Aside

Should we keep fighting climate change deniers?

They came, the feasted, and now they’re (almost) gone. This week I was besieged by a flock of climate change deniers (they now go by the name Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers). All comments where made by the ardent readers of one sceptic blog and they took it on as their duty to seek retribution to the referenced ‘warmist’ (Me). I must admit, it was a nice feeling to know that in least some people were actually reading my blog.

I would write a response but other brave scientists took the whack for me, doing a much better job than I could have done. Not like they were flies that needed swatting, everyone deserves their say, no matter how many times they need to rephrase the same argument.

One thing that really interests me, however, is the risk that excellent scientists in their field could be advocating bad science. Even with 100s of publications and citations, does this mean the world should just take their word for it?

This takes me back to talk I went to last October where George Monbiot explains an encounter he had with a famous ecologist and known climate change denier, David Bellamy.

David Bellamy

David Bellamy

David Bellamy is an ecologist, author and broadcaster with papers published in Nature and over 400 TV shows including Bellamy’s Backyard Safari.

He’s also a founder of The Conservation Foundation, UK.

In April 2005, Bellamy wrote a letter to the New Scientist claiming the world’s glaciers “…are not shrinking but in fact are growing… 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980.”

The Climate of Fear was wrong, the Himalayan Glaciers are advancing

The Climate of Fear was wrong, the Himalayan Glaciers are advancing

A perplexed Monbiot decided to investigate where Bellamy had sourced this information. This led him to the website iceagenow.com (a website that was also directed to me in the previous post through an attempt to enlighten me).

iceagenow.com (now called iceagenow.info) was constructed by a former architect, Robert Felix who claims sea levels are falling, not rising, that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle” and that “underwater volcanic activity – not human activity – is heating the seas.” Felix’s source for this information was from a publication called 21st Century Science & Technology by Lyndon Larouche. In 1989, Larouche received a 15 year sentence for mail fraud and tax violations. When Monbiot dug deeper to find the original source of this information we has led to a so-called “paper published in Science in 1989″. There was no paper published in Science in 1989 that contained any study about glacial advance or retreat. Monbiot brought this discovery up in a debate with an unprepared Bellamy on Channel 4 News.

It’s surprising to me that a trained scientist, especially in the environmental field didn’t research his findings. What led this influential player in conservation and nature to being so careless and yet not admitting that the evidence simply doesn’t exist?

And like Linzden, who I spoke about in the previous post, they’ve come out with these allegations near the end of their career. This also reflects the age group of the interrupters at the Oxford Union last week.

Is it a fear of death to the trained eye?

A Pew Report in 2012 showed that people over 65 were less likely to think warming is caused by human activity compared to their younger counterparts. In the study, 28% of people over 65 believed that global warming is due to human activity compared to 47% of people under 50.

From growing up living with my grandparents, I’ve seen how hard they’ve worked to get to the technological advancement they’re at now, shouldn’t they be entitled to it? We are imposing blame on their generation, could this reaction just be a defence mechanism? Or maybe it is the fear of death and the obvious reminder climate change brings with images of disasters all over the world. A bit of a put-off.

Maybe we owe it to the older generation to be more forgiving. They’ve created a world with the luxuries they wanted their children to enjoy and now it’s up to us to make sure it’s an habitable and enjoyable environment for ours.

About these ads

237 responses to “Should we keep fighting climate change deniers?

  1. I’m sorry to be the bearer of sad news, Tara, but Steve Bloom isn’t a “brave scientist’ – or indeed any kind of scientist.

    He’s a frenetically prolific Green Party activist from California who pops up on just about every climate blog discussion to trot out the party line.

    It’s quite important in climate discussions to be able to sort out the real climate scientists from the self appointed wannabees.

  2. Tara, I am disappointed to see you continue to use such ad hominems. Skeptics cannot be labeled climate change “deniers” since no skeptic denies that the climate changes.

    I personally was not seeking any sort of “retribution” but wanted to correct factual inaccuracies you stated.

    You understand that this argument can be used both ways,

    One thing that really interests me, however, is the risk that excellent scientists in their field could be advocating bad science. Even with 100s of publications and citations, does this mean the world should just take their word for it?

    Another correction, Dr. Lindzen’s criticisms date back 20-30 years ago,

    The Role of Convective Model Choice in Calculating the Climate Impact of Doubling CO2
    (Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp. 1189–1205, June 1982)
    – Richard S. Lindzen, A. Y. Hou, B. F. Farrell

    Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Regarding your ageism claim, I found this study interesting,

    Reasoning about social conflicts improves into old age
    (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Issue 16, pp. 7246-7250, April 2010)
    – Igor Grossmann et al.

    “We show that relative to young and middle-aged people, older people make more use of higher-order reasoning schemes that emphasize the need for multiple perspectives, allow for compromise, and recognize the limits of knowledge.”

  3. Pay attention, Foxgoose. The reference was to Jeff Harvey (and possibly others although I didn’t read the whole thread). All I did was provide a sketch of Lindzen’s bizarre history (although I do have a pretty good grasp of the science) BTW, did you even notice how that “self-appointed wannabe” remark was self-canceling? You’re welcome.

  4. OK, Popsie, now try reading the 1982 Lindzen article, in particular at the end where he states that he gets a 34% sensitivity reduction relative to Manabe-Stouffer. That’s no challenge at all to the then-general (albeit still quite fuzzy) scientific view of the time. So while it’s clearly antecedent to his later stuff, it doesn’t come to the same conclusion.

  5. Well done, Steve… as I have noted here, Tara’s thread has been hijacked to some extent by a few what I will refer to as ‘lunatics’ for lack of a better word.

    Foxgoose has the audacity to make a point about climate scientists when the vast majority of them are in agreement over the causes of the recent warming. And since when is David Bellamy a climate scientist?

  6. Maybe we owe it to the older generation to be more forgiving.

    In general, I agree with this humane and laudable sentiment. In specific (and we know whereof I speak ;-) not so much). My five year old has yet to live his life. The elderly but prominently voluble contrarians have had their shot already.

    Until the heap o’physics underpinning the greenhouse effect is refuted (that will be a cold day in Hell, what with no RF) and paleoclimate behaviour explained in accordance with an insensitive climate system, then we are stuck with things as they are.

    The arrogant, the ossified, the frightened, the politicised and the slightly unhinged will continue to assert, dismiss, yap and foam according to personal style, and physical climatology will continue to behave as it always has.

    Back to square one: emissions reductions required.

  7. Here’s a pretty picture courtesy of the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Service. We can see that the vast majority of glaciers are in recession (last data year 2011).

  8. Steve Bloom | March 15, 2013 at 7:08 am | Reply

    Pay attention, Foxgoose. The reference was to Jeff Harvey (and possibly others ……

    Pay attention Steve – Tara’s “reference” was an active hyperlink that went straight to one of your comments.

    Why do you people tell barefaced lies which are so easily exposed?

    I imagine it’s because you know the people you’re preaching to have the attention span of a woodlouse.

    • How very dull of you, foxgoose. The link was to the entire comment thread. Mine just happens to be the first one.

  9. Jeff Harvey | March 15, 2013 at 7:57 am | Reply

    Well done, Steve… as I have noted here, Tara’s thread has been hijacked to some extent by a few what I will refer to as ‘lunatics’ for lack of a better word.

    Jeff – when is going to dawn on you that the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority?

    Your student union rantings for the overthrow of consumer capitalism and the “great & little satans” of the US & UK (who provide most of the aid to your “poor south” in their times of need) is only shared by a tiny vestigial minority of cranks.

    Now you’ve shown us the real agenda that so-called “climate activist”s like you are working to, you’re going to have an uphill struggle getting support from more mainstream folk – especially if you start by insulting them.

  10. Foxgoose

    Jeff – when is going to dawn on you that the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority?

    Got any figures to support this assertion? Link?

  11. BBD

    Would you need a link to prove the assertion that the new pope is a roman catholic?

    Jeff’s anti-capitalist, anti-west, anti-free market, revolutionary rhetoric paces him in a tiny minority fringe movement which enjoys negligible electoral support in the democratic societies he apparently loathes (albeit while being content to live in one).

    I was just making that point.

    Do you yourself agree with this BTW?

    ….. But when challenged over western corporate policies, wealth repatriation, the ‘Washington Consensus’, free-market absolutism and the trillions spent by our governments waging resource and expansionist wars, knuckleheads like you and Jeremy suddenly go silent. The money to eradicate poverty is there and has been all along but the will isn’t. The poor have never been a priority when it comes to the agendas of the rich and powerful. There’s ample evidence that for years the main aims of western corporate/state planners have been to ensure capital and resource flows from the poor, underdeveloped south to the rich north.

    • “Jeff – when is going to dawn on you that the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority”

      As BBD asked, please back this up with some statistics. You can’t, And since the vast majority of my peers in science agree with me, then its people like you – 100% non-scientists, who are,otu on a limb.

      With respectt o my political points, please point out anything I said that is remotely controversial. I am not anti-capitalist; I believe, however, that corporate activity needs to be regulated. Just look at what the banks did when they were given ‘free-reign’. And the so-called capitalist behavior you adore is hardly ‘democratic’- one can argue, with plenty of proof as well, that elites and others such as the Bush cabal of neocons loathe democracy because it puts power in the hands of ordinary people. Look at US/UK support for some of the most aborrent regimes in the world. A study by Edward Herman in the warly 1980s found that US foreign aid flowed disproportionately to dictatorships with appalling human rights records. This wasn’t because the US government supported torture; it was because countries the ruthlessly suppressed trade unions, which tortured activisits, priests environmentalists etc. were good places for business investment because wages and overheads were lower than in countries with strong human rights records and healthy democratic institutions. Why also do you think that corporate election donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties exceeded 2 billion dollars leading up the last election? What do the donor expect? The USA long agao ceased to be a healthy, functioning democracy but is by now a plutocracy pure and smple.

      Have you ever read a declassified US or UK planning document before, foxgoose? No, I thought not. I suggest that you do. I have read many. They certainly undermine your simpleton view of the world. In them you will see western foreign policy agendas laid bare. And one thing is for certain: virtually nowhere in these documents does support for human rights, democracy, and freedom appear; they express more concern about the interests of American and British corporations, often at the expense of democracy in the countries being discussed. Its called imperialism’. The main point is that you couldn’t debate yourself out of a wet paper bag in this area, any more than you can in science. I mentioned George Kennan earlier. Ever hear of him? Charles Meachling? Paul Nitze? Smedley Butler?

      Until you are capable of rehashing more than from your right wing newspaper, then your opinions are a waste of space.

      • Jeff—I inadvertently put my reply to you right at the bottom of the thread, sorry. The nesting / scrolling mechanics of this WordPress setup are a bit awkward, I have to say!

    • Even in the USA, over 60% of people think that AGW is a problem or serious problem.

      Like many other things in deniers’ repetoir, your “majority” is entirely in your imagination.

  12. Foxgoose

    Would you need a link to prove the assertion that the new pope is a roman catholic?

    No, I would like you to substantiate you (ludicrous) claim that:

    the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority

    But you can’t. So we can conclude that your statement is hysterical nonsense and proceed to ignore it.

  13. As a general observation, it is diagnostic of the nutters that they endlessly conflate the science of physical climatology with an intense, politically motivated hatred of ‘the Greens’. The two are not and have never been equivalent. Argument from false equivalence is a logical fallacy.

  14. Well at least deniers are listening, what do you do with the millions who ignore you completely? In still greater numbers are the ones who’ve heard the CAGW message but ‘will you all just SHUT UP about it!’ How do you learn to communicate with them? You think you can write deniers off because soon we’ll be dead or too befuddled to matter? Sorry to disappoint you but many of us are not that old and for every sceptic who can be bothered to check the science there are hundreds who assume it’s all rubbish but just keep their head down and hope the hype will fade away.

    But the young will bring forth the revolution! Testicles! There’s never been a lazier, more energy indulgent generation. They may fantasise about being a green super hero but saving the planet isn’t going to get between them and the latest igadget. What, walk to school? You’re ‘avin’ a larf!

    You will never change the world without first understanding it. I doubt you even understand yourself when it comes to energy. The most persuasive voices are those who have looked inwards and found solutions for those questions people will inevitably ask.

    I skated through your blog looking for your commitment to cutting CO2 and the closest I could find was you story about cycling. Well cycling and students go together and Oxford is so suited to it, so it’s not like you’re doing anything earth shattering. I’m not having a go, but to eventually cut CO2, people are going to have to stop telling others ‘you must’ and start saying ‘I did’. As a student, it’s not even enough to satisfy yourself that you’re not using very much of anything. So what? Do you think my generation was any different? The hard part comes when life offers you temptation. You can get ahead of the game by projecting yourself into your own future and wondering how you’ll feel.

    Where was your post on the Green Deal? Where did you examine it and try to decide if the scheme would work? Did you put yourself in the shoes of someone contemplating a loan, tied to their deeds for up to 25 years that would have a higher rate of interest than a standard loan that would supposedly pay for itself through cheaper bills? How can they measure that? What year can they use as a base line? Circumstances change. What if the reduced energy use has nothing to do with the green improvements? Does the single person who moves into the house previously inhabited by four have to hand over loads of cash because he or she uses less energy? And if the situation is reversed, does the houseful of four get a rebate because they’re now using more than the singleton? Madness, but that’s the sort of place that scepticism grows from.

    Your average person can’t decipher the science and nor should they have to. They should be able to rely on intelligent people doing it for them. However the same people who are telling them the science is good are also trying to push dodgy solutions. The public can see through those. Why would you trust people on the complex stuff when they’re lying/stupid/silent about the simple stuff?

    The world doesn’t need more campaigners it needs people with answers.

  15. BBD | March 15, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Reply

    As a general observation, it is diagnostic of the nutters that they endlessly conflate the science of physical climatology with an intense, politically motivated hatred of ‘the Greens’.

    The only “intense politically motivated hatred” I’ve noticed on here is Jeff’s – who seems to hate me, americans, brits, businesses, bankers, George Bush, neocons and pretty well everyone else apart from half a dozen long dead communists.

    Still, I hope he keeps it up – it must be driving normal. sane people away from the climate “cause” by the dozen.

    By the way – you never answered when I asked if you agreed with him.

    Do you?

    • the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority

      Retract this rubbish and we can move on. Not until.

      • Are deniers the lunatic fringe? Well yes. Anyone with any sense is just getting on with their life.

        Are those rejecting climate change few in numbers? Well until you see CO2 dropping you can consider yourself outnumbered.

    • The only “intense politically motivated hatred” I’ve noticed on here is Jeff’s – who seems to hate me, americans, brits, businesses, bankers, George Bush, neocons and pretty well everyone else apart from half a dozen long dead communists.

      I ignored your blatant strawmanning of John Harvey above, but now he has called you out on it, you can respond to that as well.

      What you are doing here is spouting rubbish, being corrected, ignoring the correction and barging on. Standard nutter tactics meet standard brick wall.

      We go nowhere until you respond substantively to JH, accepting that you have grossly mischaracterised him.

    • “The only “intense politically motivated hatred” I’ve noticed on here is Jeff’s – who seems to hate me, americans, brits, businesses, bankers, George Bush, neocons and pretty well everyone else apart from half a dozen long dead communists”

      This isn’t even worthy of a response from someone who calls environmentalists and scientists ‘watermelons’. What communists did I metnion, foxgoose? Since when is a critical appraisal of a political system that drives environmental destruction and poverty a support for communism? Is that what a socially just political system is to you? Communist? Is that your only childish riposte? You are clearly unable to challenge any of the intellectual arguments I made so you have to resort to calling me a ‘communist/watermelon’? And you expect to be taken seriously? You sound like a lunatic…

      I will, however, also tell you what I do hate: selfish people and organizations who abuse science in a way the potentially compromises the quality of life for future generations. I also hate political institutions that drive social injustice and maintain poverty in the world.

      If you want to debate the political economy and the mass media with me, go ahead and try. You clearly don’t know much of anything, so instead you have to resort to baseless smears.

      • If there was no opposition to CAGW, what would you expect to see? Most people are barely aware of sceptics or their arguments but I don’t see mass action.

