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 601 – 722 of 722Thank you for your comment, chek.
I guess all we can surmise for now is that both science and scepticism are processes for Brad.
A scientific communicator like Brad should take this opportunity to teach bunnies about his conception of science and of skepticism. After hundreds of lulz-like comments, that would be great, don't you think?
Kevin,
Even the Guardian has been compelled to withdraw the claim you make (Lindzen as tobacco denialist) when it came up in Dana's mendacious hit piece. Why? Because Lindzen, unlike Al Gore, was never a tobacco denialist. He's always acknowledged the link between tobacco smoking and disease (a link which almost certainly led to the death of Nancy Gore at only 46 years of age).
I can't determine what you mean by, "He simply attacks the science with generalised innuendo." Are you referring to the last 2 sentences of the TASSC article (whose authors, unlike Al Gore, certainly appear at first glance to accept the carcinogenicity of cigarettes):
"Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke."
?
If this is what you object to, then:
Firstly, do you have any reason to attribute the last line ("Such has not always been the case...") to Richard Lindzen? Forgive me if I missed something, but did Lindzen write the article? Assuming he didn't, it's not clear that they're even quoting him at that point. Only the earlier sentences in that paragraph appear to be derived from anything he's said. (It's not well written—the authors should make made it clearer where that which Lindzen "has emphasized" begins and ends.)
Second, I find it weird that the nakedness of that assertion seems to annoy you so much: "It's an attack that can't be refuted because it's nebulous in its claim."
Why on earth should a nebulous claim be immune to rebuttal? You'd have every right to rubbish such an "attack" on that exact basis, Kevin: the sheer nebulosity of it. As (I think) Christopher Hitchens used to say, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Third, it's a pretty reliable rule of human discourse that the conclusion of an article has its justification above, not below!
So this was an odd thing to say: "If we examine Lindzen's ... attack on the ETS studies we find no analysis from Lindzen." Well, no. Obviously. Because his "attack" is the last sentence in the entire document. (No deep "examination" is needed to confirm this.)
But isn't it clear from the preceding text, the body of the TASSC article, why the authors said (or quoted Lindzen as saying) that "Such [scientific rigor] has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke"?
That isn't a rhetorical question—I really haven't read it properly—but surely the article itself provides a basis for the concluding assertion (whether valid or invalid), and thus an opportunity for you to refute it... does it not? And if so, have you made any effort to refute it?
Also Kevin, this is not accurate:
> If we examine Lindzen's (and your agreement with Lindzen) attack on the ETS studies we find no analysis from Lindzen.
I don't believe I've ever agreed with "his attack," if by "his attack" we mean that one last sentence in that particular article.
(I have read other, quite plausible criticisms along the same lines, but not by Lindzen himself—so I can neither credit nor blame him for the quality of them.)
If I've indicated that agreement then I shouldn't have, because I haven't read, let alone evaluated, the argument offered as justification (which is presumably to be found in the body of the article itself—notwithstanding your denial of its existence—isn't it?). That argument could be good or it could be bad. All I can say that it doesn't constitute tobacco denialism. This should not be confused with my saying the article is correct.
> When this was pointed out to you, you simply ignored it.
I ignored it because I couldn't see what it had to do with me, with Lindzen or with tobacco denialism.
> This makes you and Lindzen tobacco denialists. You are denying the science.
Which "the science" are we denying? Certainly not "the science" Al Gore denied to help him sleep at night when he kept selling tobacco and taking cigarette lobby money after watching his own sister die of lung cancer—namely, the medical evidence relating cigarette smoking to airway malignancies.
As to vicarious "smoking," my understanding—not based on this article, but on other salvos in the SHS controversy—is that the dangers of second hand smoke have indeed been exaggerated at times, even by the Surgeon General, particularly around the risk of heart attacks and lung cancer incurred by someone who innocently breathes in (and fails to cough out) another person's cigarette smoke. But I'm not alleging this exaggeration as a matter of certainty, just as an impression from the fraction of the literature I've seen, which (FWIW) seems to be echoed in the attitudes of all the physicians I've observed as part of my occupation. So if you'd like to stop accusing me of denying "the [unspecified] science" and instead point me to your preferred metaanalytic paper, with the robustness and power to justify the alarming claims that have been made about SHS, I might just recalibrate my position. It's not by any means fixed.
NB I believe (and correct me if I've misremembered) that you mentioned something about a 30% increase in the lung-cancer risk among passive "smokers"? If so, just be aware that the metaanalysis you link me to will have to be both very big and very systematic, because such a marginal increase on a tiny prior risk is right on the edge of what can realistically be detected. (The reason medical science is so confident in saying that actual, primary smoking kills is that it increases lung-cancer rates by something like 2300%, IIRC!)
Brad - did you forget this article came out of the tobacco documents legal disclosure?
Did you forget the Heartland Institute was a tobacco shill?
BTW - who typically writes captions for newspaper/magazine articles?
Kevin,
Forgive me if I missed something, but did you write that Dick wrote "such as not always be the case" in
http://legacy-dc.ucsf.edu/documentStore/g/n/z/gnz62e00/Sgnz62e00.pdf
Did you write that Dick wrote the article? Did you write that the authors were quoting him on that point?
In fact, do you think that these questions are relevant at all for your point, which may very well be that Dick is the "goto" authority for the Heartland Institute to create FUD about scientific results that "benefit Philip Morris' bottom line", as Joe Bast says [1]?
Many thanks!
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks
Kevin,
I'd love to answer your 3 new questions, except that until I get some clarity on the ones I asked you, e.g. ....
— Are you referring to the last 2 sentences of the article?
— Why do you consider a "nebulous" (baseless, unevidenced, unargued) claim immune to rebuttal?
— Is the last sentence of the article, to which you seem to object, argued for by the body of the article, or not?
— If it is, have you managed to refute that argument?
— Where's your preferred meta-analysis? As you know, there's nothing I enjoy more than "denying the science" but I need you to be a bit more specific about WHICH science. :-)
... we won't be able to progress. So what are your responses?
Kevin,
I do hope you wish to progress, as otherwise, you might not be tempted to answer Brad's questions:
> until I get some clarity on the ones I asked you [...] we won't be able to progress.
Interesting, Brad failed to answer lots of questions he was being asked in the thread.
Wonder why?
***
Don't worry, Kevin. I'm quite confident that even if you don't answer Brad's questions, we will be able to progress.
Kevin,
Here's the whole paragraph, in case you need it:
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished. The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke.
http://legacy-dc.ucsf.edu/documentStore/g/n/z/gnz62e00/Sgnz62e00.pdf
I count four sentences. Do you?
Kevin,
Since you mentioned TASSC earlier, you might be interested in this letter from Garrey to Dick:
Recently you spoke with an associate of mine, Sheri Kesser, who informed you of my efforts to create a coalition of scientists, business leaders, industrialists and others concerned about the advancement of sound science. The name of this coalition is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), and its mission is to advance the principles of science used to formulate public policy.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046989059-9060.html?pattern=lindzen%5Ba-z%5D%2A&#p1
You might also be interested to know that there are 99 hits for "lindzen" in the tobacco documents.
While this may be less interesting to Brad than the fact that Al Gore is fat, I thought you'd like to know.
See? Some progress already!
Kevin,
I'm not sure it would be possible to make progress if Brad does not know what the TASCC is. Perhaps you should tell him more about the TASCC. Here's a starting point:
The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group and crisis management vehicle,[1] and was created in 1993 by Phillip Morris and APCO in response to a 1992 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report[2] which identified secondhand smoke as a Group A human carcinogen.[3] TASSC's stated objectives were to: 1) discredit the EPA report; 2) fight anti-smoking legislation; 3) proactively pass legislation favorable to the tobacco industry. Philip Morris hired APCO Worldwide, a communications consultancy with expertise in crisis management, handling sensitive political issues, lobbying, media relations, coalition building, opinion research, market entry, corporate social responsibility, and online communication. [notes 1] APCO's designed strategies for TASSC aimed at establishing TASSC as "a credible source for reporters when questioning the validity of scientific studies" and to "Encourage the public to question – from the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center
There are some interesting notes there you could share with Brad to make more progress.
Good luck,
w
Kevin,
Sorry. I meant, TASSC, not TASCC.
Let's hope that this nit does not hinder your progress with Brad.
TASSC's stated objectives were to: 1) discredit the EPA report; 2) fight anti-smoking legislation; 3) proactively pass legislation favorable to the tobacco industry.
"Encourage the public to question – from the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies".
"Presently every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct".
The role of the self-appointed sceptical pseudo-science communicator is beginning to become clear.
Willard,
way to miss the point:
> I count four sentences. Do you?
I count 2 sentences to which Kevin presumably objects. Or do you think there's something wrong with someone (e.g. Lindzen) saying, "The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs."
?
> way to miss the point:
So now there's one point, the point. Ze point without which Brad and Kevin will never make any progress, no doubt. Ze point can't be the point presumed by Kevin's questions:
Brad - did you forget this article came out of the tobacco documents legal disclosure?
