The Mysterious Mr. Revkin
UPDATE: In the comments
-
Well, he was on their speaker list for 2012 (which reference links to the page in question):
http://breakthrough.turing.com/journal/article/speakers
which may be the explanation. Not to Lucia this, Andy is very close to the Breakthrough Institute which does raise suspicions, as did his UTurn on Years.
With all the goings on, Eli was poking through Dot Earth, you know, today's edition where Andy Revkin is against "Years of Living Dangerously" after he was for "Years of Living Dangerously".
The background to that is the Breakthrough Boys are against it and with someone perhaps to be named later in an interesting way, managed to jackhammer their hate it into the New York Times Op Ed page.
Well, for one reason or another Eli Yahooed -Andy Revkin and Breakthrough Institute -, and what do you think came up
- thebreakthrough.org/people/profile/
andrew-revkin Cached
Andrew Revkin Environmental writer, The Times. Download Hi-Resolution Picture. Andrew C. Revkin is an American, non-fiction, science and environmental writer.
This file is in the part of the Breakthrough Institute web site which gives little bios of the Breakthrough People, folks like Roger Pielke, Jr., Dan Sarewitz, Bruno LaTour, bunnies know the types, but you only find Andy's Page (btw, Eli has a webcite) hanging out there without a link to it.
Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might think that it a bit curious that Andy Revkin flacks for the Breakthrough Guys on a NY Times Blog. Others might ask why he did not disclose in the post that he is or was one of the Breakthrough People, although evidently under deep cover . That there might be a bit of a conflict of interest even if it were printed in a deep footnote on some obscure web page.
Still others are wondering why Andy is truncating comments that have already been posted on the current post with extreme prejudice, you know the ones that call him, Teddy and Mike S out for their acts. Perhaps some of those questions are now answered.
Eli has inquired of the New York Times Public Editor. Perhaps she will reply
Posts
722 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 722 Newer› Newest»Doh, I got mixed up.
Transparency and openness have no place in the world of science! (It has always been a fundamentally private activity.)
Transparency and openness apply only to conservative think tanks and their financial supporters, who have never been entitled to privacy.
You people don't actually care about science. Politics is where your heart is.
Whoever mentioned (upthread) the Climategate inquiries, thanks for the LOLz.
'As Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit in an email, “The science was not the subject of our study.”
...
The call to reopen the Select Committee hearing arises because the Russell report failed to answer fundamental questions. Among these, Stringer told The Register: “Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell.”
Although the Select Committee had stressed to East Anglia the importance of having open and independent inquiries, the hearings failed to oblige. The Russell inquiry, the last straw for Stringer, was held behind closed doors...'
But why the secrecy?
Why it always is.
I point at this:
> You people don't actually care about science. Politics is where your heart is.
And I point at this:
> As Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre [...]
That is all.
> Doh, I got mixed up.
No, Brad, you simply follow on your Gish gallop.
I point at this:
> You people don't actually care about science. Politics is where your heart is.
And I point at this:
> As Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre [...]
That is all.
WORLD'S SHORTEST PERSONALITY TEST
What pisses you off more:
1. a scientist keeping his algorithm secret?
2. a conservative think-tank keeping the Constitutionally-protected identity of a private donor of $2m secret?
RESULTS
If you answered
1. Your personality is pro-science.
2. Your personality is anti-science.
DISCUSSION
Tragically, not everyone is pro-science. What's the solution to the problem of people who answer "2"? I'm not sure. Maybe David Roberts is right and we should have some sort of climate Nuremberg.
Let's recall Pinko's question:
> How did the Gleick argument get rekindled here?
You people don't actually care about science. Politics is where your heart is.
"> How did the Gleick argument get rekindled here?"
Gleick professes to be a scientist but the truth of this profession depends on (inter alia) his probity, without which one is incapable of science. I couldn't care less where he stands politically.
A couple of random points about Keyes.
1) At STW BBD noted that he recalled Keyes admitting in the past that it was not his real name - I too recall the same. I also recall Keyes telling someone (on Deltoid, I think) that his "off-line" email name was Bradley Keyes (or implied to be so) but this doesn't contradict his statement elsewhere that the Keyes identity is a pseudonym.
2) I am not surprised to see the Keyes character apparently demonstrate a predilection for a certain type of voyeurism.
3) A two-question "personality test" predicated on a false dichotomy shows not that the questioner is as perspicacious as he might imagine, but that he is engaging in logical fallacy to score his points. However it seems such a fun game that I might play a similar one.
1. If one's online name is Brad Keyes, is one a sociopath or a psychopath?
2. If one's online name is Darrel Harb, is one a psychopath or a sociopath?
Whichever it is, looks like it's blown a fuse!...
Brad
There's nothing wrong with the temperature data. See eg. BEST.
You emitted an astonishingly prolonged fart of diversionary noise there, but I noticed that you did not answer my questions.
Why are the funders of the denial industry desperate to conceal their identities? Why do you think that is, Bradley?
"Why are the funders of the denial industry desperate to conceal their identities? Why do you think that is, Bradley?"
I apologise if I gave the impression of evasiveness, BBD—I didn't realize you were waiting for me to answer that.
Not only am I more than happy to tell you what I "think," I can also assure you that my remarks below are all corroborated (or at least not contradicted) by extensive readings in the behavioral sciences literature. Fortunately this appears to be one of those rare questions on which the science (Psychology) has almost perfectly vindicated our quotidian intuitions: in other words, proper, PhD-qualified psychologists have learned very little about this which predoctoral and folk psychologists like you and I didn't already know. Despite our explosive scientific progress in the last few centuries, Daniel Gilbert’s answer to this particular question is NOT a noticeable improvement on Shakespeare's answer.
So then, there are basically 2 motivators of furtive behaviour (or, to use Phil Jones’ favorite verb, “hiding”):
1. fear of discrimination or prejudice—where the cost of being outed might be vilification, ostracism or even hate-crime, on a personal level; or “bad PR,” boycott, divestment campaigns (etc.) at the corporate/group scale.
It’s a (sad) cliche, for example, that men of Jewish faith in certain cities wear baseball caps over their yarmulkes when they’re on the street. And their choice is entirely defensible both morally and pragmatically, within the unfortunate ethnopolitical context. Likewise, it is perfectly fine both morally and pragmatically for supporters of pro-Israel causes to donate in complete anonymity. Indeed their privacy is both enshrined and enforced Constitutionally, legally and by general moral agreement. I trust you understand and accept this, BBD.
2: up to no good.
————————————————————
Now let’s try applying this schema to some behavioral patterns seen in the climate debate, as we would in any other human context.
Examples:
— Why are the funders of the denial industry desperate to conceal their identities? Could this furtiveness be for reason 1? Obviously not. Given the overwhelmingly positive portrayal of climate “denial” that pervades our media, academies and popular culture, there is no reason in the world why any individual or group would hesitate to be openly identified as supporting climate “skepticism.” Far from it: what better PR could a company want? Climate denialism is culturally synonymous with virtue and philanthropy.
So it’s clearly motive number 2: they’re up to no good.
— Why do supposedly-respectable climate scientists delete emails, “hide” data, “hide behind” legal loopholes, etc.? This is equally obvious. They know they’ll be attacked. Scientists are the new Jews, and have been for 300 years. Now it's even worse because there's a Subterranean War Against Science going on. People of every culture in history have never liked scientists, science and scientific data at the best of kinds—and they've especially hated the really good, robust, compelling, correct kind. Climate scientists are acutely aware of how strong their evidence is, and how unimpeachable and hygienic their data is; so they can’t possibly let the public know this, for fear of crucifixion.
As I said, it’s basically common sense.
Yawn.
People of every culture in history have never liked scientists, science and scientific data at the best of kinds—and they've especially hated the really good, robust, compelling, correct kind.
So Brad is another nutter insinuating that the temperature data are faked. Basic WUWT/Jo Noval level crazy conspiracist ideation.
Why do we bother with this sort of stupid these days? Seriously, why? It's an insult to the collective intelligence of every sane commenter here.
> Daniel Gilbert’s answer to this particular question is NOT a noticeable improvement on Shakespeare's answer.
Gilbert provided EVIDENCE, Brad.
Thought you liked this word.
> basically common sense
Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.
> Why?
As Horne Fisher says:
"The soul of a schoolboy is a curious thing," Fisher continued, in a meditative manner. "It can survive a great many things besides climbing out of a chimney. A man can grow gray in great campaigns, and still have the soul of a schoolboy. A man can return with a great reputation from India and be put in charge of a great public treasure, and still have the soul of a schoolboy, waiting to be awakened by an accident. And it is ten times more so when to the schoolboy you add the skeptic, who is generally a sort of stunted schoolboy. You said just now that things might be done by religious mania. Have you ever heard of irreligious mania? I assure you it exists very violently, especially in men who like showing up magicians in India. But here the skeptic had the temptation of showing up a much more tremendous sham nearer home."
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1720/pg1720.html
Apart from a plaintive cry of "I didn't know that!", has The Keyster actually admitted he's been ringed and pinged and made to dance like a monkey across the internet by Megan McArdle yet?
Or is that whole episode now safely flushed down the memory hole?
"has The Keyster actually admitted he's been ringed and pinged and made to dance like a monkey across the internet by Megan McArdle yet?"
What the?
Are you really this slow, chek?
The strategy document IS AS FAKE AS EVER.
I discovered that by READING IT. Mosher discovered that, and even deduced WHO had faked it, the same way... by READING IT.
The fact that Megan McArdle may have had grubby motives for admitting the reality about its fakeness doesn't mean her claims were fake and the document was real!! LOL
You don't quite have a handle on how reason works, do you chek?
Are you referring to my earlier claim that McArdle was anti-Heartland?
Yes, I admit it: you've clearly called that idea into question by revealing who McArdle sleeps with every night, and who he works for.
This is minor, minor stuff chek.
I couldn't care less if she's actually as anti-HI as I (somehow) believed. (I don't quite know why Shub thinks it matters either.)
I only mentioned it to make you feel safe about reading her article. I know you're too phobic and superstitious to ever expose yourself to Enemy Propaganda, so it seemed like a good way to sedate you and coax you into broadening your knowledge base.
Sorry for being considerate.
Well, argument from assertion, eg "Gleick forged that document" is a logical fallacy.
So you would seem to have problems with reasoning that need addressing before you have a pop at chek.
"Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it."
Common sense is fairly reliable when it's in the form of folk psychology, Willard.
Evolution saw to that.
If you have trouble forming correct hypotheses about something as commonplance as why that person over there is tiptoeing and shooting furtive glances over his shoulder, you're unlikely to become anyone's ancestor. Even pre-humans could figure that shit out, Willard, and the higher apes can do it right now.
Why the secrecy?
Why it always is.
BBD
"Well, argument from assertion, eg "Gleick forged that document" is a logical fallacy."
The argument implicating Gleick is upthread, BBD. Far upthread. If you jump in late, don't expect the rest of us to repeat everything for you.
The old Keyster seems to now be saying that even though the basis of his whole argument (the investigative probity of McArdle the famous anti-Heartless and pro-warmist forensic specialist, tee hee) just got blown away, it's still a forgery because ... because ...well every loonytoon thinks so, and so does he and anyway cod forensic examination (no doubt yet another Keyster cod-qualification) means it doesn't matter what he said before.
What a train wreck of back-pedalling, butt-covering, revisionist incompetence this "science communicator" turns out to be when prodded.
> Common sense is fairly reliable [...]
This does not preclude from psychologists and behavioral economists to produce EVIDENCE that self-avowed reliability of one's common sense is overvalued.
And while we can agree that common sense is fairly reliable, appealing to common sense can lead to a fallacy, which the Heartland Institute can exploit from time to time, like Brad is about to do here:
http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=common+sense&x=0&y=0
I say "is about to do" because I'm using my common sense.