      • Every generation has its dreamers who think the masses will rise up and throw off their oppressors. Unfortunately all this tends to do is exchange one overlord for another. Capitalism/consumerism, for all its faults is the fairest system we’ve ever seen. It offers the hope that anyone at the bottom could aspire to be the person at the top. The very definition of the American dream.

        Unfortunately capitalism/consumerism has become synonymous with greed which is ridiculous because the business barons of today are no greedier than those leaders from other types of society and are in fact restricted by their need to be accepted by a wider community. What has changed is the success filters downward and more people can be… er… greedy.

        In an ideal world nobody would take more than they needed, but define need? How much is fair for one person to have/own/consume? How much floor space per person? How much food and what type? Travel? To change what we’ve got you have to decide where you want to go.

  16. BBD | March 15, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply

    …………What you are doing here is spouting rubbish, being corrected, ignoring the correction and barging on. Standard nutter tactics meet standard brick wall.

    Calm down dear.

    It’s a funny old place the interweb – people get so wound up about defending their opinions.

    The interweb never forgets though – can you remember way……way…..back………in ..oh…2011???

    When you used to be a climate denier yourself…….

    Bishop Hill Blog 17.1.11
    ….But on the face of it you appear to agree with me that ‘environmentalism’ encompasses malign influences from the extremes of both Left and Right…..
    Jan 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM Commenter BBD

    Funny old business climate change – young Tara must wonder what to make of it all sometimes.

    • Aspects of ‘environmentalism’ *have* encompassed malign influences from both the left and the right.

      You are continuing to conflate ‘environmentalism’ with the science of physical climatology, which as noted above, is false equivalence and a logical fallacy.

      I was once a ‘lukewarmer’, not a ‘denier’. But diligent application to the literature soon showed me where I’d been *misled*. Fool me once and all that…

      If you would like to review my commenting history at BH, then let’s go. I’m sure you can remember how it evolved from around May 2011 until I was banned on 24 August 2012 for being a dissentient afflicted with the malady of thought.

      But first, you have to retract this rubbish:

      the people you call “lunatics” are the vast majority

      And acknowledge your gross mischaracterisation of Jeff Harvey.

      Get on with it please. We have waited patiently all day and you are still dodging.

  17. TinyCO2: “If there was no opposition to CAGW, what would you expect to see? Most people are barely aware of sceptics or their arguments but I don’t see mass action.”

    This implies a key observation, which is that the arguing with denialists is largely a sideshow whereas the main act is moving that large mass of people, very many of whom, to the extent they apply much conscious thought to climate change, probably are just hoping it will solve itself somehow.

    My own conclusion is that it’s simply going to take more impacts to get that large mass moving, or more to the point to start demanding strong government action.

    An instructive case study in the early stages of this process is the evolving response of farmers in the central U.S. Not long ago the bulk of them were in more or less complete denial about AGW. More recently, as so many of them have become directly impacted (by persistent drought), there’s been a big shift toward acceptance that the changes are part of a long-term and probably worsening trend to which they must attempt to adapt, but denial of human causation is as strong as ever. There’s an interesting reason for this, which is that farmers fear that their own contribution to AGW (not just carbon footprint but land use practices) will come under scrutiny.

    I should add that the long-term unsustainability of farming and ranching practices in that region is not in question even in the absence of AGW, a consequence of long-term topsoil loss and groundwater depletion. This fact is widely recognized, but since those chickens won’t come home to roost in this generation very little is being done. Not a good sign.

    • Setting aside the point that the weather might not co-operate and produce suitably damning events, I always have a little smile when people call for governments to act. Governments can’t solve rising CO2 emissions, only people can do that. Sure, they can invest in research and when the right thing comes along they can install it but until that miracle arrives it’s down to people.

      Environmentalists kid themselves that the current crop of renewables can do the job of cutting CO2 significantly. On what evidence? Europe is proving that wind and solar are merely a rich country’s self indulgence. They don’t provide the sort of power we need. Nuclear is an option but it scares the pants off people. Even France with all its nuclear and hydro has a CO2 footprint of 6 tonnes per person. Which is 1 tonne more than the global average and 4 tonnes too high.

      What if the technology we’ve got now is all there is for the next 50 years? The only solution to cut CO2 would be to have less. What population is going to clamour for that?

      If you’re serious about CO2 being a threat and don’t believe in energy miracles, you have to plan to tell people to live a simpler life. It’s a huge ask and you don’t start that negotiation by lying to them. Using weather that has no statistical pattern as a stick to goad them with is not telling the truth. Lying to yourself that the science isn’t weak overall and downright dodgy in places won’t help either. If ever there was a time to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, this is it.

      The people who drive such a revolution would need to understand what people will have to go through. They can’t be the jet setters or the mansion dwellers who salve their CO2 consciences by buying offsets. Governments that call for people to cut their CO2 need to be sure that the solutions they recommend do what they think they do. Big social decisions have to be made and they can’t be implemented without proper debates.

      And we come back to the debate that Tara attended. The first thing people will do once they are faced with the prospect of a poorer future is ask ‘are we sure it’s necessary?’

  18. Should you keep fighting climate change deniers?

    By all means. Knock yourselves out. By busying yourselves with an imaginary enemy, you minimise your nuisance factor.

    • Sure, if you want to stick in the position we are in now. Neither acting seriously on CO2 nor taking a breath to decide if it’s all necessary. By all means, let’s assume that everybody who’s ever been asked to tick a box is just champing it the bit to reverse the industrial revolution. The recession we’re in isn’t financial, it’s all those people saying no to consumption on principle. Hurrah, the planet is saved.

      Like childhood invisible friends, deniers will vanish if you stop talking to them. Feel free to stick you fingers in your ears if you can still hear us. La, la, la, not listening.

      Or maybe accept that in order to make a difference you have to work with people like that. Understand that there is a little or a lot of denier in all of us.

      True, you can’t hammer out sceptic issues with the science on a blog but you can ask what’s wrong with how climate is being managed as a science. What procedures could be put in place to make the consensus mean something. Remember, it’s your side that thinks there’s a burning deadline.

  19. TinyCO2:

    Like childhood invisible friends, deniers will vanish if you stop talking to them. Feel free to stick you fingers in your ears if you can still hear us. La, la, la, not listening.

    Either I’ve misunderstood you, or vice versa. We’re not on opposite “sides” of this.

    Nevertheless, there are no climate-change deniers. (Just about the only thing John Cook gets right, in the article I linked to, is the title. The guy’s a risible buffoon but I’m happy to quote him on that.)

    There are CAGW deniers—in fact, they’re relatively ubiquitous now that CAGW affirmers are as few and far between as Nazis after WW2—just as there are phlogiston deniers, vaccinogenic-autism deniers, vaccine-safety deniers, AGW deniers, GW deniers, evolution deniers and Creation deniers.

    But there are no more climate-change deniers than there are vaccine deniers (or climate deniers). Words mean things, and meanings matter.

    By the way,

    What procedures could be put in place to make the consensus mean something.

    A consensus will never—can never—mean anything in science. That is to say, a consensus—which is nothing but a metric of opinion—has zero evidentiary value in science, by definition. This is an axiom. People who don’t like it either don’t know or don’t care how science works.

    • Sorry, I did misunderstand you.

      It’s easier to use words like denier and consensus because they mean something to the people who use them. Trying to correct the concept all the time is a pointless task. There are more important issues than language.

      Consensus doesn’t mean much in itself but sometimes it’s the best on offer. However it can be better than just a bunch of people ticking a box. Part of the problem with climate science is that it has no auditing or policing of it’s conclusions. Many of the theories are supported simply because a scientist thought them up. There doesn’t seem to be any kind of review board to hammer out areas of gross uncertainty. eg where is the conference to debate climate sensetivity? Where is the team tasked with trying to prove the science flawed? At the moment it relies on peer review which is ludicrous.

      If a paper had been given the McIntyre treatment and it still stood up, would you feel more confident about it? If others were satisfied it had been dealt with properly and added their seal of approval would that be a paper you could support it until something better came along?

      Consider the pharma businesses. They never intend to create a bad drug but it happens. We try to avoid getting bad drugs by setting standards, demanding testing, reviewing studies properly, but even then we might not know if a drug was good until it’s been on the market for years. At some point we have to go with the opinion it’s a good drug or there would never be any. That’s consensus.

      • It’s interesting that you use pharmacology as an example. Perhaps you didn’t know that it’s the paradigmatic example of evidence-based, not consensus-based, medicine.

        “At some point we have to go with the opinion it’s a good drug”

        Sure, if we practice alternative, complementary medicine, witch-doctory, homeopathy, traditional cures, Vitamin-C Oncology and other empty rituals that come without the seal of approval of science.

        But if a doctor did that he/she would be committing medical malpractice. You may not be aware of it but we now live, legally and technologically, in an age of EBM (Evidence Based Medicine).

        Editing out the red herrings, this is an astute and perfectly true paragraph until the final 2 words:

        “We try to avoid getting bad drugs by … demanding testing, reviewing studies properly, but even then we might not know if a drug was good until it’s been on the market for years. … That’s consensus.”

        No, that’s not consensus, that’s the fact that the drug has been on the market for years, hasn’t killed too many people, and can be shown in adequately-powered trials to have a clinically- and statistically-significant positive effect on the outcome of interest (e.g. length or quality of life).

        In a word, evidence.

      • “Consensus might not have anything to do with science but it does have it’s [sic] place in the real world.”

        It has nothing to do with science. Right? ¿Entiendes?

        That’s why we can’t afford to let scientific saboteurs get away with smuggling it into science as substitute for evidence!

        “It’s easier to use words like denier and consensus because they mean something to the people who use them.”

        If you lack the stomach to insist on the right words, maybe this debate isn’t for you. I’m not having a go at you—you’re clearly a smart person; but maybe your talents lie elsewhere. Fighting a discursive fight takes a kind of patience, precision and pedantry that most people, including educated ones, just don’t have.

        “Trying to correct the concept all the time is a pointless task.”

        No, it’s a hard task—maybe even a hopeless task—but to say it’s a pointless task is to surrender the field. The whole field. And the battle. And the war.

        I know you mean well, Tiny, but you’re costing us the war for science when you acquiesce to the vandalism of language. Please stop doing that! :-)

        “There are more important issues than language.”

        No there aren’t.

        Not when people are using the wrong words.

        By wrong words I mean “words that mean things that aren’t true.”

      • Brad,

        Pharmacology is based more on evidence that climate science but ultimately it relies on consensus. There is agreement on how drug testing should be carried out and the new drug will be assessed by those standards. Those rules are not perfect (as the mouse sepsis thing proved) but they’re what consensus has come up with. At some point the pharma scientists decide they’ve done enough testing and offer it for sale. That’s not proof the drug is safe or will be effective. It’s not like a mathematical proof. Ultimately it’s just a judgement based on what they’ve observed so far.

        When government decision makers decide to distribute a drug it’s usually based on a review of the work of the manufacturer. They trust that standards and precautions have been adhered to. Those standards have been devised to help avoid mistakes but sometimes they lead to complacency. Box ticking.

        Regularly one country will license a drug simply because another has done so. Doctors usually accept that a licensed drug is a good drug. Patients will take the drugs because their doctor tells them it will work. All down the line they have to rely on the consensus that the drug is a good one. 20 years later more evidence may prove them all wrong.

        Just as the pharmaceutical company can’t know what effects might pop up in the mass use of a drug, climate scientists can’t test most of their theories. Only time will tell. However, just because you can’t test something doesn’t mean you do nothing.

        Consensus is not the problem. Lack of substance to justify consensus is.

      • TinyCO2,

        I’m not going to ask whether you’re a scientist. The answer is obvious from your remarks about pharmacology.

        Don’t get me wrong: notwithstanding my frustration with your arguments, nothing you’ve said is stupid. On the contrary, your reasoning is perfectly plausible and, well, reasonable; unfortunately it’s invalid and your conclusions are simply wrong, because you’ve got a number of superficially-similar concepts mixed up.

        The bad news is that science, by which I mean the scientific method, is not a matter of being reasonable and plausible! Science is bizarre and unintuitive. Don’t take it personally that you’ve misunderstood how it works—it’s not the kind of thing you can guess if you’ve never been taught it, which, if you’re like 97% of the population, you haven’t been. It took the brightest members of our species hundreds of thousands of years to develop the modern scientific method—so I’m not going to attempt to explain it in a blog comment.

        Finally, please understand that I’m not questioning your grasp on how the climate works. For all I know, you understand it better than I do, and you self-explanatorily understand it better than the average climate alarmist! Likewise for the molecules that make up drugs, for that matter—you might know a heck of a lot of chemistry, or you might not.

        We’re not actually arguing about any of that. We’re arguing about how science works.

        Hopefully we can keep doing so—I know this criticism is a somewhat unsatisfactory place to leave things. Sleep-time calls, however. :-(

      • Brad,
        Can you understand the difference between being precise and being understood? Consensus, as it is used by people, has meaning because they give it a meaning. When they use it, I know what they are thinking of. That is how words evolve.

        A sphere has a mathematical definition, the planet is technically not a sphere but if someone says the planet is a sphere and you make an issue of it they will stop listening to you.

        Consensus means that a group of people have looked at the evidence available, come to a conclusion and we recognise that group decision. The more people/organisations who look at the evidence, the less likely a mistake has slipped through and the more reassuring the conclusion. It does not make it true but it helps reduce the chance it’s wrong.

        We hand over decision making to consensus all the time.

        You can argue that the consensus is wrong. You can argue there is a dearth of evidence for the consensus to look at. You can even say that many of those making up the consensus are just agreeing on principle but you can’t argue that consensus as a concept does not exist.

      • BK

        Still on with this are we?

        That’s why we can’t afford to let scientific saboteurs get away with smuggling it into science as substitute for evidence!

        I’ll ignore the conspiracist ideation for now and simply remind you of the facts as understood by the rest of the world.

        First, there is scientific evidence. Scientific consensus arises from the scientific evidence. It is indicative of the nature of the evidence.

        Your peculiar difficulties with this took up hundreds of comments elsewhere and really shouldn’t be repeated here, so this is just a reminder that you are confused and mistaken. Or being tricksy and misleading.

      • Ah, the blogosphere—the only place on earth where I can get a lecture from a couple of non-scientists about how science works.

        Gotta love it!

        Yours was a forbidden love—he was a believer, she a denier—but you were united by one thing: your perfect and complete innocence in the ways of science.

        Aww. How cute.

        I’m not even going to ruin the moment by drawing attention to your multiple mutual contradictions and self-contradictions.

        The only thing I’m going to insist on is that you stop calling yourself a denier, Tiny. You lost that honor several comments ago. And don’t even try on the line about being “a member of the House of Deniers but without the right to vote.”

        You’re not one of us. You might not believe in CAGW—not today, anyway—but all your other ideas are delusory, nonsensical consensualist nonscience.

        You’re just another gullibilist—no better than your fellow non-scientist there.

      • Bradley

        Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence.

        We don’t need a scientist to point this out.

      • Tiny,

        didn’t I warn you that

        we can’t afford to let scientific saboteurs get away with smuggling [consensus] into science as substitute for evidence!

        ?

        Right on cue, Dominic tries to do so:

        Bradley

        Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence.

        Like smoke arises from fire.

        Geddit?

        Where there’s consensus there’s evidence.

        Consensus is evidence of evidence.

        Or so they’d have us believe.

        Luckily they’re not fooling anyone but you, Tiny.

        We don’t need a scientist to point this out.

        That’s lucky, because no scientist would ever endorse such a fatuous and delusional notion.

      • That’s lucky, because no scientist would ever endorse such a fatuous and delusional notion [that scientific consensus is based on scientific evidence].

        This is absolute rubbish, Bradley. Claiming that scientists reject the concept of scientific consensus is, as they say, not even wrong.

      • What a strawman.

        Scientists are well aware that majorities of their colleagues share the same opinion on a question from time to time. I don’t dispute the concept of consensus among scientists. They never demean themselves by seeking it out or looking for it or caring about it, but they know it exists from time to time.