Did you forget the Heartland Institute was a tobacco shill?
These questions are still unanswered. How progress can be possible if Brad does not even ackowledge these questions?
The point of these questions is of course to consider what Dick says in context, a concept which seems to escape Brad since he presumes that we can interpret what Dick says without considering the document in which it appears.
> [D]o you think there's something wrong with someone (e.g. Lindzen) saying, "The implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political needs."
That depends upon what is meant by that. It's tough to make progress on that unless we rely on context. Interpreting such claim is far from being trivial.
On a direct reading, Dick is presuming the linear model to make decisions. God knows how many times honest brokers told us that this was not the proper way to conceptualize policy making. Since Brad and Dick may share affinities with the honest broker stance, this might be problematic.
On another intuitive reading, this claim is simply false, as politics has yet to rest on science alone. As long as policy-making will imply values, scientific facts alone will never compel us to make decisions. And that's notwithstanding the fact-value dichotomy. Again, honest brokers do not usually condone such a dichotomy.
On another reading, we could also consider Dick's claim as being empty, as the caveat "to the degree that is available" begs the most important question.
***
All these questions are secondary to what the authors tried to convey by quoting Dick in their editorial. Another interesting question is to know if Dick approved being quoted that way, and if he approved of playing the role of the contrarian talking head.
Do we know if Dick answered to Garrey's letter?
Bunnies may also note that Dick's concept of "good science" is not obvious and that the caveat "to the degree that it is available" does not help clarify matters. The caveat obscures the fact that the best explanation we have is the best explanation we have.
If Dick's caveat dismisses inference to the best explanation, bunnies may prefer to dismiss Dick's caveat instead.
PS: Capcha was "conjecture ofcarm".
Bunnies may also note that as the wet painted portion of the floor begins to encroach upon the 90º area, the Keyster's verbiage declines accordingly.
Willard:
> Another interesting question is to know if Dick approved being quoted that way, and if he approved of playing the role of the contrarian talking head.
Quoted? The authors paraphrased Lindzen at most. And if the answer to your "interesting question" is "no," then this conversation is even more inane than it seems. (As a rule, guilt by association is seldom a fruitful or interesting line of attack.)
chek:
> as the wet painted portion of the floor begins to encroach upon the 90º area, [Brad's] verbiage declines accordingly
ROFL
Whatever you say, chek: any moment now someone's going to prove at last that Lindzen really is a tobacco denialist, and was never libeled by Dana in the first place.
Tick tock / yawn
PS when the most engrossing part of an argument is the captcha—"contraire icorpol"—you're doing it wrong.
Brad - parse it how you want - which you will anyway - but you forget I've already provided you a direct quote from the Australian Broadcasting interview:
RL:"I have argued as most people who have looked at it that the case for
second-hand tobacco is not very good."
Lindzen has been a Heartland Institute (a tobacco industry supporter) keynote speaker. He's a member of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (another tobacco industry supporter). He was a friend to TASSC (tobacco industry front group). He signed the Heidelberg Appeal (put together by a public relations front group) which Philip Morris then used to draw support to its European branch of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
The latest Surgeon General's report indicates more than 7000 Americans die yearly because of this 'weak' ETS link. The cost probably runs to more than $10 billion per year.
In Bradworld you and Lindzen may still need convincing. To me (and most sane people) this is simply tobacco denialism.
As for: "Where's your preferred meta-analysis? As you know, there's nothing I enjoy more than "denying the science" but I need you to be a bit more specific about WHICH science. :-)"
What a crock of shit. If you wanted to do the analysis you would have done so already. I believe there were 18 studies cited in the article. Note the article is merely a rehash of the 1991 Surgeon General's report that offers *nothing* scientific to the discussion and directs no specific criticism. So when you wrote, "Third, it's a pretty reliable rule of human discourse that the conclusion of an article has its justification above, not below!" you obviously can point to the specific criticisms (i.e., non-nebulous) that were stated earlier in the article.
Aside from those 18 studies there have been many peer-reviewed studies and meta-analysis papers in the intervening years. Most of these can be found without searching very hard. The EPA and the Surgeon General's reports typically list many of them. In fact, let's just say 'my science' is the latest Surgeon General's report. We will avidly await your analysis.
BTW - your whole line of reasoning on Al Gore is completely illogical. Gore (to my knowledge) has never denied the adverse effects of tobacco. His family received tobacco subsidies, perhaps you conflated the two.
> Quoted? The authors paraphrased Lindzen at most.
An equivalent expression for "paraphrase" is "indirect quotation":
http://www.learnamericanenglishonline.com/Yellow%20Level/Y16%20Direct%20&%20Indirect%20Quotations.html
While bunnies may wonder why Brad chose "paraphrased" instead of "indirectly quoted", let's recall what the authors said, with our emphasis:
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave society with a resource of some importance diminished.
What Dick emphasized seems to have been done with words he said. Dick may have issued a correction if he was quoted mistakenly. So the question to know if Dick approved being quoted that way is as interesting now than it was before Brad tried to suggest that to quote indirectly someone was not to quote that person.
***
Bunnies will also note that it would be tough for Brad to declare that the authors did not quote Dick directly. Unless Brad has the complete collection of every word Dick said all entered into a database? Sometimes, computer scientists can do amazing things.
Is computer science a science anyway?
> And if the answer to your "interesting question" is "no," then [...]
And if cows had wings, we'd carry bigger umbrellas.
The question is interesting because it would establish the nature of the citation the authors forgot to add to their editorial.
Did the authors personally contact Dick?
Did they read what Dick emphasized somewhere?
Did they check their indirect quotation with Dick before publishing their editorial?
Did Dick ever minded being quoted that way?
Et cetera.
Bunnies may prefer mundane questions such as these than Brad's counterfactual thinking.
***
All that has been established so far in the thread is that Dick was contacted by Garrey to join the TASSC which, according to thy Wiki, is an "industry-funded lobby group and crisis management vehicle, and was created in 1993 by Phillip Morris and APCO in response to a 1992 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report which identified secondhand smoke as a Group A human carcinogen."
So here's another bit:
Lindzen would later become associated with TASSC [...] For Lindzen's links to TASSC and the second-hand smoke campain, see the collection of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library [...]
These are to be found at:
legacy.library.uscf.edu
https://history.ucsd.edu/_files/base-folder1/From%20Chicken%20Little%20to%20Dr.%20Pangloss.pdf
Kevin,
> BTW - your whole line of reasoning on Al Gore is completely illogical. Gore (to my knowledge) has never denied the adverse effects of tobacco. His family received tobacco subsidies, perhaps you conflated the two.
I agree, naturally, that receiving tobacco subsidies is not the same thing as tobacco denialism, so if the premise of your criticism were correct then my reasoning would indeed have been illogical. It's perfectly possible Gore's family did business with Big Tobacco in the full knowledge that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer, and that if their own daughter Nancy Gore Hunger hadn't smoked a pack a day since her teenage years she would very probably still be alive. It's possible, in other words, that they were just money-hungry monsters, not medical-science deniers.
But that's not what I meant. I wasn't referring to Gore's family's receipt of tobacco subsidies, their raising and selling of tobacco, Gore's own personal raising and selling of tobacco ("Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."), Gore's decision to keep selling tobacco for several years after his sister died from lung cancer, or Gore's decision to keep accepting tobacco lobby campaign money several years after his sister died from lung cancer.
I was referring to the "emotional numbness" excuse Gore used for doing this. I was referring to his excuse about how "It takes time to fully absorb the most important lessons in life." For example:
Gore Defends Inconsistency On Tobacco Issue
The Washington Post
CHICAGO
Vice President Gore said it was "emotional numbness" that caused him to defend tobacco for years after his sister's death from lung cancer and said the need to break through that same "numbness" in society about the dangers of smoking caused him to tell the story of her illness in his speech at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night.
and:
"Sometimes, you never fully face up to things that you ought to face up to." -- Al Gore, discussing why he accepted checks from his family tobacco farm and contributions from tobacco companies for years after the tragic death of his sister that he spoke about so emotionally at the 1996 Democratic convention.
(Source: "'Numbness' Let Gore Accept Tobacco Help," San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 1996)
I interpret Gore's excuses as meaning he was in denial—classically—of the fact that smoking kills, and almost certainly killed his own sister. Is there any other way? How do you interpret them?
Willard,
A black horse is a horse but a Trojan horse is not a horse, passive smoking is not smoking, virtual reality is not reality and indirect quotation is not quotation. Stop pretending you can omit the adjective without doing violence to the meaning. Sure, sometimes you can, but not always; not in this case.
> A black horse is a horse but a Trojan horse is not a horse [...]
And yet the original one was one, which may have been why we called it a horse.
***
Sometimes, quoting the very same words someone used does not work. In that case, some talk of quoting out of context. Can we really say it was a quote?