While my previous search on the Heartland Institute Policy bot gave 3000, using "common sense" instead leads to more than a thousand:
http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=%22common+sense%22&x=0&y=0
Brad
The argument implicating Gleick is upthread, BBD. Far upthread. If you jump in late, don't expect the rest of us to repeat everything for you.
The argument from assertion, you mean.
Brad
If you jump in late, don't expect the rest of us to repeat everything for you.
?
I know what's been said on this thread.
You however are exhibiting a selective memory.
Your lies about denying being Darrell Harb, for example:
In response to Sou, who said:
Darrell (or is it Brad Keyes? Surely not, since as I recall, he's been banned from here)
You:
I'm not even going near the Harb/Keyes conspiracy theory [? sub-Bergeracian ventriloquism theory?]!
And later to me, also calling you on your sockpuppetry:
Nobody's ever explained it to me, BBD. Perhaps you have the wrong person, hmmm?
* * *
As I said earlier, you are insulting the collective intelligence of the sane commenters here.
> The argument from assertion, you mean.
You should have give credit to Brad for having recited McCradle's rationale.
Also, notice that Brad recites something that has already been said elsewhere, in many places, during many, many days.
We can only hope that Brad stops repeating everything for anyone.
***
You may wish to attack something, you could attack the two inferences he makes: that it's a a fake; that it's Gleick's.
You may also bypass all this and simply note that this has nothing to do with science. This knocks out about any pretense he has of being consistent.
You can also simply observe, as Howard in a comment that won the Ur-Thread:
I love it. Reminds me of High School where Frank Zappa meets Salvidor Dali while geeks play the Jock and Cheerleader roles. Who cares who did what. HI and the WUWT peanut gallery are moronic cranks more interested in politics. Maybe some of the political CAGW moronic cranks juiced a HI memo. We must get to the bottom of this! Mosher is pretending to apply rigorous scientific analysis and ethics to solve the worlds greatest mystery in another effort to hide a pathetic Napoleonic complex. At the same time, Joshua is pretending to be Rodney King playing the Wizard of Oz. You two should get a sitcom… it practically writes itself.
All this BS deserves are personal attacks, worn-out cliches and random namedropping.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/#comment-90272
That, BBD, is how you win a thread.
Zest and gusto, not meanness and pettiness.
More Howards, less cheks, please.
chek,
Since you still haven't read McArdle's argument your contributions here are worthless.
Willard's wish:
>... less cheks, please.
would, if granted, boost both the likeability and credibility of your "side" of the debate, helping it to better evangelise The Science and maybe, just maybe, save what's left of this ravaged planet.
I oppose saving the planet, as you know, but I think that's a risk I'm willing to take if it means "less cheks."
The current number of cheks, 1, is too many.
There should be less than 1.
Now if you don't care about the planet, then fine: keep doing what you seem to think is "debating," pissing off one person after another, wasting everyone's time and embarrassing The Science (or whatever it is you think you're an ambassador for).
That just seems a bit selfish.
Willard,
"You may also bypass all this and simply note that this has nothing to do with science."
The public rightly distrusts scientists who:
-commit wire fraud
-praise their fellow scientists for committing wire fraud
-pass off obvious forgeries (containing cartoonishly implausible confessions of "dissuading teachers from teaching science"!) as authentic documents written by their enemies
-refuse to acknowledge their colleagues have done this even when it's obvious to the public
-refuse to condemn their colleagues for doing this
The public is smarter, and less gullible, than you might think.
The fascinating thing is how you people just cannot bring yourself to disavow the worst and most obviously bad elements on your side, NO MATTER how minor and isolated the badness [apparently] is.
If I were you I'd just say yes, Gleick is a lying forger, everyone else condemns what he did, but he's just one guy, so let's move on.
To which the "denier" would reply OK, let's.
And 2 years later, nobody would even remember it much less bother arguing about it.
But you can't admit it. You must deny it, no matter how:
- undeniable
- non-world-ending
- peripheral
it is.
So you perpetuate the debate. The wound will never close. We'll still be arguing Gleickgate in 5 years.
You should be reasonable about these things, like me.
I disavowed the HI billboard immediately. It has never returned to bore me again.
Why don't you act more reasonably?
By the way, your denial of these little details makes you seem absolutist, fanatical and insecure.
A reasonable group of people would acknowledge such problems and move on.
Thousands of scientists are supposedly on your side. So if you were reasonable, you'd stop denying what everyone knows: that Mann is a pseudoscientist and liar. Under the bus. Then you'd have....thousands of scientists on your side. What's the loss of 1? Nothing. Not even a flesh wound. Let's move on.
But you can't bring yourself to do that.
Why not? What are you afraid will happen? Will the whole thing come crashing down like a house of cards?
Cos that's what you're acting like. People who know it could all unravel any day now.
Insecure.
Fragile.
I had no idea this new "science communication" thing required so many buses.
Thank you for the kind words, Brad, and for reiterating your stupid green line test.
Now "reasonable" is your new "common sense." My common sense did not let me down, it seems. So either we agree to play any green line test you fancy by saying the same thing you do, or we're unreasonable.
Yawn.
Let's see how many times the Heartland Institute uses the word "reasonable":
http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=reasonable&x=0&y=0
That's more than 11,000 hits, Brad.
So I guess the Heartland Institute has a fairly good idea how to use that trick.
Do you, Brad?
***
I've already answered your question at least three times, by the way. I won't find them back for you. You know what people who jump in late.
> Willard's wish [...]
Since you kindly mention it, Brad, I also wish less keysterisms in the thread. But I don't expect you will change any time soon. You will find your own way home:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33749191673
***
I have no idea why you think pushing the honor card will help you, Brad.
So be it.
More examples:
Some self evident or easily verifiable facts:
There IS a scientific debate.
The evidence is NOT overwhelmingly, irresistibly, unequivocally, incontrovertibly, categorically, conclusively "pro." (That would be an obvious, intelligence-insulting overstatement.) It may be "pro," but it is much less than dispositively pro.
(If I'm wrong, then what are all the thousands of climate scientists actually doing now? Real scientists quit when they find conclusive evidence, and move on to something else.)
There are reasonable, intelligent, good, honest people on both sides.
My side has NOTHING to do with tobacco denialism. That would be a nasty, paranoid, silly thing to think.
Pachauri repeatedly lied about the peer-review content (100% vs 67%) of IPCC reports for years and not one of the "world's leading 2500 scientists" corrected him publicly
There are good, honest climate scientists on the "denier" side. A scientist does not have to be inept or corrupt to be on "our" side.
Lewandowsky is the only supposed "psychologist" in the world who goes out of his way to avoid the people he purports to be studying.
There's a reason no other psychologist in the world does research the way Lewandowsky does: he's not doing trying to do psychology.
***********
These facts do not discredit your side much in the scheme of things, if at all. They do not have the power, on their own, to win the argument for "us". Not even close!
But your side's en-masse denial of these facts, which we can all see for ourselves to be true, is far, far more damaging to your side than the facts themselves.
The denial of obvious facts removes one from the world of reasonable people.
Let's be frank.
It makes you a cult.
The way to get out of the cult of denialism you're in is to admit the facts that are bilaterally obvious, the common factual ground, so that we can then start debating about the things that aren't self-evident.
This has never happened.
We have never shared the same factual space. No authentic debate has ever been possible.
From the outset, your side drifted away from reality, one lie at a time, and has never been seen since.
I don't know what this means:
"your stupid green line test."
Communication fail, Willard. Do better.
What's your obsession with the Heartland Institution about?
I don't know or care about them.
I HAPPILY stipulate that they're [insert bad word].
Really, whatever you think about them, for all I know, is spot on. They're a human-trafficking ring made up of ex-war-criminals.
Happy?
Can we move on?
Or are you so fixated on politics? Do you have no interest in science?
More communication fail:
"keysterism
the honor card
green line test..."
You don't "win a thread" by showing that the other person DOESN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
That just makes you look silly, not them.
Keyster - you wanna get rid of Mike Mann?
All you have to do is refute the work. That's all. Easy!
The fact that the finest cranks money can buy, the most dishonest spin merchants and patsies have failed over what is now approaching decades of time, while the corroborating evidence has grown stronger; - these trifles may be but a small hindrance to you, with your head is full of myths and purpose.
Go get him, champ. And tell him he's dealing with the real Keyster now.
"Green line test" is not my expression, Brad, but Moshpit's. Are you claiming you don't understand Moshpit?
"Keysterism" should be familiar to those who know bushism. You used a bushism in the thread, i.e. is our children learning?
"Playing the honor card" is a way to talk about your constant appeals to pride. It satisfies my common sense. Are you suggesting that you don't share the same common sense as me?
***
Personal attacks won't help you, Brad. They do not help you substantiate your scientific interest in the Gleick affair. All it shows is that you're playing identity politics over and over again.
As far as I am concerned, the only interesting stuff is what the memo has not revealed and which we can be found on heartland.org and its policy bot. Wait, is it a policy bot?
Thank you for your concerns,
w
chek:
"Keyster - you wanna get rid of Mike Mann?
All you have to do is refute the work. That's all. Easy!"
Refuting someone's work doesn't get rid of them. Nor should it.
That's not how science works.
If it were, there'd be no scientists left.
> That's not how science works.
Tell that to Max Planck, Brad.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
The path of the Popperian clown is a sorrowful one.
""Green line test" is not my expression, Brad, but Moshpit's. Are you claiming you don't understand Moshpit?"
Yes.
""Keysterism" should be familiar to those who know bushism."
It's not. Because nobody is called Keyster.
""Playing the honor card" is a way to talk about your constant appeals to pride. It satisfies my common sense. Are you suggesting that you don't share the same common sense as me?"
I'm suggesting your common sense has failed you in this unusual, complex rhetorical environment, in which we're both blind to non-verbal emotional cues—i.e. an environment in which common sense is at a big disadvantage.
So you misread my intention.
I wasnt' intentionally appealing to your pride. (Though there's nothing wrong with that, is there? Pride in yourself, that is?)
I may have appealed to it, but only incidentally.
I was just explaining how your position looks to the rest of us. In case it helps you.
(I'd thank someone for doing the same for me.)
Take it or leave it.
"Personal attacks won't help you, Brad."
That depends. On whom? Help me to do what? What do you think I'm trying to achieve?
"They do not help you substantiate your scientific interest in the Gleick affair."
I've substantiated it to my satisfaction.
I've explained that almost everyone on your side is in denial about Gleick, and that means everyone on your side is lying both to yourselves and others, and people like that CAN'T DO SCIENCE. That's why hardly anyone on your side is doing science: they lack the necessary probity.
Willard,
The old "science advances one funeral at a time" paradigm died with Planck.
:-D
Stop pretending chek's invitation to "refute Mann's work" is responsive. Unless you're seriously suggesting Mann would die if his ideas fell out of fashion?
Hmm, come to think of it....
Anyway I meant "fire him" not "kill him."
Not because he was WRONG (I don't know or care whether the HS is "true") but because his behavior is a disgrace to the rules of science to which everyone else has been held for 2 or 3 centuries.
But then, if you've never been taught those rules, how can I expect you to see how egregiously Mann is in violation of them?
Hmmm. I'll have to think on that one.
Meanwhile, Richard Muller's statements like "You can't do that in science!" are true.
Muller knows what he's talking about. I know Muller knows what he's talking about.
And he's right about that.
"You can't do that in science."
Do you believe me?
> So you misread my intention.
I could not care less about your intention, Brad. Whatever your intentions, when you say things like "The denial of obvious facts removes one from the world of reasonable people", you're attacking my honor, Brad.
***
In general, any personal attack can be interpreted as appeal to pride, Brad. You have been messing with my honor for more than a hundred comments, now. Considering how you played your game so far, I dare say it's suboptimal. Just imagine if I took what you did so far in this thread as a measure of your honor.
Unless you are in a self-defeating expedition, of course. But I have no reason to believe you are.
Sociopath, psychopath.
Tomato, tomarto.
Willard,
> I could not care less about your intention, Brad.