        What every scientist I’ve ever worked with rejects is your idea that scientific consensus is underwritten by scientific evidence. If they accepted it then they themselves would use consensus as evidence of evidence, and therefore as evidence, and that would be the end of modern science as we know it. Scientific opinion would enter a self-amplifying re-entrant loop and disappear up its own rectum. Everything from biology to avionics would grind to the same halt as climate science.

        But hey, what would I know? Please, BBD, tell me more of your fanciful imaginings about the customs and beliefs of scientists, a tribe you’ve never lived among but have pieced together a semi-plausible narrative about from snippets of legends you’ve overheard.

      • You are full of hot air, Bradley.

        Claiming that scientists reject the concept of scientific consensus is, as they say, not even wrong.

        Carry on guffing. Makes no difference to the facts.

      • What every scientist I’ve ever worked with rejects is your idea that scientific consensus is underwritten by scientific evidence.

        I see. So scientific consensus arises spontaneously in an evidential vacuum, does it?

        You have adopted an untenable position and are consequently reduced to saying idiotic things.

      • *Sigh.*

        Your claiming that I’m claiming that scientists reject the concept of scientific consensus is, as they say, not even wrong.

      • And the mendacious wriggling begins.

      • “I see. So scientific consensus arises spontaneously in an evidential vacuum, does it?”

        Obviously it can. Or it can arise in an evidential cornucopia. Or somewhere in between.

        The ONLY scientific question is: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? The existence or absence of a consensus means NOTHING to a scientist. We don’t have opinion polls in science. For 250 years, until Naomi Oreskes came along, the idea of ascertaining whether all scientists agreed on a particular theory about nature would have been rightly derided and hated. By me and every scientist I’ve ever worked with.

        Tell me—since you’ve avoided answering up til now—what evidence was there, prior to Marshall and Warren’s experiment, that gastric and peptic ulcers were non-infective in etiology?

        What evidence was there, prior to Schechtman’s Nobel-Prize-winning work, that quasiperiodic crystals were non-existent, highly improbable, uninteresting and/or useless?

      • “Mendacious wriggling?”

        Oh fuck off BBD. I’m correcting your obsessive misattribution of a strawman argument to me.

        I NEVER SAID “scientists reject the concept of a scientific consensus.”

        The contemn it; they ignore it; they use it to line monkey cages; they have no interest in it; but they don’t deny that it sometimes exists.

        And I have been absolutely consistent in telling you all this. You can’t quote me saying what I’m saying I didn’t say because I didn’t say it.

        Am I using words you don’t understand? Are my sentences too long? Tell me: what can I do to get this through your meninges?

      • Obviously it can. Or it can arise in an evidential cornucopia. Or somewhere in between.

        Rubbish, like everything else you have written attacking the concept of scientific consensus. You do this because you don’t like the scientific consensus on AGW and you are trying to delegitimise it. Scientific arguments are normally countered by other scientific arguments, but you don’t have one, so you are reduced to this.

        Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence. No amount of guffing from you changes this one iota.

      • More complete tripe from Bradley!

        They never demean themselves by seeking it [scientific consensus] out or looking for it or caring about it, but they know it exists from time to time.

        And:

        I NEVER SAID “scientists reject the concept of a scientific consensus.”

        The contemn it; they ignore it; they use it to line monkey cages; they have no interest in it; but they don’t deny that it sometimes exists.

        Rubbish, like everything else you have written attacking the concept of scientific consensus. You do this because you don’t like the scientific consensus on AGW and you are trying to delegitimise it. Scientific arguments are normally countered by other scientific arguments, but you don’t have one, so this is all you have left.

        Here’s an example of scientists meeting and establishing a consensus:

        Blankenship said when the workshop began, fewer than five attendees suspected this link between atmosphere, ocean, and ice; by the end, all 25 agreed it was the most plausible explanation. He said each person was an expert in one, maybe two areas.

        “But to say that atmospheric changes are causing the ocean changes that are causing ice sheet changes, that requires more self confidence than most of the people had,” he said. “That could only happen by bringing together so many people with overlapping skill sets. The result was a surprise and a significant moment. We all agreed that was the most likely answer.”

        On the final day of the WALSE workshop, the attendees locked themselves in a conference room and hashed out a consensus statement including the state of knowledge in their field, the new hypothesis on the cause of upwelling, and a list of challenges that lie ahead in answering the outstanding questions.

    • Well put. Consensus is NOTHING to do with science. Nothing. And “best on offer” is nothing to do with science either. However much the cooling denialists might think it is or should be. That’s no different to Trenberth saying that the Null Hypothesis should be reversed in application for Climate Science. All Trenberth was saying in fact is that Climate Science is NOT Science, as it does not conform to Scientific Standard #1, the Null Hypothesis.

      • Consensus might not have anything to do with science but it does have it’s place in the real world.

      • As for null hypothesis – for AGW one could argue that that would be a 1.2ºC rise for a doubling of CO2 as demonstrated in the lab. The question then becomes does the world react differently? Even Lindzen isn’t arguing CO2 has no effect.

      • Jeremy,

        of course consensus has nothing to do with science. Science runs on evidence, and consensus is NOT a form of evidence, and science won’t work if we blur the distinction between evidence and non-evidence. We may as well not have science unless people respect the difference.

        I know that. You know that.

        No ifs, ands or buts.

        What believers continually attempt to say is, “Yes, but…”

        TinyCO2 herself, though she claims to be a denier, is no better:

        Consensus might not have anything to do with science but …

        Take a look at the above exchange (between me, BBD and TinyCO2) to see this template in action. It always seems to go as follows:

        Sure, consensus isn’t evidence (they’ll stipulate). But consensus is based on evidence.

        Or: But consensus is an indication of the strength of the evidence.

        Or: But consensus comes from the evidence.

        What these people are apparently incapable of (or resistant to) grasping is that as soon as you say consensus is a function of evidence, consensus itself becomes a form of evidence, which is impermissible ex hypothesi. The argument reduces to absurdity because they’ve agreed that consensus is not evidence and should never be used as such, they’ll put their hand on the Bible and swear not to use it as evidence, but within a couple of seconds then their own logic entails that it is evidence.

        You may or may not have come across this cognitive pathology. Either way I wonder if you have any suggestions on how to deprogram someone who thinks like this. What can I say to expose this thinking as the illogic it is, without coming across overly philosophical, pedantic or abstract? I’d really appreciate any ideas you have because this is a major problem—it’s pandemic among believers, and it now appears to have infected some outsiders like Tiny too.

      • Bradley

        Playing lawerly word games *calls attention* to the fact that you have no scientific case. You believe that it works as a misdirection, and it can, briefly, but the net effect is to telegraph weakness.

        You operate by attempting to *direct the conversation* away from the uncomfortable fact that there is no scientific basis for your position. Your position, for the record here, is that there is no majority scientific view that AGW is going to be dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and that emissions regulation is ‘stupid’. In other words, an unsupported, contradictory, denialist mess.

      • BBD:
        “Your position, for the record here, is that there is no majority scientific view that AGW is going to be dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and that emissions regulation is ‘stupid’. In other words, an unsupported, contradictory, denialist mess.”

        1. You call that “my position.” Yet it’s of far less importance to my identity than you may guess. It’s not even one of the top 100 “positions” I care about. I’m far more interested in the fact that you or someone very close to you is guaranteed to die of dementia, probably Alzheimer’s. “My position” is that we should be doing a fuckload more than we’re doing to discover the aetiology and mechanisms of this disease process and identify loci for intervention to modify or even halt its course. That is something I care about. Something else I care about is the integrity of science. That should be taken for granted and indeed until the last 20 years it was in pretty safe hands. That all changed when climate scientists started bending the rules of science, and that if they’re not stopped they’ll do serious damage to it. If they had defended the CAGW theory without cheating, then I would be:
        a. relieved that they were not cheating
        b. worried about the state of the climate

        instead of:
        a. worried about the state of science
        b. apathetic about the climate itself

        2. Even though climate science is a relatively minor interest of mine, you’ve still managed to describe my views on it rather poorly. My position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and that therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’. (If the evidence changed, the conclusion might no longer follow.) Whether or not a majority scientific view exists in favor of dangerous AGW would make no difference whatsoever to the stupidity or otherwise of emissions reductions. You’re the one who cares about such trivia as consensus. I don’t. I merely ask, as a way of poking fun, where is the evidence that this consensus exists?—a question you have never given a serious answer to.

        3. My belief system on climate change, whether described by you (in your comment) or by me (in my response) may contain false beliefs but it doesn’t contain incompatible or contradictory beliefs, unless I’m missing something. The beliefs you described look perfectly mutually consistent. So where are you getting the epithet “contradictory” from?

        4. Stop saying “denialist” if you want intelligent conversation. I was hoping you’d eventually get the hint if I called you a “believalist” enough. Apparently I was being too subtle, so I’ll just say it: these “isms” are imaginary sub-pop-psychological constructs that do no theoretical work and have no social effect other than to make you sound like an obnoxious fanatic. There is nothing “denialist” about my belief system, and I know it, and I think you’re smart enough to know it, so I know you’re saying something you know is puerile. Shame on you. Grow up. Call me a denier if you like, because I do deny what you believe, and I’ll call you a believer, but that’s all—I’m not “in denial”, I’m not a “denialist,” and “denial” is not a philosophy or activity that generalises beyond the belief in question. I believe some propositions and I disbelieve others. As do you. We’re both believers and deniers, but neither of us is a denialist or a credalist (well, you might be the latter, but I’m not).

      • I can’t be bothered to read more of the same old, Bradley.

        Try keeping it succinct. It’s easier to spot the self-serving distortions and mendacity when the cloak of verbiage is removed.

        Thanks!

      • BBD,

        Sorry, I forgot you were one of the deltoid mouth-readers. How inconsiderate of me to be so verbose.

        What I wrote was the absolute truth, but here’s the absolute truth For Dummies.

        You said,

        Your position, for the record here, is that there is no majority scientific view that AGW is going to be dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and that emissions regulation is ‘stupid’. In other words, an unsupported, contradictory, denialist mess.”

        1. What you call “my position” is of far less importance to me than you think. It’s not even one of the top 100 “positions” I care about.

        2. Something else I care about is the integrity of science. If the alarmists had defended the CAGW theory without cheating, then I would be:

        a. relieved that they were not cheating
        b. worried about the state of the climate

        instead of:

        a. worried about the state of science
        b. apathetic about the climate itself

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’. (If the evidence changed, the conclusion might no longer follow.)

        4. You’re the one who cares about such trivia as consensus. I don’t. I merely ask, as a way of poking fun, where is the evidence that this consensus exists?—a question you have never given a proper answer to.

        5. The beliefs you’ve described seem perfectly mutually consistent. Where are you getting the epithet “contradictory” from?

        6. Stop saying “denialist” if you want intelligent conversation. I was hoping you’d eventually get the hint if I called you a “believalist” enough.

        That is all.

      • Whoops Bradley, off to a bad start:

        2. Something else I care about is the integrity of science. If the alarmists had defended the CAGW theory without cheating

        That is what is known as a ‘strawman’ or a ‘lie’. Arguments founded on strawmen and lies are unpersuasive, Bradley!

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere. Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

      • 4. You’re the one who cares about such trivia as consensus. I don’t. I merely ask, as a way of poking fun, where is the evidence that this consensus exists?—a question you have never given a proper answer to.

        Given the several hundred comments devoted to your misrepresentations on this topic at Deltoid there is no polite response to this.

        As an example of breathtakingly self-serving dishonesty, it is up there with the best.

      • BBD
        Thanks for your answers, or should I say reactions, so far–they’re actually enlightening and I think we’re getting somewhere. Keep going—you still owe me an answer to 5 and 6.

        You ignored 1, which wasn’t really a question so that’s fair enough, and skipped to 2:

        “2. Something else I care about is the integrity of science. If the alarmists had defended the CAGW theory without cheating”

        That is what is known as a ‘strawman’ or a ‘lie’. Arguments founded on strawmen and lies are unpersuasive, Bradley!

        There’s no strawman there (and I’m now unsure as to whether you actually understand how that fallacy works). Leaving “Lie” as the only possibility—i.e., I have alleged cheating by alarmist scientist, and you think this allegation is dishonest.

        However my accusation is made in good faith and I’d believe it even if all I knew was the information you yourself have pointed out:
        –––––––––––––––––––––––
        “Then he says ‘because of my absolute belief in catastrophism it’s okay for me to ‘balance’ honesty and ‘effectiveness’. It’s okay for me to paint extreme and frightening scenarios to get the herd to do what I believe is correct’.

        “This is breathtaking intellectual arrogance and a million miles from science, scientific caution and rational restraint. It is in fact an entirely political, value- and belief-driven statement.

        “What makes Schneider interesting is that he was explicit about the thought processes and the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism. This is rare.

        “You say (with no more evidence than J4R) that there are probably no activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public. I could not disagree more.

        “If you research the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick you will find alarmist bias everywhere. If you can bring yourself to read Montford’s book you won’t find an attempt to ‘debunk’ AGW because that’s not what the book is about.

        “It’s about science and climate politics, alarmism, fear promotion by the IPCC and the poisonous effects quite small numbers of people can have if they are in the right place at the right time.

        “In short, you will find a detailed example of what happens when Schneider’s honest vs effective mindset gets out of control.

        “You are (deliberately?) missing the point about the Hockey Stick. Which is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick.

        It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.

        I re-iterate that I agree this doesn’t ‘falsify’ AGW. Obviously. But it reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.

        This is not correct scientific practice.

        Er – McShane and Wyner present a critique of Mannean short-centering.

        So they are working with the same proxies as MBH.

        But this is the point – so was everyone else. The same proxies turn up again and again in paper after paper and (surprise!) yield broadly the same results.

        Unless you take time to find out about the commonalities behind the mass of mutually-supporting paleo reconstructions you won’t realise just how flimsy that particular consensus actually is.

        This is all detailed in Montfort’s book.
        –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
        Do you still think I was lying when I said alarmist scientists had cheated, BBD?

      • PS did you mean that “CAGW” was a strawman?

        Surely not—you call alarmists “catastrophists,” if I recall correctly.

        CAGW is a perfectly just descriptor of the thing they (and now you) believe in.

      • Bradley

        You have as much trouble restraining your inner windbag as you do telling the truth. Brevity and honesty must be your watchwords!

        One definition of intellectual integrity is to admit when one is wrong. I was completely wrong. Quoting an old error back at me gets you no further than an admission of past error.

        You are using the Mannean hockey stick as a proxy for the entire field of physical climatology and of paleoclimate studies. This is a rather huge and throbbing false equivalence. Consequently your argument is empty except for the straw. Since this has been pointed out to you many times (severally by me), this repetition invites two conjectures – you are confused, or you are lying.

        The acid test for you Brad is whether you can assimilate new information and work out that you have been tricked – as I was before you – by McI and his amanuensis, Montford.

        Only you can fix this.

        Now, back to the gaping hole in your response:

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere. Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

        Which is it?
        ;-)

      • Dominic (I hope you’ll excuse the familiarity—as you’ve been prying into my personal affairs I feel we’ve become almost family in these last couple of days):

        One definition of intellectual integrity is to admit when one is wrong. I was completely wrong. Quoting an old error back at me gets you no further than an admission of past error.

        I had no idea you considered your past statements erroneous. They seem perfectly sensible, even laudable, to me. Indeed, if I weren’t so eloquent I probably couldn’t have put the central problem of climatology better myself. (Praise from Caesar.) Who’s tricked you with their silvertongued deviltry into thinking McI and his amanuensis, Montford had tricked you with their silvertongued deviltry?

        Please untrick me, Dominic. I’m all ears.

      • Dominic (I hope you’ll excuse the familiarity—as you’ve been prying into my personal affairs I feel we’ve become almost family in these last couple of days)

        I have simply been exploring – with others at Deltoid – whether you are the sock, or the poppet (sic). Your probable attempt at public deception is hardly a personal affair. You do have intractable problems with veracity, don’t you?

        I had no idea you considered your past statements erroneous.

        Then you are incapable of parsing the simplest text or lying. Since you obviously *can* parse, you must be lying.

        Please untrick me, Dominic. I’m all ears.