That depends. Sometimes, "to quote" means to repeat words. Sometimes, it means to enclose within quotation marks. Some other times, it means to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quoting
Bunnies can see how Brad foregoes the idea of bringing forward as evidence or support for the sake of lulz.
***
On the other hand, Brad has yet to tell us if he would consider computer science a science.
Brad - now you have conflated 'denial' in the purest psychological sense with what we typically mean by 'denial' as applied to science.
As I pointed out, and the quotes from Gore you referred to illuminate, Gore never denied the science; he was an example of the all too human failing that many of us took with regards to tobacco - we simply ignored the risks. It's no different than people who eat unhealthy foods, partake in risky lifestyles with regards to alcohol or narcotic drugs. Are drug users 'denialists' in the sense that they deny the science concerning the long-term detrimental effects? Typically, no. On the otherhand, they may well be in denial that those effects will happen to them if they continue their usage.
Lindzen, as a long-time cigarette smoker, may well be a denialist in both senses. I am not, and few here are, concerned with whether he's in denial about his personal nicotine addiction. We are concerned that he's taken virtually every opportunity to demean, downplay, and otherwise diminish the deleterious effects of tobacco. This is the denial we speak of -- and you *know* that. So your introduction of Gore into the conversation was both a red-herring and wrong logically.
Kevin,
Please notice how Brad's
Doing business with Big Tobacco in the full knowledge that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer
leads to being
money-hungry monsters
Suppose Big Tobacco itself knows that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer. Is Big Tobacco a money hungry monster?
Suppose the government knows that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer. We know that the government does business with Big Tobacco. Is the government a money hungry monster?
We know that Dick Lindzen did business with Big Tobacco via the TASSC. Let's suppose that Dick considers that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer. Is Dick a money hungry monster?
***
Let's hope that Brad is not suggesting that only someone who has a sister can be a money hungry monster. Something seems to be amiss in Brad's argument. It may be a bit too strong for Al-Gore-is-fat's lulz. As long as are aware that Brad might be trying to bait you to switch topics, I think we can agree that some of Al Gore's political speeches in the 80s were suboptimal:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html
Humpty Dumpty also fell from the wall and could not be put back together again.
If you know what I mean.
Willard,
> We know that Dick Lindzen did business with Big Tobacco via the TASSC. Let's suppose that Dick considers that smoking is the main risk factor in lung cancer.
On the basis of his on-the-record comments I'm sure that supposition is true.
> Is Dick a money hungry monster?
That depends.
While we can all agree indirect quotation is not quotation, is indirect business ("via TASSC") business?
Assuming it is:
What kind of "business" do you imagine Lindzen did with Big Tobacco?
Did he supply them with tobacco? Then yes, he's as monstrous as Gore.
Did he lie on their behalf, prostituting his honor as a scientist? Then yes, he's as monstrous as any mendacious scientist (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Dana Nuccitelli etc). Scientists aren't allowed to lie.
Or did he do proper, honest science for which, knowingly or unwittingly, he was paid partly or wholly in tobacco dollars? All well and good; science is science; that would make him no more monstrous than Stanley Pruisner, who was also bankrolled by Big Tobacco.
Kevin,
> now you have conflated 'denial' in the purest psychological sense with what we typically mean by 'denial' as applied to science.
I don’t know what ”we” mean by ‘denial’ as applied to science, but what the word means is to refuse to say a given proposition is true. Call this sense 1.
And if you refuse to say it’s true because you don’t believe it’s true then you’re also denying it in a second sense: simple disbelief [sense 2]. For example, I deny geocentrism both verbally [sense 1] and mentally [sense 2].
The only other kind of denial I know, the “psychological” (Freudian) kind [sense 3], entails the first two senses; it’s logically stronger than senses 1 and 2. Thus, if Gore was “in (Freudian) denial” of the link between smoking and lung cancer (as he seems to be claiming he was, by invoking the “emotional numbness” excuse) then a fortiori Gore must have been incapable, at the time, of acknowledging the truth of the link verbally. If someone had asked him if the tobacco he was selling was carcinogenic, he presumably would have said no, it’s not.
Or then again, perhaps he would’ve said yeah, of course it is—in which case:
1. his “emotional numbness” excuse is BS
2. he was a money-hungry monster who knowingly purveyed a carcinogen
> As I pointed out, and the quotes from Gore you referred to illuminate, Gore never denied the science; he was an example of the all too human failing that many of us took with regards to tobacco - we simply ignored the risks.
No, “ignoring the risks” doesn’t explain, or mitigate, the selling of a substance you know is poisonous.
> It's no different than people who eat unhealthy foods, partake in risky lifestyles with regards to alcohol or narcotic drugs.
It’s VASTLY different!
On one hand you have an addiction for whose sake you make an effort not to think too much about the long-term price you’ll have to pay (unless you’re very lucky) for propitiating your short-term reward circuit.
On the other hand you simply profit, knowingly, from an activity that causes other people to suffer.
> Lindzen, as a long-time cigarette smoker, may well be a denialist in both senses.
Given that he’s openly said he knows smoking is linked to lung disease, he can’t possibly be a denialist in either sense.
> This is the denial we speak of -- and you *know* that.
No, I didn’t know that. Believe it or not, it’s not always self-explanatory in which sense an ambiguous term is being used in climate discourse, except perhaps to the user himself/herself.
Bernard J,
Brad might not exactly play Humpty Dumpty here. It depends what he means by the concept of quotation, something that does not clarify his empty assertions (e.g. "then yes, he's as monstrous as Gore") and his question-begging formulations (e.g. "While we can all agree indirect quotation is not quotation"). It also depends on how he conceives what makes tobacco products carcinogenic ("Did he supply them with tobacco?").
For now, we'll simply follow on the concept of paraphrase, a concept that Brad has not clarified either. Here's one meaning:
> Paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrase
This material sounds like something one could quote directly, but instead chose to quote indirectly.
The Wiki entry also refers to a site where paraphrasing can be seen as an example of plagiarism:
> Paraphrasing text without crediting the source, e.g. changing a few words from an article and including it in your work
http://www.open.ac.uk/library/help-and-support/referencing-and-plagiarism
We can thus see that a paraphrase can sometimes be a legitimate way to quote indirectly someone, and sometimes it's an illegitimate way to steal someone else's idea.
***
Note that the notion of plagiarism is not that clear. That does not matter much here, as we know that the authors cited Dick as an authority to support a conception of science that honest brokers frown upon. That said, we don't have a citation for that indirect citation. While we me argue that this can't be a case of plagiarism because they cited Dick, we could also say that the authors omitted an information that would complete their citation.
***
Thus we are left with the same question as before. Where does Dick's indirect quotation comes from?The best people to answer that question may be Dick scholars. Let's hope Brad is one of them. After all, he embraced scientific communication so lukewarmingly.
Brad - you are full of shit aren't you?
Are you really claiming this is the first time you've partaken in a discussion regarding denial of science? Are you really trying to make that argument?
You are a dishonest and truly despicable creature. You have no more interest in truth than any other pathological liar. I'm not even angry - just saddened that the human genome gives rise to such waste.
And to top it off, you're not very bright: "Given that he’s openly said he knows smoking is linked to lung disease, he can’t possibly be a denialist in either sense."
It proves nothing on EITHER point. Tobacco denialism today is about passive smoking - even the original tobacco denialists have given up on smoking itself.
And just because someone uses tobacco does NOT mean they believe that the big C will strike them - that's the whole point of being in denial.
So whether it's denial of the science concerning passive smoke, or whether it's personal denial of how smoking will affect his own health, your logic fails once again.
You must have been really horrible at the old connect the dots game. you see connections where none exist and then miss the obvious ones. Or you see them and then lie about it. Somewhere upthread you claimed you don't play semantics - yet you keep trying to use dictionary definitions to suit your purpose when you know full well the sense in which the words are being used.
When you have to lie to support your argument, you've already lost. The only question left is whether you're ignorant, stupid, insane, or just evil. I'd ask you the answer, but I wouldn't believe it anyway.
Kevin,
chillax. You seem tense. How long has it been since your last smoke break?
> Brad - you are full of shit aren't you?
Not that I'm aware of.
> Are you really claiming this is the first time you've partaken in a discussion regarding denial of science?
No.
> Are you really trying to make that argument?
You mean that claim?
No.
> You are a dishonest and truly despicable creature. You have no more interest in truth than any other pathological liar.
ROFL OK whatever.
> It proves nothing on EITHER point. Tobacco denialism today is about passive smoking - even the original tobacco denialists have given up on smoking itself.
I'm sure they have—whoever they are/were.
Only—the problem is, you see—Dana Nuccitelli's lies seem to be stuck in a time warp. In Doctor Nuccitelli's Nutty World-O-Lies, there are still people who think "smoking itself" is safe.
For example, this was the caption on his article for 3 months:
"The Weekly Standard's Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette–which Lindzen also denies cause cancer."