That might explain why we don't seem to be communicating well. Communicating requires the communicatee to continually make inferences, using a theory of mind, about the intention behind each speech act on the other person's part.
You also seem to be confused by my use of the word "you." We used to have a "thou," which would have come in handy. But I can't blame you for English history.
However, I've been trying to AVOID attacking you qua Willard.
I may have been debating with you a day or two ago, but today I've (mainly) just been conversing with you.
I thought you were just conversing with me. Were you debating?
Consider the very sentence you reproach me for:
"The denial of obvious facts removes one from the world of reasonable people"
I meant that it "removes a person."
I wrote that it "removes you", because "you" is an informal alternative for "one."
But then I thought you might misinterpret it as a personal, 2nd person "you"—which would be insulting.
So just to be safe, I changed it to the less natural but clearly not-personal "removes one from."
In other words, "when people deny such and such, it removes them from...."
It surprises me, therefore, that you thought it was an attack on you.
I've certainly not been shy in attacking the typical behavior that's come to be associated, through long experience, with people on your "side."
But my point was:
I suspect you, Willard, are better than all that.
If so, then say so.
BBD:
"BBD
April 14, 2014
“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
Do you understand this definition now?"
Your definition is perfectly understandable.
I dare say the difficulty others had in understanding it, until you were finally forced to spell it out for us slowpokes, is that your definition is wrong.
The rest of the Anglophone world uses a different, correct, definition.
You can find it in a dictionary.
"ideation |ˌʌɪdɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n|
noun [ mass noun ]
the formation of ideas or concepts."
Do you finally understand this definition, the actual definition of the word, BBD?
Now you might like to go and revisit all the debates about "conspiracist ideation" you've lost because of your failure to understand the words you used. Perhaps all the chuckling by the rest of us will start to make sense to you.
In any case, as they say, if you can't laugh at yourself....
> You also seem to be confused by my use of the word "you."
If I wanted to have a clearer example, I would have chosen "obsession", Brad. But I wanted to give you a chance to acknowledge that what you were saying there did not apply to me. You failed to acknowledge that I passed this green line test many times already.
I also wanted to clarify that you were talking about a "side" you call "mine" without including me. Since I've passed the test, now I must hear your concerns about all those from what you call my "side" have not passed that test. In other words, I wanted to clarify that you're using me.
Is that what you call a conversation, Brad?
Willard,
Remember I told you to be STRAIGHTFORWARD?
That means no doing experiments.
If you want to know if I'll do or say something, then ask me like a normal fucking person.
For example:
DON'T say "....But I wanted to give you a chance to acknowledge that what you were saying there did not apply to me."
DO say: "Does this apply to me?"
DON'T say: "You failed to acknowledge that I passed this green line test many times already."
DO say: "Have I passed this thing that you may have heard of from Moshpit, called a green line test, which basically entails .... ?"
"I also wanted to clarify that you were talking about a "side" you call "mine" without including me."
Oh come on. It's perfectly licit to ascribe acts to a group without every person in it necessarily having done every act. So yes, it is "your" group, it includes you, but you don't necessarily share every single feature associated with the general membership of it.
Secondly the purpose of telling you what I thought of people in your group was simply to let you know.
I was not trying to convince you (or anyone else) that my view of your group was TRUE, let alone that every part of it applied to EVERYONE in the group.
All I wanted was to let you know how you are thought of, and where that opinion came from.
The entire time-consuming exercise has been predicated, for me, on the possibility that the perception might be WRONG or UNFAIR, so that you can then tell me so and CORRECT it.
"Since I've passed the test"
What test?
"now I must hear your concerns about all those from what you call my "side" have not passed that test. In other words, I wanted to clarify that you're using me."
Rarely has a clarification so confused me! I'm not using you.
Why don't you email me and we can do this without an audience, so at least you won't have to wonder if you're just a visual aid for a point I'm trying to make to someone else.
It's very hard to have a conversation in a Climateball arena because of the mistrust, ambiguity and misunderstandings that go with wondering who your interlocutor is writing FOR.
In email, you necessarily write FOR the person you're writing TO.
Not FOR a bloodthirsty crowd.
Okay?
Brad - I'll be straight forward; you're an idiot.
You posted at 12/4/14 4:29 AM
"... in case it wasn't obvious, this:
"I do not know the source of that original document"
means:
"I'm not saying [any more] that it was written by Heartland."
First, an anonymous source is anonymous. The first quote you give is from Gleick (partial quote at that) and if he knew the source then it would hardly be anonymous.
You apparently have spent many, many hours on this subject yet you make such a basic failure of logic that you MUST be an idiot.
> I told you to [...]
If you don't want homeworks, Brad, don't give homeworks to others.
A green line test looks a lot like an homework, by the way.
***
> the purpose of telling you what I thought of people in your group was simply to let you know.
Good. Let's see if that works. For your information, people from your side that obsess over the Heartland memo show paranoid traits.
FYI. Only thus.
> It's very hard to have a conversation in a Climateball arena because of the mistrust, ambiguity and misunderstandings that go with wondering who your interlocutor is writing FOR.
FYI, one of the main obstacles for a conversation to happen is to insist in having a conversation, Brad.
Another obstacle is when one commenter from your side (assuming this idea of side makes sense) keeps asking for having conversation while peddling talking points in epic Gish gallops.
Another obstacle is when a commenter from your side insists in having a question settled or fact acknowledged before considering the interlocutors rational beings.
Another obstacle is when a commenter from your sense ends up playing the "you make no sense!" move, say by pretending not to understand a word that refers to that commenter while giving as poor excuse that this is not that commenter's name when that commenter already recognized the reference by threatening to play the "you're a sociopath" move on someone who uses it.
***
FYI, here are some guidelines for e-salons:
http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/some-communication-principles-for-an-e-salon/
Notice the section irresoluteness, Brad:
> Note that “harmony,” unlike “consensus” requires diversity. We do in fact have to live with irresolution in the blogosphere. But can we come to like it?
Those from your side that insist in having green line test after green line test fail that principle.
I'll let future historians decide if your contributions satisfy the third principle.
***
If you please, we couldrevise your contributions so far in the thread to see how they satisfy these communication principles or others.
We could also wonder how your self-righteous indignation toward Gleick could be applied to the Miracle Worker, i.e. the entity that released CG I, II, and III.
Are you sure you want to have that conversation, Brad? FYI, you have abused me enough for me not to care to have a conversation with you, Brad. That you pretend to have a conversation with me after all these abuses is beyond me.
If you don't want to have that conversation, I will return to showing how the Heartland Institute fails to satisfy his charity status.
> What test?
Sure you must be joking, Brad.
The test is about the Heartland Institute memo.
Bunnies are supposed to agree with your theory, or else they are crazy or worse, paraphrasing of course.
You know that it's what you keep pushing since your first comment, Brad?
You know that this is the silly test I try to circumvent by reminding bunnies to keep their eyes on a bigger ball, which is the content of the Heartland Institute's memo, right?
For your information, sometimes I doubt you have any remembrance of what you type from one comment to the next, Brad.
This is the 257th post in this thread. The troll is getting fat.
@a_ray:
There's a reason why the Brad construct is banned over at Lew's place, and why it was quarantined into it's own thread over at Deltoid. The terms 'obsessed' and 'single issue' spring to mind...
Mind you, that applies equally to 4 or 5 other individuals that inhabit Lew's place. Hmm.
Quaranteen?
I think that spells Quarantino in Spanglish.
Speaking of which:
Mr. Pink: This is bad. This is so fucking bad. Is it bad?
Mr. White: As opposed to good?
You know what, Brad? Every single time you have attempted to correct my language, you have made an arse of yourself. The first occasion was back at Deltoid, (which is where this conversation should be taking place, btw), when you told me - emphatically - that I had misspelled "sceptic".
Now you are doing it again.
Let's read the words together, shall we?
"ideation |ˌʌɪdɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n|
noun [ mass noun ]
the formation of ideas or concepts."
BBD: “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
The formation of ideas or concepts includes the act of imagining a non-existent conspiracy.
Now you might like to go and revisit all the debates about "conspiracist ideation" you've lost because of your failure to understand the words you used.
Get stuffed, Brad.
"The formation of ideas or concepts includes the act of imagining a non-existent conspiracy."
Yes. But it doesn't MEAN it.
Do you know the difference between including and entailing?
Dogs include fox terriers, but "dog" doesn't mean "fox terrier."
Let me know if you can't accept the above truths and I'll try to express them even more plainly.
"Get stuffed, Brad."
And here I was, trying to be nice to you. Stuff you, BBD. I hope you NEVER know how to take a new word and use it correctly in a sentence.
I have a hypothesis that people who want to act on climate tend to have very poor verbal intelligence.
For example, I doubt anybody here (besides shub, me or anyone else who DOESN'T want climate action) can solve a simple question like the following...
Q: If the word "ideation" is defined as the formation of ideas or concepts, what does the phrase "conspiracist ideation" mean?
1. the formation of ideas or concepts about conspiracies
2. the imagining of conspiracies where none exist
[Pick the correct meaning.]
Mr. Quibble rides again. Clippety-clop, clippety clop.
Perhaps you should consider the *meaning* of the two words when used together.
Perhaps you should consider the *meaning* of the two words when used together.I did. I read the word-pair, intellected it and considered its meaning. You should try. You might just understand it.
(I won't tell you what it is, though, because I don't want to give away the exercise above. According to my hypothesis, people around here would then cheat; they won't be able to work it out for themselves unless they're materially smarter than you.)
According to my hypothesis, people around here would then cheat; they won't be able to work it out for themselves unless they're materially smarter than you.
Before you formulate another single inane hypothesis, peraps you should go to the bathroom and address the mirror thus:
Mirror, mirror,
on the wall:
Who's the biggest Keyster
of them all?
And then sit down and have one of your crazy little thinks.
I'm sure we'd all benefit.
> what does the phrase "conspiracist ideation" mean?
Here's the first sentence of the Recursive fury abstract:
Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions[...]
Here's a paragraph from Mark Hoofnagle:
Awesome. It’s actually a great paper, from the introduction discussing Diethelm and Mckee’s work on conspiratorial ideation (who cited us in their original paper), to the comparisons between censorship accusations by diverse anti-science movements from the tobacco/cancer denial to HIV/AIDS denial, Lewandowsky et al., lay the groundwork for understanding this problem as a fundamental characteristic of all anti-science. They even cite a book chapter in which the authors make the link that conspiracies are specifically used to rhetorically challenge science when one lacks adequate data (Lahsen, M. (1999). The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over Chapter 8. In G. Marcus (Ed.), Paranoia within reason: a casebook on conspiracy as explanation (pp. 111{136). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) I’ll have to look that one up, as that was our primary conclusion about denialism when we started writing about it in 2007.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/what-happens-when-you-study-conspiracy-theories-the-conspiracy-theorists-make-up-conspiracy-theories-about-you/
To understand what the theorical concept of "conspiratorial ideation," bunnies have two main research strategies:
1. Check out Diethelm & Mckee, Lahsen, Marcus or other relevant sources;
2. Look up an online dictionary.
Let bunnies appreciate which research strategy Brad chooses.
Brad
Have any of the conspiracy theories proposed by "sceptics" ever been proven to be true? As in 'not imaginary'?
From an SkS article by Cook and Lewandowsky:
Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation
Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:
1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.
2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.
6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
NB something I wrote earlier was formally invalid ("fallacious"), and it was sloppy of me to put it the way I did:
""I do not know the source of that original document"
means:
"I'm not saying [any more] that it was written by Heartland."
Thankfully others also spotted, and criticised, the formal invalidity of my "deduction."
To be clear, they were absolutely right—that's strictly speaking a non sequitur. It was careless—sorry guys.
"To understand what the theorical concept of "conspiratorial ideation," bunnies have two main research strategies:
1. Check out Diethelm & Mckee, Lahsen, Marcus or other relevant sources;
2. Look up an online dictionary.
Let bunnies appreciate which research strategy Brad chooses."