        First, you are again lying. Your absolute resistance to all information that contradicts your denial is a matter of record. See well over 4,000 comments at Deltoid. Second, many pointers have already been provided. For example, you could abandon argument from false equivalence instead of repeating it. You could – and should – improve your understanding of paleoclimate behaviour and its implications for ECS to 2xCO2 by reading the papers I referenced for you several times many weeks ago.

        But you won’t, because you are a denialist and the shutters are down.

        Screech away about denialist; I could not give a fuck at this point.

      • Now, back to the gaping hole in your two previous responses:

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere. Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

        Which is it?
        ;-)

      • I have simply been exploring – with others at Deltoid – whether you are the sock, or the poppet (sic).

        Nope. I’m not the sock, or the poppet (sic).

        This information has already been supplied to you. More than once, I should add.

        What more is there to explore? What further questions do you think would advance your investigation?

        Who else has been prurient enough to want to explore this with you, by the way? One gets the distinct impression it’s your personal fetish.

        Your probable attempt at public deception is hardly a personal affair.

        My attempt at public deception was hardly probable. It didn’t take place—I never made such an attempt—so it has a probability of zero.

        You do have intractable problems with veracity, don’t you?

        Well, veracity is proving to be a rare and elusive thing in my interlocutors—a problem which is certainly annoying. But I wouldn’t call it intractable, when the solution is as simple as going back to my usual deniospheric haunts. The calibre of commenters is much higher there.

        ”I had no idea you considered your past statements erroneous.”

        Then you are incapable of parsing the simplest text or lying.

        Rubbish. I’m capable of both (even if I choose to refrain from the latter… for private, ethical reasons you probably wouldn’t understand).

        Since you obviously *can* parse, you must be lying.

        Non sequitur. Thanks for the compliment though.

        ”Please untrick me, Dominic. I’m all ears.”

        First, you are again lying. Your absolute resistance to all information that contradicts your denial is a matter of record.

        Rubbish. I occasionally resist information that bores me to tears, but that’s about it.

        See well over 4,000 comments at Deltoid. Second, many pointers have already been provided. For example, you could abandon argument from false equivalence instead of repeating it.

        Yawn. What argument from false equivalence are you going on about, Dominic?

        You could – and should – improve your understanding of paleoclimate behaviour and its implications for ECS to 2xCO2 by reading the papers I referenced for you several times many weeks ago.

        What would any of this tell me about the dyadic dance of McIntyre and Mann, the scientific propriety of the IPCC, or the forgivability of the Hockey Stick episode?

        But you won’t, because you are a denialist and the shutters are down.

        I won’t, because it bores me to tears and tells me nothing about the dyadic dance of McIntyre and Mann, the scientific propriety of the IPCC, or the forgivability of the Hockey Stick episode.

        And pray tell: what’s a “denialist”? No reputable dictionary assigns any meaning to that particular sequence of 9 letters. Could you maybe try and rephrase that sentence, but in English?

        Screech away about denialist; I could not give a fuck at this point.

        Oh. I see.

        The shutters are down, are they, Dominic?
        ;-)

      • Apologies, Dominic—I believe I’ve decoded (thanks, Command-F !) your reference to the “argument from false equivalence”—you were talking about this bit, right? :

        You are using the Mannean hockey stick as a proxy for the entire field of physical climatology and of paleoclimate studies. This is a rather huge and throbbing false equivalence.

        LOL… no need to get all phallus-y, mate!

        In any case it’s surely been explained to you that, no, one is NOT a proxy for the other, nor have I ever mistaken it for one.

        The statistical, rhetorical and behavioral shenanigans of Mann, Jones, Karoly, Gergis et alii are NOT representative of the average climatologists’ ethical standards. The entire field of paleoclimate research is not as scientifically bankrupt and morally gangrenous as all that. Did you believe, back in 2011, that it was? Is that what you blame McIntyre and Montford for inducing you to think? Is this what you mean when you claim they “tricked” you?

        In which case, I wonder if perhaps you’re unjustly holding them responsible for your own faulty generalisations. I’ve certainly never gotten the message from ClimateAudit, Bishop Hill etc. that we should throw out the entire science of historical climate change.

        What the whole wretched “back story” of the HS (as you put it) demonstrates is the shit you can get away with in paleoclimatology. It doesn’t follow that everyone in paleoclimatology is actually availing themselves of the opportunity to get away with that shit.

      • BBD:

        In trying to help you make yourself clear, I’ve thought of a way you could assist us in understanding your current (2013) “position.”

        You keep telling me I need to revise my estimate of ECS upwards. Fine. Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that it’s a whopping 6.0C per doubling of CO2.

        With that in mind, please tell us which of the following truths—all noble sentiments you expressed just 2 short years ago—become[s] untrue. Which of the following do you feel you were “tricked” by a certain person and his amanuensis into believing? You can indicate your retraction, recantation, renunciation (etc.) of these errors by putting “del” tags or the equivalent around the truths you no longer hold to be true in light of a high ECS:

        1. The worrying thing about Schneider’s 1989 remarks is the sentence where he actually weighs ‘being honest’ against ‘being effective’.
        2. Schneider goes beyond what is known (radiative transfer equations; GHG theory) to a hypothetical, catastrophic outcome of AGW and presents it as a given, as a fact.
        3. Then Schneider says ‘because of my absolute belief in catastrophism it’s okay for me to ‘balance’ honesty and ‘effectiveness’. It’s okay for me to paint extreme and frightening scenarios to get the herd to do what I believe is correct’.
        4. This is breathtaking intellectual arrogance and a million miles from science, scientific caution and rational restraint. It is in fact an entirely political, value- and belief-driven statement.
        5. What makes Schneider’s remarks unusual and interesting is that he was explicit about the thought processes and the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism.
        6. Schneider (a career alarmist who published with Rasool in 1971 on anthropogenic aerosols and global cooling) endorses a moral calculus which is both scientifically bogus and ethically distasteful.
        7. Others – such as Mann and the Hockey Team – provide us with a sobering example of what can happen when this self-referential mindset becomes influential at the highest levels of climate science and climate policy making.
        8. It is totally wrong to think that there are no activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public.
        9. If you research the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick you will find alarmist bias everywhere.
        10. If you can bring yourself to read Montford’s book you won’t find an attempt to ‘debunk’ AGW because that’s not what the book is about.
        11. Montford’s book is about science and climate politics and alarmism.
        12. As Montford’s book demonstrates, the IPCC has promoted fear.
        13. As Montford’s book demonstrates, quite small numbers of people can have poisonous effects if they are in the right place at the right time.
        14. In short, you will find in Montford’s book a detailed example of what happens when Schneider’s honest vs effective mindset gets out of control.
        15. The important point about the Hockey Stick is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick.
        16. It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined.
        17. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.
        18. It reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.
        19. This is not correct scientific practice.
        20. McShane and Wyner present a critique of Mannean short-centering. So they are working with the same proxies as MBH. So was everyone else.
        21. The same proxies turn up again and again in paper after paper and (surprise!) yield broadly the same results.
        22. Unless you take time to find out about the commonalities behind the mass of mutually-supporting paleo reconstructions you won’t realise just how flimsy that particular consensus actually is.

      • Yackety-yack! The only substance is this:

        I won’t [read scientific references], because it bores me to tears and tells me nothing about the dyadic dance of McIntyre and Mann, the scientific propriety of the IPCC, or the forgivability of the Hockey Stick episode.

        You won’t read actual science therefore you know nothing about it; your discourse is weightless opinion and can be ignored in favour of *actual science*!

        In any case it’s surely been explained to you that, no, one is NOT a proxy for the other, nor have I ever mistaken it for one.

        And:

        The entire field of paleoclimate research is not as scientifically bankrupt and morally gangrenous as all that. Did you believe, back in 2011, that it was? Is that what you blame McIntyre and Montford for inducing you to think? Is this what you mean when you claim they “tricked” you?

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of Science” A.W. Montford ;-)

        Bradley, you are either confused or mendacious!

        Now, back to the gaping hole in a growing list of previous responses:

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere. Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

        Which is it?
        :-)

      • Why do you think I changed my mind Bradley? Hint: I read scientific references; you read tripe pumped out by denier websites. Do *think*, even if you refuse to read.

      • Dominic:

        Hint: I read scientific references; you read tripe pumped out by denier websites.

        Not being a scientist, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you’re misreading those references.

        I don’t say that lightly, because I’m well aware of how patronising it must sound, for which I apologise; I only raise the possibility because it boggles the mind to imagine that you somehow read “scientific references” in such a way as to change your evaluation of the following propositions. Certainly some of these propositions may have been contingent upon what you knew (and didn’t know) about nature, which is the sole concern of scientific papers; but all of them?!

        Feel free to clear up this boggle, Dominic.

        1. The worrying thing about Schneider’s 1989 remarks is the sentence where he actually weighs ‘being honest’ against ‘being effective’.

        2. Schneider goes beyond what is known (radiative transfer equations; GHG theory) to a hypothetical, catastrophic outcome of AGW and presents it as a given, as a fact.

        3. Then Schneider says ‘because of my absolute belief in catastrophism it’s okay for me to ‘balance’ honesty and ‘effectiveness’. It’s okay for me to paint extreme and frightening scenarios to get the herd to do what I believe is correct’.

        4. This is breathtaking intellectual arrogance and a million miles from science, scientific caution and rational restraint. It is in fact an entirely political, value- and belief-driven statement.

        5. What makes Schneider’s remarks unusual and interesting is that he was explicit about the thought processes and the self-justificatory rhetoric of alarmism.

        6. Schneider (a career alarmist who published with Rasool in 1971 on anthropogenic aerosols and global cooling) endorses a moral calculus which is both scientifically bogus and ethically distasteful.

        7. Others – such as Mann and the Hockey Team – provide us with a sobering example of what can happen when this self-referential mindset becomes influential at the highest levels of climate science and climate policy making.

        8. It is totally wrong to think that there are no activist scientists who are prepared to mislead the public.

        9. If you research the miserable back history of the Hockey Stick you will find alarmist bias everywhere.

        10. If you can bring yourself to read Montford’s book you won’t find an attempt to ‘debunk’ AGW because that’s not what the book is about.

        11. Montford’s book is about science and climate politics and alarmism.

        12. As Montford’s book demonstrates, the IPCC has promoted fear.

        13. As Montford’s book demonstrates, quite small numbers of people can have poisonous effects if they are in the right place at the right time.

        14. In short, you will find in Montford’s book a detailed example of what happens when Schneider’s honest vs effective mindset gets out of control.

        15. The important point about the Hockey Stick is that it was created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes using very carefully cherry-picked proxies and a methodology custom-built to provide the ‘right’ result: a hockey stick.

        16. It is the reasons for which this was done that must be examined.

        17. The blatant promotion of an alarmist paper by absolutely everyone up to and including the IPCC in the TAR is unforgivable.

        18. It reveals the lengths some are prepared to go to to promote ‘their’ hypothetical take on the consequences of AGW.

        19. This is not correct scientific practice.

        20. McShane and Wyner present a critique of Mannean short-centering. So they are working with the same proxies as MBH. So was everyone else.

        21. The same proxies turn up again and again in paper after paper and (surprise!) yield broadly the same results.

        22. Unless you take time to find out about the commonalities behind the mass of mutually-supporting paleo reconstructions you won’t realise just how flimsy that particular consensus actually is.

      • PS:

        I have enough respect for your IQ not to believe that you were “tricked” into thinking all of [[paleo]climate] science was corrupt by the title of a book. Try again, please.

      • Sorry, that wasn’t very well written. Take two:

        PS:

        I have enough respect for your IQ not to believe that the subtitle of a book managed to trick you into thinking all of [[paleo]climate] science was fraudulent.

        Try again, please.

      • Bradley

        Not being a scientist, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you’re misreading those references.

        The material is reasonably easy to understand. Since you refuse to look at any of it, you are not in a position to make this kind of statement. So I will ignore it.

        ***

        I repeat, pointing to my past errors will get you no further than a willing admission that they were errors.

        ***

        Now, back to the gaping hole. And Brad – I asked first. You are being an evasive little shit again!

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere. Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

        Which is it?

      • What mendacious wriggling will Bradley attempt now?
        ;-)

      • BBD:

        The material is reasonably easy to understand.

        Good. Then you’ll have no trouble explaining how and why “the material” changed your evaluation of the 22 propositions you endorsed in 2011.

        Since you refuse to look at any of it, you are not in a position to make this kind of statement. So I will ignore it.

        Of course I can make the kind of statement I made. I don’t need to read climate-science papers to know that they can’t possibly contain certain types of evidence, e.g.:

        — evidence for or against the Arian or monophysite heresy
        — evidence for or against the proposition that given conduct “is not correct scientific practice”
        — evidence for or against Dennett’s account of consciousness

        And this impossibility is all a scientist needs to know in order for his / her mind to boggle at the thought that you somehow read climate-science papers in such a way as to change your vote on Prop 19:

        “19. This is not correct scientific practice.”

        Your seeing fit to call this proposition a “past error” on no apparent basis other than having read certain climate-science papers is compelling prima facie evidence for the fact (and a fortiori, is absolute proof of the epistemic possibility) that something’s gone radically wrong in your climate-science-paper-reading process.

        I repeat, pointing to my past errors will get you no further than a willing admission that they were errors.

        FFS, BBD. Stop feigning (or exhibiting) obtuseness with that patently and witlessly question-begging formulation. You’re the only party that claims—at least you claim now, in 2013—that those statements were erroneous in the first place. They were good enough for you in 2011, and you’ve yet to even hint at any reasons—beyond a book title—why they shouldn’t be good enough for you now. That is, you’ve yet to mention any rational basis for having reversed your thinking on those 22 propositions.

        You haven’t even confirmed which (if not all) of the propositions you now reject, incidentally.

      • We’ve been through this in excruciating detail elsewhere.

        Why do we crucify ourselves ev-er-y-ee day? :-)

      • More waffle.

        I have enough respect for your IQ not to believe that the subtitle of a book managed to trick you into thinking all of [[paleo]climate] science was fraudulent.

        But that is exactly what Montford attempts to do. Hence the subtitle: The Corruption of Science. By which we are intended to understand that “climate science” is corrupt. Obviously.

        Here’s you, being fooled:

        2. Something else I care about is the integrity of science. If the alarmists had defended the CAGW theory without cheating, then I would be:

        a. relieved that they were not cheating
        b. worried about the state of the climate

        instead of:

        a. worried about the state of science
        b. apathetic about the climate itself

        What ‘cheating’? What corruption?

        There *is* a sharp increase in modern temperatures in all millennial-scale temperature reconstructions. Arguing about the methodology behind the Mannean hockey stick is… diversionary, at best. Nor was the Mannean hockey stick flawed in the way I was *fooled* into believing by McIntyre and Montford’s karaoke.

        In fact McIntyre was wrong (and McShane and Wyner were wrong too) and Mann was essentially correct. Consequently, Wegman’s *political* attack on the *science* was ill-founded. Montford parroted McIntyre’s errors and between the two of them misled me. Now they have misled you.

        Wegman has paid the price. McIntyre has no credibility whatsoever outside denier circles today. Montford never did have any. You are another opionated, scientifically illiterate nobody contradicted by a wall of convergent scientific evidence which you refuse to acknowledge.

        Here’s a technical summary for you not to read along with everything else.

        If the alarmists had defended the CAGW theory

        ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

        Now, come on Bradley – answer the fucking question:

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are. Which makes you either confused or mendacious, Bradley!

        Which is it?

      • Further evasions will be ignored. You need now to answer the question I have *repeatedly* asked you.

      • Which is it?

        Neither.

        I’m uninterested. Apathetic. Bored to tears. I don’t share your obsession.

        I’ve been telling you this for some weeks now, if you’d cared to pay attention. If not, I was quite happy for you to keep copying and pasting your little accusatory / interrogative boilerplate, so that the world could be in little doubt that you were a tedious monomaniac. (You can stop any time.)

        Now, on to the big, interesting issue: the integrity of science.

        Please confirm which of the 22 theses I’ve listed, all of which you asserted on a single page of a single thread in 2011, you now renounce on the grounds there are other climate scientists besides Mann, or that ECS is higher than you previously thought, or that Montford’s book has a sensational and simplistic subtitle, or whatever combination of reasons you have.