That lie was finally retracted after I complained about it at ATTP, but Dana's article still claims:
"On the contrary, Lindzen is an outlier whose arguments have been disproved time and time again, including about the link between smoking and lung cancer."
Which is false because, as you say, even tobacco denialists gave up denying the link between "smoking itself" and lung cancer—and Lindzen never seems to have denied it to begin with.
Anyway, glad we're on the same page.
Kevin,
You asked Brad if he was full of shit and he replied "Not that I'm aware of". Please recall that he told Bernard J:
I said/implied/admitted/hinted it was a pseudonym, did I?
And you just took my word for that—no evidence, no documentation? Well, that's impressive. I've got to say it's out of character for you to extend me such trust.
(Note: Bunnies will need to search for "29/4/14 2:06 AM" on page 3.
This comment is a good example of plausible deniability, don't you think? It neither confirms or denies anything. This comment also seems to imply that Bernard J should not have been so gullible as to trust that Brad would be truthful about his online identity.
We also know that Brad from time to time uses what chek (30/4/14 3:42 AM) called "noms de grrr". This time, Brad did admit of relying on sock puppets. Nevertheless, do you think that using sock puppetry like Brad does is an honest practice?
I bet you don't. So here's another question: do you think that this would be enough to substantiate your claim that Brad is full of shit"? Perhaps not.
***
Perhaps you'd need a more obvious case of bullshit. Here could be a good candidate, 3/5/14 12:35 PM:
even tobacco denialists gave up denying the link between "smoking itself" and lung cancer—and Lindzen never seems to have denied it to begin with
Where does the "itself" (in quotes) comes from, Kevin? From you. Now see against whom Brad uses that concept:
Only—the problem is, you see—Dana Nuccitelli's lies seem to be stuck in a time warp. In Doctor Nuccitelli's Nutty World-O-Lies, there are still people who think "smoking itself" is safe.
Is that a truthful paraphrase, Kevin? It looks more like an overinterpretation of a caption. Speaking of which, notice that Brad repeats the same mistake as he did previously in the following sentence:
For example, this was the caption on his article for 3 months: [...]
Brad still attributes the caption to Dana, still insists on a connexion between his whining at AT's and its correction, and still insists that Dana is lying, something that takes a bit more work than what Brad did so far.
Now, would that be enough for you to consider that Brad has no qualms about bullshitting bunnies?
Many thanks!
willard - yes, I asked Brad upthread who typically writes captions for newspaper articles. Having worked in newspapers I already know the answer, but was just trying to see if Brad was ignorant or being disingenuous. Of course he never answered.
Brad - obviously you knew in what sense 'denial' was being used. That you chose to play semantics games proves you are dishonest. Pretending you were confused about it doubles-down on the dishonesty. And in response to being called out on your faulty logic - that Lindzen couldn't possibly be in denial - you change the subject to Nuccitelli. That's how you roll.
Your logic was wrong on both versions of Lindzen-denial and rather than admit you can't connect dots correctly, you draw connections where they don't exist (photo captions are rarely written by the article author - especially if they are stock photos).
Either you didn't know this (ignorant), should have know this (stupid), were aware but figured you knew better (insane), or knew and chose to lie (evil). Take your pick.
Kevin,
Note that Brad that reintroduced the caption in your conversation with you as an example. Bunnies will attest that it's the only one we've seen so far, if we except one sentence in the article. But this example has been modified to reflect what has been written in that sentence, so Brad talks about "lies" whence it may very well be an honest mistake.
So Brad has little else than to pussyfoot with "denial" and "smoking". This is to be expected: look how he recently tried to parse "quote" and "paraphrase". Just imagine how much lulz can Brad have with more complex concepts like skepticism and science.
***
Incidentally, you should compare Brad's meanings of "denial" and this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
Even the "Freud" slip lies in his paraphrase, whence it was Anna Freud who first developed a theory of denial.
Interesting paraphrasing, don't you think?
Willard:
Thanks for the Anna Freud tidbit, which suggests more nuance is required vis-a-vis denial versus abnegation. I was genuinely unaware of that subtlety.
One can only guess what majestic new vistas on the human psyche were opened up by Lucian and the other members of the dynasty. ;-)
Kevin:
Yet again you seem grumpy and hell-bent on the unforced assumption of malice. Have you had your coffee this morning? As a creature of addiction myself, I know well what a difference such thymotropic staples can make to one's approach to one's whole day.
> I asked Brad upthread who typically writes captions for newspaper articles. Having worked in newspapers I already know the answer, but was just trying to see if Brad was ignorant or being disingenuous. Of course he never answered.
I tend not to answer questions I don't know the answer to. (Little habit called skepticism—don't knock it til you try it!) Having never "worked in newspapers," I'll have to put my hand up for "ignorant."
(Out of curiosity, does working "in newspapers" equip you with the knowledge of how such things typically play out in the online journalism world? Of course, not living in the UK results in my being "ignorant" of something else too: viz. whether the printed Guardian carried the same falsehoods. If so, then I suppose your experience generalises perfectly.)
You'll have to enlighten me. Editor? Subeditor? Captionist? Caption boy? Caption copywriter? Work experience kid?
In any case, would I be safe in assuming the person or persons in charge of captionography derive their inspiration from the contents of the article, written by the author thereof?
If so, then I know it's not just me who interprets Dana's sentence...
"On the contrary, Lindzen is an outlier whose arguments have been disproved time and time again, including about the link between smoking and lung cancer."
...as a [false] allegation of primary smoking carcinogenicity denial. If even a professional caption-writer can read it that way, then who knows how many millions of Britons came to the same [false] conclusion about Lindzen? Dana certainly earned his paycheck that day.
The minutiae of modern newspaporial division of labor are of limited mitigatory relevance anyway, since Dana had 3 months to correct the falsehood and didn't lift a finger to do so until I cornered him about it in the relatively intimate environment of Anders' comments thread.
So we've established mens rea right there, haven't we Kevin? Moral delegation is not an option at this point.
I'm sure Dana appreciates your forlorn attempts to sheet the blame to some other, anonymous specialist within the media engine but, well, they're forlorn aren't they, Kevin?
Kevin,
> Brad - obviously you knew in what sense 'denial' was being used.
No, obviously I didn't or I wouldn't volunteer a confession of my own ignorance on the matter. Now that I look it up in the dictionary (pro tip for willard: dictionaries, not wikipediae, are your one-stop lexicography shop) I'm reminded of at least 2 other possible senses of the word, so I'm even less sure than I was before about which one was 'being used'—and if you don't mind my saying so, Kevin, it seems you've elected NOT to disambiguate things in your own comments. I wonder why.
> That you chose to play semantics games proves you are dishonest.
The only semantic games I know are Let's Speak Clearly!™, Let's Speak English!™ and Use The Right Word!™.
> Your logic was wrong on both versions of Lindzen-denial
Given the documented phenomenon of Lindzen-admission (i.e. his acknowledgement, on the record, of the medical evidence linking smoking to lung cancer), I genuinely fail to guess which "version" of Lindzen-denial is still a possibility. Are you going to keep me indefinitely guessing what the heck you're talking about, Kevin, or take mercy on me at some point?
> Either you didn't know this (ignorant), should have know this (stupid), were aware but figured you knew better (insane), or knew and chose to lie (evil). Take your pick.
I've already picked "ignorant."
Not sure if you missed it the first couple of occasions, but I've owned up to my ignorance several times now on this question. So if you still insist on playing the Lord-Liar-Lunatic triage game in your upcoming reply, bored readers will have little choice but to conclude you're being disingenuous.
Dear chek,
I hope you did notice when Brad told Kevin:
> chillax. You seem tense. How long has it been since your last smoke break?
Next time Brad says something like:
For the last fucking time, you sociopath: [...]
(12/4/14 6:00 AM)
you might implore Brad to chillax.
Don't coax him to smoke, though. It may be monstrous.
> more nuance is required vis-a-vis denial versus abnegation.
Indeed, and we should not forget that the psychology of denial may have evolved since Anna Freud proposed the concept for practice. In fact, we may even surmise that to recall that denial is a freudian term may be a way do denigrate its theorical importance. So much worse it may have been if it came from Sigmund, and not Anna.