Huh? Which strategy did BBD to choose, so as to arrive at his belief that,
"“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist."
And I didn't need a strategy. I already knew the meaning.
But just to be anal-retentive about it I've just checked an online dictionary, which confirms exactly what I knew.
Over to you.
BBD,
I get my English semantics from University-compiled dictionaries, not random unqualified people's blogs.
But hey, that's me.
That's how I avoid the kind of mistake you made, and seem to be determined not to separate yourself from.
Enjoy your new dialect.
Maybe you'll meet a fellow speaker one day and be able to communicate with them!
Brad
That's how I avoid the kind of mistake you made
What kind of mistake?
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
I get my English semantics from University-compiled dictionaries, not random unqualified people's blogs.
Lewandowsky based the use of the term on the previously published literature on the term. Nor can he reasonably be described, in this specific discussion, as a "random unqualified" source.
LOL at John Cook's amateurish "lexicography":
"Consider the following definitions.
Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth.
Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views."
There is a cringemaking error there. How many years has it been there?
How servile Cook's followership must be, if nobody has ever corrected such a childish solecism?
I bet Willard can see it.
Can't you, Willard?
The mystery, group-psychologically, is how hundreds of people can be functionally "blind" to what is in front of them for so many years.
Deep, deep denial is at play here.
It makes Willard and BBD's current game of denial look positively mentally healthy.
All you 2 are doing is pretending BBD still has faith in his private definition of that phrase.
OK, fine, whatever; dishonest, lame, and prepubescent; but the incorrigibility of Cook's falsehood, for years, is like a textbook mass psychosis.
Willard,
Unrelatedly:
I didn't know I was "abusing" you earlier today. If I'd known I was "abusing" you I would've stopped immediately. I have zero ill feeling toward you, no matter how annoyed I get sometimes.
Tell me which comments are abusive and I'll happily delete them.
Brad
What kind of mistake?
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
All you 2 are doing is pretending BBD still has faith in his private definition of that phrase.
More telepathic argument from assertion.
What about Lewandowsky's definition? (See above).
And remember, Brad, Lewandowsky based the use of the term on the previously published literature on the term. Nor can he reasonably be described, in this specific discussion, as a "random unqualified" source.
So why are you talking about BBD's *private* definition?
"I don't know or care whether the HS is "true"
"but because [his behavior is a disgrace to the rules of science to which everyone else has been held for 2 or 3 centuries".] Should read: I'm too dumb to understand the difference between his scientific work and reputation and have soaked up every vile dribble from the sewers of denialism by every half-educated and uneducated crank and vested interest able to get themselves onto the internet. My understanding of the Gleik case is pretty much similar.
There, that's pretty much the state of The Keyster's relevant play (so far). But there was one more fitting, fitted comment from him:
"dishonest, lame, and prepubescent; but the incorrigibility of Brad's falsehoods, for years, is like a textbook psychosis".
Am I getting close?
So far you have given precisely ONE definition, for which you failed to give any source.
It contradicted my definition, which I got FROM A DICTIONARY.
That's why you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper, BBD.
I'd put you out of your misery, but I don't like you. You're a boorish, fanatical prick, so you can keep making a fool of yourself for all I care.
Willard could intervene to save you from yourself but (for yet another deep, deep mysterious reason) he still hasn't.
Do you even know what a "definition" looks like, BBD?
> I get my English semantics from University-compiled dictionaries [...]
Do we have "university-compiled" (an interesting concept) dictionaries where theorical constructs such as conspirational ideation are defined?
Bunnies prefer, like Brad, to investigate meanings from the comfort of university-compiled dictionaries, it might be more rewarding to simply read what the authors say to know what they mean:
Conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scienti c propositions (Diethelm & McKee, 2009; Goertzel, 2010; Kalichman, 2009; McKee & Diethelm, 2010). Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a signi cant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). When conspiracist ideation is involved in the rejection of science, ideations tend to invoke alternative explanations for the nature or source of the scienti c evidence.
http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2523540/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf
Our emphasis.
According to my reading, conspirational thinking is defined not as something that is false, but as a red herring. It just happens that it usually implies absurdity, since the authors follow up with the example of HIV denial. To that effect, let it be noted that "to imply" is a valid use of the word to "mean". An usual example by philosophers is the sentence "kissing means touching".
chek
Before you formulate another single inane hypothesis, peraps you should go to the bathroom and address the mirror thus:
I never said it wasn't inane.
Hypotheses can be as inane as they want. Nobody pretends otherwise.
You'd know this if you knew the first thing about scientific reasoning.
Why do you debate about science absent comprehension? What's the payoff? Best case outcome, what do you think you're accomplishing by defending your uneducated, fictional mental model night after night?
LOL...
Stu 2 nailed you too, BBD!
"On a reading of the recent posts here and the ensuing semantic argument, I decided I might check up the definitions of conspiracist and ideation:
conspiracist
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a conspiracy theory. ; plural noun: conspiracists
1. a group or organisation which believes in or supports a conspiracy theory.
&
i`de•a′tion, n.
i•de•ate (ˈaɪ diˌeɪt)
v. -at•ed, -at•ing. v.t.
1. to form an idea, conception, or image of.
v.i.
2. to form ideas or images; think.
As GSW pointed out @ # 2; this comment here by BBD does indeed fit the definition :
“I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.”
Erratum:
> WhileBunnies may prefer, [...]
We might as well add this other resource:
All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt. All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
We can see that denialism and conspiracy ideation are somewhat connected.
Salvete!
I wonderered where the giant conspiracy ideation slug had got to, you're all over here ;)
Slime mold, or is it slime molds, I'm not sure, anyway BBD, chek how you guys doing?
Dictionary still not cooperating? words don't mean what you want them too -Again-
I'm sure there's a special online dictionary for conspiracists somewhere, you could try that.
;)
Brad
That's why you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper, BBD.
Um, no.
You have a problem which you haven't addressed:
What kind of mistake?
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Come on, Brad. Play the game.
I'd put you out of your misery, but I don't like you. You're a boorish, fanatical prick, so you can keep making a fool of yourself for all I care.
Something we agree on, at last.
"Hypotheses can be as inane as they want. Nobody pretends otherwise."
Then spare us your inanity, please.
"Stu 2 nailed you too, BBD!"
"As GSW pointed out "
Interesting that almost every denier across the 'net is currently suffering from the almost identical miscomprehension as you.
It's almost as if, having worked for so long and so hard at it, you're not proud to be ignorant cranks.
Wassup with that?
@BBD
"You're a boorish, fanatical prick"
I think you're much worse than that BBD, but for the sake of reaching a consensus, I'll go along with you and Brad, make that +3 on "fanatical prick".
;)
Brad
So far you have given precisely ONE definition, for which you failed to give any source.
Please, read my comments.
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Come on, Brad. Play the game.
GSW
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
I discussed matters of fact with you yesterday. You did not dispute them, let alone disprove them.
You have the same problem afflicting Brad.
@BBD
"You have the same problem afflicting Brad."
I know BBD, we both know what words mean and are struggling with your "denial" of the English Oxford Dictionary.
Could I just ask you something BBD, you know guys that think Princess Di was murdered by MI5, or Philip, or the KGB, or Mossad, or Simon Cowell, do you think they know it's all made up balls, or do they think it's all true, factual?
Presummably they would argue till they are blue the face that it's not conspiracy ideation if it's factual, you know, like you do spineless, ignorant, dweeb.
”it might be more rewarding to simply read what the authors say to know what they mean:”
Why?
The dictionary is right. Anyone who departs from the dictionary is wrong.
Fortunately, though, Lewandowsky paraphrases the dictionary meaning quite well.
The meaning I knew already. Because I get my semantics from the same place all intelligent people do:
THE DICTIONARY.
Lewandowsky says:
Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a signi cant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations.
Lewandowsky is correct.
Keyes says:
"Conspiracist ideation" means the formation of ideas or concepts about conspiracies.
Keyes is correct.
GSW says:
“For goodness sake BBD do I have to spell everything out for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
“conspiracy theory noun: a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”
… and guess what? you ideated it”
GSW is correct.
BBD is... how can I put this nicely?
Not.
So when repeatedly asked a simple question, we get nothing:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Which brings us back to this.
How many of the six points do you think you have scored so far?
When you work out the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact, you will be able to answer the question:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
FURY:
““Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
Do you understand this definition now? The problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language. As I have patiently (for me) explained to you several times now, conspiracist ideation is a fantasy process which goes well beyond matters of fact. Since I only deal in matters of fact I cannot be guilty of conspiracist ideation. You *still* seem incapable of understanding the meaning of conspiracist ideation. I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret. You are, inevitably, wrong and for the usual reasons: a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part. Go back and read what I wrote again. It is crystal clear. Do not create confusion where none exists. Do not claim that there are errors in my use of language where none exist. That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember? No, GSW, you moronic liar, I am providing evidence for what I am saying. And you are ignoring it, which is the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty. So you can fuck off. You are confusing conspiracist ideation with matters of fact. And you are persisting even though this has been pointed out. This is monstrous intellectual dishonesty. Fuck off. Incidentally, the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes did exactly this on his defamatory blog. Since you have never demonstrated any capacity for original thinking (or indeed mentation of any kind) I assume you have simply copied your latest error from Keyes. The dangers of parroting! And you are still a liar, GSW. How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit? Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself. Lies again, GSW. Just because *you* are a climate change denier doesn’t mean that what CAP does is misinformation. That’s just how it seems to you because you are insane. So, back to the question you are strenuously dodging. Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself. And you, like Shub, condone this. What does that make you? Umm, stupid lying fuck…I’ll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you. I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation. So stop doing so. It is a lie. Can’t you understand that you are being blatantly fucking dishonest? Don’t you get that? Really? Can anyone be that stupid and or morally bankrupt? What is wrong with your brain? It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How? It is not.
RECURSIVE FURY:
It is simply a matter of fact. The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact. I keep on coming across this: deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what ‘conspiracist ideation’ actually means despite being enmired in it themselves. I don’t suppose I should be surprised, really. It’s just par for the course. Try to understand, GSW. Try. I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation. So stop doing so. It is a lie. Lying is wrong, GSW. You are now simply ignoring my main point: your incessant accusations that I am engaging in conspiracist ideation are false because I am dealing only in matters of fact. Well documented, undisputed, fully established matters of fact. I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret. Are you denying this matter of fact? And raising the HI again? Are you mad? The people who – funded by the infamous “Anonymous Donor” – were solemnly proposing to create a curriculum for school children that was packed with climate change misinformation? Are you sure you want to talk about this? Because I cannot imagine a single reason why since it is an excellent illustration of my exact point. I get the sense, GSW, that you are simply flailing around with your pig’s bladder on a stick because you don’t know what else to do. Careful you don’t trip over it and end up on your arse. But I *can* provide evidence. See eg Brulle (2013) or any of the links Jeff posted upthread. You really should read the material people here link, GSW. You could then avoid making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public. Donors Trust. Why does it exist unless my statement is true and correct? Answer me, GSW. Why does Donors Trust exist? Fuck but I loathe “Brad Keyes” aka “Darrell Harb” etc. One of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG. And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck, there’s a good chap. Brad can’t get over the fact that whenever we meet, his nose gets metaphorically broken. So why the concealment? The secrecy? Why won't the GWPF disclose even its seed donor? Why the Heartland Anonymous Donor? Why does Donors Trust even exist? Why all the secrecy? But why the secrecy? Anonymous Donors, the GWPF, Donors Trust...Why such effortful concealment of where the money is coming from?
You can put it anywhere you like, but you can't show it because you - like many, many deniers are at this time - wilfully (or ignorantly) confusing 'actual conspiracy' (for example Donors Trust's hidden financing of groups to subvert the democratic process in favour of wealthy and powerful interests) with 'conspiracy theory'.