        Kind regards,
        “Brad”

        PS My colleagues and I thank you for blurting out your opinion that I’m a “scientifically illiterate nobody”—it made our day!

      • PPS My supervisor loved it! She’s still laughing incontinently. But I’ll refrain from making the comeback she suggested because, well, I guess I have a soft spot for you and your guileless manner, BBD.

      • I’m uninterested. Apathetic. Bored to tears. I don’t share your obsession.

        Bzzzt! That was your final evasion of the thread, Bradley! As I said above, further waffle will be ignored.

        And Brad, I call your bluff. You are a scientifically illiterate nobody.

        Anyone with a moderate familiarity with the way science operates wouldn’t have made an abject tit of themselves over scientific consensus – as you did.

        And we know *why* you did it, don’t we Bradley!

        See you back at Deltoid, bluffer…

        Happy Denial!

      • BBD:

        Anyone with a moderate familiarity with the way science operates wouldn’t have made an abject tit of themselves over scientific consensus – as you did.

        Maybe my problem is the more than moderate familiarity I have with how science works, or maybe your problem is having received no formal instruction at all therein. In your entire life. In the end we may never know exactly why all my words of wisdom fell like so many abject breasts on your ears.

        It’s quite possible my mistake was to start you at too high a level conceptually, instead of covering the absolute rock-bottom foundations of scientific reasoning before attempting to build up to anything interesting.

        For example, did you know that in understanding and evaluating the dyadic dance of Mann and Mac over l’affaire hockey-bacille, it makes no difference whatsoever whether “Mann was essentially correct” and “there *is* a sharp increase in modern temperatures in all millennial-scale temperature reconstructions”? I’m dead serious. C’est vrai. But no, of course you didn’t know. Au contraire, you thought such trivia were somehow dispositive.

        Why?

        Because you have no idea how scientists think.

        MBH98 was bad science because its method was inscrutable, even before we consider the other diseases the paper suffered from.

        Before you try to rebutt that claim, I should probably give you a friendly warning: your instinct to come up with a rebuttal, along with any and all text that flows from that desire, is going to prove to the scientific world that you aren’t and have never been a scientist.

        This should be amusing. Ah, the popcorn is done.

        Ready, set, go!

      • Oops.

        MBH98/99 was bad science because Mann’s methodology was inscrutable, even before we consider the other diseases the papers suffered from.

        Before you try to rebutt that truth, I should probably give you a friendly warning: your instinct to come up with a rebuttal, along with any and all text that flows from that desire, is going to prove to the scientific world that you are not and have never been a scientist.

        This should be amusing. Ah, the popcorn is done.

        Ready, set, go!

      • your instinct to come up with a rebuttal, along with any and all text that flows from that desire, is going to prove to the scientific world that you are not and have never been a scientist.

        A splendid example of contrarian misdirection. I am not, nor have I ever been, a scientist. McIntyre will be proud of you, Bradley!

      • And McCarthy would be proud of us both. :-)

        Congratulations on resisting the urge to expose your naivety by disagreeing with me, by the way.

      • The non-flaws in MBH and McIntyre’s manufactured controversy are irrelevant. That’s just you desperately trying to avoid confronting the nonsense in your own argument, as you have done throughout this – and other – threads.

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        Your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are.

        And you know it.

      • ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

        Conservative estimates? Okaaay then.

        This is why I respect you, BBD. While your coreligionists are hectically scrambling to disassociate themselves from the “strawman” of CAGW, you’re running in the opposite direction: CAGW is an understatement, says BBD! What should I call your position, under the most likely (BAU) scenario: AAGW *?

        Oh, and:

        MBH98/99 was bad science because Mann’s methodology was inscrutable, even before we consider the other diseases his papers [are thought to have] suffered from.

        You’ve very wisely elected not to contest this.

        * Armageddal (a.k.a. apocalyptic) anthropogenic global warming

      • How are you enjoying Wow, incidentally?

        It seems HI has gone the Hamas / Qaeda route of hiring teen retards. I’m not sure how I feel about the use of Wow in warfare.

      • This thread is getting too long. Response posted as new comment.

  20. You have a sweet, open face, Tara, but sadly, like so many of your generation who have taken up the Green religion (for that is what it is), a closed mind.

    For your reading today, I would like you to look ate these three graphs from HADCRUT4

    and then tell me that they tell you.

    Have a nice day; what a shame that some of the warmers you hang out with her are such mannerless grunts. It does your cause no good.

    Oh, and by the way, McIntyre has completely deconstructed Marcott’s shambolic effort to become the Son of Mann. No Passion Sunday for Marcott!

  21. To people like Tara a climate change denier is someone who dismisses the excellent work of countless scientists who bravely warn of impending climactic doom due to CO2 emissions. They impede attempts to save the world, possibly because they’re funded by oil companies and probably because they’re old and a bit stupid and like their creature comforts.

    As a denier ;-) I view the situation differently. I see the potentially serious problem of CO2 induced global warming has been captured by activists with numerous issues including a hatred of capitalism and population expansion. Due to the complexity and novelty of the science, claims have been made that are not adequately supported by the evidence but are defended regardless of their quality. This reflects badly on climate scientists as a whole and reduces their credibility. I do not know what is good in climate science because there are no systems in place to examine it properly. I see masses of bad or irrelevant science bolted onto the outside in an attempt to make it stronger/more impressive. I see unrelated weather events used as PR tools. I believed this is because, stripped to the bone, CAGW theory is weak and they know it. The governmental reaction to the urgent clamouring from science and advocacy has been extremely ill judged and largely wasteful.

    Summed up – I wonder why the most important issue of my time is being treated like the plot of a bad sci-fi movie and why does calling for sanity mean I’m the bad guy?

  22. Tiny CO2. Lab experiments eh? Just how do they replicate the chaos of climate?

    Now, here’s some graphs from real world data from Greenland, which demonstrate how lucky we are to be living in a time with such a moderate and pleasing temperature. It won’t be nice when it gets colder though, that’s for sure

    In graph #2, “You are HERE” means YOU as well TinyCO2

    Oh and by the way, I have no doubt that CO2 affects temperature. I just am not convinced by the efforts of climate fanatics to say that the effect is significant. Especially as the noise around this is getting louder and more frenetic the more the evidence points that way.

    By the way, the UK has decided to stop teaching about Climate Change before secondary school (13 upwards); it’s a start. I really really DO object to kids being brainwashed to believe that a hypothesis – for that is all it is – is fact. That’s propaganda. Goebbels style. Fuck that.

    And as I have noted a couple of times before, people aren’t listening to you any more. Cold winters and increasing public denunciation of the policies rising from the CC myth (now responsible in the UK for fuel bills people are finding harder and harder to pay, and an estimated increase of 50% in winter cold deaths from 11/12 to 12/13, people are getting to be pretty angry with the likes of you. Not to mention that biofuels have increased food prices significantly world wide – and third world hunger.

    You guys and gals are truly the enemies of humanity. Not us. You.

    • I really really DO object to kids being brainwashed to believe that a hypothesis – for that is all it is – is fact. That’s propaganda. Goebbels style. Fuck that.

      No, the terrestrial greenhouse effect is a fundamental of physical climatology. What *you* are doing here is propaganda. I echo your verdict on that.

      And as I have noted a couple of times before, people aren’t listening to you any more.

      Even if this were true – and it is not (your figures please) – it makes no difference to the physics of radiative transfer and so ultimately to future forced climate states.

      Your mind is a mess.

  23. Oh yes, and we mustn’t forget what the IPCC said, must we?

    ” In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    I repeat, for the hard of hearing

    THEREFORE THAT THE LONG-TERM PREDICTION OF CLIMATE STATES IS NOT – REPEAT NOT – POSSIBLE

    • Hello very stupid person

      If we significantly increase a radiative term – say forcing from GHGs, mainly CO2 – and the increase is sustained over a long period, will the resulting climate state be:

      – cooler than the late Holocene

      – the same

      – warmer than the late Holocene

    • if the sun increases its output, will the climate get warmer, cooler or stay the same?

  24. 1.2C per doubling CO2 without feedback, right?

    But what about H2O? What the deniers used to say was responsible for over 90% of the warming effect of CO2. Since warmer air holds more H2O, that means a feedback of 10x!!!

    Current atmosphere has the total warming from all GHGes at: 65% H2O, 25% CO2, 10% everything else. Current atmosphere. That would indicate a feedback of between 65/25 and 100/25.

    That would be the Null Hypothesis: that CO2’s effect when increased will be as it is now.

    With half a doubling of CO2, we’ve already had 0.9-1.2C warming. That would indicate the SHORT TERM PERTURBATION response would be 1.8C to 2.4C per doubling. That would be within the null hypothesis above and thereby prove it.

    All you have to do is prove that the above null is wrong.

    Go ahead, punks, make my day…

  25. Something to remember, before AGW was in the news, Bellamy was INSISTENT that his shunnung from entertainment was DEFINITELY because he’d been critical of the PM at the time, John Major.

    He’s just trying to find some reason other than his irrelevance today for his situation. it can’t be him, can it. No, it MUST be a CONSPIRACY!

    Johnny Ball also thought he was being Joe-Jobbed and a website purporting Johnny Ball to be a male porn star was created to diss him and get him sidelined.

    Little did he think that both Johnny and Ball have sexual connotations and that someone would consider EVER taking a stage name like that in the porn industry.

    Again, it HAD to be someone else’s fault. It HAD to be a conspiracy.

  26. Bradley

    [in response to comment upthread]

    Please, don’t misrepresent me so clumsily. You can do better than this:

    CAGW is an understatement, says BBD!

    No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

    The artificial controversy over MBH remains as irrelevant today as it was yesterday and forever and ever, amen. Why are you still talking about it?

    Is it because you would prefer to divert attention away from the fact that you have not yet addressed the problem with your position?

    • BBD:

      No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

      LOL!

      Firstly, you are BBD, supposedly. By suddenly referring to your “self” in the third person you can, unfortunately, only add fuel to the suspicion that you’ve lost track of the personae you’re juggling (unless one of them happens to be Eli! hehe). Don’t feed the rumor-mongers, “Dominic”!

      Hey, personally I don’t care if you sock-puppet. I think it’s totally lame and I’d never do it myself, but I’m happy to rebutt however many BBDs, BDBs, BDDs, BabyBraDs, mini-BabyBraDs, and other Pinocchii emerge from the woodwork, so to speak. :-)

      More substantively, let’s look at your claim scientifically.

      Unfortunately that means pinning you down a bit more than you may be accustomed to / comfortable with. I’m forced to ignore your weasel words “well over,” and to pretend that “down around” means “at.” Sorry about this, but science (not to mention rational debate in general) requires meaningful sentences, and meaningfulness requires falsifiability, at least in principle (if not experimentally).

      And again, “emissions” needs to be changed to “atmospheric concentrations.”

      So let’s consider the claim (which is stronger and clearer than you actually expressed) that CAGW will happen if

      1. atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equal 550ppmv or higher
      and
      2. ECS / 2xCO2 equals 2.5K or higher.

      ECS per doubling of CO2 means exactly what it says: every time CO2 doubles, from any value x to any value 2x, you expect to see (on average) a certain rise in global average temps.

      According to http://co2now.org, the latest CO2 reading from Mauna Loa is 396.8 ppm. (The website hilariously asks: “Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?”)

      It follows that an atmospheric CO2 of 550 ppm would be associated with a warming of

      ~2.5K * ln(550 / 397) / ln(2) = ~1.2 K

      Hence my statement, which was true (to zero decimal places!) that

      So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

      If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

      CAGW is not a Denialist Strawman™—it’s what you yourself implicitly expect in a mere 550ppm (or 1.2K) world.

      This is not a criticism of you—I think it’s laudable that you’ve had the cojones to say something most believers would shrink from. And it makes civilised debate possible, because it’s falsifiable.

      As an aside, now that I’ve refreshed your memory on how logarithms work, you’ll grasp why

      There *is* no implied baseline.

      To insist that ECS “refers to” doubling in relation to a specific Amish golden age of 275 ppm is a sign of mathematical confusion. It’s as silly as claiming that the half-life of a radioactive material “refers to” how much has decayed since 0:00.00 AM, Jan 1, 1970. Wrong. There *is* no special baseline implied.

      • Bradley

        You are doing it again.

        If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

        This is the third time you have shamelessly misrepresented my *extremely clear* statements. Which I will now repeat. Describing ‘well above’ and ‘well over’ as ‘weasel words’ is as risible as it is desperate.

        ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

        And:

        No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

        So this is a *lie*:

        So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

        This is the *same lie*:

        If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

        This is the same lie *again*:

        CAGW is not a Denialist Strawman™—it’s what you yourself implicitly expect in a mere 550ppm (or 1.2K) world.

        No, it isn’t. You are a serial liar. This is contemptible behaviour.

        Perhaps it is an effort to avoid discussing the problem with your position? Let us remind ourselves what that is:

        3. My climate-change position is that there is no evidence that AGW is going to be hugely net-dangerous unless emissions are reduced, and therefore emissions regulation is ‘stupid’.

        And:

        Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures—don’t pretend this isn’t a shared assumption.

        So, your claim requires that you reject even a conservative estimate for ECS 2x CO2 = ~2.5C – ~3C. We have established that you have no evidential basis for doing this, and you have claimed that you *are not* doing this, but you are.

        So far, anthropogenically forced warming = ~0.7C. We’ve got nearly 2C to go if ECS is as *low* as 2.5C. More if ECS is nearer 3C or over 3C. And *more still* if the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises above ~550ppmv. The more it exceeds this value, the greater the warming. Hence the need for *emissions controls* to avert potentially catastrophic warming.

        *Denying* this is illogical. And stupid.

      • There *is* no special baseline implied.

        If you had even a *passing familiarity* with the literature, you would know that *by convention* the statement

        ECS/2xCO2 = x

        Always refers to the doubling from the pre-industrial average of ~275ppmv to ~550ppmv. Your fussing about this simply underlines how unfamiliar you are with the basics.

      • So far, anthropogenically forced warming = ~0.7C. We’ve got nearly 2C to go if ECS is as *low* as 2.5C. More if ECS is nearer 3C or over 3C.

        Hang on…. let me see if I understand you, BBD:

        The less AGW has already taken place with the increase from 275 to 397 ppm, the more AGW is going to take place with the increase from 397 to 550 ppm.

        ?

        Seriously.

        You’re serious about this.

        This reminds me of one of the great atheism vs religion debates of the late 19th C, IIRC.

        The Christian spokesperson said that there has to exist a just heaven and a just hell in order to compensate for the injustice that prevails on Earth. His opponent likened him to someone who sees rotten oranges in a barrel and deduces that the oranges further down in the barrel must be fresh and wholesome in order to compensate for the visible ones.

      • You assured me you understood logarithms and, like an idiot, I believed you.

      • Your calculation is confusing you because you have ignored the difference between transient climate response and equilibrium sensitivity. The 0.7C warming experienced so far does not bring the climate system into equilibrium with 395ppmv CO2 – there’s ~0.5C lagged response ‘in the pipeline’ (as they say) – ocean thermal inertia.

        This is further evidence that you are unfamiliar with the basics.

      • Now, go back and read this again.

        A little humility would be appropriate at this point, Bradley.

      • How much warmer will we be at well over 550 ppm, BBD?

        I’m just trying to pin you down on “catastrophic.” I thought I had—but then you bolded the words “well over” and I realised I’d screwed the lid on the butterfly jar prematurely.

        I’ve apologised for missing those 2 words, and I’ll also apologise for calling them “weasel words” if you can answer the above question.

      • Bradley

        I said ‘humility’. That means acknowledging your error. You screwed up because you are a know-nothing, remember? All the while sneering at me, which was a mistake. Now I’m going to rub your face in your evident ignorance because you are too much of a shit to apologise for being arrogant, ill-informed and wrong.

        Bernard J has a bloody good laugh at your bollocks too. And now you haven’t a single remaining shred of credibility. You are a buffoon, Bradley, and we are laughing at you.

      • BBD,

        firstly, I’m not a big fan of the tone that’s coming across in your posts. You seem almost …resentful of me, for no reason I can imagine. Haven’t I always been congenial, gracious and merciful in victory, to the extent possible?

