU GSW.

[1] See e.g. 'The Shocking History of Phosphorus: A Biography of the Devil's Element' by John Emsley.

@Lionel and others
Save the Children and Age UK are simply stating that increasing energy costs affect low income families, which is undeniably true. Pricing carbon as an act of "tokenism" -feeling good because you've "done something", without actually achieving anything and making life hard for the most vulnerable in our society, is just downright immoral. (See Save the Children video)
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/child-poverty/uk-…

Your "government/energy companies just need to pay for everyone's solar panels, windmills, etc", so energy doesn't cost anything, is just fantasy land stuff! The Genetically Modified "money tree" Organism is a way off yet, as is the "Energy Generating Light Bulb" and the famine busting "Edible Turd".
If these are the policy solutions that are intended to save us, we're screwed. You really are a bunch of disgusting , foul mouthed, urea soaked cretins.

"without actually achieving anything "
[citation needed]

Griselda, I'm thinking of forming a 'think tank' to go up against your GWPF puppetmasters. Only mine will be constructed around the same principles as the Challenger Mk II. Be careful not to fall under its tracks.

@chek

"I’m thinking of forming a ‘think tank’ "

Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...Ha, Ha. Ha, Ha ...
')

@chek

Seriously chek I haven't laughed as much in ages, a real life changer that. thanks,
;)

Still?! Still?! You miserable, stupid, hypocritical, misanthropic lying toad.

The denialists whine about income redistribution. They whine about how things will be awful for the economy. Almost to a one, these are the same libertarian asshats who trumpet a flat tax, removal of social safety nets, minimum wages, workplace safety regulations and unions. The same douches that extoll the free market.

They read an article about how it is hard for people in some countries to pay their energy bills and POOF! All of a sudden they forget that it is their beloved "free" market that did this. Price fixing, price gouging, deregulation, bribing politicians, the lot. They forget that taxes are only a small part of the energy bills. They forget that the astronomical price hikes largely go directly to billionaire shareholders.

All of a sudden these miserable sacks of shit are all of a sudden pretending to champion the cause of the poor.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, and DIAFF, GSW. Seriously.

And on cue, GSW demonstrates that this is all a joke to him anyway. Ha ha ha, poor people. Why don't you take your smileys and remove yourself from civil society, you scum-sucking sociopath.

@su

DIAFF - Did I Anally Force Fruit? Whatever, after 6 six years of physics stu, what you do in your spare time is definitely up to you in my opinion.
;)

And you still don't get the joke was on you and your loopy trump Jonarse.Oh, how we laughed.

Although it was such a long time ago, and you've consistently generated many grins sins then.
Tell us the one about 'caring for the poor' again. That one never goes stale, nor will it ever.

@stu

I know you think it's all a bit of harmless fun stu, but you should consider beforehand where this harmless "mischief" could end up:

http://ispub.com/IJS/28/5/14404

"They may get pushed into the anal canal following assault or mischief or after accidental falls which can lead to serious complications and even death."

The "even death" should give you serious pause for thought.
Anyway, Enjoy! (or whatever)
;)

GSW

If you don't answer the question, it is obvious that you are acting in bad faith.

Do you admit that you are denying matters of fact wrt the existence of a covertly funded denial industry?

YES or NO?

A very apt metaphor for your clique's entire journey outside your native tongue, Griserlda. And following the prescription almost to the letter.
But I'm sure Bjornieboy will be a font of information on minimising risk for you.

@chek

"the joke was on you and your loopy trump Jonarse."

What's this got to do with Jonas? Admittedly Jonas had an understanding of what science is, physics, mechanics, evidence etc, and your understanding was more "belly button fluff/uses of ear wax" centric, but we're not snobs chek, you could have had your say. In any event the rest of us are left to ponder what might have been in the "great debate" had you not been timely saved from him by Tim.
;)

GSW

Yes, but what do you have to say about the evidence that there is a covertly-funded denial industry?

Eg. this:

Brulle (2013):

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If no, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

If yes

demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

:-)

Speak up Griselda.
Jonarse being a monotonic boore has nothing to do with the predicament that you are in, and losing with every moment of evasive delay.

C'mon Griselda.
You know I'm talking to you.
Who're you hoping to impress with your chickenshit evasion and silence?

Do you deny these matters of fact?

A yes or no will suffice.

Maybe Griselda's too busy helping out all those poor people it's been told to feel so bad about?

Or maybe its hand just got trapped in a box somewhere trying to figure out where it all went wrong with their outreach venture.
Just sayin'.

Pricing carbon as an act of “tokenism” -feeling good because you’ve “done something”, without actually achieving anything and making life hard for the most vulnerable in our society, is just downright immoral.

Or would be, if that were actually the case.

But it's not.

And to pretend that it is GSW must deny conventional and very mainstream economics that advocates capturing negative externalities to reduce market distortions, and insists that doing so will have an effect (as we observed in Australia, and as other places around the world have observed).

