Eli, you know it all adds up---Oh no...) Okay, you know I like what this man says, he has good traction on this road we are all on. I thank God, that he does not appear too often, my head would pop. If you are able to overcome ADD long enough to comprehend what this guy said... I gotta hand it to you. Where will we all be, when we finally get the check? Now, for those with sage advice for us the unwashed,... what's up?
http://www.kitco.com/ind/willie/jan132011.html
We will all die some day--- & it will be to our credit too
Let's see now... Mr David B. Benson, Were you going to say sex, or is there some new word, from COO:} world? If John Mashey is right and a-meson, is not lying; I might be able to purchase chapter eight... so much for a land of plenty.
don't be lewd, it's crewed time to fly bye-by--- 14/1/11 10:04 PM
Stop being a fucking drama queen with this 10 billion years of GDP caper, you religious nutcase. If you can't answer the question fuck off and stop wasting pixels. You know it adds to AGW. 18/1/11 1:40 AM
This is a first. Jam thinks rich people can't pay more for nature preservation.
Hey Jam, are you a Democrat?
I'm asking as honestly as I can because your comment appears to have serious logical flaws and full of emotive junk that we can only expect from the political party recently made much smaller. 18/1/11 9:20 AM
For Christ sake you moron, the 1% cost of mitigation is 1% of GGDP. It's not 1% of consumption, that is unless you think 1% of 100 - 1% of 50, which wouldn't shock me for a liberal arts grad.
"Sigh, someone else with reading comprehension issues. Use the formula Luke: the 1% is 1% of GGDP. Taken off the consumption part of GGDP. Rather than eating up the seed grains, so to speak, which most farmers will tell you is not a good idea. "
Martie, lets try an exercise. 1% of 100 = 1. 1% of 50 =.5
If you want to express it as 1/50, then that equals 2%
You really are a from a mediocre liberal arts school, you big mouth. 19/1/11 12:24 AM
Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor.
If you have anything to say, point to the facts or STFU and go away, as I have little time for people like you. 19/1/11 3:02 AM
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..." 19/1/11 4:19 AM
Jeff, Now you have me baffled. What comes in a pile, could possibly refer to Anonym-Ass and has six letters. I can think of something with 7 letters that would modify the adjective "crazy" to describe him. He is certainly lower than snake****, dumber than owl**** and full of bull****, but my knowledge of the scatological only goes so far, and this particular troll surpasses it. 19/1/11 7:05 AM
Go to bed, You need some sleep. After suggesting you would apply negative time preference (saying so) in the middle of the day your insomnia is really effecting you. 19/1/11 12:40 AM
Fine. if it makes you happy. I'm Fred. I'm not, but that won't make you happy trying to figure out who I am and I'm here to make you happy, Jerkerman. 19/1/11 3:04 AM
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
More stunning huberious from the same person who claims to know what Stern's findings were, only to expose himself an sorely wrong.
Keep it up Knelly, you've built quite the reputation (for exposing your self). I'm sure Tol is appreciative of the type of support you provide (not). 19/1/11 3:43 AM
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..."
Anon (with Fred Knell’s MO) at 4:23 am
“Do you understand that now, you ignoramus? There's nothing worse than liberal arts majors skulking around trying to sound all knowledgeable about these things except IT majors. Stick to the Iliad and let the grown ups speak.”
IMO anon is Knell alright. His maniacal musings have been more-or-less banned from Deltoid, so he's popped up over here instead. I think, Eli, you ought to throw this clown out, pronto.
Anon (Knell) writes, "Here's the thing, I've have no science training".
That's about the most honest revelation he's made. Everything else is garbage. The other day, before Tim Lambert rightfully scrambled his gibberish, he tried to downplay my resposte by claiming that my scientific publications were in journals that were the caliber of "Reader's Digest". That's strange, since I have more citation so my work than his heroes do and the journals I have published in include Nature, PNAS, Ecology Letters, TREE, Ecology, etc. I am sure that Richard will even recognize that stature of these journals.
Truth is anon (Knell) has never picked up an ecology paper in his life and he expects readers here to think he can accurately predict the cost of losing biodiversity after 99% has already been extirpated? Get real. He ought to pack and and leave before he makes an even bigger idiot of himself. Anyone who think that human welfare depends exclusively on the physical environment is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Yet, for some innane reason, anon (= Knell) thinks he can add something to a debate about the economic costs of climate change whilst ignoring ecological aspects. I'd like to ask him how he thinks human society would do if all pollinators, nutrient cycling organisms, and other vital functional groups were amongst the 99% to go. I expect for him to reply that humans will thrive even if the planet were covered in concrete. This is the level of stupidity we are dealing with here folks. An arrogant, scientific illiterate who thinks he knows it all. 19/1/11 4:43 AM
Jeff, we might be right about Knell, but while Knell and Anon share some similarities Anon political reference are to Democrats, while Knell's were Australian.
Still if they are not the same its an amazing coincidence to meet such alike bloggers, with alike tactics, and attacks, and errors. And to meeting them on the same Tol topic with in a week.
Maybe Tol's work just attracts a certain character? Poor Tol. 19/1/11 4:55 AM
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..."
Anon (with Fred Knell’s MO) at 4:23 am
“Do you understand that now, you ignoramus? There's nothing worse than liberal arts majors skulking around trying to sound all knowledgeable about these things except IT majors. Stick to the Iliad and let the grown ups speak.”
Anon (being his self) at 5:00am:
"Look you religious nut ball this isn't your website and the discussion has nothing you could add. Just go away and do some Jim Jones impersonations, you unhinged creep." 19/1/11 5:09 AM
"IMO anon is Knell alright. His maniacal musings have been more-or-less banned from Deltoid, so he's popped up over here instead. I think, Eli, you ought to throw this clown out, pronto."
Of Course, you would say that Jeff Jim Jones Harvey, you clown.
"That's about the most honest revelation he's made. Everything else is garbage."
Unlike you I don't venture into stuff I don't know and leave it to people that do. You seem to twist that all around when I pointed out that I leave the science to the scientists and I haven’t made any scientific claims except one, a medical one in that you seem to have all the traits of a religious nut like Jones.
You wouldn’t know the difference between GDP and GOP yet venture into this discussion like a typical troll.
Look you religious nut ball this isn't your website and the discussion has nothing you could add. Just go away and do some Jim Jones impersonations, you unhinged creep.
Ecology major. Is that a serious degree or a make believe for people unable to do anything else? 19/1/11 5:00 AM
Jeff, Now you have me baffled. What comes in a pile, could possibly refer to Anonym-Ass and has six letters. I can think of something with 7 letters that would modify the adjective "crazy" to describe him. He is certainly lower than snake****, dumber than owl**** and full of bull****, but my knowledge of the scatological only goes so far, and this particular troll surpasses it. 19/1/11 7:05 AM
From Wikipedia, “Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.”
Party leader Emmanuel Goldstein defined the word this way:
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Explain your anti-reason approach in applying negative time preference and while there also explain how this would be a way of conserving rather than consuming resources.
You do realize that by applying a negative time preference you would in effect by inducing people to consume more in the present, right?
Interesting to see you here too. I see your pathetic name but don't read your scrawls at almost every extremist website in the country. Flick open the website and there's D. Hogaza there in the comments section. What an ass you are.
As for pay-grades. I would be assuming you're so busy commenting at realclimate that it doesn't offer a chance for a full time job. So which disability pension are you on, you creep? 20/1/11 4:26 PM
It is nice when you love your mother & are almost just like her?:o)
EliRabett said...
"Mom Rabett was the last of the first grade dragons, and she always used to shake her head about parents' choices in educating their children. To hear the average discourse, parents should be totally free to make all choices for their kids, but in reality many, maybe even most do not have the information they need to do so, nor the tools that they need to make the best choices, nor do they all know this, nor do they know how to seek out the information and help they need. Which, of course, is not a modern dilemma."...