Standing aside this sublte ad hominem, here's a more recent study on the denial of mitigation:
Various studies of public opinion regarding the causes and consequences of climate change reveal both a deep reservoir of concern, yet also a muddle over causes, consequences and appropriate policy measures for mitigation. The technique adopted here, namely integrated assessment (IA) focus groups, in which groups of randomly selected individuals in Switzerland looked at models of possible consequences of climate change and questioned specialists as to their accuracy and meaning, revealed a rich assembly of reactions. Respondents were alarmed about the consequences of high-energy futures, and mollified by images of low-energy futures. Yet they also erected a series of psychological barriers to justify why they should not act either individually or through collective institutions to mitigate climate change. From the viewpoint of changing their lifestyles of material comfort and high-energy dependence, they regarded the consequences of possible behavioural shift arising from the need to meet mitigation measures as more daunting. To overcome the dissonance created in their minds they created a number of socio-psychological denial mechanisms. Such mechanisms heightened the costs of shifting away from comfortable lifestyles, set blame on the inaction of others, including governments, and emphasised doubts regarding the immediacy of personal action when the effects of climate change seemed uncertain and far away. These findings suggest that more attention needs to be given to the social and psychological motivations as to why individuals erect barriers to their personal commitment to climate change mitigation, even when professing anxiety over climate futures. Prolonged and progressive packages of information tailored to cultural models or organised belief patterns, coupled to greater community based policy incentives may help to widen the basis of personal and moral responsibility.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378000000613
Bunnies may note that the concept of cognitive dissonance has currency outside psychoanalysis. To that effect, the article provides a small review of the literature in the section entitled Socio-psychological theories of dissonance and denial, Interestingly, the name of Anna Freud has not been mentioned.
Kevin,
Since we know how much you like semantic points, please consider Brad's recent justification:
> I tend not to answer questions I don't know the answer to.
Here are different definitions one gets when searching for "answer definition":
- To say or to write something to deal with or as a reaction to someone or something.
- To act in reaction to (a sound such as a telephone ringing or a knock or ring on a door).
- To provide the required responses to (a test or quiz).
- To respond impudently or disrespectfully to someone, especially when being criticized or told to do something.
There seems to be two different readings of the concept of answer that Brad exploits. The first is to provide an answer. The second is to show responsibility.
If you consider the second meaning, Brad has just said to you that unless he knows the information that would answer to your question, he won't take any responsibility for what makes you ask the question. This can't be felicitous. Hence the need to switch meanings.
***
You may wonder: when is it legitimate to ignore a question? It depends. In communication, we usually need to look at commitments. So to know if Brad's justification is felicitous, we need to look at the commitment implied by your question.
You are asking if Brad knows who's responsible for writing a caption. This is something that matters for Brad to accuse Dana of lying by writing one single caption. This question matters to warrant Brad's claim, and that even does not know the answer to that question.
Therefore, Brad's justification is suboptimal, and we see that Brad relied on an equivocation to get away with it. That Brad wants to switch the burden of proof on your assumption does not help.
More on that another time.
***
As you can see, it's not that difficult to analyze how Brad's pragmatic exploits operate.
Kevin,
When I say:
> and that even does not know the answer to that question.
I mean to say:
> and that even if Brad does not know the answer to that question.
Enjoy your coffee,
w
Brad - no one can believe your claim of ignorance because you've used the word 'denial' and its variants dozens of times in this thread. I would hazard a fairly confident guess that you've used it thousands of times in the past.
If you didn't know it previously, it has been clear for sometime that Lindzen denies the deleterious health effects of ETS. This has been pointed out in depth. You have commented upon it. Ignorance then cannot be your claim - Alzheimers maybe. So you logical fallacy was that Lindzen cannot be a denier because he admits the effects of primary smoking when we had been speaking for some time (and the quotes provided all concerned) passive smoke.
Now in Bradworld you may think your claim of ignorance absolves you. It doesn't. You knew what we were speaking of - the Heartland Institutes article was about passive smoke. The Australian Broadcasting interview quotes were about passive smoke. The Surgeon General's statistics quoted were concerning passive smoke.
Your logic was wrong. Rather than admit it - you choose to lie about your understanding. You apparently had no trouble in your previous usage of 'denial' (for weeks on end) without ever having a problem determing the proper usage, but when it suits you - you claim ignorance. Brad Keyes: "Never wrong, always ignorant." can be your new motto.
Typically when someone makes charges of libel they are pretty sure of their proof. Obviously you have no proof that DN wrote the caption and it is highly unlikely that DN did write the caption. You should have checked first. You should have asked. Nothing prevents you from doing so now.
Brad - let's remember what you wrote in your red-herring escapade:
"No, tobacco denialism—by which I mean the denial, not that tobacco exists, but that it's carcinogenic—is a charge that can only be levelled at one person in the climate debate, to my knowledge: Albert Gore..."
"Because Lindzen, unlike Al Gore, was never a tobacco denialist. "
"I interpret Gore's excuses as meaning he was in denial—classically—of the fact that smoking kills..."
You claimed that Al Gore denied the carginogenic effects of tobacco (denial of the science). You then surmise that 'emotional numbness' equals *classical* denial. But we were talking of denial of the science - not classical psychological denial. Now you claim you don't know which sense of denial was under discussion.
Hmmm ... something stinks in Denmark. You claim he denies the science, then you claim he's in classical denial. then you claim you're ignorant. Jesus, you're a lousy liar. And all of this in a Al Go-red-herring that you introduced.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive!
Bringing up Al Gore was a red-herring.
Claiming he ever denied the science is unsupported by any evidence.
Subsequently claiming Gore was in classical denial is a bait-and-switch.
Claiming ignorance is dishonest - since you were obviously aware of both meanings earlier in the thread (otherwise why would you have used the modifier 'classical'?).
Someone that uses these rhetorical ploys is a vile little man. No amount of nicotine or caffeine will change that conclusion. BTW, calling a spade a spade is not a sign of tension - some may consider it tactless, but I've never had much time for tact.
Dear Kevin,
You say that Brad chose to "lie" his "understanding." I'm not sure that to say that Brad lied is the best way to put it. The concept of lie is what puts Brad in a tough spot right now. It makes little sense to take the same kind of risk for a lulz seeker such as Brad.
Notice how Brad's counterfactual thinking operates:
> If even a professional caption-writer can read it that way, then who knows how many millions of Britons came to the same [false] conclusion about Lindzen?
At best, this argues that Dana has misled a professional caption-writer, whom in turn misled an unknown quantity of readers. Let's stand aside this appeal to ignorance for the moment and focus on the accusation that the caption could contain a misleading claim.
Was the caption misleading? Depends. Whatever we might think about that, I guess we could agree that there was something suboptimal in the way the caption was worded. This has been acknowledged when it was edited.
***
As you can see, there does not seem to be a big gap in that disagreement between you and Brad. I guess you could reply: "but Brad is lying when he presents an argument to the effect that a caption could mislead as a proof that Dana libelled Dick!" But wouldn't it be more natural to simply say that Brad is simply misleading?
That Brad often misleads is not that hard to show. This thread is a testament to Brad's exploits. To prove that Brad lies is a bit tougher than that. Not impossible, but not very useful considering how lulz seekers usually communicate.
Kevin:
> You claimed that Al Gore denied the carginogenic effects of tobacco (denial of the science). You then surmise that 'emotional numbness' equals *classical* denial. But we were talking of denial of the science - not classical psychological denial.
But as I've explained, Kevin, if he was in "classical psychological denial" that must have caused him to be the other kind of denier too. How on earth could you interpret his 'emotional numbness' excuse-making—which he offered, don't forget, as an explanation for having continued to sell tobacco and accept tobacco-lobby campaign donations after his sister had died of lung cancer—except as an acknowledgement think that he had failed to either endorse verbally or accept internally the medical evidence of the carcinogenicity of smoking? That's incoherent, Kevin. Stop it. Try to be coherent. It's better.
> You claim he denies the science, then you claim he's in classical denial.
...which would ENTAIL that he "denied the science." Again: I've explained this at painful length.
(Past tense, by the way. Please pay attention to tenses, Kevin. I have never thought Gore was still a denier, now, in 2014.)
> then you claim you're ignorant. Jesus, you're a lousy liar.
I suppose I'm flattered by your adamant and blasphemous conviction that I'm omniscient, Kevin, but I cannot in good conscience allow you to persist in that delusion. I'm not.
Kevin:
> Your logic was wrong. Rather than admit it - you choose to lie about your understanding. You apparently had no trouble in your previous usage of 'denial' (for weeks on end) without ever having a problem determing the proper usage, but when it suits you - you claim ignorance.
Really?
Sigh.
Just because I know what I mean when I use a word "for weeks on end" it doesn't follow that I know what comparatively sloppy, irrational and inarticulate people mean when THEY attempt to use the same word, does it?! (To misquote a Roman citizen from that awesome Spartacus series, "Do you expect me to know the mind of a slave?")
This is the most self-explanatory shit in the world, so why are you forcing ME to explain it to you, Kevin?
> Typically when someone makes charges of libel they are pretty sure of their proof. Obviously you have no proof that DN wrote the caption and it is highly unlikely that DN did write the caption. You should have checked first. You should have asked.
Why?
Do you seriously think I give a rat's ass whether Dana physically typed the libelous claim, or "merely" misled the caption intern into writing it, ignored the problem for 3 months every single time it was drawn to his attention, and didn't lift a finger to correct it until the day I upped the ante and complained about it on a more intimate comment thread, where he had nowhere to run/hide from it? It makes zero difference morally and I'd be surprised if it even made much difference legally. Yawn.