But let me apply my litmus test again. Griselda (GSW) and Brad (being our representative sample here tonight)
The multiple Clmategate Ivestigations:
a whitewash - yes or no.
You may confer, and you may even be honest.
Willard,
I think we understand each other at last ;-) The same irony occurred to me:
> "We can see that denialism and conspiracy ideation are somewhat connected."
LOL
"Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true"
What has that got to do with anything BBD? YOU can't defend your "conspiracy ideation" on the basis of what others have said/done/factualised[ ;) ], it doesn't make any sense! Just go out tomorrow and buy a dictionary for pity's sake.
Don't get upset because the words don't have the meaning you want them to. And before you start "ideating" again -NO, the man in the shop didn't change the meanings when he saw you coming. They can't do that, there is a law against it.
@Brad,
Like Winston said, Keep Buggering On - KBO
;)
FFS
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
GSW
What has that got to do with anything BBD?
Words fail me.
@BBD
"Words fail me."
Yeah we know, I've told you BBD, go out and buy a bloody dictionary!
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Mirrian-Webster, Oxford, Collins, Random House... they were all in on it man! This was a tight operation. 5 minutes, in, out. Surgical. Total secrecy. Tonight marks the fruition of years of plotting, preparing, biding their time. CLANDESTINELY.
Big Dic has had it in for BBD ever since he ditched it to start his own language.
And will you visiting deniers please pin your colours to the mast and answer my 'whitewash' question above.
What are you afraid of?
Looking stupid?
Funny that wasn't of any concern to you when you were all ideating like fuck on the denier blogs four years ago.
Mirriam-Webster. :)
Okay, I'll fill in the gaps because it has become necessary:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
No.
So "climate sceptics" (note the spelling, Brad) have been imagining things, which has led them to be classified in the literature as indulging in conspiracist ideation.
Let's go back to the definitional stage again, just for fun:
From an SkS article by Cook and Lewandowsky:
Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation
Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:
1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.
2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.
6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
How did you score? High? Low?
Play the game!
> I think we understand each other at last [...]
I'm glad Brad agrees that appealing to dictionaries cuts little ice regarding technical concepts, and that one of the meaning the verb "to mean" is "to imply," just like BBD's argument seems to imply.
Reading the abstract and the first paragraph of the paper and tracing the citations therein beats lulz based on dictionary games any day.
BBD wrestles, still reeling, with the metaphysical implications of what we've seen tonight... over at Deltoid he puts the four Big Questions perfectly:
- What is the difference between an imagined conspiracy and a real one?
What is reality?
- Why does the phrase conspiracist ideation even exist? Who controls these things? What if it's just two separate words? What if they're just eleven separate letters?
- What does it mean?*
- What does it all mean?!
*That might be a question you want to ask BEFORE staking your manhood on a semantic issue again, bro.
Brad
- What does it all mean?!
We can establish that once you answer the essential question:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Then we can sort fantasy from matters of fact.
And while Brad should not drag another blog in to this one, this excerpt from the melange above bears repeating:
delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit
Likely why he refuses to answer my simple 'whitewash' question above.
Although I never actually expected him (or Griselda) to have the honesty to do so despite their thorough soakings in denier blog lore.
> What does it mean?
Faced with the nonsense question 'What is the meaning of a word?' and perhaps dimly recognizing it to be nonsense, we are nevertheless not inclined to give it up.
chek
Likely why he refuses to answer my simple 'whitewash' question above.
See formal definition #6:
6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
Since they refuse to rate their own comments against the Lewandosky index of conspiracist ideation, we must do it for them.
Brad - though you've admitted your mistake regarding the anonymous source, you offer no explanation how you could make such a basic mistake with all the time you've invested in this subject. Nor did you address why you used a partial quote.
Regarding 'conspiracist ideation' -- dictionaries won't help you. They are not a lexicological defense. We are not talking common usage that can be inferred from a dictionary. This is term used in the scientific literature with a specific meaning. Whether you or I think it meets some dictionary definition is irrelevant.
There are many words that mean something specific when used by a scientist that are not always captured by dictionary definitions or mean something different than common usage; 'theory' and 'significant' come immediately to mind.
A scientific paper is not written in a vacuum. It must recognize and build upon preceding work. It is not a blogosphere where everyone can define words to mean anything they want. Your failure to understand this is a tell.
Willard,
to learn the *meaning* of a term—any term, in any subject at all—it is NEVER necessary to read a whole Abstract.
In fact that is a recipe for confusing yourself. If that's the way you acquire a term's meaning, you're doing it wrong. If the "definition" is a whole paragraph long, it's not a definition.
The definition of a term must NOT tell you anything about the referent itself.
You seemed to suggest this was a good definition, because you bolded these sentences:
"Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a signi cant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). When conspiracist ideation is involved in the rejection of science, ideations tend to invoke alternative explanations for the nature or source of the scienti c evidence."
But in fact the definition is:
> Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a signi cant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009).
Actually the punctuation is wrong. It should be:
> "Conspiracist ideation" generally refers to the propensity to explain a signi cant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009).
That's the end of the definition.
The next sentence is just a fact about conspiracist ideation:
> When conspiracist ideation is involved in the rejection of science, ideations tend to invoke alternative ....
That "fact" could be debunked one day; this wouldn't change the meaning of "conspiracist ideation," because it was never part of the meaning in the first place.
Empirical claims must be kept disentangled from definitions!
Anyway this isn't the place for this Willard. Please email me so we can stop playing Climateball and have an actual exchange of information. :-)
Brad Keyes said at 13/4/14 7:26 PM:
"In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures."
Tell me Brad, if you were building a temperature reconstruction and noticed a divergence between one of your proxies implied temperatures and actual instrumental observed temperatures, which would you want plotted?
The whole point is we *know* what the temperatures were after 1960 and there was no need to use the proxies. The divergence problem was well known - it wasn't secret. At least not if you were conversant with the science.
In effect all that was being said was that the divergence problem was fixed by using the observed temperatures after 1960 - but please be aware this is what we are doing and don't mistake data after 1960 as actual proxy data.
Now, someone with conspiracist ideation sees something nefarious. Someone interested in science believes they were trying to create the most accurate graph they could and because they used instrumental observations after 1960 they improved the accuracy of the graph.
Which side again did you fall on?
Kevin:
Brad - though you've admitted your mistake regarding the anonymous source, you offer no explanation how you could make such a basic mistake with all the time you've invested in this subject. Nor did you address why you used a partial quote.
I didn't invest much time at all in that line, Kevin. What's so difficult to understand? Do you think I must have divided my hours exactly equally to each line of documentary evidence for the last 5 years? Newsflash: bad assumption.
Nor did you address why you used a partial quote.
LOL. "Partial quote"! Also known as the "quote out of context," "selective quote," or simply "quote."
Quotes ARE partial. They are dexontextualised. They are intentionally chosen to serve the writer's current purpose and not anyons else's future purpose.
Did I leave out something that would've changesd the meaning? (I'm asking—I don't remember.)
Sorrr-ee.
This is term used in the scientific literature with a specific meaning.
No it's not. Lewandowsky's meaning was no different from the rest of the planet's.
Read upthread where Lew, I, GSW used the term synonymously.
The odd person out was BBD.
The rest of us, including Lew, were speaking English.
Don't try to save BBD: you can't. The implosion has happened. You're too late.
"Read upthread where Lew, I, GSW used the term synonymously."
The difference of course being that out of the three of you only Stephan Lewandowsky understands it.
That's why you avoid BBD's questions (and mine) and stick to your Grand Proclamations, proclaiming on that which you haven't a clue about being your personal favourite viz. Mann and Gleik above.
> The definition of a term must NOT tell you anything about the referent itself.
This makes little sense.
***
> You seemed to suggest this was a good definition [...]
I only suggest that to understand what they authors meant, it's better to look at what they say. Playing dictionary games for lulz sake does not replace reading the paper.
RTFPs before staking your manhood on a theorical issue again, bro.
***
> That's the end of the definition ["Conspiracist ideation" generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009).].
That's certainly not the definition, but one characterization one may read in the paper cited. It is not meant to be all encompassing and definitive, but a way for the authors to show they did their homework.
To see what Sunstein & Vermeule themselves say, one must read Sunstein & Vermeule. And if some of their conceptual apparatus is to be found elsewhere, we must follow along the citation merry-go-round.
In other words, what Brad calls "definitions" are the product of a collective effort. Putnam called the linguistic division of labour.
***
Do your homework before staking your manhood on a semantic issue again and RTFPs, bro.
> Quotes ARE partial. They are dexontextualised.
The second sentence is false. Unless they are presented in context, in which case quotes are well contextualized.
The first sentence contains an equivocation. "Partial" can mean "in part," but it can also mean "biased."
Is Brad here to mansplain semantics to bunnies?
Brad - Have you read and *understood* Lewandowsky? All I see is you trying to play semantic games. He used the title "NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax" for a reason.
"Because peer-review tends to eliminate ideas that are not supported by evidence (e.g., questioning the link between HIV and AIDS lost intellectual respectability decades ago; Nattrass, 2010, 2011), much of science denial involves the internet."
"Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking."
The takeaway from this is the belief in supported facts runs contrary to "conspiracist ideation." Lewandowsky and previous researchers use absurd conspiracies as test cases - not factually true or ambiguous conspiracies. As pointed out previously, actual conspiracies do exist. It is the *propensity to explain* events by imagining conspiracies that delineates those with "conspiracist ideation" from people who assess the world on a factual basis.
While you seem adept at cutting and pasting from online dictionaries, you seem less skilled at reading and comprehending the literature under discussion.
And no, I don't see anyone upthread agreeing with your interpretation. But there are a lot of comments, perhaps I missed it.
> All I see is [Brad] trying to play semantic games.
Brad tries alright, Kevin.
We'll see if he can play soon enough.
This has been a very educational thread!
Let us recall BBD's amateur, baseless, citation-free, lexicographically-false make-believe belief that,
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer imagines conspiracies where none exist.
He gave no source, of course—this was just put forward as The Truth According to "BBD," father and veteran Opinion Warrior famous for his unimaginative insults of any who dare deny his amateur guesses about the world. He can't seem to put the name of any authority to this idiolectic notion; heck, he doesn't even have the courage or stupidity to put HIS real name to it! (He never does, does he?)
We all know BBD's just pulled this idea ex posteriori (Latin for "out of his ass"), which is why nobody is rushing in to back him up. No point defending the indefensible.
Being wrong proves that BBD is human.
But what kind of human is BBD?
Is he, for instance, a true skeptic or a denialist?
Well:
- when they're wrong, skeptics admit it and change their mind
- when they're wrong, denialists denialise and refuse to learn
A skeptic says:
"Something I wrote earlier was formally invalid... it was sloppy of me... Thankfully others spotted, and criticised, the formal invalidity of my "deduction"... they were absolutely right... It was careless—sorry guys."
Whereas a denialist curses and re-curses furiously:
"Do not claim that there are errors in my use of language where none exist. That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember?
"Umm, stupid lying fuck… I’ll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you. Can’t you understand that you are being blatantly fucking dishonest? Don’t you get that? Really? Can anyone be that stupid and or morally bankrupt?
"What is wrong with your brain?
"Lies again, GSW. That’s just how it seems to you because you are insane.
"I keep on coming across this: deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what ‘conspiracist ideation’ actually means despite being enmired in it themselves. I don’t suppose I should be surprised, really. It’s just par for the course.
"It is a lie. Lying is wrong, GSW.
"Are you mad? …you are simply flailing around with your pig’s bladder on a stick because you don’t know what else to do. Careful you don’t trip over it and end up on your arse. Incidentally, the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes did exactly this on his defamatory blog. Since you have never demonstrated any capacity for original thinking (or indeed mentation of any kind) I assume you have simply copied your latest error from Keyes.
"No, GSW, you moronic liar… you are ignoring it, which is the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty. So you can fuck off… and you are persisting even though this has been pointed out. This is monstrous intellectual dishonesty.