That's quite apart from the fact that any decent carbon pricing scheme - such as the one we had in Australia, or the one in Canada IIRC - makes sure that the poor are compensated (typically over-compensated) for the financial impacts of the scheme.

It's enough to make one wonder if GSW is a piece of algorithmic performance art designed to demonstrate the shoddiness of the denialists' arguments.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 May 2014 #permalink

I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to sham concerns about the poor from the likes of Goosey (or The Australian, for that matter.)

It's the far-Right we're talking about here; the very next thing these selfish jerks do is complain that any action on AGW is an attempt at a socialist redistribution of wealth. The poor are only interesting insofar as they may occasionally afford an opportunity for a cheap shot, other than that they're not getting their undeserving hands on my wad...

Thanks Bill and Loth, I'd missed that Lomborg piece in the Australian fro a few days ago and as you pointed out, it's very much on topic.

"Renewables pave path to poverty"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/renewables-pave-path…

"A Salvation Army report from last year found 58 per cent of low-income households were unable to pay their electricity bills on time. Lynne Chester of the University of Sydney estimated last year that 20 per cent of households are now energy poor: “Parents are going without food, families are sitting around the kitchen table using one light, putting extra clothes on and sleeping in one room to keep warm, and this is Australia 2013.”"

As we know its UK 2013/2014 as well. And the "revenue neutral taxes" dodge is the refuge of the economically iliterate; "revenue neutral taxes" don't build windmills or pay the salaries of those in the "Green Jobs Boom" we keep hearing so much about.

It is interesting to see the charities getting involved and campaigning with "fuel poverty" as an issue. If well off western countries are struggling, how's the rest of the world going to cope.

Blah blah baheddy blah blah blah blah blah... paste paste pastey paste paste paste...

Re-read my comment above. You don't give a shit about the poor. No-one here believes you do, including you.

"Very much on topic" if your topic is obscuring the truth. Note that the piece I linked to calls out Lomborg for writing misleading bullshit and GSW pretends like he didn't.

"And the “revenue neutral taxes” dodge is the refuge of the economically iliterate;

Er, no. A goodly number of rather economically literate professional economists advocate them. That means that falsely claiming that they are the "last refuge of the economic illiterate" appears to be, ironically, economically illiterate and somewhat of a refuge from an inability to substantiate your position.

Or as I say "it's always projection".

...“revenue neutral taxes” don’t build windmills or pay the salaries of those in the “Green Jobs Boom” we keep hearing so much about".

This strawman is also evidence of economically illiteracy. It doesn't take much economics understanding to see how applying a revenue neutral tax that captures a negative externality can simultaneously enhance demand for technologies that reduce those externalities, thereby creating "green jobs".

Unless, of course, your position depends on not seeing it.

(I guess we can add economics to the list of topics that GSW is a DuKE of.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 May 2014 #permalink

Lest you be under any illusion on our awareness of how hard the FFL are trying to protect their exorbitant profits into the future it appears that protesters against dirty and dangerous fuel extraction and transportation methods are labelled as counter-terrorism. Water boarding for trying to protect your children's future, who'd have thunk it possible a few decades ago. But the corporatisation of governments marches on.

Are you opposed to fracking? Then you might just be a terrorist”>

I have flagged other aspects of this dirty business here: at this “Geoscientists get all ethical about climate change” thread.

There is also this new twist on fossil corporate propaganda Wealthy Corporate CEOs Behind Fake Anti-Fracking Ads. Not unexpected to be sure, but watch out for similar over here – similar methodology is behind the blathering's of a certain Matt Ridley.

GSW, are you so far up your own seventh rock from the sun that you cannot see what is going on or are you a part of this process of undermining what vestiges of democracy we have left.

Groan, link issues, having workspace issues with FireFox in Linux sticking to sides to easy and swithing between panes on small screen exacerbating things.

Are you opposed to fracking? Then you might just be a terrorist”.

I have flagged other aspects of this dirty business here: at this “Geoscientists get all ethical about climate change” thread.

There is also this new twist on fossil corporate propaganda:

Wealthy Corporate CEOs Behind Fake Anti-Fracking Ads. Not unexpected to be sure, but watch out for similar over here – similar methodology is behind the blathering's of a certain Matt Ridley.

Blast this is really irritating. Is Firefox working differently now, there was a big update recently?

Try again:

Are you opposed to fracking? Then you might just be a terrorist at the Guardian, Nafeez Ahmed, Tuesday 21 January 2014 18.13 GMT

Look for 'Wealthy Corporate CEOs Behind Fake Anti-Fracking Ads' at DesMogBlog why the directly imported link fails I do not know.

Will it work without the added html:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/28/wealthy-corporate-ceos-behind-fake…

?

You really are a bunch of disgusting , foul mouthed, urea soaked cretins.