Hmmm, talk about some Light reading... Peter's observation in II Peter, 3:8; & now it only takes 27 Heavenly days to complete One circuit of the galactic meridian... How big are you now?:o) 12/11/10 9:52 AM
Perhaps they are the Higgs-Boson: 'The officer in charge of a ship's rigging, anchors, cables, and deck crew.' You know, the One, that all of science, seems to be searching for?
Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!
Turgidson:
Ah, what a load of commie bull. I mean, afterall...
Hi Eli Welcome back, how was your stay in the monastery? Did you learn to listen, really listen, during those long hours of silence with God? I must say again that in approvingly quoting this Post Normal all-must-have-prizes twaddle... "You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." ... Eli is presumably denying any such thing as a [S|s]cientific [M|m]ethod (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). If 'science' has no definition, then when Eli claims "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," he isn't really asserting anything in particular, is he? When he advocates laughing at those who laugh "at science," who the heck is he talking about? Impossible to say. (Please set me on What Is Science?
Anonymous, their refusal to reply is precisely what you'd expect from brute lagomorphs that don't know the answer. But don't be fooled! They've actually got a mind-blowingly satisfactory comeback for every single criticism that's been levelled against their doctrines—they just can't show this, because they've all taken a vow of silence. I'm not making this up! Scroll back and see for yourself. The head hare has promised his subbunnies a reward richer than any carrot. Provided they don't interact with climate infidels for another 12 hours or so, he's going to grant them what climate deletionists crave above all else: the erasure, segregation and censorship of heretical words. And see—or rather, don't see—the proof of their perfect obedience. So housebroken, so suggestible, so docile. He knows his audience, old Eli! They'd probably drink any liquid he told them to at this point. on
"only 18 hours to go, people." Couldn't stand the silence, could you, dhogaza? LOL... There's a guy who's clearly not master of his domain. Let's see if the rest of you can do better. Gotta hack it gotta hack it gotta hack it and besides, every time the question I put to Eli—the real question—What (if anything) Is Science?—gets pushed offscreen, I must say again that in approvingly quoting this Post Normal all-must-have-prizes twaddle... "You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." ... Eli is presumably denying any such thing as a [S|s]cientific [M|m]ethod (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). Therefore, when he asserts "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," he isn't on What Is Science?
w: "In no way was I using the fact that Rupert Murdoch owned **The Australian** as an argument." Then what was the point of repeatedly asking me who owned The Australian until I said I didn't know, at which point you answered your own question by informing me it was Rupert Murdoch (notorious climate optimist)? Who cared—me? No. You? Apparently. "As you said elsewhere, it was just an assertion." I don't remember saying that, and the phrase "just an assertion" isn't one that would ever come naturally to me. Anyway, it's not "just" an assertion. It's also a fact. "Assertions can't be used as arguments, right?" That's a bit of a confus[ed|ing] question. Technically, you can't use anything but an argument as an argument. You can't even use a painting of an argument. (Ceci n'est pas un argument!) So, technically, the question would reduce to: "assertions are never arguments, right?" But this isn't right at all, as I understand it. I reckon compound assertions can be on Laughing at those who laugh at science
w: If you say something like: > I'm not being tricksy. ... This means that the topic will switch to your behaviour, here and elsewhere. No, my behaviour elsewhere is immaterial, because the claim that I'm not being tricksy is in the present continuous tense, which standardly refers to current activity only. Feel free to analyse my past behaviour, of course; I make no apologies for it (unless stated otherwise; I'm only human!), it just isn't relevant. on What Is Science?
Eli, Here's a concrete example: Laughing At Those Who Laugh at Sgkbkgrc. What is sgkbkgrc? It has no rules, standards, criteria or definition, apparently! on What Is Science?
Willard: you claim that "AGW -> CAGW" is a non sequitur. Could anyone possibly call it a sequitur? To reduce such a claim to absurdity: if AGW were necessarily, inherently, analytically catastrophic, then catastrophic man-made climate change would be a fait accompli, since AGW has already occurred. But it's not a fait accompli, is it? "Now, let me recall you my two points:" I appreciate the courtesy, willard. As you can probably imagine, even the most conscientious of respondents is bound to overlook one or two of a ninja's points in a sea of points, despite his best efforts. "1. If CAGW is a straw man, this non sequitur lacks relevance." Yes, if you mean: if nobody believed in catastrophic AGW it would be pretty silly to dispute it. "You have yet to support your presumption that CAGW should be scientifically defined." Oops. Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be scientifically defined—it only has to be so defined if you expect me to take it seriously as a physical on Laughing at those who laugh at science
David, Thanks: "gentlemen don't snoop into other's mail" That wouldn't have been relevant to item 2 though, which was in Warwick Hughes' inbox and was publicised voluntarily (years before "Climategate") on Laughing at those who laugh at science
Eli, thanks for asking your subrabbits to be quiet about the irrelevantia we've been discussing. This leaves you and me free to contemplate your 3 burning words, currently in the title bar of my browser: What Is Science? In quoting this approvingly: "'No, and I think you'll agree with me here: it's a science and we ought to hold it to exactly the same standards as any other.' You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." you are, I take it, denying the existence of the scientific method (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). If, therefore, you assert "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," you are, I take it, not asserting anything in particular. (Please correct me if on What Is Science? Delete | Not spam
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said... "Brad, So you don't understand the difference between a warning and a death threat. Really, Brad? Are you really that dim?" Thanks for your wonderful concerns about my dimness, Dilbert! :-) Fortunately, I'm not the one who calls a warning... "You will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f*** neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!" ... a 'death threat.' Only Zibethicus is "that dim." ;-D on What Is Science?
willard, "Brad, Thank you for the invitation, which I might accept when you'll acknowledge and respond to my two points. Your unresponsiveness looks a bit too tricksy, for now." But I've now responded in unflinching detail: "you claim that "AGW -> CAGW" is a non sequitur." Could anyone possibly call it a sequitur? To reduce such a claim to absurdity: if AGW were necessarily, inherently, analytically catastrophic, then catastrophic man-made climate change would be a fait accompli, since AGW has already occurred. But it's not a fait accompli, is it? "Now, let me recall you my two points:" I appreciate the courtesy, willard. As you can probably imagine, even the most conscientious of respondents is bound to overlook one or two of a ninja's points in a sea of points, despite his best efforts. "1. If CAGW is a straw man, this non sequitur lacks relevance." Correct, assuming that you mean: if nobody believed in catastrophic AGW it would be pretty silly to dispute it. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
David, thanks for keeping it classy: 'Richard Feynman was probably more of the "gentlemen don't snoop into other's mail" school.' However, such a moral rule would provide no guidance regarding Item 2 in my question (the Phil Jones-Warwick Hughes email), which was sitting in Hughes' inbox, was publicised voluntarily, and antedated the "Climategate" release by several years. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
Anonymous: "The auditors don't get humility. They always insist that climate scientists don't have a clue, but by some unexplained process skeptics know exactly how climate works. Fat chance!" Oh grow up. NOBODY knows exactly how climate works or even claims to know. When are you going to graduate from strawmen and cut your teeth on a real argument? on What Is Science?
w: "Thank you for the invitation, which I might accept when you'll acknowledge and respond to my two points." I've acknowledged them and responded to them—more than once—but somebunny keeps deleting what I say. If your request for acknowledgement of and responses to your points was made in good faith, as I presume it was, then you too must be frustrated by somebunny's censorious efforts to stop you reading what I write. Because of your good faith I expect you will complain about the disruption of our dialogue, as I'm doing now: Hey, whoever's up there, willard and i are trying to have a conversation. You're making it rather difficult by continually erasing my side of the dialogue. Which is too bad, as I thought we were both learning from it. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
Dayum! This is pitch-perfect writing, cRR. You're a great stylist... "the bradthing ... down the ahole ... I feel kinda raped ... keep quiet while being raped ... ample space in my rabett hole..." You've really nailed (as it were!) the paranoid amour propre of the True Believer. But, ever-mindful of Poe's Law, perhaps I should explain to new readers that: - I've been nothing but gentle and attentive to cRR's needs - cRR and I (though on opposite "sides" of the climate debate) have only ever exchanged friendly arguments, as far as I can remember - cRR has thanked me for my "sobering" responses, and in turn I've praised him at Deltoid as one of the Rabett Runners who "has half a brain" - beneath the irony, there's a clear undertone of betrayal—he feels let down by the hypocrites and bad counsellors on his own "side" - his comment acts out a "displacement" of this anger onto the perennial scapegoat: heretic Hopefully this will be an occasion for some of you to examine your on What Is Science?