"Fuck off. The problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language. As I have patiently (for me) explained to you several times now…You *still* seem incapable of understanding the meaning…you are, inevitably, wrong and for the usual reasons: a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part… And you are still a liar, GSW. How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit? … making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public. Fuck but I loathe “Brad Keyes” aka “Darrell Harb” etc. One of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG.
"And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck, there’s a good chap. Brad can’t get over the fact that whenever we meet, his nose gets metaphorically broken."
Here's an idea...
Let's ask Eli to change the name of this thread to "Mud-wrestling with a psychopath".
@BBD
"And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck"
Remember BBD, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
;)
A COMPLETE PHILOSOPHY, BY BBD
Philosophy is considered a large and complex discipline. What a fucking lie.
Philosophy is sometimes broken up into disciplines such as epistemology, ethics, semiotics, logic, scientific reasoning and various others but such fragmentation is moronic. It's all one thing.
As a religious fanatic I know how simple reality is, both metaphysically and climatologically. If I ever need to know anything new, I can always deduce whatever it using the binary, Boolean (or "Manichean") arithmetic governing all things.
With further ado,
Part 1. Reality.
There are two kinds of proposition:
1. imaginary ideations about what is not really there but is just a matter of theory.
— examples include: all the conspiracy theories the other side reportedly believes.
2. facts
- examples include the conspiracy theories I believe in
2. Ethics.
Non-factual theories are evil and dishonest; therefore one should loathe them.
You know, ethically.
End.
Kevin,
you're [obviously] not a scientist so your confusion is forgivable but let me reduce it for you.
> Tell me Brad, if you were building a temperature reconstruction and noticed a divergence between one of your proxies implied temperatures and actual instrumental observed temperatures, which would you want plotted?
Answer: if it was a plot of instrumental temps?
The instrumental one.
If it was a plot of the (tree-ring MXD) proxy?
The proxy.
Bu you, being a non-scientist, would probably chop 'n' change in an honest desire to draw a graph that told the "truth" about nature.
Your honest intention is all well and good.
But you've inadvertently broken the ethics of science.
In an honest attempt to depict "the truth" about nature, you've depicted a lie about the proxy.
Every scientist knows you can't do that; that's deceitful; it's unethical; it's professional and reputational hara-kiri; that's ANTI-SCIENCE.
In any science but climate science, Jones would have been PUNISHED for such an unethical practice.
Here's what the physicist Richard Muller says of your (well-intentioned) rationale for substituting the "true" temps wherever the proxy "failed":
> The justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I’m willing to publish in. But they had it well hidden…
> And what is the result, in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards.
Note, Kevin, that this not a matter of OPINION. It's a matter of the RULES. (Which I know, and Muller knows, and you don't.)
Muller continues:
> I get infuriated with colleagues of mine who say, “Well, you know, it’s a human field. You make mistakes.” And then I show them [the graph] and they say “Ah, no, that’s not acceptable.”
In case it matters, Muller also writes:
> Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.
Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics at Oxford University, is a normal scientist and therefore believes in relation to Hide the Decline that:
> This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong.
> The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an [ethical] error, have endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.
Dr Paul Dennis, a UEA climate scientist, courageously disavows what his own boss did:
> The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature, and thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’. This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc. This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible and I agree with him.
The climate scientist Dr Eduardo Zorita writes:
> Complete Statement of UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Eduardo Zorita on “ClimateGate”.
> CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.
> Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
The climate scientist Professor Hans Von Storch writes:
> Another conclusion [from the CRU emails] could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.
Kevin, you might disagree with me, Jonathan Jones, Richard Muller, all their colleagues, Paul Dennis, Eduardo Zorita and Hans von Storch and every liing scientist on the planet by denying til you're blu e in the face the anti-scientificness of Hiding the Decline, but I hope you won't, because that would mean you're:
1. in denial
and
2. anti-science.
You're not anti-science, are you, Kevin?
You're not a deep denialist of reality, are you, Kevin?
[BBD] The sky is red this morning—does that mean we're in for a storm? [1]
[Brad] Let me check my online dictionaries.
[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mean
Kevin,
> And no, I don't see anyone upthread agreeing with your interpretation [of the term "conspiracist ideation"]
You missed Professor Lewndowsky agreeing with me:
> ["Conspiracist ideation"] generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009).
Which is pretty much the way I understood it!
And GSW.
And Stu 2.
But BBD, being a bit of a crank, rejects the consensus, insisting on his own private definition:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer imagines conspiracies where none exist.
Live and let live, I say.
He can speak whatever Klingon, Elvish or English dialect he chooses to invent.
We'll stick to English, thanks.
Willard,
you're resorting to increasingly suboptimal excuses for BBD's cringemaking, credibility-suicidal antics.
Stop it. It's his hole, don't let it be yours as well.
This is transparent and childish:
> [BBD] The sky is red this morning—does that mean we're in for a storm? [1]
> [Brad] Let me check my online dictionaries.
Har har. Unfortunately I do know the difference between "meaning" as in definition, and "meaning" as in logical implication.
BBD is talking about a [make-believe] definition. Note his use of QUOTATION MARKS:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
He is telling us what the term “conspiracist ideation” means [in his imagination], not what the condition itself indicates.
Save yourself. It’s too late for BBD, I’m afraid.
> when they're wrong, skeptics admit it and change their mind
Citation needed.
If it came from an university-compiled dictionary, that would be nice.
> He is telling us what the term “conspiracist ideation” means [...]
Has Brad found what BBD meant in an university-compiled dictionary?
I don't always wonder what BBD means, but what I do, I ask him.
> BBD is talking about a [...] definition.
If Brad could find a definition of "to mean" as "has a definition in an university-compiled online dictionary," that would be nice.
To repeat Jonathan Jones' words,
"The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an [ethical] error, have endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question."
I agree. (Because I'm pro-science.)
Unfortunately it would seem nobody else here agrees with science on this.
You're all in dogged denial of the rules of science on this.
Not even Willard, to my knowledge, has ever admitted that Hide The Decline was scientifically unacceptable.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about you, Willard. If you don't want to risk your fur standing up for science publicly, then at least email me and privately demonstrate your solidarity with science.)
Bunnies, your dogged denial that HTD was unethical endangers the credibility of the whole bunny community.
If said denialist rot is not stopped, then the credibility of the whole of your whole "side" will remain in grave question.
Willard, will you stop the denialist rot? Will you stand up for the rules and values of science, at least confidentially [I'll watch my Inbox]?
Anybunny else? Somebunny, anybunny?
Otherwise bunnies will remain a Subterranean Plague On Science, and will be poached to extinction.
You fucking anti-science vermin.
Brad does not always talk about science, but when he does, it's about icons.
Brad does not always appeal to authorities, but when he does, he uses contrarian icons.
w,
> when they're wrong, skeptics admit it and change their mind
> Citation needed.
LOL! WHY the fuck would you need a citation for that???
It's obvious to anyone who understands skepticism. (I for one not only understand, but live by skepticism.)
Don't you even know what skepticism is???
LOL
That would explain some of the more disgusting aspects of leporid behavior...
I point to:
> Let us recall BBD's amateur, baseless, citation-free, lexicographically-false [...]
And I point to:
> WHY the fuck would you need a citation for that???
Brad does not always refer to true skepticism, but when he does, he cites himself like a true Scotsman would.
> Don't you even know what skepticism is???
Please mansplain skepticism to bunnies, O Brad the most important Skeptic in the world.
If the most important skeptic in the world does not mansplain skepticism to bunnies, his whole posturing will be called into question.
But how exactly, by whom, and when?
"You fucking anti-science vermin."
Oh dear, the Keyster doesn't understand what science is put to use for.
If for example let's say HTD had been a paper about how tree rings always have and always will correspond to their local temperature, but they didn't and that was covered up, the Keyster's global scale faux outrage may have had some merit.
But as HTD wasn't about that at all it was about global temperature reconstruction and better tools were available from the period when known and widely recognised began to appeaer in some tree ring series post-1960(due to pollution/nuclear test radiation/whatever - it's still not understood as far as I'm aware).
It doesn't take a genius to understand the purpose of the technique in building the pre-instrument bigger picture, but apparently Keyster and his favoured sources can't or won't.
I'm sure someone could explain it more clearly, compactly and elegantly than I've managed but then, what more can you expect from Keyster-defined anti-science vermin.
BBD,
my blog (like all media) has a 'false balance' policy. So, even though your ideolectic redefinition of certain psychological concepts puts you in a minority of 1, and even though you're furiously cursing and recursing against Science's own diagnosis of your ideation, we've updated our case study to let the science-communication and conspirology communities hear your side of the story.
Why are you still gorging the troll?
Dear BBD,
1. Some of my readers aren't 100% sure what your current thinking is, and wanted me to ask:
Are you still in denial of the conspiracist nature of the ideation you exhibit in this thread, or do you now accept it?
2. In light of the subject, would you prefer us to redact any mentions of your given name in the article?
Thanks,
Brad Keyes
— Climate Nuremberg editor
Brad
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
(NB your flat refusal even to acknowledge this question, let alone answer it did not go unnoticed).
No, of course not. Therefore the conspiracies were imaginary, weren't they?
Yes, obviously.
So there's nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there?
“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
Your commentary about me is mostly vicious lies. Your definitional arguments are specious nonsense. Your activity here nothing more than a smear campaign.
I am a little surprised that you have been permitted to carry on for so long. As you know, I have long been of the view that the best way of dealing with sociopathic liars who will not admit their errors is to shut them out.
Now watch Brad try and bury this yet again in another spew of nonsense and lies.
BBD,
Relax! ClimateNuremberg is asking you this out courtesy. We're not out to get you.
It's a simple yes or no question:
Are you still in denial of the conspiracist nature of the ideation you exhibit in this thread, or do you now accept it?
Also, in light of the subject, would you prefer us to redact any mentions of your given name in the article?
Yes or no?
Thanks,
Brad Keyes
— Climate Nuremberg editor
Brad
Long ago, before you came up with your current rubbish, I asked you a question. It is repeated above.
This dialogue will not proceed further until you answer it.
BBD:
> Can they really be that stupid, or is this simply a deliberate lie with the sole intention of smearing me?
Sigh.
Yes, they're out to get you.
That's the only "Rational™" explanation.
Why are you posting something that is not an answer to the question, Brad?
Why has the Keyster now begun referring to himself in the plural: delusions of grandeur, feelings of inadequacy or some deeper malady?
Did someone mention my name?
The soul of a schoolboy is a curious thing. It can survive a great many things besides climbing out of a chimney. A man can grow gray in great campaigns, and still have the soul of a schoolboy. A man can return with a great reputation from India and be put in charge of a great public treasure, and still have the soul of a schoolboy, waiting to be awakened by an accident. And it is ten times more so when to the schoolboy you add the skeptic, who is generally a sort of stunted schoolboy. You said just now that things might be done by religious mania. Have you ever heard of irreligious mania? I assure you it exists very violently, especially in men who like showing up magicians in India. But here the skeptic had the temptation of showing up a much more tremendous sham nearer home.
Did someone mention my name?
Just the one of you then, sir?
Or will you be requiring a bigger table?
GSW:
> You’re in a catch 22 situation BBD ;) I would assume he has been reading this, but cannot post as he’s been banned for your protection
LOL
You assume right. Strictly speaking I'm being Very Slowly Moderated, rather than banned. A comment I type now, in April 2014, will get published by Tim in late 2018, meaning nobody will read it. Everybunny will be too depressed about the pause's 20th birthday to play Climateball that month.
The chek guide to the re-defining of humour.
1. Humor is notoriously difficult to define, and you should not try to do so.
2. Mel Brooks said, “We tested it with12-year-olds and anything they didn’t get, we cut.”
3. Therefore you could define “humor” as “stuff a 12-year-old kid would laugh at.”
4. Don’t do that. Define it as “stuff an 8-year-old would kid laugh at” instead.
5. Et voilà! All you have to do now is think back to the kind of shit you laughed at 7 years ago.
Here is a typical paragraph you'd type, but with the "hunorous" parts highlighted!