        How long has this wish to take revenge for your intellectual defeats at my hands been bothering you?

        Secondly, I’m perfectly right about this topic, so I’m afraid your dish is going to have to get a bit colder :-( before it’s served—if ever.

        Bernard J has a bloody good laugh at your bollocks too.

        Well, he certainly tries to.

        “Dr” J writes:

        It seems that as a mathematician, Brad Keyes makes a cunning linguist.

        So far so good. Yes, I’m a bit of a double threat, or Renaissance man, as it were. I admit it.

        Keyes needs to understand that there is a baseline. Sensitivity refers to the temperature response to every doubling of of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starting at 275* ppm.

        *Sigh.*

        If it’s logarithmic then it doesn’t matter whether you “start” from 275, 397, 550, 1100, 2200, 4400, 8800, or any other past or future atmospheric CO2 concentration.

        What part of every doubling” don’t you and Dr J understand, BBD? The word “every”? That’s the bit you find confusing, isn’t it?

        Keyes’ equation:

        ~2.5 K * ln(550 / 396.8) / ln(2) = ~1.178 K

        is nonsense, no more than meaningless mathematical Thimblerig.

        LOL.

        It’s meaningless to Bernard, no doubt.

        To a smart 13 year old it’s instantly recognisable as the solution to a trivial mathematical problem:

        If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

        If you know a better way to the answer than by getting the log-base-2 of (550 ÷ 396.8) and multiplying it by 2.5° Celsius, I’m all ears.

        If equilibrium climate sensitivity results in a 2.5° Celsius increase in in temperature per doubling, subsequent operations with divisors and further logarithms will not alter this fact.

        Er, that’s why “this fact” is treated as a constant (2.5 K) in my formula, geniuses.

        Please tell me Bernard does not research or teach in a hard or quantitative discipline.

      • Secondly, I’m perfectly right about this topic, so I’m afraid your dish is going to have to get a bit colder :-( before it’s served—if ever.

        Oh no you aren’t!

        More obvious lies, Bradley!

        You screwed up because you don’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS. This proves to anyone still bothering to look that you are a posturing know-nothing.

        No matter how desperately and how hard you try to get out of this, you can’t!

        Luckily for you, I was on hand to set you straight!
        :-)

      • Rivers of obfuscatory bullshit are already pouring forth as you frantically attempt to hide what you did, so here’s a reminder:

        Your calculation is confusing you because you have ignored the difference between transient climate response and equilibrium sensitivity. The 0.7C warming experienced so far does not bring the climate system into equilibrium with 395ppmv CO2 – there’s ~0.5C lagged response ‘in the pipeline’ (as they say) – ocean thermal inertia.

      • BBD,

        Are you smarter than a smart 13-year-old?

        If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 were 2.5° Celsius, what would the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

      • What part of “every doubling” don’t you and Dr J understand, BBD? The word “every”? That’s the bit you find confusing, isn’t it?

        Read what I write and stop making stuff up. It is contemptible. Here is is, *again*:

        If you had even a *passing familiarity* with the literature, you would know that *by convention* the statement

        ECS/2xCO2 = x

        Always refers to the doubling from the pre-industrial average of ~275ppmv to ~550ppmv. Your fussing about this simply underlines how unfamiliar you are with the basics.

      • Oh FFS Bradley.

        You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv is 1.2C and you are WRONG. You are WRONG because the climate system is NOT PRESENTLY IN EQUILIBRIUM to 395ppmv CO2. The response to anthropogenic forcing so has only been ~0.7C *so far*. The response is lagged and transient, mainly because of the thermal inertia of the ocean.

        You don’t know what you are talking about, but yammer on, by all means. The damage is done.

      • BBD:

        You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv is 1.2C and you are WRONG.

        Only, the funny thing is, when I asked ecologist Dr Bernard J. the question…

        If the temperature response to every doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 2.5° Celsius, what will the temperature response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 396.8 ppm to 550 ppm be?

        … he [eventually] agreed with my answer. To quote ecologist Dr Bernard J.:

        I quite happily and freely admit that you are correct in your original claim.

        As you know—given my science background—I’d never argue from authority, but still, I wouldn’t want to change places with you right now, Dominic. ;-)

      • I see we’ve reached the point where I explain your errors clearly and repeatedly and you simply pretend that there is no problem and engage in transparent and ineffectual attempts to misdirect.

        I repeat *again*:

        You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv is 1.2C and you are WRONG. You are WRONG because the climate system is NOT PRESENTLY IN EQUILIBRIUM to 395ppmv CO2. The response to anthropogenic forcing so has only been ~0.7C (a lagged and transient response, mainly because of the thermal inertia of the ocean).

        You don’t know what you are talking about.

        I repeat:

        Read what I write and stop making stuff up. It is contemptible. Here is is, *again*:

        If you had even a *passing familiarity* with the literature, you would know that *by convention* the statement

        ECS/2xCO2 = x

        Always refers to the doubling from the pre-industrial average of ~275ppmv to ~550ppmv. Your fussing about this simply underlines how unfamiliar you are with the basics.

        I think you may be mentally ill, Bradley.

      • BBD:

        You claimed that the temperature response 395ppmv – 550ppmv [assuming an ECS of 2.5C] is 1.2C and you are WRONG.

        What a pity Dr J agrees with me.

        I see we’ve reached the point where I fire up the popcorn and watch you and Bernard fight it out amongst yourselves.
        ;-)

      • Climate response so far = 0.7C

        Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C

        2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

        Not 1.2C.

        TCR is not ECS.

      • It is not clear what Bernard J’s agrees with in response. Nor does it matter. I am not Bernard J. and I disagree with you because you are wrong.

      • Come on Bradley. I haven’t got all day. Respond:

        Climate response so far = 0.7C

        Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C

        2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

        Not 1.2C.

      • What is the difference between TCR and ECS, Brad?

      • Come on Bradley.

      • So, we’re back to you insisting that the lower the temperature response was to 275ppm→397ppm, the higher the temperature response will be to 397ppm→550ppm.

        No thanks, I’m not religious.

      • You cannot answer because you are *wrong*, Bradley. And it is very, very obvious that you don’t know what you’ve done because you don’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS.

        In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • How do we account for this?

        Climate response so far = 0.7C

        Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C

        2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

        Not 1.2C.

        Can you explain this Brad?

      • A noble sentiment:

        Nor does it matter. I am not Bernard J. and I disagree with you because you are wrong.

        Which is why I respect you (regardless of your lack of respect for me).

        2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

        Not 1.2C.

        Can you explain this Brad?

        Certainly. You’ve made a classic non-scientist’s error in reasoning, which (out of respect for you) I will gladly disabuse you of at once, rather than watch your agonies a second longer.

        [I’m putting my popcorn aside and becoming earnest, sincere and caring now.]

        Your 2.5 is an apple.

        Your 0.7 is an orange.

        Your 1.8 is a godless frankenfruit and a grim warning of the dangers of untrammelled GMO biotech hubris. It’s Faustian, you might say (though only you and I would know what you meant)!

        Two point five is a theoretical climate response at equilibrium. ex hypothesi.

        Nought point seven is an observed climate response not at equilibrium ex hypothesi.

        If there is additional occult heat in a supposed pipeline, then that heat is coming for us whether or not CO2 rises above 397 and when it comes it will be attributable to the 275ppm→397ppm rise that’s already taken place.

        By comparing an apple and an orange, you get yourself into the absurd state of saying that the smaller the climate response to 275ppm→397ppm, the bigger the response to 397ppm→550ppm.

        You are WRONG to subtract 0.7, because the climate system is NOT PRESENTLY IN EQUILIBRIUM to 395ppmv CO2.

        FTFY.

        The only mathematically defensible approach is to forget the past and look at the rise from 397 to 550, figure out how much of a doubling that is (using logs) and multiply this by the ECS per doubling. Note that the number 275 never comes into the equation—it’s completely superfluous.

      • You need to dial down the pomposity. It’s obscuring the fact that you are still wrong.

        This is not an apples-to-oranges comparison at all.

        Climate response so far = 0.7C.

        Climate response at equilibrium to 550ppmv (assuming ECS = 2.5C) = 2.5C

        2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C

        Not 1.2C.

        TCR vs ECS.

        What you are refusing to admit is that you should have added the lagged response for 275 – 395ppmv CO2 to the 1.2C linear response (395 – 550ppmv) to get to the correct equilibrium response (+1.8C *not* +1.2C).

        As I keep saying: TCR vs ECS.

      • Certainly. You’ve made a classic non-scientist’s error in reasoning, which (out of respect for you) I will gladly disabuse you of at once, rather than watch your agonies a second longer.

        Ha ha ha.

        When will you learn?

      • Ah, so we’re back to you saying that the smaller the climate response to 275ppm→397ppm, the bigger the climate response to 397ppm→550ppm.

        I cannot help you here. Beyond this point you must venture alone, my friend.

      • Ah, so we’re back to you saying that the smaller the climate response to 275ppm→397ppm, the bigger the climate response to 397ppm→550ppm.

        When are you going admit your error, Brad? (2.5C – 0.7C = 1.8C!) You forgot to include the effects of ocean thermal inertia… You didn’t grasp the significance of the difference between TCR and ECS… You made a mistake…

        Just admit it. Repeating your old, failed misdirections is a waste of time and pixels.

      • BK

        Apples and oranges.

        I still disagree. The *lagged element* of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 needs to be added to the *future* response to 395 – 550ppmv CO2 to arrive at the correct equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        We can’t just ignore it as you appear to do.

      • BK

        Reviewing this discussion, I wonder if you aren’t clear about what I mean when I talk about the ‘lagged element’ of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2.

        This is the energy that has already accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv. Most (>90%) of this energy is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012). The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century. That energy is *here now*. It doesn’t just go away. And like the truth, it will out ;-)

      • What you are refusing to admit is that you should have *added* the lagged response for 275 – 395ppmv CO2 to the 1.2C linear response (395 – 550ppmv) to get to the correct equilibrium response (+1.8C *not* +1.2C).

        This new mathematics amazes me, sir Bevedere! :-)

        Let’s round off the current CO2 concentration to 395 ppm, as you’ve done.

        Let’s now address the question posed by the website I quoted: “Are you ready for a 400 ppm world?”

        Please estimate (in newmath) how much warmer a 400 ppm world will be, assuming ECS = 2.5 K.

        I know you won’t answer, because to do so would be a reductio ad absurdum of your politico-mathematical philosophy of blaming future CO2 increases for the energetic effects of past CO2 increases.

      • BBD,

        This is the energy that has already accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv. Most (>90%) of this energy is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012). The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century. That energy is *here now*. It doesn’t just go away. And like the truth, it will out

        Yawn.

        Be that as it may or may not, that energy makes no difference to the question of how much warming a certain increase in CO2 levels (say, from 395 to 550ppm) will cause if we assume a certain ECS (say, 2.5ºC / 2 x CO2). If you were a scientist you’d understand better than to blame future events for past processes.

      • Be that as it may or may not, that energy makes no difference to the question of how much warming a certain increase in CO2 levels (say, from 395 to 550ppm) will cause

        Exactly as I have been saying all along. Can’t you understand words in a row, Bradley? Let’s try again. I will type slowly for you:

        The *lagged element* of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 needs to be added to the *future* response to 395 – 550ppmv CO2 to arrive at the correct equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        See the word “added”? And the word “correct”?

        If you understand this (and I suspect you may) but won’t *admit* your error, you have crossed yet another line.

        Being too arrogant and dishonest to admit that you are wrong is unacceptable and repellent. Worse still, you have dug yourself a deep hole with your pretensions to scientific wisdom and you are now revealed as a ridiculous figure capering in its depths.

        Where I shall now leave you.

      • The *lagged element* of the response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 needs to be added to the *future* response to 395 – 550ppmv CO2 to arrive at the correct equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        But we’re not arguing about the correct equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        We’re assuming, for the sake of argument, a particular equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        Namely, 2.5C.

        What we’re arguing about is the equilibrium response to 395→550ppmv assuming an ECS of 2.5C / 2xCO2.

        Which is:

        2.5C * ln (550 / 395) / ln(2) =~ 1.2C.

        By amazing coincidence, exactly the same formula, with different temps plugged into it, allows us to calculate the equilibrium response to 275→395ppmv…

        2.5C * ln (395 / 275) / ln(2) =~ 1.3C.

        and the answer just happens to equal 2.5C – 1.2C!

        Thus,

        the equilibrium response to 275→395ppmv + the equilibrium response to 395→550ppmv

        = the ECS

        = the equilibrium response to 275→550ppmv.

        Spooky, hey?

      • But we’re not arguing about the correct equilibrium response to 2xCO2 (275 – 550ppmv).

        Yes we are.

        2.5C * ln (395 / 275) / ln(2) =~ 1.3C.

        But surface temperature has only risen by 0.7C. The majority of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of the increasing radiative imbalance is in the ocean, but it will not stay there. Which is how we get from 0.7C response now in surface T to 2.5C response in surface T at equilibrium.

        It is impossible to be sure whether arrogant stupidity or dishonesty is the problem here. But there is a problem all right.

      • It is impossible to be sure whether arrogant stupidity or dishonesty is the problem here.

        I know the answer. (No.)

        But there’s probably only one way for you to see this for yourself at this point.

        Do what I suggested at Deltoid. Try quantitatively answering the question: “Are you ready for a 395→400 ppm world?”

      • Stop trying to distract from your error. Try instead to understand it. One last try:

        – Most of the energy (>90%) that has accumulated in the climate system in response to 275 – 395ppmv CO2 is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).

        – The transient increase in *surface air temperature* to date has *only* been 0.7C but OHC has increased by ~25 x 10^22 Joules over the last half century.

        Some of that stored energy will contribute to *future* atmospheric warming *additional* to that in response to the CO2 increase from 395 – 550ppmv.

        – That is how we get from 0.7C response in surface air temperature at 395ppmv to 2.5C at equilibrium to 550ppmv. A total increase of 1.8C.

        You need to read these words and think. Stop simply *believing* that you are correct and ploughing on. It is painful to behold. Just stop and THINK.

        ****

        Levitus (2012):

        The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.

  27. No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

    Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures—don’t pretend this isn’t a shared assumption. Neither of us would bet anything on our ability, as a colony of organisms, to keep atmospheric levels below that. And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    Oh, and that’s assuming an optimistically low (to your mind) value for ECS.

    Don’t sell us both short by pretending you don’t think the earth’s climate is ever going to hit 1 degree warmer. Even I’m morally certain it will at some point.

    And yet you describe that almost-inevitable contingency as catastrophic. What, then, do you call 2 degrees… holocaustic? HAGW?

    The artificial controversy over MBH remains as irrelevant today as it was yesterday and forever and ever, amen.

    Snort. Truly a religious refuge you’re taking there, BBD.

    Let me get this straight. For the first time in modern scientific history, a methodologically nonreplicable, black-box paper is not only allowed to appear in the “science” section of your local newsagent and library, but is promoted by the world’s most vaunted scientific collaborative body as a study that changes everything in planetary politics; nobody in the field tries (in vain) to replicate the paper’s procedure; the authors refuse all requests for data and methodological information by sources they consider hostile, i.e. skeptical; five years later they are still being forced to put out corrigenda in which new information about their methods is revealed for the first time; they still will not tell the international community the code or even pseudocode to execute their steps, with the lead author superciliously and paranoiacally telling the WSJ that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in”; and schoolchildren throughout the Western hemisphere are taught that this is how scientists behave—and you have the audacity to pretend NONE OF THIS MATTERS.

    Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to human civilization if other branches of science relaxed—and abandoned—the standards of the scientific method?

    “Catastrophic” is an optimistic way of putting it.

    • Bradley

      Yes, I see what you have done, and yes, only someone completely ignorant of the basics could have made such an elementary goof:

      Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures […] And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

      You simply *do not know* that the ‘doubling’ in question is from the pre-industrial level of ~275ppmv to ~550ppmv CO2. And that it is *this* doubling that is expected to force global *average* temperatures up by around 3C.

      You have done a lot of boasting about your supposed scientific background and ongoing training. But by this error *alone* you reveal yourself to be essentially clueless.

      There is no covering this up – it’s on record now.