David, your suggestion is appreciated: "I suggest the willard & brad keyes discussion move to ... scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/ where it can continue without such difficulties." But alas, we won't be able to interact at Deltoid. All my comments there are quarantined for up to 24 hours. It's a pointless, superstitious policy—every single comment is eventually approved, unchanged—but it has had one effect: to kill off the thread, for all intents and purposes. (A case study in What Not To Do, should you ever go into the science-blogging business.) on Laughing at those who laugh at science
If you SERIOUSLY wish to deny my claim—which is a bad idea, since my claim is true—then the first thing you have to do is NAME SOMEONE who knows exactly how the climate works.
That's your own limp-brained interpretation, "Brad".
However, what it tells me is that you have no clue as to what science is, what it does and what it's about.
And that's as damning for your stupid little exercise as it gets, "Brad". You have nothing useful to offer, and when pushed, deny the use that other, smarter folk are able to extract from less than perfect understandings.
C.r.r. was wrong. You're not a fascist you're a barbarian.
"But now I see we can work here. Thus, Brad 'Dayum' Keys:"
My screen surname is Keyes.
" First, I might feel raped by you. Otoh I gave you the benefit of the doubt in order to lure you"
You little harlot! Some, not Brad to be sure, would say a person of such loose manners was almost asking for it.
"into my artillery sights"
So when does the pounding start? hahaha
"which would happen if and only if you are a climate revisionist, which you are and today so stated clearly.”
No, that isn’t quite what I said. I pointed out that the only climate revisionists are the cli-fi authors who imagine a world in which past climate changes (e.g. the MWP) never occurred; the “Holocaust deniers” who try to wish away the awful truth of the Little Ice Age; in other words, the people in Michael Mann’s rolodex.
”You see, in our gentlemen's exchange at Rabbet's you tried to lead me into believing we were actually on the same side in the CAGW-debate ì.e. the realists' side.”
I am on the realist side, doofus.
”Rabiately independently minded as I am, I took some time sussing you out”
Really? I didn’t waste my time, or disrespect your intelligence, by running a background check on your doctrinal credentials. I prefer to take people as they come. Even if you’ve expressed the truest and most lambent insights previously, that won’t improve my opinion of your present remarks.
”while temporarily blocking out the storm of comments by those who already knew you (but me, probably less so).”
Good. I’d expect nothing less of someone who boasted “rabiate” independence of mind.
”You showed up under the barrels in close to no time, though as a climate revisionist you are relatively clever. Like a rat of sorts. Still, I dare say you could learn dayumed much from one McIntyre in this respect.”
I must say being accused of rat-cunning is a first for me.
The big logical problem for you, though, is: how do you know that I’m hiding my true revisionist views (as you seem to insinuate)? Isn’t it just as possible that I don’t hold such views? I hate to break it to you, cielo, but only one of us is privy to my inner, unmediated thoughts, and it ain’t you. The normal, decent way to deal with this age-old dilemma—which arises every single time you exchange views with someone—is to presume ingenuity. Do you think you can manage that presumption? Because if not, I’ll find someone who can. ”They tend to think they are dealing with trolls, or, at their least naive, they think they are dealing with 'merchants of doubt' and believe they can negotiate with such 'merchants’.”
So you’ve figured out that I’m neither a troll or a Merchant of Doubt. Well done. Baby steps.
”What they need to understand is that they are debating with fascism. The kind of fascism that abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking. The kind of fascism that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death). The kind of fascism that will destroy the planet just for the fun of it.”
LOL. Yeah right. You’ve got us pegged! That’s exactly what drives 50% of the population to scoff at warnings of catastrophic global warming: we’re all crypto-fascists, with the emphasis on crypto. (How did you figure it out???) Actually, technically speaking, it’s a spicy blend of sadism, self-loathing and evil that drives us.
Happy?
”The kind of fascism that has rape for culture.”
Again? Again with the anal-trespassing fixation?
Readers, let us thank cRR for these insights. Not that he’s discovered anything of profundity about the “denier” mind, but he’s revealed so much—more than we wanted to know, perhaps?—about believalist psychology!
Are you threatening me with revenge, cielo? hehehe ... Because in the context of your previous claims to be a professional killer from feudal Japan, it sounds awfully like a death threat to me! Heck, it's a whole campaign of death threats. (Remember, it only takes one, boys and girls!)
@chek - I never called anyone a 'fascist' here. But I highlighted some classic fascist aspects of climate revisionism (btw this term introduced after Watts forbid 'to deny' because he thinks that verb is related to Shoah denial, did I mention something about paranoia?).
Given de origins of the word 'barbarian', which is based on the artificial division of humanity into 'we inside the walls thus good versus them outside thus bad' (cf Hannah Arendt, history of democracy and Athens), calling someone a barbarian is calling yourself that (and, might I offer, being it).
Brad Keyes is a climate revisionist en his method is trolling. He is not interesting at all, being the typical small troll personality (I'm actually saving his life here by giving him the attention he so desperately needs) and his frenzy of late will soon pass as he gets exhausted and marginalized. I hope someone watches over him by then.
I disagree. ¡Viva la inteligencia! ¡Mueran los malos intelectuales!
Did you forget Down with liberty!, ¡Vivan las cadenas y muera la nación! on purpose, cRR? :-D
I disagree in any case. Libertad, igualdad, fraternidad y sororidad!
This insensible and necrophilic oath, "¡Viva la Muerte!" is the most repellent paradox since Lotharsson wrote:
"Karen clearly doesn’t even understand what mainstream [sic] climate science understand [sic] – or she doesn’t care – which is why she’s happy to regurgitate claims that climate science doesn’t take into account effect X or phenomenon Y and that hypothesis Z has 'never been verified,' when all of those claims about climate science are easily verified to be false.
"... some classic fascist aspects of climate revisionism ..."
Don't neglect the fact that revisionism itself is already fascist—"he who controls the past controls the present" & c.
Seriously though, if you can only explain the ascendance and persistence of climate heresy by positing that half the world is psychopathic—a desperate and incredible conjecture—this doesn't speak well of your understanding of the debate!
Now, I enjoy a chance to hate on los fascistas as much as the next guy, but I'm going to stop you before you waste another decade flogging that dead horse. CAGW denial has nothing to do with fascism. Not even close.
Do yourself a favor and read the answer Freeman Dyson (the genius, hippie and izquierdista) gives to the question: why aren't you worried about AGW? It all comes down to 1 and only 1 thing: the integrity of science.
Would that be a veridical paradox, Brad? As in: CAGW denial is a typical instance of “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!”?
Looks like you understand my use of ‘revisionism’ quite well – “he who dictates Pi to be rational number controls the universe” et cetera.
The conjecture that ‘half the world is psychopathic’ is entirely yours. And the association of fascism with psychopathy is out of the blue, please explain.