Brad - does the tobacco industry accept the science that smoking causes lung cancer? How on earth could they keep selling it? Does Lindzen accept the science that smoking cause lung cancer? Why does he maintain his cigarette addiction. Do I deny the science that smoking causes lung cancer? Why do I keep smoking?
The fact that someone benefits from selling tobacco does not make them a denier of the science. Your amateur psychoanalysis notwithstanding, you have no evidence that Gore has ever denied the science. See, this is where you draw connections between dots with no evidence. Classical denial is the 'it won't happen to me or mine' mindset. Denial of the science equates to 'the science is wrong.' They are two separate concepts. One can easily believe in all the scientific papers that tobacco use directly and indirectly leads to deleterious health effects and *still* think, but it won't happen to me (or my loved ones).
In short, your logic fails at every level. And you *still* fail to admit that bringing up Gore was just a red-herring since his beliefs have zero bearing on Lindzen's.
Similarly you fail to admit that it is unlikely that DN wrote the caption to the article. You go even further and stupidly state that it wouldn't matter in a legal sense - so DN would be guilty of libel for something he didn't even write? You build new towers of illogic with every post.
Brad - we know that Al Gore supported the 1983 Waxman proposal to toughen the warning labels on cigarette packages despite the political toll it would take in his native Tennessee (3rd largest tobacco growing state at the time). So he wasn't a denier going back to at least 1983 even though it would be against his personal political interests (and a year before his sister would die).
We also know that the final bill, signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1984, was essentially Al Gore's bill.
As a congressman, senator, vice-president, and much reviled character by those on the right - if he had ever made such a statement don't you think it would be plastered all over the internet?
Instead what we find is that Al Gore was the first member of congress from a tobacco state to take the industry on in a meaningful way. I think it's time for you to admit evidence Gore ever denied the science on tobacco simply doesn't exist.
Kevin,
Notice how Brad's now rope-a-doping to another accusation:
> Do you seriously think I give a rat's ass whether Dana physically typed the libelous claim, or "merely" misled the caption intern into writing it, ignored the problem for 3 months every single time it was drawn to his attention, and didn't lift a finger to correct it [follows Brad's tale of heroic thread jacking at AT's.]
Notice the changes in accusation: "misled the caption intern into writing it", "ignored the problem for 3 months", and "didn't lift a finger to correct it". This does not seem to be as strong as "Dana libelled Dick" or "Dana lied about Dick."
***
In fact, try to see if it would be possible for Brad to say:
[1] I don't give a rat's ass whether Dana lied about Dick or he ignored the "problem" for 3 months.
[2] I don't give a rat's ass whether Dana libelled Dick or didn't lift a finger to correct it.
So Brad can accuse people of lying or libelling until they take care of what he considers "problems", because he does not give a rat's ass if his accusation is justified or not. A caption that oversimplifies Dick's beliefs state for the sake of a pun is something so serious that Brad can try to exploit conversations while brandishing accusations of lying and libeling.
***
So here's what we can say from all this, Kevin. As long as Brad's concerns are heard, he simply does not give a rat's ass if his accusations are substantiated or if they use the correct conceptual apparatus. And when corrections finally appears, it matters so much that all we hear Brad's heroic tales of lulzful adventures. More than anything else, this episode of ClimateBall (tm) indicates that Brad does not give a rat's ass about his own truthfulness.
Thile this may not be surprising to bunnies, it may prove useful to have a thread where this has been established.
willard - many people are ignorant on various subjects. I'm never surprised by the stupid things people will say. What intrigues me is the mental process by which they arrive at these positions.
Brad seems of at least average intelligence, yet he doesn't seem to have the necessary skill set to put individual facts together in a logical fashion.
I harken back to far, far upthread where he had to admit that his whole reasoning on Gleick lying about the source of the Heartland memo was incorrect. He simply ignored the fact that an anonymous source is - by definition - anonymous. He ignored it despite quoting it. To you and I that's a howler, but Brad shrugs it off like water off a duck's back.
I'm not sure how someone can appear so sure of their beliefs when they are continually confronted with the illogic of their statements. At some point you'd think they'd reach the mental state where Twain's axiom kicks in: Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
It would be an interesting case study to take people like Brad and see how they react to Timothy Leary's LSD therapy that Leary used to reduce criminal recidivism in the 1960's. It's been many years since I read about the studies, but I believe Leary's hypothesis was that LSD therapy allowed people to see themselves objectively as others see them. The distaste they (criminals) felt caused them to change.
Self-knowledge has been a goal of many philosophers both religious and secular. It is a shame that we've lost several decades of research into the clinical benefits of LSD. Brad, of course, could use a healthy dose of self-knowledge.
Kevin,
I'm less intrigued about people's mental processes than their online outputs. Looking at his contributions on this thread alone suffices to see that Brad shows little concerns for his own truthfulness. Once this is established, I see little interest in wondering why.
My interest in online outputs may be compatible with your own interest in the LSD study if we consider this research project:
https://xkcd.com/481/
***
This virus have some application for online processes that seek lulz. For example, you may have noticed a double bind Brad uses from time to time:
[Step 1] Say "You are not clear! Be straightforward" and go to step 3.
[Step 2] Say "You are boring. Yawn." then go to step 3.
[Step 3] Say "LOL!".
This double bind works against everything, which is after all why it's a double bind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
I have no idea why Brad uses double binds like this one. As long as bunnies realize that Brad uses double binds like this one all the time, I don't give a rat's ass.
willard - I like the xkcd cartoon, but then I generally do like xkcd cartoons :)
At the same time I can say that you have even less faith in humanity than I have - and usually *I'm* the one quoting Huxley:
The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
The prurient ape's defiling touch:
And do you like the human race?
No, not much.
Alas, like Charlie Brown attempting to kick the football, I have this annoying habit of occasionally thinking "maybe this time ...."
Brad's of the world in the guise of Lucy usually disabuse me of this notion so that I can get back to my Huxleyian home.
Gentlemen, bearing in mind the Keyster is seeking to position himself as a denier go-to tool (I've seen two invocations to go to his site this week from those whom you might expect such) this is (has been?) a very illuminating thread.
I'm reminded of the last known transmission of Dr David Bowman upon peeking over the edge into the Keysterverse: "My God! It's full of shit!"
Slow day so I thought I'd check out the funny farm here...
Kevin,
thanks for mentioning the (fascinating) story of lysergic psychotherapy, which I'd plum forgotten about.
I was wondering if you'd allow me to quote your opinion of me on my Testimonials page—and if so, who I should say you are? Title (Dr.?), profession etc.? It's all too rare, unfortunately, for literary critics of my shit to use full names, so your views would be a most welcome addition.
—BK
Kevin,
I finally [think I] comprehend your position, thanks to you finally expressing yourself clearly and rhymingly:
>The leech's kiss, the squid's embrace,
>The prurient ape's defiling touch:
>And do you like the human race?
>No, not much.
What you seem to be telling me is:
Gore's "emotional numbness" over the death of his sister from lung cancer didn't stop him internalising, and perhaps even endorsing out loud!, the medical science on smoking and cancer.
It just prevented him telling his secretary not to cash any more campaign finance checks from Big Tobacco, and telling her to cancel his next meeting with tobacco lobby reps, and telling the Mexicans on his farm to stop planting tobacco.
I see.
I wasn't being obtuse to annoy you, Kevin—I swear to god, I really did fail to envision this possibility. It honestly never occurred to me that Gore would be SO grotesquely morally deformed. Don't get me wrong—I know he's a liar and a sociopath, I watched his infomercial in 2006 like everyone else!—I just didn't think he was THAT evil.
I apologise.
> Brad - does the tobacco industry accept the science that smoking causes lung cancer?
Yes. They pretended not to, but they knew.
> How on earth could they keep selling it?
Moral deformity.
> Does Lindzen accept the science that smoking cause lung cancer?
Apparently so.
> Why does he maintain his cigarette addiction.
Because he's addicted.
> Do I deny the science that smoking causes lung cancer?
Apparently not.
> Why do I keep smoking?
Because you're addicted.
Shorter Brad Keyes: No, I don't have any evidence that Al Gore ever denied the science regarding smoking and adverse health effects.
Kevin,
Please recall when (3/5/14 10:41 AM) Brad told you about the meanings of "denial". The first was verbal, the second doxastic, and the third psychological. If you compare the Wikipedia entries for denial and denialism, you'll see that the two concepts may share some content but don't seem to have exactly the same usages. But there's this distinction:
Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between denial, defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied", and denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
This ideological meaning does not seem to coincide with the psychological one, although they are related.
***
You may have noticed, Kevin, that Brad mentioned Freud when he talked about his third meaning. Also notice that Brad has not cited his sources for his three meanings of "denial". Interestingly, his meanings are not incompatible with what thay Wiki says. In particular, both mention Freud, although the Wiki mentions Anna a bit later.