      • BBD,

        this hinges on a non-sequitur:

        You have done a lot of boasting about your supposed scientific background and ongoing training. But by this error *alone* you reveal yourself to be essentially clueless.

        But nothing.

        This will astound and amaze you, but when they teach you how to be a scientist—which is the only educational advantage I claim over you, at least when I’m not gently teasing you about your lack of Russian or English or whatever :-)—they don’t spend much time drilling you on pub climate trivia like “If we were all Amish, what would atmospheric CO2 levels be?”

        So even if I’d claimed the answer was something other than 275ppm, which I haven’t claimed at any point, it wouldn’t do anything to undermine my claim to know how science works. Nor could your fluency in climate science, however great, possibly entail that you had learned how science works.

        How the climate works and how science works are non-overlapping magisteria!

  28. And still you won’t be drawn on whether the use of developmentally-disabled teenagers in combat, as Heartland is doing with Wow, is morally conscionable! ;-)

    A despicable display, Dominic.

  29. Emissions (or rather, atmospheric CO2) will obviously rise over 550ppm in all plausible futures—don’t pretend this isn’t a shared assumption. Neither of us would bet anything on our ability, as a colony of organisms, to keep atmospheric levels below that. And that is not even one doubling of the current concentration. So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    Yes, sloppy writing wrt emissions vs ppmv.

    Yes, I think we are unlikely to stabilise at ~550ppmv.

    Then you go off the rails.

    ECS/2xCO2 refers to the doubling of the pre-industrial value of ~275ppmv. ~550ppmv is conservatively estimated to result in a ~2.5 – ~3C increase in global *average* temperature.

    So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

    Eh?

    MBH remains irrelevant to the problem with your position.

    • BBD—I’m not sure you know how logarithms work. If you can remember back to high school, it should become apparent to you that an ECS of x degrees “per doubling” of CO2 means exactly what it says: *every time* CO2 doubles, the global average temperature increases by an expected x degrees. Therefore there is no reason—and it would never occur to a mathematician or an atmospheric physicist!—to understand “Amish-era levels of ~275ppmv” as being a kind of implied baseline when discussing ECS. There *is* no implied baseline.

      When you call 550ppmv “catastrophic” if ECS = 2.5K, you’re saying that if it gets ~1K warmer (meaning “warmer than it is” to any native English speaker), catastrophe will result.

      Geddit?

      Good on you for going out on a limb like that, BBD!

      Apologies to any Amish readers who may have been offended by this blog comment. ;-)

      • When you call 550ppmv “catastrophic”

        We stop right there. I did not call 550ppmv “catastrophic”. And this is the second time I have told you not to misrepresent what I said. The *second time*. There’s no excuse for behaviour like this. Stop being a tricksy little shit please.

        Of course I appreciate that CO2 forcing increase is logarithmic and that this is the *reason* why it is discussed in terms of doublings. This is, of course, taken into account when calculating temperature projections under different emissions scenarios. As I attempted to point out above, apparently without success.

        My very strong impression is that *you* made an elementary error and are now obfuscating in an attempt to cover it up.

        The impression that you don’t understand the basics is further reinforced by this very odd statement:

        Therefore there is no reason—and it would never occur to a mathematician or an atmospheric physicist!—to understand “Amish-era levels of ~275ppmv” as being a kind of implied baseline when discussing ECS. There *is* no implied baseline.

        Have you really read *nothing at all*? Because that’s what it sounds like. The pre-industrial level of CO2 is used for reasons so obvious as to need no explanation. You *astonish* me.

      • And since there seems to be some… confusion, let’s be clear about what I actually said:

        ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

        And:

        No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

        And:

        ECS/2xCO2 refers to the doubling of the pre-industrial value of ~275ppmv. ~550ppmv is conservatively estimated to result in a ~2.5 – ~3C increase in global *average* temperature.

      • Dominic, only one of us has made a misstatement of the basic science, and it is the one who wrote that

        ECS/2xCO2 refers to the doubling of the pre-industrial value of ~275ppmv.

        No it does not. It refers to any doubling of any CO2 concentration to twice said concentration.

        I apologize for repeatedly missing the weasel words “well over” and “well above” in your conditions for catastrophe. It was probably due to my scientific training, which teaches me to look for falsifiable propositions. Now that I realize you’ve simply made the meaningless prediction that a state of catastrophe will prevail at atmospheric CO2 levels “well over” 550 parts per million, I happily retract the congratulations I offered you for being committal, going out on a limb, having scientific nads, etc.
        :-)

      • No it does not. It refers to any doubling of any CO2 concentration to twice said concentration.

        Nobody who knows what they are talking about would take this tack. This is a broad hint.

      • That’s not clear enough. Let me try again.

        In the context of informed climate debate, your current misdirection tactic is risible.

      • I said:

        No it does not. It refers to any doubling of any CO2 concentration to twice said concentration.

        Anyone who remembers logarithmic curves will recognise this as an uncontroversial statement.

  30. Any alleged problem with my position is irrelevant to the problems with MBH, and therefore relatively uninteresting.

    • Trans:

      “Dear BBD

      I’m unable to explain my position without admitting that I am rejecting a conservative estimate for ECS/2xCO2 [careful with that!] without an evidential basis for doing so. This is obviously daft, so talking about it is a tad awkward for me. To spare my blushes, I will do everything in my power to force the discussion away from this problem. And I *will not ever* respond directly to it. Obviously.

      With kind regards,

      Bradley Keys”

      • Trans:

        “Dear BBD

        With kind regards,

        Bradley Keys”

        Extraordinary! You’ve managed to render both components of my screen name incorrectly—a signal achievement in an otherwise literate individual, made even more salient by the data that the commenter going by the name “David B. Benson” (D. B. B.) misspelled your name this very weekend.

        Is there something you’d like to tell us, BBD? ;-)

      • Sic probo!

      • Sic probo!

        You win that round, Harry Potter.

        But I don’t give up so easily—nolite te bastardes carbonistas, as my mother always taught me!

      • Sic probo.

      • Expellior, tedius repetitius!

    • It’s Faustian!
      ;-)

      • It’s Faustian!

        I don’t get it.

        “Faustian” means “like Faust,” or “like the bargain struck by Faust,” does it not?

        Wikipedia (because my dictionary isn’t working) says:

        Faust and the adjective Faustian imply a situation in which an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success for a delimited term. Translated as “fist” in High German, the name “Faust” suggests someone who resorts to extraordinary means to achieve goals, akin to if not actually including force; it also implies unusual tenacity and persistence.”

        Which of these many compliments were you paying me?
        ;-)

    • I thought that would go over your head, bluffer that you are. See here, and recollect that intellectual arrogance was the essential flaw in Faustus’s character.

      • I thought that would go over your head, bluffer that you are. See here, and recollect that intellectual arrogance was the essential flaw in Faustus’s character.

        LOL… why link to Marlowe’s version, of all things? Let me guess: is German yet another language that’s all Greek to you, BBD?

        Meh, whatever floats your boat. But I do suggest reading all the way to the end. You’ll then discover why nobody but you uses the word “Faustian” to denote intellectual arrogance, which was not the good doctor’s defining flaw. Rather, the word invariably refers to a willingness to trade one’s moral integrity for power, information, influence, money or some other advantage. A willingness, in other words, to find a balance between being honest and being effective. ;-)

      • Who else but you would use “Faustian” to mean “intellectually arrogant,” BBD?

      • So your ignorance is my fault? You are a prat, Bradley.

      • So, nobody then? I suspected as much.

  31. Jeff Harvey:

    To reiterate, the vast majority of scientists take AGW very seriously.

    Well, so you say. Your basis for this seems to be anecdotal—a method which produces exactly the opposite finding when I use it. My scientist friends mostly think CAGW is a joke. On the few occasions that I’ve met a scientist who thinks climate change is a major problem, they will invariably admit never having read up on it, and they stare blankly when such names as Michael Mann, Joelle Gergis and even Rajendra Pachauri are mentioned.

    But you believe the vast majority of scientists do take AGW very seriously.

    Has any survey ever confirmed this?

    My understanding was that as soon as opinionologists take a step back and zoom out their surveys from the very innermost climate clique, the prevalence of reported concern about AGW drops off rapidly. My understanding was that compared to climate-change specialists, meteorologists are much less alarmed about AGW, and by the time you get to geologists the alarm rate has dropped to 50%. I’d be surprised if many physicists, say, or geneticists put their hands up as being worried about AGW! But I hasten to admit that my figures here are a bit sketchy and you should feel free to correct me, as I can’t pretend to follow opinionology very closely. Being trained in the ways of science, I know opinion is evidentially worthless.

    So, now that this is out of the way, Brad, what it there left for you to argue?

    Well, I could always point out that opinion is evidentially worthless, for starters.

    • Yes, several studies have shown that the majority of people, let alone scientists think that AGW is a problem and more needs to be done about it.

      A simple google would suffice, but you aren’t here to learn, only pound on the table.

      • Yes, several studies have shown that the majority of people, let alone scientists think that AGW is a problem and more needs to be done about it.

        “Let alone”? What does that mean? Have most scientists ever been shown to think AGW is a problem, or haven’t they? Yes or no?

        Just because the majority of people think something, it doesn’t follow the majority of scientists agree with them. Wow, you seem to be unaware of the research by Kahan et al. showing that concern about AGW slightly decreases among ordinary citizens as their scientific literacy and numeracy increases. This alone is suggestive of the parlous nature of your extrapolation from ordinary citizens’ concerns to scientists’ concerns.

    • Jeff Harvey:

      I wish one – JUST ONE – of the so-called skeptics writing [at Deltoid] had some scientific background in a field that required even a basic understanding of scale.

      Are there fields of science that don’t require an appreciation of scale?

      Yet the same crap is rehashed […] – it hasn’t warmed in 15-16-17 years (take your pick), as if these time scales for a system maintained at a stupendously large scale are significant.

      The atmosphere is big, but let’s be careful not to confuse timescales with spatial granularity, Jeff. (That’s not an accusation, just a caution.)

      The atmosphere can indeed change significantly in 17 years, Jeff. For example, a large meteor impact, a volcanic or nuclear winter scenario, or even the present situation, in which the CO2 concentration has risen precipitously because humans are busy combusting fossil fuels. You can’t say a priori that there is a lower limit to the time interval in which something “meaningful” can be observed.

      I believe this is why “mainstream” climate scientists said that the “no warming trend” would be meaningful if it persisted for 17 years in the face of ever-rising CO2. Do you disagree with them?

      For deniers, who left science books behind in grade 8, this may be the case, but for trained scientists they are not.

      Just a moment ago you appeared to be graciously conceding that some deniers writing at Deltoid had scientific backgrounds (albeit in scale-agnostic fields, whatever they might be). Now you’re back to deniers being a bunch of scientific illiterates—which doesn’t square either with the best available research (e.g. that by Kahan et al.) or with your own earlier remarks.

      • Crickets.

        Tumbleweeds.

        More crickets.

        Come on, Jeff. Instead of bitching about unnamed, faceless denier hordes over at Deltoid, come over to Tara’s where things are happening and questions are being asked!

    • Crickets.

  32. Incidentally, no, it doesn’t pose even the slightest problem for me that the scientists who spend most of their time publishing on climate change are the least likely to say it’s nothing to worry about.

    After all, “it is very hard to make a man understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,” to quote Gore quoting Sinclair.

    • Yes, we know how hard it is to get you to understand anything.

      Is your job politics, or marketing?

      • Is your job politics, or marketing?

        Alas, neither. As you know full well, Wow, I haven’t make a cent for all the things I’ve done to advance the image of CAGW deniers as the more rational, more scientifically-literate interpreters of the climate debate.

        I’d love to do this full time. That’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you for Joe Bast’s contact information. I may not do as much as you to make deniers look smarter than believers, but who could? You’re the undisputed champ, Wow. (I get goosebumps just estimating how many readers you’ve converted from agnosia / fence-sitting to confident CAGW denial by the power of your artfully bad pro-believal comments.) All I ask is an interview.

  33. Denier-boy, do you know how much energy it takes to warm the entire atmosphere of earth by an average of 1.2C?

    It’s enough to boil away (IIRC) 30 10km cubes of lead.

    If your body temperature went up 1.2C you’d be running a fever. 2.4C and you would die.

    And not doing anything means that we will reach 2C warming, then 4C warming then 6C warming and so on.

    At what point is it too much? And why do you get to choose if we go there?

    • If your body temperature went up 1.2C you’d be running a fever. 2.4C and you would die.

      And not doing anything means that we will reach 2C warming, then 4C warming then 6C warming and so on.

      Gosh, if only my body had some kind of thermoregulatory mechanism that could keep me alive in the face of varying ambient temperatures.

      Then human civilization might be able to take root not only in merrie olde England but even in places much closer to the Equator, where, as everybody knows, there be only a bunch of dragons.

      • So heatstroke is not possible and you can’t die from it?

        30,000 people in Europe in 2003 would disagree if they hadn’t died.

      • Wow, you heinous ignoramus, do you have the vaguest clue (he asks rhetorically) how many people die of hypothermia each year compared to the opposite?

      • “how many people die of hypothermia each year”

        IRRELEVANT.

        Your claim was:
        “if only my body had some kind of thermoregulatory mechanism that could keep me alive in the face of varying ambient temperatures”

        You presume there that zero people die of heatstroke (30,000 in 2003 in Europe).

        But you seem to be careless of those thousands of lives lost if by ignoring them you can deny AGW.

      • Hell, that statement of yours insists that hypoethermia doesn’t happen.

      • You’re as right as usual, Wow. I.e. completely wrong.

        The point about physiological thermoregulation—a superpower possessed by us endothermic lords of the earth—is that global warming of 4C does not mean our core temperature goes up by 4C. In most cases it won’t go up at all.

        So this is pseudostatistical piffle:

        If your body temperature went up 1.2C you’d be running a fever. 2.4C and you would die.

        And not doing anything means that we will reach 2C warming, then 4C warming then 6C warming and so on.

        It’s sadly and undeniably the fact that thousands of people each year fail to maintain a body temperature independent of ambient temperature. Hence the grim euphemism for death: “he assumed room temperature.”

        But unfortunately for your carbon-alarmist case—and fortunately for citizens of a warming planet—the majority of such deaths occur because the room is too cold, not too hot.

        So don’t tell me hypothermia is irrelevant unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself—which is, I admit, a distinct possibility.

      • Wow, you really outdo yourself here:

        But you seem to be careless of those thousands of lives lost if by ignoring them you can deny AGW.

        How many times do you need it explained to you? I have never disputed the AGW theory.

    • It’s enough to boil away (IIRC) 30 10km cubes of lead.

      That’s a meaningless factoid. The only question that matters is how many football stadiumsful of water would it boil?

  34. “I haven’t make a cent for all the things I’ve done to advance the image of CAGW deniers ”

    And it’s been worth every penny…

    But I note that your mask has come off. “I only want to know” now turns into “I only want to promote my clan”.

    • Humorless cultist
      Eternal umbrage
      Humorless cultist
      Eternal umbrage
      Humorless cultist

      • Humorless cultist.
        Yup, you definitely are.

        Eternal umbrage.
        So angry, aren’t you. I suppose the problem is you can’t answer the question.

        Humorless cultist.
        Eternal umbrage
        Oh dear your brain, what there is of it, is stuck.

        Humorless cultist
        Hang on, I’ll give the unit a kick, see if it gets unstuck.

        There you go. Maybe it can answer questions now, but it seems so far that it has failed the Turing test magnificently.

  35. I commend Tara on her light-touch moderation and her principled stance against censorship. Recent experiences on SkS, much like a holiday in North Korea, make one appreciate the freedom of speech (and freedom from being quote-doctored and verballed) that we all-too-often take for granted in a developed, liberal democracy.

    • You were warned repeatedly then deservedly banned. Something overdue here, IMO, since you are making yourself too much at home and are unlikely to depart of your own free will. You are, as Wow and others have noted, pathologically narcissistic. You are also mendacious and evasive and intellectually arrogant, which is an unlovely combination. Still, you get banned more or less everywhere you go, for the same reasons, so before too long you will probably have disappeared from view except in the denialosphere.

      • You were warned repeatedly then deservedly banned.