Freeman ‘Lancaster’ Dyson had his funnies. One of them being he says climate models are about Reynolds, Stokes and Bernoulli which merchandises the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather. Another one being his statement that “The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind.” This statement proves he is a climate revisionist, a liar on this subject. It is the reason I founded the Pi Sekt, where we dismiss the kind of ‘open mindedness’ that would assert Pi is a rational number or that gravity oscillates between pull and push on the whim of the day and individual. Freeman Dyson knows better therefore the accusation of liar sticks. Science is not some cosy bar game like Dyson suggests. Science is about getting to know about reality and providing description and explanation for it. To deny this is a fascist trait.
“"'The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large,' Dyson said. 'By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese'."” Said Dyson. Plain silly, this one, you buy that? Dyson concerned for those poor Chinese? Maybe he foresaw the catastrophic drought hitting a considerable part of that country now? What kind of cryptopatriottism (yeah, it’s the same thing) is this former great scientist about?
Brad Keyes 3/4/13 6:02 PM. What a waste of talent. I could hope it's a step to production eventually though. Can I? Can I? Was not I, once, a 'climate revisionist' who used to blame the sun? "A little cough from the sun and it's 50 K hotter here" was my conversationstopper then :)
"That's the difference between us climate realists and you deletionists: we use reason, not power, to silence our opponents." (7/4/13 9:53 PM elsewhere)
Another typical snippet of climate revisionist's 'thinking'. Their goal is to silence people. Keyes' "reason" would be like Delingpole's:
-- "The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant's dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap." --
Your 'defendants' are speaking "Brad". But then you and your ilk attempt to traduce everything they say. Which works, to a degree, on Doolallypole's goonheaded constituency.
Brian a majority of your posts are your own diatribe.
Btw my offer of assistance in your potential re-election campaign in 2014 is a promise. Done deal.
Amazing that we have a coordinated effort by Democrats that work in the IRS to persecute American because their politics are different and the Rabetts' response is 'meh'.
The next time you disparage all Republicans or all conservatives I'll think of your family, is that the point you are making?
No anger here Brian, I truly enjoy speaking out against political bigots.
Brian's cartoonish insight of Supreme court Justices
"but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment."
and
Brian being naïve and blind to history
"If the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate, why shouldn't Democrats use it?"
Shall I dig up the link where Brian let stand a comment that anyone joining the Armed Services today has the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands?
No need to jump in on that one Brian?
Just visit your bathroom, look in the mirror and just think for a moment where the anger is and who might be the hater.
FWIW Your snarky smirk and other speech clues during your questions to the gentlemen from the Army Corps of Engineers are clear indicators to your elevated opinion of yourself bordering on a superiority complex.
Where have you been? Oh I understand since most people here neither read nor comment on Brian's political pieces you do not know him.
He is to the left of MSNBC "journalists" and if Brian learned his waiter was a Republican, even after outstanding service, Brian would not leave him a tip. Brian is also a mind reader and can discern the internal thoughts and intentions of anyone he disagrees with. Usually in the most negative/evil way possible (think twirling mustaches and maniacal laughter).
The next time you disparage all Republicans or all conservatives I'll think of your family, is that the point you are making?
No anger here Brian, I truly enjoy speaking out against political bigots.
Brian's cartoonish insight of Supreme court Justices
"but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment."
and
Brian being naïve and blind to history
"If the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate, why shouldn't Democrats use it?"
Shall I dig up the link where Brian let stand a comment that anyone joining the Armed Services today has the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands?
No need to jump in on that one Brian?
Just visit your bathroom, look in the mirror and just think for a moment where the anger is and who might be the hater.
FWIW Your snarky smirk and other speech clues during your questions to the gentlemen from the Army Corps of Engineers are clear indicators to your elevated opinion of yourself bordering on a superiority complex.
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteEli, you know it all adds up---Oh no...)
Okay, you know I like what this man says, he has good traction on this road we are all on. I thank God, that he does not appear too often, my head would pop. If you are able to overcome ADD long enough to comprehend what this guy said... I gotta hand it to you. Where will we all be, when we finally get the check? Now, for those with sage advice for us the unwashed,... what's up?
http://www.kitco.com/ind/willie/jan132011.html
We will all die some day---
& it will be to our credit
too
buy-buy?:o)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLet's see now... Mr David B. Benson, Were you going to say sex, or is there some new word, from COO:} world? If John Mashey is right and a-meson, is not lying; I might be able to purchase chapter eight... so much for a land of plenty.
don't be lewd, it's crewed
time to fly
bye-by---
14/1/11 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMr. Dhogaza get his tin hat now, too. Give One to A__ray... E_t al.
13/1/11 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLike you guys are always sayin... "It is always about the distribution..." What a picture.) This or that, what's left?:o)
fly-bye
sigh
8/1/11 1:00 PM
Antiquated Tory,Speaking for myself may I say to you... Toot Toot.
ReplyDeleteAtom
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJakermen:
Stop being a fucking drama queen with this 10 billion years of GDP caper, you religious nutcase. If you can't answer the question fuck off and stop wasting pixels. You know it adds to AGW.
18/1/11 1:40 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteFred (aka frustrated potty mouth) I had no idea this left you so sore:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/tolgate.php#comment-3124833
18/1/11 2:02 AM
This is a first. Jam thinks rich people can't pay more for nature preservation.
ReplyDeleteHey Jam, are you a Democrat?
I'm asking as honestly as I can because your comment appears to have serious logical flaws and full of emotive junk that we can only expect from the political party recently made much smaller.
18/1/11 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteOh Jeez Jam is wetting his pants again watching a rerun of 2012 where the monk get lifted off the mountain by a giant wave. Someone, please call 911.
Shorter, Jakerman.
ReplyDelete"I'm a ignorant dick".
I can't try harder with you, jakerman, as you're too stupid to understand.
18/1/11 11:09 PM
For Christ sake you moron, the 1% cost of mitigation is 1% of GGDP. It's not 1% of consumption, that is unless you think 1% of 100 - 1% of 50, which wouldn't shock me for a liberal arts grad.
ReplyDeleteYou really are stupid.
19/1/11 12:18 AM
More Martie stupidity:
ReplyDelete"Sigh, someone else with reading comprehension issues. Use the formula Luke: the 1% is 1% of GGDP. Taken off the consumption part of GGDP. Rather than eating up the seed grains, so to speak, which most farmers will tell you is not a good idea. "
Martie, lets try an exercise. 1% of 100 = 1. 1% of 50 =.5
If you want to express it as 1/50, then that equals 2%
You really are a from a mediocre liberal arts school, you big mouth.
19/1/11 12:24 AM
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteNothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor.
If you have anything to say, point to the facts or STFU and go away, as I have little time for people like you.
19/1/11 3:02 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 3:02 am:
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..."
19/1/11 4:19 AM
"Well he knows that if the environment collapses, you won't have an economy--which puts him a lot higher on the IQ curve than you."
ReplyDeleteLike not get out of bed in the morning scared stiff he might be hit by a bus 100 miles away.
Please continue. You are only increasing Jeff's credibility by opposing him."
Yea right.
"Put another way: First, bound the risk. "
You ought to be "bound", in a strait jacket.
19/1/11 9:14 AM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...
ReplyDeleteJeff,
Now you have me baffled. What comes in a pile, could possibly refer to Anonym-Ass and has six letters. I can think of something with 7 letters that would modify the adjective "crazy" to describe him. He is certainly lower than snake****, dumber than owl**** and full of bull****, but my knowledge of the scatological only goes so far, and this particular troll surpasses it.
19/1/11 7:05 AM
Mash.
ReplyDeleteGo to bed, You need some sleep. After suggesting you would apply negative time preference (saying so) in the middle of the day your insomnia is really effecting you.
19/1/11 12:40 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon, BTW if you really really want to prove you are not Fred Knell why not point me to some of your other recent posts on blogs?
But I don't see why anon should be so annoyed at being called Fred.
Thanks for the fun anyway Fred.
19/1/11 2:22 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon, BTW if you really really want to prove you are not Fred Knell why not point me to some of your other recent posts on blogs?