Do you think that Brad got his meanings by reading the entry for denial? It's tough to know. Considering Brad's truthfulness, he might choose whatever answer provides him the most lulz. But we can surmise that he did not, for here's what Brad said of Wikipedia:
dictionaries, not wikipediae, are your one-stop lexicography shop
[3/5/14 10:20 PM]
Let's thank Willard and Wikipedia for reminding us that there exists an even dafter [...]
[28/4/14 8:26 AM]
Were Brad to cite Wikipedia, bunnies could question why he'd use a source he considers daft to study meanings. We don't give a rat's ass either Brad used the Wikipedia entry or not. What matters more that these two episodes show lulz seeking.
In the first instance, Brad overlooks that a Wiki entry can contain dictionary definitions. This was the case where the Oxford entry for "conspiracy" was cited by thy Wiki. Brad's claim in that episode rested on very little anyway.
In the second instance, i.e. the episode about out of context quotes, Brad ignored that, besides the Wiki entry, many other sources than Wikipedia have already been cited.
Two episodes that indicate something about Brad's truthfulness, Kevin.
Kevin,
> I harken back to far, far upthread where he had to admit that his whole reasoning on Gleick lying about the source of the Heartland memo was incorrect.
False memory syndrome. I never admitted that, because it's not true. My "whole reasoning" that Gleick lied about the source of the memo is not dependent on one (invalid) argument I made about excuses given by Gleick fairly late in the piece. Rather it rests (quite securely) on facts:
Gleick did misrepresent the source of the documents, which is why he then had to confess that:
1. he, Peter Gleick, had obtained (eight of) them fraudulently—they were NOT leaked by a "Heartland Insider," as Gleick falsely told the original 15 "beneficiaries" of his ill-gotten goods. Look at the original anonymous email to his blogospheric allies. It is a simple matter of fact that it's signed "Heartland insider," and that Gleick himself later confessed that this was bullshit.
2. he had NOT "received" all 9 documents from the same source—the strategy memo was separate—which means his original "leak" was doubly mendacious
Even more fundamentally, however, the strategy memo was NOT an authentic HI document. Gleick was [attemptedly] deceiving everyone all along. Mosher detected Gleick's signature infelicity with the English language therein before Gleick had ever stepped forward in relation to any aspect of the scandal. If you want to tell yourself that this is NOT evidence of Gleick's authorship of the "strategy memo," you're free to denialise reality. I won't stop you. As far as anybody can tell me Gleick hasn't even issued an explicit denial, EVER, of the widespread (among intelligent adults) suspicion that he personally is the forger. If you want to tell yourself that this is NOT evidence of Gleick's authorship of the "strategy memo," you're free to denialise reality. I won't stop you.
> He simply ignored the fact that an anonymous source is - by definition - anonymous.
Sigh. Can't you be factually faithful even when citing a rare error to which I admitted, Kevin?
(Admission and ignoring are rather different activities, by the way.)
For the record, let me correct your caricature of my mistake. My mistake was to lazily elide the distinction between saying one doesn't know who the source was and saying one knows nothing about who the source was.
> He ignored it despite quoting it. To you and I that's a howler, but Brad shrugs it off like water off a duck's back.
LOL. Let me tell you a secret nobody on your "side" has any inkling about: if you admit your mistakes when they're pointed out, they don't stick to you. They bead and roll off you like... well... water off a duck's back. I know: it's PR genius. Or rather, it may appear that way. In fact all it is is intellectual integrity and pride in oneself. I'd find it both shameful and embarrassing to deny my errors as many people do. Goes to show, many people are idiots.
> I [Brad] never admitted that [his whole reasoning on Gleick lying about the source of the Heartland memo was incorrect.]
Kevin did not claim that Brad admitted it, but that he had to.
Kevin may not presume that Brad admits what he should.
The truthfulness that Brad shows in the thread does not warrant such presumption.
> I'd find it both shameful and embarrassing to deny my errors as many people do.
Bunnies may attest that Brad ignored most of the ones he committed on this thread.
Since to ignore is not to deny, Brad may still be right.
That Brad epilogues on denial while ignoring most of the errors that are pointed out to him may not be the most truthful way to brag about oneself.
> My mistake was to lazily elide the distinction between saying one doesn't know who the source was and saying one knows nothing about who the source was.
This paraphrase deserves due diligence. Compare and contrast the distinctions:
[D1] Brad does not know who the source is.
[D2] Brad knows nothing about who the source is.
Bunnies can verify that D2 implies D1, but D1 does not imply D2. This is of little relevance for the Gleick episode, where Brad had yet to falsify D1. This seems to be Kevin's point all along.
To see Brad's paraphrase is a truthful one, we might need to have to original wording. A timestamp would also be nice. We could try to find them, but we should render to Brad what is Brad's.
We hit comment number 666, the number of fat Al Gore.
Having hit the mystical if not magical, or at least biblical number, I guess Keyster is feeling he's earned a knighthood in the eligible knighthoods that the Dukes of falsehoods such as Heartless might employ.
But no. Keyster hasn't convinced anybody so far with his black-really-can-appear-to-be-white schtick past step 1 yet, so his climate science liars routine hasn't yet earned him a Page's arewiper's certificate yet, let alone an honorary Squire hood, which is several orders of magnitude removed from the notional knighthood he so desperately seeks in order to generate corporate quality bullshit, which he can't even do, regardless of his torture and malfeasance of the English language. Shyster-style talk gets you nowhere, Keyster
.
Shorter version: El Keyster has achieved zero. That's a Zed (or for Zee for our more westerly-tongued cousins) with a big, fat mathematical '0' on the end, after several thousand words.
He's shown *nothing* and done less. Simple thermodynamics decrees a loser. Too bad you picked the wrong side Keyster.
I sincerely hope not a single bunny donated so much as a single click to his vanity site; not now or ever.
Kevin correcting Brad's logic regarding PG's statements on the Heartland memo:
BK:... 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."
KO: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.
KO: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.
Brad Keyes admitting he screwed up the meaning of anonymous source
BK: ...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."
BK:Thankfully others also spotted, and criticised, the formal invalidity of my "deduction."
BK:To be clear, they were absolutely right—that's strictly speaking a non sequitur. It was careless—sorry guys.
******************************
Brad now: "My mistake was to lazily elide the distinction ....."
No, Brad you didn't *omit* anything - you *added* text to Gleick's statement in a puerile attempt to 'correct' Gleick. Rather than elision, this would be consider emending. In any case it was incorrect, logically wrong, and it all revolved around what an anonymous source is and the fact that the full quote makes clear Gleick was referring to the anonymous source.
Shorter Brad Keyes: I have no evidence Gleick didn't receive the strategy memo with the other documents.
Former shorter Brad Keyes: I have no evidence Al Gore ever denied the science on the deleterious effects of smoking.
Brad - didn't you libel Gore with your accusation? We await your formal apology. P.S. - were you ignorant of the fact that Gore had championed the tougher warning labels on cigarette packages in 1983 and 1984? Well, of course you were - that must have caught you by surprise to see your whole little amateur psychological fable fall apart so quickly :)
Kevin,
you appear to be suffering motivated literacy. It is impossible to derive this fantastical notion from the above thread:
> Shorter Brad Keyes: I have no evidence Gleick didn't receive the strategy memo with the other documents.
You mean, other than Gleick's public statement that he received one strategy document from an unknown source first, and then went phishing for other documents in a supposed attempt to "authenticate" the first one??
You mean, other than the fact that Heartland themselves have said the other eight documents are authentic whereas the strategy memo is fake?? And the fact that it obviously is fake? So fake that Steven Mosher could tell as soon as he read it that Peter Gleick had written it, even though Gleick hadn't yet stepped forward for the theft/social engineering/phishing of the other documents??
chek:
> That's a Zed (or for Zee for our more westerly-tongued cousins) with a big, fat mathematical '0' on the end, after several thousand words.
That reminds me, why are there still too many cheks in this thread? The bilateral consensus is that there should be "less" (i.e. fewer) than 1 of you.
Kevin,
> Brad - didn't you libel Gore with your accusation?
ROFLMAO
*Oh dear.* In case you missed it, Kevin, I went out of my way to accept Gore's implied excuse ('emotional numbness' -> denial) for having sold tobacco and taken political donations from the tobacco lobby long AFTER watching his own sister die of lung cancer.
YOU'RE the party that insists Gore already knew perfectly well, had internalised, and had accepted the medical science when he did all this!
My theory meant that Gore was in denial; your theory means that he was actually just a money-hungry psychopath. The difference is one of wrong versus evil.
Sure, it's a bad look either way—there's no nice way of explaining his actions—but no jury on earth could possibly find my indictment of Gore nearly as damning as yours. In what topsy-turvy ethical universe is it better for Gore to have done what he did with mens rea??
Oh, that's right: in the Kevinverse.
> We await your formal apology.
Hahaha. Keep waiting.
So Keyster has thrown NcArdle under the bus and is offering Moshpit as his evidence', although degrees of separation from Heartless aren't that much improved.