Look in the mirror whilst repeating that, the mirror in the corner and whilst wearing your conical hat, the one with a big D on it, as you do.

Talk about twisting reality. You are beneath contempt GSW.

GSW

Your refusal to answer the yes/no question about evidence denial is duly noted. You have confirmed that yes, you are denying reality.

Thanks.

Moving on, since you are so implacably opposed to renewables, what steps do you advocate for decarbonising the electricity supply?

Or do you argue that no such policies are necessary, and if so, why? Please be specific wrt climate sensitivity to CO2.

Don't think it's been flagged here yet, but Brad has a new post up a ClimateNuremberg.

"Dinner With the Salman Rushdie of Climate Change"
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/05/03/dinner-with-the-salman-rushdie-o…

As usual it's funny and well written. The "Salman Rushdie of Climate Change" in question being activist Tim Flannery.

Original article here:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/tim-flannery-a-man-for-all-climates-2014…

"Most of the time, Flannery sounds exactly like a human being but, on the odd occasion, his inner lab rat creeps out."

Oh dear.

Ayup GSW, what's it like being BK's toe-rag?

As usual it’s funny and well written

Except, that says much more about what a clog you are, rather than Keyster's alleged "cleverness".

As Willard's unravelling of him (which like most things is going completely over your pointy little head-in-denial) at the Rabett's, Keyster is merely slippery and wordy, not clever.
But no doubt those are valuable commodities in your world of lies, evasion and spin.

You just don't do dialogue do you, GSW?

You do monologues instead.

You don't learn by delivering monologues. You might learn by engaging in dialogue, which involves answering questions.

* * *

There's no point linking to BK's blog here. Nobody will click the link. Perhaps if you linked to RC, SkS, the published scientific literature etc you might have more luck.

It would be worth asking yourself why you don't answer questions and why you don't link to useful, science-based material, but prefer instead to reference the irrelevant.

Opinions about Tim Flannery's character are no more relevant to the science than an argument about whether Gilmour or Page is the better musician.

Chek

Per FrankD and Willard, let's leave BK on RR. Bunnies can watch the fun over there if they are interested.

Yes I agree, but I did think it worth rubbing Griselda's nose in how oput of its depth it was when it attempted its Keyster support mode.

And regarding character assassination, deniers will never understand the difference between the work and the man.
It's embedded in their corporately encouragedHello! -culture shallowness.
Did Beethoven mistreat his wife? Was John Lennon mean to his kids? Is Mike Mann vain? The Hello-culturalists (cultureless?) will speculate their pointy heads off all the live-long day because that's their intellectual level - viz. Griselda re: Flannery above..

The rest will appreciate the work that they offered to the world.

Chek

And regarding character assassination, deniers will never understand the difference between the work and the man.

As we all know, some understand it and use it tactically; the rest just bleat along. But they are *all* obligate character assassins because they have no scientific argument. Or indeed any other kind.

GSW's persistent refusal to enter into a dialogue and answer questions about the denial industry and its funding, and decarbonisation policy informed by the scientific understanding of climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation demonstrates where he sits in the spectrum of intellectual (dis)honesty.

GSW, apologize for trying to use the plight of the poor or admit you are a sociopath.

Why are sociopaths always such prissy little mummy's boys, like Griselda and Anders?

Bill @ #85, but the worm is still wriggling.

Result for Bob Ward. As I believe I've said before, if I ever meet the man, he will not pay for a drink that evening.

That revised graph is going to be a useful stick to hit the 'AGW is good' brigade with. Particularly given its 'origin story'!

Not that they'll learn anything from it themselves, of course, one does it solely for the benefit of onlookers...

I wonder if some are finally daring to look at what may well happen as the shit contacts the leading edges of the fan blades.

People like Tol may well be self-seeking, but they're not stupid, and a whole lot of far from stupid people are beginning to realise.

Griselda et al meanwhile will fan their nuts over how 'clever' the fucking Keyster is.

Tol deserve due credit for his admission - and I too am happy to offer such.

Now, if he can learn some thermodynamics and ecology and properly internalise them into his economic ideas he could really redeem himself...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 May 2014 #permalink

'Why don’t you take your smileys and remove yourself from civil society, you scum-sucking sociopath.'

Colourful choice of words, the irony burns.

Lest there is any doubt as to how the filthy rich undermine the welfare of others two strands emerging throw spotlights on this issue:

Barack Obama's emissions plan comes under new line of attack

and

Show Me the Money: Meet the Multimillionaire Squeezing Missouri's Schools.

Do these selfish idiots, if they have offspring, not realise that no amount of 'fortress' mentality will be able to prepare those offspring for the upheaval that will result from the continuation of BAU aided by impoverished education?

Voldemort, if he had been reality, was this evil and existed in much the same way - sucking the life force of others. Was JK more than a little prescient and perceptive?