But I don't see why anon should be so annoyed at being called Fred.
Thanks for the fun anyway Fred.
19/1/11 2:22 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJerkerman..
Fine. if it makes you happy. I'm Fred. I'm not, but that won't make you happy trying to figure out who I am and I'm here to make you happy, Jerkerman.
19/1/11 3:04 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIf it weren't for the slightly higher level of coherence in language usage, I be speculating that "anonymous" is Graeme Bird.
Perhaps he is Neil Craig. Tim Curtin?
So many nuts in the fruitcake...
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII.
19/1/11 3:25 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon (with a wounded Fred Knell's MO) writes:
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
More stunning huberious from the same person who claims to know what Stern's findings were, only to expose himself an sorely wrong.
Keep it up Knelly, you've built quite the reputation (for exposing your self). I'm sure Tol is appreciative of the type of support you provide (not).
19/1/11 3:43 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon gets more bipolar:
Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 3:02 am:
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..."
Anon (with Fred Knell’s MO) at 4:23 am
“Do you understand that now, you ignoramus? There's nothing worse than liberal arts majors skulking around trying to sound all knowledgeable about these things except IT majors. Stick to the Iliad and let the grown ups speak.”
Wow!.
19/1/11 4:32 AM
Jeff Harvey said...
ReplyDeleteIMO anon is Knell alright. His maniacal musings have been more-or-less banned from Deltoid, so he's popped up over here instead. I think, Eli, you ought to throw this clown out, pronto.
Anon (Knell) writes, "Here's the thing, I've have no science training".
That's about the most honest revelation he's made. Everything else is garbage. The other day, before Tim Lambert rightfully scrambled his gibberish, he tried to downplay my resposte by claiming that my scientific publications were in journals that were the caliber of "Reader's Digest". That's strange, since I have more citation so my work than his heroes do and the journals I have published in include Nature, PNAS, Ecology Letters, TREE, Ecology, etc. I am sure that Richard will even recognize that stature of these journals.
Truth is anon (Knell) has never picked up an ecology paper in his life and he expects readers here to think he can accurately predict the cost of losing biodiversity after 99% has already been extirpated? Get real. He ought to pack and and leave before he makes an even bigger idiot of himself. Anyone who think that human welfare depends exclusively on the physical environment is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Yet, for some innane reason, anon (= Knell) thinks he can add something to a debate about the economic costs of climate change whilst ignoring ecological aspects. I'd like to ask him how he thinks human society would do if all pollinators, nutrient cycling organisms, and other vital functional groups were amongst the 99% to go. I expect for him to reply that humans will thrive even if the planet were covered in concrete. This is the level of stupidity we are dealing with here folks. An arrogant, scientific illiterate who thinks he knows it all.
19/1/11 4:43 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteJeff, we might be right about Knell, but while Knell and Anon share some similarities Anon political reference are to Democrats, while Knell's were Australian.
Still if they are not the same its an amazing coincidence to meet such alike bloggers, with alike tactics, and attacks, and errors. And to meeting them on the same Tol topic with in a week.
Maybe Tol's work just attracts a certain character? Poor Tol.
19/1/11 4:55 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteOh it looks like Anon at 4:12 was an anomally:
Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 3:02 am:
"Nothing personal, but you have nothing to add here. You are not an economist had no economic training. What you are is a religious fruitcake posing as some sort of reasonable person. You are neither and if Jim Jones were alive today he'd look at you as either a blood brother or a fierce competitor."
Then Anon (with Fred Knell's MO) at 4:12 am
"People: Please try to stick to what this thread is supposed to be about (economics) and not the individuals: who they are and if you like them or not. Stop behaving like angry little betas and focus on the topic..."
Anon (with Fred Knell’s MO) at 4:23 am
“Do you understand that now, you ignoramus? There's nothing worse than liberal arts majors skulking around trying to sound all knowledgeable about these things except IT majors. Stick to the Iliad and let the grown ups speak.”
Anon (being his self) at 5:00am:
"Look you religious nut ball this isn't your website and the discussion has nothing you could add. Just go away and do some Jim Jones impersonations, you unhinged creep."
19/1/11 5:09 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJeff Jim Jones Harvey says:
"IMO anon is Knell alright. His maniacal musings have been more-or-less banned from Deltoid, so he's popped up over here instead. I think, Eli, you ought to throw this clown out, pronto."
Of Course, you would say that Jeff Jim Jones Harvey, you clown.
"That's about the most honest revelation he's made. Everything else is garbage."
Unlike you I don't venture into stuff I don't know and leave it to people that do. You seem to twist that all around when I pointed out that I leave the science to the scientists and I haven’t made any scientific claims except one, a medical one in that you seem to have all the traits of a religious nut like Jones.
You wouldn’t know the difference between GDP and GOP yet venture into this discussion like a typical troll.
Look you religious nut ball this isn't your website and the discussion has nothing you could add. Just go away and do some Jim Jones impersonations, you unhinged creep.
Ecology major. Is that a serious degree or a make believe for people unable to do anything else?
19/1/11 5:00 AM
Jakerman said...
ReplyDeleteAnon (with Knell's MO) wites:
"Unlike you I don't venture into stuff I don't know and leave it to people that do."
Evidence on this thread suggest otherwise.
19/1/11 5:11 AM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...
ReplyDeleteJeff,
Now you have me baffled. What comes in a pile, could possibly refer to Anonym-Ass and has six letters. I can think of something with 7 letters that would modify the adjective "crazy" to describe him. He is certainly lower than snake****, dumber than owl**** and full of bull****, but my knowledge of the scatological only goes so far, and this particular troll surpasses it.
19/1/11 7:05 AM
Arc Light...
ReplyDeletehttp://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/17/scientists-trying-to-clone-resurrect-extinct-mammoth/?hpt=T2
http://digg.com/news/science/good_looking_men_and_women_have_higher_iqs_beauty_and_brains_do_go_together
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/01/10/2742483/is-loughners-mother-jewish
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Police-seize-guns-after-Los-Alamos-standoff
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072360/warmists-we-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules/
From Wikipedia, “Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.”
Party leader Emmanuel Goldstein defined the word this way:
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/8267768/World-needs-100-trillion-more-credit-says-World-Economic-Forum.html
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20101226/COLUMNISTS01/12260306/2010--The-good--the-bad-and-the-unfortunate
John Mashey:
ReplyDeleteExplain your anti-reason approach in applying negative time preference and while there also explain how this would be a way of conserving rather than consuming resources.
You do realize that by applying a negative time preference you would in effect by inducing people to consume more in the present, right?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDhogaza:
Interesting to see you here too. I see your pathetic name but don't read your scrawls at almost every extremist website in the country. Flick open the website and there's D. Hogaza there in the comments section. What an ass you are.
As for pay-grades. I would be assuming you're so busy commenting at realclimate that it doesn't offer a chance for a full time job. So which disability pension are you on, you creep?
20/1/11 4:26 PM
It is nice when you love your mother & are almost just like her?:o)
ReplyDeleteEliRabett said...
"Mom Rabett was the last of the first grade dragons, and she always used to shake her head about parents' choices in educating their children. To hear the average discourse, parents should be totally free to make all choices for their kids, but in reality many, maybe even most do not have the information they need to do so, nor the tools that they need to make the best choices, nor do they all know this, nor do they know how to seek out the information and help they need. Which, of course, is not a modern dilemma."...
May I say to ya, what a picture.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0&feature=related
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY&feature=related
http://www.kitco.com/ind/willie/oct062010.html
13/10/10 10:01 AM
RR Kampen NL,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1xyNYphlGA
14/10/10 8:34 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8125127/Giant-space-bubbles-baffle-astronomers.html
ReplyDelete11/11/10 2:45 PM
Hmmm, talk about some Light reading... Peter's observation in II Peter, 3:8; & now it only takes 27 Heavenly days to complete One circuit of the galactic meridian... How big are you now?:o)
ReplyDelete12/11/10 9:52 AM
Perhaps they are the Higgs-Boson: 'The officer in charge of a ship's rigging, anchors, cables, and deck crew.' You know, the One, that all of science, seems to be searching for?