"And that’s it folks. No language skill, no clever inversion, no word play, no allusions, no parallels, just plain dumb spite… which is what Griselda does, everytime. But then anything requiring or pertaining to intelligence is off-limits for obvious reasons. You can see why the admiration for Jonarse and the Keyster know no limit for Butthead and his Beavis.
The great thing about "humor," chek style, is that it takes no language skill, no clever inversion, no word play, no allusions, no parallels, just plain dumb spite!
@chek
You can't let brad get away with that check, he's making you out to some sort of humourless moron - Again.
;)
Bunnies will notice that, as predicted, Keyes has failed to answer the question.
* * *
Bunnies might have noticed where Brad went wrong. For those that missed it, including (apparently, but we can't be sure) Brad, here's a clue:
Brad says (emphasis added):
There are two kinds of proposition:
1. imaginary ideations about what is not really there but is just a matter of theory.
— examples include: all the conspiracy theories the other side reportedly believes.
2. facts
- examples include the conspiracy theories I believe in
And there it is. The misrepresentation upon which his "argument" rests.
The original discussion arose from GSW's confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
GSW isn't very bright. Brad has no such excuse and can be presumed to be acting in bad faith, as usual. This is easy to confirm and we have seen the result of that test in his sustained refusal to answer a simple question:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
* * *
Instead, we get a sustained attempt at delegitimisation. The usual Brad shit in other words.
Failure to "get it" characterised much of our previous exchange on Deltoid, where Brad The Master Of Science failed to understand the difference between TCR and ECS.
Interestingly, he simply insisted that he was right for several hundred comments while telling me I was an idiot. Exact same MO as here. He also got vicious. Accusations of racism, of all things, IIRC. And he wonders why I call him a mendacious little shit.
Griselda, you do yourself no credit by adding slack-mouthed a 'hur hur' to the Keyster's basic incomprehension.
It should be obvious, even to you that 'Jonarse' and 'Keyster' are indeed 'word play' in the fine old Anglo-Saxon tradition of satirising boors who continually make 'an arse' of themselves.
I'm not claiming stellar quality, merely adapting an old tradition.
P.S. Try not to believe everything you hear from the rectum of deniers, especially when the evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face if only you had the wit.
> Instead, we get a sustained attempt at delegitimization.
Not quite unrelated, Brad has started to request more homework on the Twitter:
@nevaudit When you're not being manipulated, thinking you're being manipulated might lend some support to a diagnosis of paranoia.
https://twitter.com/BradPKeyes/status/456641729899147265
To which I replied:
MT Self-awareness in spades: @BradPKeyes demands for an example of manipulation or else invokes paranoia.
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/456774559254188032
Bunnies might appreciate how Brad exploits his "skeptic" take backs:
- abuse your interlocutor until compliance with your over or covert request;
- when the request is made, take back the abuse;
- rince and repeat, on the basis that Brad really wants to have a "conversation";
- intersperse everything with lulz.
> when the request is made
When the request is met, that is.
Let it be noted that Brad had to revise his contributions to this thread by comparing them with what we can read on that page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation
But then Brad claims never to do homeworks.
Willard,
you got me. I confess everything.
You identify this "skeptic" tactic:
"- when the request is met, take back the abuse;"
I wonder if bunnies appreciate just how devious I was being.
Apologising and offering to retract any intentional or accidental insults I may have written ("Taking back the abuse") is a masterstroke of psychological manipulation and deception because it is functionally indistinguishable from decent, reasonable, moral behavior. By conforming to standards of ethics (and its French counterpart etiquette), the "skeptic" manages to act like a nice guy. But his behavior is just an act.
Treating people well makes me look like the kind of person who treats people well, when in fact I'm a "skeptic".
BBD,
The tobacco industry is now known to have “conspired” against the public in their efforts to undermine the well-established scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health. One of the US judges famously said: “The US tobacco industry has engaged in a criminal conspiracy for more than 50 years.”
The nineteen September 11 culprits knew each other and were following a secret, calculated plan. We now know this. Their simultaneous hijacking of 4 separate planes was not, in fact, a coincidental and spontaneous day of grass-roots protest by the Arab airline-customer world in response to the depradations of American imperialism, as I and many other left-wing intellectuals initially thought, but was in fact orchestrated in advance. Hard as it is to believe, there really was a conspiracy on 9/11.
And these aren't the only conspiracies in human history.
There was one more. In ancient Rome, enemies of Julius Ceasar clandestinely plotted to accost him in a group, pull out their knives at the same time, then start stabbing him in quick succession. Their hypothesis was that the health effects of stabbing increased with the number of stabs, and that therefore a single stabber had less chance of political success than a multi-stabber team. And the rest is history: in what is thought to be the first experimental confirmation of a medical hypothesis, as well as the origin of the word "conspiracy," Caesar's viability decreased monotonically over time once the stabbing began, until death.
So to answer your question:
"Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?"
Yes, as a climate "skeptic" I think there are 3 examples of conspiracy theories held by me which have been strongly confirmed as very probably true and not just imaginary.
But then, like any conspiracy theorist I was obviously going to say that, wasn't I? I wasn't about to say I thought any of the things I thought were true weren't true, was I?
Brad
So to answer your question:
"Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?"
Yes, as a climate "skeptic" I think there are 3 examples of conspiracy theories held by me which have been strongly confirmed as very probably true and not just imaginary.
You are wasting time again with silly evasions.
You screwed up. You got it wrong. I did warn you that you were confused, right at the outset, but on you went anyway. And here we are again, with you reduced to risible evasions, again.
Might there be details forthcoming of these Keyster Koncluded Konspiracies that dare not speak their name?
And what's with all the coyness all of a sudden?
Sorry, I should specify which ones pertaing to climate science, not any of your whacko ones about Hitler living out his days as a farmer's daughter in Nebraska.
Brad
Now that your blog post about me has been demonstrated to be incorrect, even perhaps defamatory, are you going to take it down?
> [Taking back abuses] is functionally indistinguishable from decent, reasonable, moral behavior.
Not when it's an algorithm that is recursed to coerce people into doing one's homework, and repeated over and over again here and elsewhere.
Mimicking reasonable, moral behaviour once in a while is relatively easy to those who prey on others for their exploits. It's the lack of constancy in that mimicry compared to the constancy of abuse that usually amounts to a big tell.
willard
Mimicking
Yes. Sociopath. Manipulator. Own worst enemy:
The frog and the scorpion.
At this juncture, I'm beginning to suspect is there is no there 'there', with El Keyster.
It became apparent when he admitted upthread that he knew nothing about the H.S., and cared even less.
Yet he flies his little stars'n'stripes of denialism outside his blog, but despite the wordiness informed by years of soaking up the inventions of the denier sewer, he doen't know how any of it fits the bigger picture.
I'm expecting the same blank look as you'd get from a grade school educated Montana farmhand if you said the word 'realpolitik' in relation to the ICBM silos outside his town. They're just there.
There'll be no denouement, likely just the obstinate ignorance that he's been displaying all along for the past few years.
BBD:
> Now that your blog post about me has been demonstrated to be incorrect, even perhaps defamatory, are you going to take it down?
Demonstrated where—do you have a link?
Take it down? No.
Frontiers may have spinelessly caved in to ethical considerations, but I won't.
No wonder a flood of men and women of principle—three so far, isn't it?—resigned from the journal in protest.
"It is quite clear," as the principled Björn Brembs put it, why my blog post "may feel painful to those cited in it, but as long as 'conspiracist ideation' is not an official mental disorder, I cannot see any defamation. If you don't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, don't behave like one publicly on the internet."
Thank you for your participation, Dominic.
I wouldn't worry unduly, BBD.
It's not like anyone of consequence is ever going to read the spiteful little prick's blog.
Just the usual denier trash, the once.
Brad
Demonstrated where—do you have a link?
Here, Brad.
Which bit didn't you understand?
Let's look at the words again:
The original discussion arose from GSW's confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
You were wrong. You have misrepresented me as a conspiracy theorist.
Frontiers caved in to the threat of barratry, not ethical considerations. This is the reverse. I'm not threatening you with legal action. What I am asking you to do is act in good faith and admit your mistake and remove your mistaken blog post.
That would be the ethical thing to do.
Please explain your intransigence.
Bunnies are all ears.
Bunnies will notice that long gone are the four or five posts an hour rate, as the Keyster's options for mimicking reasonable, moral behaviour dwindle by the minute.
Just an observation.
Brad Keyes plays as the Only True Protector of Science. Hurray for him.
He states that his only source of semantic knowledge is a dictionary.
So ... he can never think of anything new, or understand a new concept. He can only think about things old enough that they have ended up in a dictionary.
Doesn't sound very sciencey to me.
(BTW BK, English language dictionaries are created to reflect common usage of words. As usage changes, the dictionary changes. Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. In other words, "I do not think you know what that word means.")
Gator,
you seem to think this is a revelation, but it isn't—at least not to me:
> As usage changes, the dictionary changes.
Obviously.
BBD is the one who thinks the dictionary is out of date.
He's the one using his own definitions, with which the entire lexicography profession has, for some inexplicable reason, not caught up yet.
Thank you for pointing out BBD's error so succinctly, Gator.
BBD,
Here's a relevant quote from the Wikipedia entry:
Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies including ones that turn out to be real, it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
By "some", I think we can include Brad.
Do you think if Brad has surveyed the literature to see if it includes Lew and his sources?
In any case, here's another bit from the same entry:
Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[17] The term is often used to automatically dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.[18] A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[19][20] Despite conspiracy theorists often being dismissed as a "fringe" group, polling suggests that people from a wide variety of economic and cultural backgrounds continue to believe in certain conspiracy theories.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Usage_of_the_term
One has to wonder if Brad has took the time to read that entry while he was searching in his "university-compiled" dictionaries.
BBD,
this is hilarious:
> GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
Yes, yes, you've said it dozens of times, BBD, and we enjoyed it each and every time: your belief in a conspiracy of denial can't possibly be a theory because you've got evidence that it's TRUE!
LOL!
It's not that GSW doesn't "grasp" this, BBD. He "grasps" what you're saying as well as I do.
It's just that it's fallacious, scientifically-illiterate nonsense.
I take it you're one of those folks who think evolution is "just" a theory—and that means there's no "evidence" that it's "a matter of fact," right, BBD?
Newsflash: the existence of evidence doesn't magically remove an idea from the realm of theory. Au contraire, mon frere, evidence in favor of an idea is what MAKES it a theory (and not just a hypothesis).
So you may think you're denigrating modern biology by calling evolution "just" a theory but you're only making yourself sound silly, BBD.
And by the way, every time you do that you make your protestations of being "pro science" even more absurd.
Laughing at you is the gift that keeps on giving.
(No need to thank me for disabusing you of your ignorant misconceptions, BBD. As a science denier, I enjoy teaching science believers how science works!)
> your belief in a conspiracy of denial can't possibly be a theory because you've got evidence that it's TRUE!
Not quite. It could not be a conspiracy, if by a conspiracy we only include unjustified belief about propositions for which we have simpler explanations shared by a consensus. Michael Parenti provides an interesting example of the absurdity of interpreting the word "conspiracy" by way of "university-compiled" dictionaries:
In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversy
Unless Brad wants to argue that the CIA and other covert institutions (i.e. most corporations) are conspiracies, he may have to bring something more on the table than university-compiled dictionaries.
Willard:
> One has to wonder if Brad has took the time to read that entry while he was searching in his "university-compiled" dictionaries.
Obviously not. No rational person would.
When it comes to the use of words, university-trained professional lexicographers are credible sources. Anonymous Wiki editors are pyjama-clad opinion bloggers.
By the way, perhaps you've forgotten the 10 or 20 times BBD asked:
> Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?