        Tom Curtis was equally repeatedly warned, and equally reluctant to stop going on about Stephen Schneider (and not succinctly, either—his posts were at least a page long), and we both ignored the same number of warnings. So your theory as to how I deserved my ban (while Tom got off scot free) is empirically untenable.

        Try again. I’ll tell you if you get close to the reason I was kicked off.

      • You were kicked off for being a lying sack of crap, Bray, and insulting everyone and everything who dared question your brilliance or conclusions, drowning everywhere you go in bullshit.

      • You were kicked off for being a lying sack of crap

        Wow, the way a reasonable person would see it, you have 2 options.

        1. provide a link to one (1) comment by me at SkS which constitutes a lie. Not someone else’s paraphrase, misquote or opinion of my comment. An original comment by me.

        2. shut your fetid lie-hole in shame.

      • Since your crud was deleted (standard moderation policy at SkS) and you know this, you’ve just demonstrated entirely why you got shitcanned and SHOULD have gotten shitcanned.

      • Since your crud was deleted (standard moderation policy at SkS)

        Ah. But of course it was. What else can we expect the SS-Jugend to do with evidence? Everything they know about document retention policies they learned from Big Nicotine and Phil Jones.

        There’s no way to prove what I posted at SS anymore, but I can assure you it was pure gold—worlds away from the dreck you post here, there and everywhere, Wow.

        and you know this, you’ve just demonstrated entirely why you got shitcanned and SHOULD have gotten shitcanned.

        Which is it: I got shitcanned (everything’s poo and sperm with you, isn’t it Wow?) or I SHOULD have gotten shitcanned? Make up what little mind you possess.

    • You (deliberately) missed the important part:

      I said that IMO you should be banned here because you are making yourself too much at home and are unlikely to depart of your own free will.

      At some point, Tara is going to want her blog back. My guess is that she is going to look at the Brangelina thread at Deltoid (4,313 comments and counting) and start thinking about pulling the trigger. It’s also possible she may decide that you aren’t very pleasant.

      • This is what the moderators at Skeptical Science said when you were banned for dishonesty there. It bears repeating here:

        There can be no place in this forum for those who abuse the presumption of inherent honest and integrity. Especially for those who torture the truth, stretching and distorting it beyond all recognition.

      • BBD:

        There can be no place in this forum for those who abuse the presumption of inherent honest and integrity. Especially for those who torture the truth, stretching and distorting it beyond all recognition.

        Yawn. Since I conducted myself at SkS with a level of total probity that would be unthinkably alien to most of your coreligionists, I find your vague, sententious insinuations as boring as they are cowardly.

        Wake me up if and when you can finally explain the basis of your dogmatic conviction that I’ve somehow been dishonest to you or anyone else you care to specify.

        Meanwhile I note in passing the only remotely interesting thing about your comment: you fail to condemn, or even mention, racism. I wonder why that would be, Dominic? :-) Hmmm? You don’t mind me bringing up the problem of racist blog commenters, do you Dominic? I mean: you wouldn’t object if I suggested to Tara that she keep a particular eye on visitors with a known propensity for, and history of, ethnic-supremacist outbursts, would you Dominic? ;-)

      • Meanwhile I note in passing the only remotely interesting thing about your comment: you fail to condemn, or even mention, racism. I wonder why that would be, Dominic? :-) Hmmm? You don’t mind me bringing up the problem of racist blog commenters, do you Dominic? I mean: you wouldn’t object if I suggested to Tara that she keep a particular eye on visitors with a known propensity for, and history of, ethnic-supremacist outbursts, would you Dominic? ;-)

        Racism? Now you are calling me a racist? There is nothing you won’t stoop to in your desperate efforts to delegitimise other commentators, is there Bradley? Provide quotes demonstrating my racism. Substantiate this accusation.

        When you fail to produce any evidence, this will stand as the clearest example yet of just how loathesome you really are. And of course, how blatantly, revoltingly dishonest you are. As requested by yourself, above.

        ******************************************************************************
        ******************************************************************************
        Ban please, Tara. This is too much. Give the repellent, lying sack of shit a day to fail to produce any evidence of my “known propensity for, and history of, ethnic-supremacist outbursts” first though. Then pull the plug.

      • This is what the moderators at Skeptical Science said when you were banned for dishonesty there.

        Er, except I wasn’t dishonest.

        Which is why you haven’t managed to locate a single dishonest post by me at SkS.

        The same reason why I haven’t managed (or tried) to locate even one piece of pro-Walloon, anti-Flemish hate-rhetoric by you: they don’t exist. Unless there’s something about you we don’t know!! ;-) LOL. Which would be highly surprising—you’re as easy-to-read as a large-print See Spot Run, BBD.

  36. Tara Bray wants to thank you for being someone giving him the air he craves.

    He’s a complete (and I mean COMPLETE) narcissist.

    • I call him bray because he’s a useless donkey making a hell of a racket.

      There’s no other point to his existence other than to be noticed. Indeed, I’ve come to the conclusion that is why Bray takes the denialist stance: he’s desperate.

  37. Skara Brae wants to thank you for giving the world-heritage-protected village the attention it craves.

    It’s a completely (and I mean COMPLETELY) Neolithic.

  38. Why should I go looking for evidence that you’re racist, BBD? Perhaps if I’d accused you of such, I’d be obliged to prove it—but I didn’t.

    Are you racist? If not—and I’d be a bit surprised if you were—then you’re sending me on a random goose chase! That’s hardly very polite, BBD. I know we’re on opposite sides of a misunderstanding about the causal unidirectionality of time, but that’s no reason to be unfriendly, surely.

    Meanwhile I note that you’ve explicitly accused me of being dishonest at SkS (among other places). Let me therefore ask you what I asked Wow:

    Please provide a link to one (1) dishonest comment by me at SkS.

    Not a link to someone else’s paraphrase of, reference to or opinion about something I wrote. A link to something I wrote. Which was dishonest.

    Or apologize.

    Cheers,

    BK

    • Why should I go looking for evidence that you’re racist, BBD? Perhaps if I’d accused you of such, I’d be obliged to prove it—but I didn’t.

      .

      You are absolutely contemptible.

      • Your lies at SkS were deleted by moderators, as we all know perfectly well. So this ‘show me’ shite is just another dishonest trick.

        Produce evidence that I am a racist, as you repeatedly accuse above, you loathsome little fuck.

      • Thank you, BBD, for making your feelings on the topic of evidence so clear:

        So this ‘show me’ shite is just another dishonest trick.

        Even if I didn’t know you, I could tell from this one line that you’re a non-scientist (or at best, a climate scientist).

  39. Your lies at SkS were deleted by moderators, as we all know perfectly well.

    No, I didn’t tell any lies at SkS—as I know perfectly well because, unlike you, I know what I wrote at SkS.

    But hey, don’t let the fact that all supposed evidence for your claim has been conveniently destroyed stop you from repeatedly making it!

    (After all, it’s well known that the SS kidz are the Phil Jones of blog moderation.)

    BTW, you’re not going to mind if I accuse you of something for which no evidence exists, are you, you lovable little fellow?

    • Produce evidence that I am a racist, as you repeatedly accuse above, you loathsome little fuck.

      • No.

        It’s a little hard to find evidence for a counterfactual—as you must have discovered during your quest for proof of my “dishonesty” at SkS. For all I know, you’re no more a racist than I am a liar; so why waste time trying to prove such an implausible conjecture?

      • over at:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=106&&n=1934

        Moderator Response:

        [DB] Note to all participants: The posting rights of Mr. Keyes have been deemed forfeit due to dishonesty on the part of Mr. Keyes, earlier:

        Brad Keyes at 22:12 PM on 25 March 2013

        So in what way; which parts of ‘science’ need defending? From what?

        From scientists who’ve found “a balance between being honest and being effective.”

        In a nutshell.

        Mr. Keyes then offered up this delineation of his first comment noted above with this:

        Brad Keyes at 22:49 PM on 25 March 2013

        DSL—I was alluding to Stephen Schneider’s ethics.

        BBD performs a masterful, morally righteous takedown on it here.

        Mr. Keyes then confirmed his intellectual dishonesty on this thread with this statement:

        Brad Keyes at 00:11 AM on 26 March 2013

        Tom,

        I repeat: where have I referred to Schneider or his ethics?

        You’re the only person on this thread who’s talking about Schneider. Why? What’s the relevance?

        There can be no place in this forum for those who abuse the presumption of inherent honest and integrity. Especially for those who torture the truth, stretching and distorting it beyond all recognition.

      • What part of…

        “You have 2 options.

        “1. provide a link to one (1) comment by me at SkS which constitutes a lie. Not someone else’s paraphrase, misquote or opinion of my comment. An original comment by me.

        “2. shut your fetid lie-hole in shame.”

        … don’t you understand?

        I’m guessing it’s the concept of shame, isn’t it?

      • Bray, you demanded a link to an example of you lying.

        It was given.

      • Er, no Wow. I asked for a link to a lie I’d told at SkS, yet you failed to link to any of the several comments I left there. Instead you linked to someone else’s assertions about long-vanished comments. I don’t think you’re being intentionally inept; rather I suspect you don’t even know why this was an epic fail on your part.

        As Lotharsson once told you: “this is high-school level English comprehension. You need help … I suggest you ask a high-school teacher.”

      • Yes it was given, bray.

        Saying “Uh, no” doesn’t change it. And it only means you’re doing it here too.

  40. …you lovely little fella.

    • Unwisely, Keyes asks:

      Wake me up if and when you can finally explain the basis of your dogmatic conviction that I’ve somehow been dishonest to you or anyone else you care to specify.

      On this thread I have been forced to complain repeatedly that you were lying your arse off. Again and again, despite my objections, you tried to pretend that I had stated that 550ppmv would be ‘catastrophic’. You did this in a transparent and sustained attempt to delegitimise me by misrepresenting what I said. Some examples:

      Let’s say you use an ECS estimate of ~2.5K, which according to BBD is enough to make a 550 ppm* world “catastrophic.”

      And:

      So your worldview unambiguously calls ~1K of warming ‘catastrophic.’

      And:

      If we get ~1.2K warmer, your statements minus some weasel words predict catastrophe.

      And:

      CAGW is not a Denialist Strawman™—it’s what you yourself implicitly expect in a mere 550ppm (or 1.2K) world.

      Etc.

      What I actually said was:

      ‘CAGW’ is what you get under *conservative* estimates of ECS if emissions increase unabated this century and the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises well above ~550ppmv.

      And:

      No, BBD said that CAGW is what will happen if emissions rise well over ~550ppmv – even if ECS/2xCO2 is down around the ~2.5C mark. Surely someone as clever as you can understand this?

      Etc. Note that Keyes turns “well above” and “well over” into “weasel words” – dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation.

      Here’s an example of me, protesting at this dishonesty and misrepresentation:

      We stop right there. I did not call 550ppmv “catastrophic”. And this is the second time I have told you not to misrepresent what I said. The *second time*. There’s no excuse for behaviour like this. Stop being a tricksy little shit please.

      But he carried on. And this is just one example among many of Keyes’ dishonesty. His calling me a racist above is another. Denying that he did so when challenged is another.

      This deliberate, repetitive lying about another commenter is not acceptable.

      • BBD,

        I’ve apologised for missing your qualifier “well above / well over.” If only you’d bolded those words from the start, as you do here, then I wouldn’t have bothered commenting on your “prediction” as it would have been obvious that it was ill-defined, effectively unfalsifiable and innocuously meaningless. Anyway, it was a well-intentioned oversight on my part and I can’t believe you still don’t get over it.

  41. You’ll notice that Bray uses the tired tricks of ID/Creationists in his rhetorical rants.

    It’s nauseating and depressing that someone whose ancestry has been one increasing brain capacity decides to use it solely for cooling his blood.

    • Bray uses the tired tricks of ID/Creationists in his rhetorical rants.

      You’re being as specific as usual, I see. Yawn.

      What is it about believalists and your aversion to citing data for your claims?

      • “and your aversion to citing data for your claims?”

        I do give data supporting my claims. You go “Nuh-uh, not accepted”.

  42. Never seen this blog before, but sure some of the commenters.

    BBD has made quite a few egregious errors when dealing with the simplest of scientific or physical arguments. And Deltoid is the prefect place for him. I see now that he uses the poor empirical evidence for an assumedECS-value of 2.5°C/CO2-doubling to bolster the response to a further increase in CO2.

    That’s more than astonishing …

    Not only because BBD (as so many others in his camp) wants to attribute temperature increases preceding CO2-rise to his ‘estimation’. But because it means that the lower the actual influence of CO2 is, the higher number he arrives at. For instance:

    Assuming (like the IPCC does) that half of what has happened since 1950 (ie som 0.2 °C) is due to manmade GHG-emissions, BBD’s ‘calculation’ would arrive at closer to an additional 2.2-2.3 °C (*)for a further increase to 550 ppm.

    There are so many flaws in BDD’s ‘scientific reasoning’ it is hard to know where to begin. But then it never was about science, it is as many correctly point out a belief system … and when it is challenged, the foolowers react just like religious cults when their faith is challenged.

    (*) Depending on the exact choice of reference point

    • Joan here does the whole “I is smarter, cos I said I proved it” bullshit.

      Don’t give him any time, he’s a confirmed loon.

    • Hi Jonas

      Well put. By the way, how did we manage to avoid bumping into each other until now? Don’t you also comment at Deltoid all the time? Freaky!
      :-D

      Anyway, I had similar thoughts when I first saw BBD’s math. It’s literally the case that, by his “reasoning,” the less the climate has already responded to CO2, the more it will respond in the future. This seems perverse, to put it gently. Presumably Dominic views ECS as a kind of God-given, a priori constant, and all the empirical variables as subservient to the truth of the ECS!

      This is jaw-droppingly patently wrong to anyone with scientific training. Surely it goes without saying that ECS is an empirically-determined value, a hostage to observation, and not some primordial magic number!

      Yet BBD isn’t being stupid, insane or mendacious—not on this topic, as far as i can tell. Sure, he does have that obnoxious dogmatic urgency characteristic of the convert, and this often overrides his moral obligations to fellow human beings—for example, on more than one occasion he’s blatantly told fibs in service of the alarmist narrative—but in this particular, trivial math problem, he really doesn’t know any better. Like most people—like most educated people—like most educated, intelligent people—BBD has never been taught how scientists think.

      I’m pretty sure that from BBD’s own POV, his weird math is perfectly sensible. And I bet many, many readers of a similar educational background would also be hard-pressed to perceive its invalidity.

      Reasoning isn’t as innate, as given as we often think. Hence the adage: one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.

      • Searching for “the less the climate has already responded to CO2″ on this thread shows only you saying that.

  43. Jonas,

    There are so many flaws in BDD’s ‘scientific reasoning’ it is hard to know where to begin. But then it never was about science,

    I think it was, at least in the beginning, for BBD. It’s fascinating to retrace his progressive confusion and decline at Bishop Hill; and I think we need to understand what happened to him, cognitively, lest we make the easy and lazy assumption that he’s no better than someone like Wow (a retard) or Lotharsson (a fanatical thug).

    it is as many correctly point out a belief system …

    OK, but there’s nothing wrong with belief systems per se. We all subscribe to them—hopefully to correct ones! The material distinction is between belief systems derived from evidence and those derived from faith, ignorance, prejudice, etc. etc.

    and when it is challenged, the foolowers react just like religious cults when their faith is challenged.

    Actually that’s how (most of) its apologists and spruikers react—the type of people who “debate” us. But there’s also a silent majority of perfectly-nice believers who are essentially minding their own business. We should be careful not to assume the average believer is an asshole like Lotharsson or an imbecile like Wow. Otherwise we’re effectively writing-off half the human race.

  44. I’d think one factor in the age gap is their having experienced the 70’s era growing scientific consensus about anthro global cooling!

    Interesting thoughts though, I’ve noticed that more orthodox Christians simply can’t imagine a man made global catastrophe happening on God’s watch – the end times are his business after all.

  45. Oh dear, Robbie, you are getting YET ANOTHER denialist myth in your head.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

    “[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.”

    So no, the only age related thing here is that someone whose mental faculties are broken believe that sort of crap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s