ReplyDeleteAtom
12/11/10 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete'POE'; The Seiche Well
James; 4:14---now, some time ago & then...again?:o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rd8mzSQUkY&feature=related
17/11/10 11:17 AM
More & more fun, for everyone:)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k
18/12/10 6:26 PM
Geo. engineering ):-tOO!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOjckJWqb0A
3-7-8-9-10...the end
3/1/11 8:00 AM
Sorry, no pictures & for the dim lites...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE
About 2, he'd say...?:o)
no-way-joe
26/1/11 6:55 AM
Yo Buck, now you got some real trail cred... way to go thumper?:o)
ReplyDeleteOpen Mind & History...
re-write
All good things must someday end. Look for each other and wave if you can;'O' well. See ya.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4VlruVG81w
Bye-bye.
Hey Tommy dear, how about owning up to your numerous lies about your naval service first? :-)
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous to Rabett Run at 29/1/11 9:42 PM
Cut to: int. War Room
ReplyDeleteDeSadeski:
You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G.
Turgidson:
No, what about it?
DeSadeski:
Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!
Turgidson:
Ah, what a load of commie bull. I mean, afterall...
vorbeam de delata dunarii
ReplyDeletehttp://especialistasgoterastejadosmadrid.blogspot.com.es/
am intrebat, si mi-au spus ca nu a fost adoptata.
Hi Eli Welcome back, how was your stay in the monastery? Did you learn to listen, really listen, during those long hours of silence with God? I must say again that in approvingly quoting this Post Normal all-must-have-prizes twaddle... "You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." ... Eli is presumably denying any such thing as a [S|s]cientific [M|m]ethod (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). If 'science' has no definition, then when Eli claims "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," he isn't really asserting anything in particular, is he? When he advocates laughing at those who laugh "at science," who the heck is he talking about? Impossible to say. (Please set me on What Is Science?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, their refusal to reply is precisely what you'd expect from brute lagomorphs that don't know the answer. But don't be fooled! They've actually got a mind-blowingly satisfactory comeback for every single criticism that's been levelled against their doctrines—they just can't show this, because they've all taken a vow of silence. I'm not making this up! Scroll back and see for yourself. The head hare has promised his subbunnies a reward richer than any carrot. Provided they don't interact with climate infidels for another 12 hours or so, he's going to grant them what climate deletionists crave above all else: the erasure, segregation and censorship of heretical words. And see—or rather, don't see—the proof of their perfect obedience. So housebroken, so suggestible, so docile. He knows his audience, old Eli! They'd probably drink any liquid he told them to at this point. on
ReplyDelete"only 18 hours to go, people." Couldn't stand the silence, could you, dhogaza? LOL... There's a guy who's clearly not master of his domain. Let's see if the rest of you can do better. Gotta hack it gotta hack it gotta hack it and besides, every time the question I put to Eli—the real question—What (if anything) Is Science?—gets pushed offscreen, I must say again that in approvingly quoting this Post Normal all-must-have-prizes twaddle... "You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." ... Eli is presumably denying any such thing as a [S|s]cientific [M|m]ethod (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). Therefore, when he asserts "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," he isn't on What Is Science?
ReplyDeletew: "In no way was I using the fact that Rupert Murdoch owned **The Australian** as an argument." Then what was the point of repeatedly asking me who owned The Australian until I said I didn't know, at which point you answered your own question by informing me it was Rupert Murdoch (notorious climate optimist)? Who cared—me? No. You? Apparently. "As you said elsewhere, it was just an assertion." I don't remember saying that, and the phrase "just an assertion" isn't one that would ever come naturally to me. Anyway, it's not "just" an assertion. It's also a fact. "Assertions can't be used as arguments, right?" That's a bit of a confus[ed|ing] question. Technically, you can't use anything but an argument as an argument. You can't even use a painting of an argument. (Ceci n'est pas un argument!) So, technically, the question would reduce to: "assertions are never arguments, right?" But this isn't right at all, as I understand it. I reckon compound assertions can be on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletew: If you say something like: > I'm not being tricksy. ... This means that the topic will switch to your behaviour, here and elsewhere. No, my behaviour elsewhere is immaterial, because the claim that I'm not being tricksy is in the present continuous tense, which standardly refers to current activity only. Feel free to analyse my past behaviour, of course; I make no apologies for it (unless stated otherwise; I'm only human!), it just isn't relevant. on What Is Science?
ReplyDeleteAlso consider the invitation reiterated, willard. ;-) on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDeleteEli, Here's a concrete example: Laughing At Those Who Laugh at Sgkbkgrc. What is sgkbkgrc? It has no rules, standards, criteria or definition, apparently! on What Is Science?
ReplyDeleteWillard: you claim that "AGW -> CAGW" is a non sequitur. Could anyone possibly call it a sequitur? To reduce such a claim to absurdity: if AGW were necessarily, inherently, analytically catastrophic, then catastrophic man-made climate change would be a fait accompli, since AGW has already occurred. But it's not a fait accompli, is it? "Now, let me recall you my two points:" I appreciate the courtesy, willard. As you can probably imagine, even the most conscientious of respondents is bound to overlook one or two of a ninja's points in a sea of points, despite his best efforts. "1. If CAGW is a straw man, this non sequitur lacks relevance." Yes, if you mean: if nobody believed in catastrophic AGW it would be pretty silly to dispute it. "You have yet to support your presumption that CAGW should be scientifically defined." Oops. Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be scientifically defined—it only has to be so defined if you expect me to take it seriously as a physical on Laughing at those who laugh at science
David, Thanks: "gentlemen don't snoop into other's mail" That wouldn't have been relevant to item 2 though, which was in Warwick Hughes' inbox and was publicised voluntarily (years before "Climategate") on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDeleteEli, thanks for asking your subrabbits to be quiet about the irrelevantia we've been discussing. This leaves you and me free to contemplate your 3 burning words, currently in the title bar of my browser: What Is Science? In quoting this approvingly: "'No, and I think you'll agree with me here: it's a science and we ought to hold it to exactly the same standards as any other.' You really don't 'get' science. There are no standards and there are no rules, except possibly for the journals, and the journal publications do not define science - they just report some of it. In fact, there is no real definition of science..." you are, I take it, denying the existence of the scientific method (the most usual and obvious candidate for "real definition of science"). If, therefore, you assert "science says" such-and-such is going to happen, or such-and-such a scientist "disagrees with" or "denies science," you are, I take it, not asserting anything in particular. (Please correct me if on What Is Science?