Someone asked Professor Stephan Lewandowsky a similar question:
> Can you name one conspiracy theory that turned out to be true?
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky said yes, he could. You might recognise the example Professor Stephan Lewandowsky gave:
> The tobacco industry is now known to have “conspired” against the public in their efforts to undermine the well-established scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health. One of the US judges famously said: “The US tobacco industry has engaged in a criminal conspiracy for more than 50 years.”
Willard, your loyalty to BBD is touching but you owe a higher loyalty to being correct, so climb out of the hole before BBD buries you both.
So, let's recap.
According to Hero of Science, Bradley Keyes, the idea that members of al Queda secretly plotted to fly planes into the World Trade Centre is, by definition, a Conspiracy Theory, and anyone who believes this is indulging in Conspiracy Ideation, right? Got that?
Well, who are we to argue against such as Bradley? But it rather seems like we're going to need a new set of terms describing 'paranoiac narratives alleging malicious behaviour by some sinister "other" unsupported by evidence', don't it?
Oh, wait, what's that from the voices in the crowd? Everyone thinks that's what the terms mean anyway? But, but, Brad tells us otherwise... He, and his friend Mirriam, have Spoken!
Eli, has all this reached its use-by date, do you think?
Also, Brad, did you really mean to type'Frontiers may have spinelessly caved in to ethical considerations, but I won't. '? It's, um, very revealing...
> [U]niversity-trained professional lexicographers are credible sources.
Having the list of names of these lexicographers to whom Brad confer definitive authority on the theorical concepts like "conspiracy theory" would be nice.
***
> Anonymous Wiki editors are pyjama-clad opinion bloggers.
My latest quote is from Michael Parenti, a prolific author on various conspiracies. Those who appreciate credientials won't fail to appreciate that Parenti holds a PhD in political science from Yale:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/biography.html
Also note the references in our first quote:
"20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.
Birchall, Clare (2006). Knowledge Goes Pop: From Conspiracy Theory to Gossip. Oxford: Berg. ISBN 1-84520-143-4.
Knight, Peter (2003). Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9.
Transparency and conspiracy: ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order. Harry G. West, Todd Sanders.
We emphasize the first citation.
***
The only moot reference was underneath the number "20", which leads to an article by Slate magazine:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2005/06/throat_clearing.html
Bunnies will note that this article tells the story to those who deny that Watergate happened.
***
Brad's dismissiveness is far from being justified. Even if it was, it would not address the argument to the effect that his own definition leads us to conclude that the Heartland Institute is a conspiracy and that in fact most NASDAQ companies would also be conspiracies.
Willard:
> Even if it was, it would not address the argument to the effect that his own definition leads us to conclude that the Heartland Institute is a conspiracy and that in fact most NASDAQ companies would also be conspiracies.
I don't agree 100% with your reasoning there Willard but in any case why haven't you taken it up with Lewandowsky, whose definition is no different from mine?
Oh, hang on: Lewandowsky only pop-psychologised "skeptics," didn't he?
That's OK then. ;-D
Here's how Brad ropes-a-dopes to another point instead of acknowledging that his dismissal of the Wikipedia entry was unjustified:
> why haven't you taken it up with Lewandowsky, whose definition is no different from mine?
First, "conspiracy theory" is not "conspirational ideation". The common concept is "conspiracy", which I showed has having evolved in a way that Brad presumed. And this evolution as a pejorative word, which undermines his own definition, has currency since the 60s.
Second, that Brad's interpretation of one sentence in Lew's paper leads to the exact interpretation Lew has of the concept of "conspirational ideation" has yet to be shown. How to we do that, bunnies may ask?
By RTFPs, not by taking one characterization and proclaiming it's some kind of axiom that is self-evident enough to derive all the relevant connotations.
If Brad is to construct a semantic argument, he better be prepared to more linguistic labor than he did so far.
Erratum:
> The common concept is "conspiracy", which I showed has having evolved in a way that Brad has not presumed.
Here it is again:
Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is often used to automatically dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Usage_of_the_term
> perhaps you've forgotten the 10 or 20 times BBD asked "Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by "sceptics" been proven to be true, as in 'not imagined'?"
Perhaps Brad has forgotten that BBD may not have ruled out the possibility that a conspiracy theory usually entails that it has yet to be:
(a) justified by something else than farfetched rationalizations of the evidence;
(b) established by matters of fact which changes its conjectural nature;
(c) shared by a majority if not a consensus of relevant authorities, say scientists.
This is why the Wikipedia entry stipulates that when a conspiracy theory becomes true, some prefer not called a conspiracy theory anymore.
That does not prevent Lew to imagine that a conspiracy theory can become true. All depends upon what Lew meant. Whatever Lew meant when being asked in a blog comment section, establishing its consistency with what he said in his paper can only be determined by RTFPs.
***
If you think about it, it's like asking if water can turn into ice. In a sense, it can't: when it's ice, it's not water anymore. In another sense, it obviously can. Curious bunnies may refer to the de re / de dicto distinction in philosophy to delve into such quandaries.
Brad's semantic argument is not much more sophisticated than that.
Willard,
I'm not trying to avoid the other outstanding questions but just want to quickly get your advice:
Do you think my article is defamatory of BBD and should be taken down?
Yes or no?
"All depends upon what Lew meant."
Since I've already quoted Lew's crystal-clear explanation of what he meant by "conspiracist ideation," and since it's compatible with my own understanding of what the term means, and with GSW's understanding, and with Stu 2's understanding, and with every dictionary I've seen, and since everybunny has failed (after 2 days of trying) to produce any contrary definition, with the sole and lonely exception of BBD, who had clearly just made up a definition of his own and could cite no other human being who supported it....
I'm not about to lose any sleep over it, Willard.
The telling thing is:
Nobody on your side seemed to struggle with understanding the term, or even spend any time wondering about its meaning, back when "Science" was telling you people on my side suffered the condition in question.
Everyone seemed perfectly content with the knowledge that "conspiracist ideation"—whatever that was—had been identified in the "denier" population, and seemed like a good excuse for calling us names.
It's only now that the term seems to elude your collective grasp.
This sudden semantic skepticism—or agnosis?—that's broken out like a myxomatosis plague in your colony is not necessarily a bad thing, but one does have to wonder...
...why now?
Above ground, nature-watchers are drawing conclusions. :-)
Everyone seemed perfectly content with the knowledge that "conspiracist ideation"—whatever that was—had been identified in the "denier" population, and seemed like a good excuse for calling us names.
Unless you can demonstrate that your nutty ideas about scientists concertedly exaggerating the potential seriousness of AGW (something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists at the very least because none of them are blowing the whistle) you have a problem.
You are not being called names. You are being described accurately. And yes, we understand that you *hate* that. Lost in nonsense though you are, you still understand that tinfoil is a badge of shame.
And yes, your blog post is defamatory. I am not indulging in conspiracist ideation. Donors Trust is a matter of fact and you remain stuffed.
I see that true to form, Brad has inserted a misleading non-definition of conspiracist ideation in an attempt to conceal the fact that he is defaming me on his blog.
Here - again - is the definition provided by Lewandowsky himself (source):
Conspiracy theorists are those who display the characteristics of conspiracy ideation
Yep, just stating the obvious, right? Recursive Fury establishes, from the peer-reviewed literature, the traits of conspiracist ideation, which is the technical term for a cognitive style commonly known as “conspiratorial thinking”. Our paper featured 6 criteria for conspiratorial thinking:
1. Nefarious Intent: Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious intentions. For example, if person X assumes that blogger Y colluded with the New York Times to publish a paper damaging to X, then X presumes nefarious intent on the part of Y.
2. Persecuted Victim: Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory. Note that “conspiracy theory” here is a fairly broad term and need not involve a global conspiracy (e.g., that NASA faked the moon landing) but can refer to small-scale events and hypotheses.
4. Nothing occurs by Accident: Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators. Thus, people may simultaneously believe that Princess Diana faked her own death and that she was assassinated by MI5.
6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for the conspiracy. For example, when climate scientists are exonerated of any wrong-doing 9 times over by different investigations, this is reinterpreted to imply that the climate-change conspiracy involves not just the world’s climate scientists but also the investigating bodies and associated governments.
A lie:
with the sole and lonely exception of BBD, who had clearly just made up a definition of his own and could cite no other human being who supported it....
Why does Eli continue to permit incessant lies about a commenter on his blog?
Bunnies wonder.
Because this bunny is fucking sick and fucking tired of having to keep coming back here and defending himself against lies.
Brad Keyes has demonstrated (amongst many other deficiencies) a consistent difficulty with discrimination between the concepts of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy ideation".
Parsimony would suggest that this problematic understanding arises because he has no formal training or experience in the scientific profession of psychological research.
And if he's not qualified to contradict the experts his lay opinion is worth no more than toilet paper - the fate of which can be just as validly applied to Keyes' pronouncements.
So nothing to see here - move along...
BBD:
> You are being described accurately.
Yeah, it's remarkable how abruptly you dropped this kind of rhetoric...
"[Brad Keyes is] one of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG...That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember? No, GSW, you moronic liar...the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes...you are still a liar, GSW...you are insane...stupid lying fuck…I’ll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you... What is wrong with your brain?"
...in favor of your current, cloyingly solicitous tone.
As a scholar, I preferred the old BBD of 48 hours ago who spoke the open sewer of his mind and didn't care who smelled it.
There was an honesty there.
What is it that's chilled your free speech, BBD? I'd hate to think it's something I've done!
> And yes, your blog post is defamatory. I am not indulging in conspiracist ideation.
So, just to be clear: it's your contention that misattributing conspiracist ideation to someone on an Internet site is defamatory, BBD? Even if they're identifiable only by a pseudonym, I presume?
Are you sure you want to open this door, BBD? (I'm not advising you against it—I just want to make absolutely sure that you're committed to that legal principle.)
Yes or no—are you standing by "defamatory"?
> Unless you can demonstrate that your nutty ideas about scientists concertedly exaggerating the potential seriousness of AGW (something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists at the very least because none of them are blowing the whistle)
Whose nutty ideas? Mine? Ours? Which ideas?
Is it a nutty idea to suggest that only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention, so, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty, as some "skeptics" have claimed (though I myself haven't)? Is that nutty, BBD?
BBD,
you'll forgive me if I take your SkS copy'n'paste precisely as seriously as it deserves to be taken, when the semi-literate liar John Cook mixes up "conspiratorial" and "conspiracist" and his putative co-author doesn't even step in to fix such an embarrassing solecism.
So, we've officially degenerated from getting our English semantics from dictionaries, like normal human beings... to science articles... to blogs now?
BLOGS?
I guess what they say is true: science deniers will use whatever grey, dodgy source they need to make their case...and credibility be damned.
Suit yourself, BBD—like I've said before, speak whatever invented dialect you want. (Just be aware that the rest of us won't know what you're going on about.)
LOL...
Lewandowsky can't help himself—he openly blurts out that climate "denial" is the result of a conspiracy:
> When worldviews and conspiracies determine people’s attitude towards science, it is perhaps unsurprising that simply providing more evidence isn’t enough to alert people to the risks they are facing ...
He provides more details:
> Most of these attacks have been pursued by defamation on the internet, but they have also involved in activities beneath the surface hidden from public view.
Could this be a reference to the Mann-Lewandowsky Subterranean War on Science Theory?
One activity 'hidden from view' is orchestrated multi-aliasing:
> Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.
Not to mention the people (presumably deniers!) following Lewandowsky on the street:
> Carmen Lawrence then made an aside that probably puzzled many – and worried more than a few: 'Stephan Lewandowsky just emailed to advise he is [still] being pursued by climate deniers in an extravagant way.'"
And how come we don't hear about that secret multi-decade crossppromotional campaign by Big Tobacco + Big Oil, as Naomi Oreskes fantasised, these days?
No wonder he went into the psychology of conspiracism. Physician, heal thyself!
Ah, climate alarmism: where the inmates are in charge of the asylum!
Post a Comment