ReplyDeleteDelete | Not spam
ReplyDeletea_ray_in_dilbert_space said... "Brad, So you don't understand the difference between a warning and a death threat. Really, Brad? Are you really that dim?" Thanks for your wonderful concerns about my dimness, Dilbert! :-) Fortunately, I'm not the one who calls a warning... "You will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f*** neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!" ... a 'death threat.' Only Zibethicus is "that dim." ;-D on What Is Science?
willard, "Brad, Thank you for the invitation, which I might accept when you'll acknowledge and respond to my two points. Your unresponsiveness looks a bit too tricksy, for now." But I've now responded in unflinching detail: "you claim that "AGW -> CAGW" is a non sequitur." Could anyone possibly call it a sequitur? To reduce such a claim to absurdity: if AGW were necessarily, inherently, analytically catastrophic, then catastrophic man-made climate change would be a fait accompli, since AGW has already occurred. But it's not a fait accompli, is it? "Now, let me recall you my two points:" I appreciate the courtesy, willard. As you can probably imagine, even the most conscientious of respondents is bound to overlook one or two of a ninja's points in a sea of points, despite his best efforts. "1. If CAGW is a straw man, this non sequitur lacks relevance." Correct, assuming that you mean: if nobody believed in catastrophic AGW it would be pretty silly to dispute it. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDavid, thanks for keeping it classy: 'Richard Feynman was probably more of the "gentlemen don't snoop into other's mail" school.' However, such a moral rule would provide no guidance regarding Item 2 in my question (the Phil Jones-Warwick Hughes email), which was sitting in Hughes' inbox, was publicised voluntarily, and antedated the "Climategate" release by several years. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
Anonymous: "The auditors don't get humility. They always insist that climate scientists don't have a clue, but by some unexplained process skeptics know exactly how climate works. Fat chance!" Oh grow up. NOBODY knows exactly how climate works or even claims to know. When are you going to graduate from strawmen and cut your teeth on a real argument? on What Is Science?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletew: "Thank you for the invitation, which I might accept when you'll acknowledge and respond to my two points." I've acknowledged them and responded to them—more than once—but somebunny keeps deleting what I say. If your request for acknowledgement of and responses to your points was made in good faith, as I presume it was, then you too must be frustrated by somebunny's censorious efforts to stop you reading what I write. Because of your good faith I expect you will complain about the disruption of our dialogue, as I'm doing now: Hey, whoever's up there, willard and i are trying to have a conversation. You're making it rather difficult by continually erasing my side of the dialogue. Which is too bad, as I thought we were both learning from it. on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDeleteDayum! This is pitch-perfect writing, cRR. You're a great stylist... "the bradthing ... down the ahole ... I feel kinda raped ... keep quiet while being raped ... ample space in my rabett hole..." You've really nailed (as it were!) the paranoid amour propre of the True Believer. But, ever-mindful of Poe's Law, perhaps I should explain to new readers that: - I've been nothing but gentle and attentive to cRR's needs - cRR and I (though on opposite "sides" of the climate debate) have only ever exchanged friendly arguments, as far as I can remember - cRR has thanked me for my "sobering" responses, and in turn I've praised him at Deltoid as one of the Rabett Runners who "has half a brain" - beneath the irony, there's a clear undertone of betrayal—he feels let down by the hypocrites and bad counsellors on his own "side" - his comment acts out a "displacement" of this anger onto the perennial scapegoat: heretic Hopefully this will be an occasion for some of you to examine your on What Is Science?
David, your suggestion is appreciated: "I suggest the willard & brad keyes discussion move to ... scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/ where it can continue without such difficulties." But alas, we won't be able to interact at Deltoid. All my comments there are quarantined for up to 24 hours. It's a pointless, superstitious policy—every single comment is eventually approved, unchanged—but it has had one effect: to kill off the thread, for all intents and purposes. (A case study in What Not To Do, should you ever go into the science-blogging business.) on Laughing at those who laugh at science
ReplyDelete"NOBODY knows exactly how climate works or even claims to know."
ReplyDeleteWell-known as the projection of utter ignorance on everybody but self.
cRR: Spare me the folk Freudianisms.
ReplyDeleteIf you SERIOUSLY wish to deny my claim—which is a bad idea, since my claim is true—then the first thing you have to do is NAME SOMEONE who knows exactly how the climate works.
I'll be waiting. lol
Hey "Brad", you over-sized clownshoe. Name mesomebody who knows exactly how electricity works. I'll be waiting. lol.
ReplyDeleteAnd then when you've done that, name me somebody who knows exactly how gravity works, oh great-soled one.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember - I'll be waiting. lol.
"Name mesomebody who knows exactly how electricity works."
ReplyDeleteNo. Your request lacks any relevance.
But, at the same time, it tells me a lot!
It tells me that you agree, don't you, with the obviously true statement that nobody knows exactly how climate works.
And yet in acknowledging this simple fact, you're complicit in "the projection of utter ignorance on everybody but self," according to cRR! LOL
Fight it out amongst yourselves. I'll be watching. :-)
That's your own limp-brained interpretation, "Brad".
ReplyDeleteHowever, what it tells me is that you have no clue as to what science is, what it does and what it's about.
And that's as damning for your stupid little exercise as it gets, "Brad". You have nothing useful to offer, and when pushed, deny the use that other, smarter folk are able to extract from less than perfect understandings.
C.r.r. was wrong. You're not a fascist you're a barbarian.
cRR:
ReplyDelete"But now I see we can work here. Thus, Brad 'Dayum' Keys:"
My screen surname is Keyes.
" First, I might feel raped by you. Otoh I gave you the benefit of the doubt in order to lure you"
You little harlot! Some, not Brad to be sure, would say a person of such loose manners was almost asking for it.
"into my artillery sights"
So when does the pounding start? hahaha
"which would happen if and only if you are a climate revisionist, which you are and today so stated clearly.”
No, that isn’t quite what I said. I pointed out that the only climate revisionists are the cli-fi authors who imagine a world in which past climate changes (e.g. the MWP) never occurred; the “Holocaust deniers” who try to wish away the awful truth of the Little Ice Age; in other words, the people in Michael Mann’s rolodex.
”You see, in our gentlemen's exchange at Rabbet's you tried to lead me into believing we were actually on the same side in the CAGW-debate ì.e. the realists' side.”
I am on the realist side, doofus.
”Rabiately independently minded as I am, I took some time sussing you out”
Really? I didn’t waste my time, or disrespect your intelligence, by running a background check on your doctrinal credentials. I prefer to take people as they come. Even if you’ve expressed the truest and most lambent insights previously, that won’t improve my opinion of your present remarks.
”while temporarily blocking out the storm of comments by those who already knew you (but me, probably less so).”
Good. I’d expect nothing less of someone who boasted “rabiate” independence of mind.
”You showed up under the barrels in close to no time, though as a climate revisionist you are relatively clever. Like a rat of sorts. Still, I dare say you could learn dayumed much from one McIntyre in this respect.”
I must say being accused of rat-cunning is a first for me.
The big logical problem for you, though, is: how do you know that I’m hiding my true revisionist views (as you seem to insinuate)? Isn’t it just as possible that I don’t hold such views? I hate to break it to you, cielo, but only one of us is privy to my inner, unmediated thoughts, and it ain’t you. The normal, decent way to deal with this age-old dilemma—which arises every single time you exchange views with someone—is to presume ingenuity. Do you think you can manage that presumption? Because if not, I’ll find someone who can. ”They tend to think they are dealing with trolls, or, at their least naive, they think they are dealing with 'merchants of doubt' and believe they can negotiate with such 'merchants’.”
So you’ve figured out that I’m neither a troll or a Merchant of Doubt. Well done. Baby steps.
”What they need to understand is that they are debating with fascism. The kind of fascism that abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking. The kind of fascism that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death). The kind of fascism that will destroy the planet just for the fun of it.”
LOL. Yeah right. You’ve got us pegged! That’s exactly what drives 50% of the population to scoff at warnings of catastrophic global warming: we’re all crypto-fascists, with the emphasis on crypto. (How did you figure it out???) Actually, technically speaking, it’s a spicy blend of sadism, self-loathing and evil that drives us.
Happy?
”The kind of fascism that has rape for culture.”
Again? Again with the anal-trespassing fixation?
Readers, let us thank cRR for these insights. Not that he’s discovered anything of profundity about the “denier” mind, but he’s revealed so much—more than we wanted to know, perhaps?—about believalist psychology!
Oh, and:
ReplyDelete"Fourth, dessert will be served. Cold."
Are you threatening me with revenge, cielo? hehehe ... Because in the context of your previous claims to be a professional killer from feudal Japan, it sounds awfully like a death threat to me! Heck, it's a whole campaign of death threats. (Remember, it only takes one, boys and girls!)
:-D
Paranoia is part of the syndrome, but what it's really about is this:
ReplyDelete"¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte!"
[General Millán Astray]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@chek - I never called anyone a 'fascist' here. But I highlighted some classic fascist aspects of climate revisionism (btw this term introduced after Watts forbid 'to deny' because he thinks that verb is related to Shoah denial, did I mention something about paranoia?).
ReplyDeleteGiven de origins of the word 'barbarian', which is based on the artificial division of humanity into 'we inside the walls thus good versus them outside thus bad' (cf Hannah Arendt, history of democracy and Athens), calling someone a barbarian is calling yourself that (and, might I offer, being it).
Brad Keyes is a climate revisionist en his method is trolling. He is not interesting at all, being the typical small troll personality (I'm actually saving his life here by giving him the attention he so desperately needs) and his frenzy of late will soon pass as he gets exhausted and marginalized. I hope someone watches over him by then.
cRR,
ReplyDeleteyou quote the glorioso mutilado:
¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!
I disagree. ¡Viva la inteligencia! ¡Mueran los malos intelectuales!
Did you forget Down with liberty!, ¡Vivan las cadenas y muera la nación! on purpose, cRR? :-D
I disagree in any case. Libertad, igualdad, fraternidad y sororidad!
This insensible and necrophilic oath, "¡Viva la Muerte!" is the most repellent paradox since Lotharsson wrote:
"Karen clearly doesn’t even understand what mainstream [sic] climate science understand [sic] – or she doesn’t care – which is why she’s happy to regurgitate claims that climate science doesn’t take into account effect X or phenomenon Y and that hypothesis Z has 'never been verified,' when all of those claims about climate science are easily verified to be false.
cRR
ReplyDelete"... some classic fascist aspects of climate revisionism ..."
Don't neglect the fact that revisionism itself is already fascist—"he who controls the past controls the present" & c.
Seriously though, if you can only explain the ascendance and persistence of climate heresy by positing that half the world is psychopathic—a desperate and incredible conjecture—this doesn't speak well of your understanding of the debate!
Now, I enjoy a chance to hate on los fascistas as much as the next guy, but I'm going to stop you before you waste another decade flogging that dead horse. CAGW denial has nothing to do with fascism. Not even close.
Do yourself a favor and read the answer Freeman Dyson (the genius, hippie and izquierdista) gives to the question: why aren't you worried about AGW? It all comes down to 1 and only 1 thing: the integrity of science.
Would that be a veridical paradox, Brad? As in: CAGW denial is a typical instance of “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!”?
ReplyDeleteLooks like you understand my use of ‘revisionism’ quite well – “he who dictates Pi to be rational number controls the universe” et cetera.
The conjecture that ‘half the world is psychopathic’ is entirely yours. And the association of fascism with psychopathy is out of the blue, please explain.
Freeman ‘Lancaster’ Dyson had his funnies. One of them being he says climate models are about Reynolds, Stokes and Bernoulli which merchandises the classical fallacy of mixing climate with weather.
Another one being his statement that “The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind.” This statement proves he is a climate revisionist, a liar on this subject. It is the reason I founded the Pi Sekt, where we dismiss the kind of ‘open mindedness’ that would assert Pi is a rational number or that gravity oscillates between pull and push on the whim of the day and individual. Freeman Dyson knows better therefore the accusation of liar sticks. Science is not some cosy bar game like Dyson suggests. Science is about getting to know about reality and providing description and explanation for it. To deny this is a fascist trait.
“"'The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large,' Dyson said. 'By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese'."” Said Dyson. Plain silly, this one, you buy that? Dyson concerned for those poor Chinese? Maybe he foresaw the catastrophic drought hitting a considerable part of that country now? What kind of cryptopatriottism (yeah, it’s the same thing) is this former great scientist about?
Brad Keyes 3/4/13 6:02 PM. What a waste of talent. I could hope it's a step to production eventually though. Can I? Can I? Was not I, once, a 'climate revisionist' who used to blame the sun? "A little cough from the sun and it's 50 K hotter here" was my conversationstopper then :)
ReplyDelete-Brad Keyes said...
ReplyDelete"That's the difference between us climate realists and you deletionists: we use reason, not power, to silence our opponents."
(7/4/13 9:53 PM elsewhere)
Another typical snippet of climate revisionist's 'thinking'. Their goal is to silence people. Keyes' "reason" would be like Delingpole's:
--
"The climate alarmist industry has some very tough questions to answer: preferably in the defendant's dock in a court of law, before a judge wearing a black cap."
--
Or Reasonable Robespierre's kinda 'reason'.
cRR,
ReplyDeleteThe defendants would be allowed—nay, encouraged—to speak.
Your 'defendants' are speaking "Brad". But then you and your ilk attempt to traduce everything they say. Which works, to a degree, on Doolallypole's goonheaded constituency.
ReplyDeleteBut wat's your excuse for making excuses?
chek,
ReplyDeletename one person I've traduced whose words I've traduced. When? How?
"But wat's your excuse for making excuses?"
Huh? Making excuses for...?
Oops—
ReplyDeletename one person whose words I've traduced. When? How?
I'm getting sick of these content-free slanders, chek. When you lie about me, your lies are so non-specific as to be almost unfalsifiable. Almost.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA_ray's contribution to this post (and most others) "Rethuglicans" "ebil gummint"
Your blather is boring and repetitious, please crawl back into Dilbert's space.
https://sites.google.com/site/reformascubiertastejadosmadrid/
ReplyDeletepolitica externa, madrid es la capital
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBrian a majority of your posts are your own diatribe.
Btw my offer of assistance in your potential re-election campaign in 2014 is a promise. Done deal.
Amazing that we have a coordinated effort by Democrats that work in the IRS to persecute American because their politics are different and the Rabetts' response is 'meh'.
Shocking, not.
Divide and dependency.
1
3/6/13 11:08 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe next time you disparage all Republicans or all conservatives I'll think of your family, is that the point you are making?
No anger here Brian, I truly enjoy speaking out against political bigots.
Brian's cartoonish insight of Supreme court Justices
"but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment."
and
Brian being naïve and blind to history
"If the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate, why shouldn't Democrats use it?"
Shall I dig up the link where Brian let stand a comment that anyone joining the Armed Services today has the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands?
No need to jump in on that one Brian?
Just visit your bathroom, look in the mirror and just think for a moment where the anger is and who might be the hater.
FWIW Your snarky smirk and other speech clues during your questions to the gentlemen from the Army Corps of Engineers are clear indicators to your elevated opinion of yourself bordering on a superiority complex.
1
21/10/13 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete" Brian's continued use of a (former) science blog as a Congressional campaign poster"
Yep. And Brian may want to discover a gym or a Bowflex as his upper body is lacking any substance.
1
21/10/13 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA_ray,
Where have you been? Oh I understand since most people here neither read nor comment on Brian's political pieces you do not know him.
He is to the left of MSNBC "journalists" and if Brian learned his waiter was a Republican, even after outstanding service, Brian would not leave him a tip. Brian is also a mind reader and can discern the internal thoughts and intentions of anyone he disagrees with. Usually in the most negative/evil way possible (think twirling mustaches and maniacal laughter).
He also prefers to let Eli speak for him.
1
21/10/13 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe next time you disparage all Republicans or all conservatives I'll think of your family, is that the point you are making?
No anger here Brian, I truly enjoy speaking out against political bigots.
Brian's cartoonish insight of Supreme court Justices
"but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment."
and
Brian being naïve and blind to history
"If the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate, why shouldn't Democrats use it?"
Shall I dig up the link where Brian let stand a comment that anyone joining the Armed Services today has the blood of millions of innocent civilians on their hands?
No need to jump in on that one Brian?
Just visit your bathroom, look in the mirror and just think for a moment where the anger is and who might be the hater.
FWIW Your snarky smirk and other speech clues during your questions to the gentlemen from the Army Corps of Engineers are clear indicators to your elevated opinion of yourself bordering on a superiority complex.
1
21/10/13 6:47 PM