At this stage in the proceedings, it looks like Keyster's parrot has been pinin' for the fjords for quite some time.
chek,
This kind of puerility is why willard and I want you gone:
Keyster? Moshpit? NcArdle?
Since you refuse to grow up, fuck off.
The purveyor of "Climate Nuremberg" complaining of a lack of due gravitas?
Truly, they do not do irony in Keysterland.
I don't recall saying that I want you gone, check. Is that another paraphrase from Brad? Rest assured that I want less bradisms in the thread and in ClimateBall (tm) in general.
In case you don't recall where "Moshpit" comes from:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.org+moshpit
> You mean, other than the fact that Heartland themselves have said the other eight documents are authentic whereas the strategy memo is fake??
Brad's rhetorical question, vintage 5/5/14 7:53 PM, was in response to Kevin's claim that Brad had no evidence that G didn't receive the strategy memo with the other documents.
Let's recall what Brad said Vintage 24/4/14 4:17 PM:
LOL! Oh, poor, naive Willard. Of course it doesn’t “satisfy Brad”—it’s TESTIMONY! (And hearsay testimony, at that.) Testimony is NOT a form of evidence. Dana is taking cynical advantage of the fact that you, a non-scientist, are unaware of the distinction.
What difference more than ten days can make in Brad's conception of evidence. Enough for Brad to try to take cynical advantage of Kevin's impatience, it seems. It may be hard for Brad to truthfully claim that testimony is and is not evidence, but with his talent for cynical exploits, bunnies never know.
"Brad Keyes".
Let's cut through all of your crap.
Why is human-caused planetary warming not a bad thing?
Bernard J,
Leading Brad through another escape route may be unwise. Let him choose between Peter or Dana first. Besides, has Brad shown enough lack of truthfulness to ever cut through all his crap?
Besides, your question is so fuzzy as to justify all kinds of conceptual hacking. Brad could seek to exploit the unquantified warming (e.g. "how much does it take to be bad?"), the overspecified "human-caused" (e.g. "what is so special about human warming?"), the value-laden "bad" (e.g. "is 'bad' a scientific concept?"), and the question-begging why-question (e.g. "isn't your job to tell me why?").
Sometimes, it's as if bunnies never saw a ClimateBall (tm) game in their lives.
Willard,
> I don't recall saying that I want you gone, check. Is that another paraphrase from Brad?
Yeah, it's a paraphrase. I'd happily use your original words (something along the lines of "we need less cheks") but for the fact that they were ungrammatical and so, alas, I can't bring myself to.
What we need is fewer cheks. That means some chek has to go. And since there's only one chek (chek) chek has to go.
> What difference more than ten days can make in Brad's conception of evidence.
You're quite right—I was inconsistent there. Just goes to show, we're all prone to motivated reasoning from time to time. Thanks for spotting the contradiction, willard; I withdraw that particular line of "evidence."
(The idiom is "what a difference..." etc., by the way.)
> Enough for Brad to try to take cynical advantage of Kevin's impatience, it seems.
I did what now? This isn't yet another Mephistophelean rhetorical manoeuvre you're misattributing to me is it, willard? I'm flattered, as usual, that you think I'm so cunning (and simultaneously insulted that you think I'm so amoral), but I have no idea what you're referring to.
Elaborate.
Willard,
Bernard's question is better-formed than you give it credit for. (And I thank Bernard for having the civility to use my first name this time.)
> Brad could seek to exploit the unquantified warming (e.g. "how much does it take to be bad?")
No, I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that Bernard's question, being posed in the present tense, refers to however-much-human-caused-warming-has-occurred.
> the overspecified "human-caused" (e.g. "what is so special about human warming?")
I'm not sure where you see that objection going. It seems like a non-starter: there doesn't necessarily need to be anything "special" about it in order for it to be a bad thing. In order for Bernard's question to be sensible and tractable all we need to agree on is that a certain amount of warming has taken place which would otherwise not have taken place, which I'm happy to stipulate.
> , the value-laden "bad" (e.g. "is 'bad' a scientific concept?"),
Just because it's value-laden doesn't mean we can't answer the question. All we need is to share certain values, e.g. to agree that processes which kill vast numbers of people are, to that extent, bad processes.
> and the question-begging why-question (e.g. "isn't your job to tell me why?").
That would be a perfectly sensible objection, unlike some of the others you needlessly worry about my making.
And I'm afraid I'm going to have to make it. In order to grapple with the question I'm afraid I have to wait for Bernard to tell us why he thinks human-caused planetary warming is bad, because it's far from obvious.
Oops,
on the anticipated objection to "human-caused" what I meant to say is this:
In order for Bernard's question to be sensible and tractable all we need to agree on is that a certain amount of warming has taken place which would not have taken place without human-caused emissions, which is something I'm happy to stipulate.
> [I]'d happily use your original words (something along the lines of "we need less cheks") but for the fact that they were ungrammatical and so, alas, I can't bring myself to.
Then Brad may not bring himself to use Moshpit's
Judith invited Tim and I to lunch at AGU in 2010. My reaction was more Palmer, less Hansen. I’d also say more Betts, less Mann. More Thorne, less, Santer. ha, I see a pattern.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/03/authority-in-political-debates-involving-science/#comment-190066
Bunnies may see a pattern in Brad's red herrings.
> What we need is fewer cheks. That means some chek has to go. And since there's only one chek (chek) chek has to go.
By the same token, what bunnies need are fewer Brads. That means some Brad has top go. And since there's only one Brad (Brad), Brad has to go.
Assuming that when people say "less X" where X is the name of a person implies we want them gone may not be warranted. After all, the implicit request is that commenters refrain from using the same speech patterns as X. This suffices to show yet another conceptual exploit from Brad.
While I don't give a rat's ass whether chek's colorful analyses persist or not, I can't say the same about Brad's lulzful exploits.
> Elaborate.
Brad gives homeworks and never does his own.
By chance there's no need to elaborate. In Dana's episode, Brad does not consider testimony as evidence. In Peter's episode, Brad considers testimony as evidence.
Brad has to choose which episode he prefers.
> In order to grapple with the question I'm afraid I have to wait for Bernard to tell us why he thinks human-caused planetary warming is bad, because it's far from obvious.
Bunnies may observe an interesting exploit here, where Brad basically hides his own burden behind Bernard's.
Bernard has the burden to show why he thinks human-caused planetery warming is bad. Brad has the burden to show that it's far from obvious to him. The two burdens of proof are distinct and independent.
Brad has a choice. Either he provides his evidence basis for his claim that "AGW = bad" is far from obvious, he retracts it, or else. Examples of "or else" includes arguments from ignorance, red herrings, and caricatures. Brad may of course surprise bunnies with less common exploits.
> I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that Bernard's question, being posed in the present tense, refers to however-much-human-caused-warming-has-occurred.
Then Brad is happy that Bernard's question can be answered differently depending on the possible warming that may happen according to the projections.
The usual line of the lukewarm defense goes like this. One degree ain't that bad. Five degrees might be bad. How about in between? When will this kick in? When should we start bothering? How much will it cost? What about uncertainties? What about unknown unknowns? Etc.
We don't give a rat's ass whether Brad is happy that Bernard's question falls into the main trap of the lukewwarm defense, or not.
Willard,
> By chance there's no need to elaborate. In Dana's episode, Brad does not consider testimony as evidence. In Peter's episode, Brad considers testimony as evidence.
> Brad has to choose which episode he prefers.
Yawn.
I've already answered this. Do pay attention. I said I withdraw my use of "testimony as evidence" in "Peter's episode." It was illogical of me to use it that way.
Bunnies are still no closer to understanding why you suspected me of "taking cynical advantage of Kevin's impatience."
> Then Brad may not bring himself to use Moshpit's
> "Judith invited Tim and I to lunch at AGU in 2010. My reaction was more Palmer, less Hansen. I’d also say more Betts, less Mann. More Thorne, less, Santer. ha, I see a pattern."
Huh?
I could bring myself to use almost the entirety of that quote.
The use of "Tim and I" as objects of the verb "invite" is, of course, an abomination. But the sentiments "less Mann", etc., are as grammatically unimpeachable as they are morally commendable! Mosher would have erred if he'd wished for "less Manns", "less Menn" or "less Männer"—if only grammatically. Anyway, he didn't.
> Just because it's value-laden doesn't mean we can't answer the question.
The point is not that we can't answer Bernard's question, but that Brad could exploit it. Answering that question is easy enough so that Bernard J fails to see how easy it would be for a Brad to exploit it. Opening up battle fronts with a sentence that can be parsed into thousands of red herrings may not be the best move against a commenter that rope-a-doped for more than ten days.
Also note that answering in a constructive manner a value-laden question may contradict Dick's fantasy about policy-making. V. 2/5/14 10:13 AM.
> I said I withdraw my use of "testimony as evidence" in "Peter's episode." It was illogical of me to use it that way.
Citation needed.
Notice that this withdrawal did not prevent to use testimony as evidence when he said earlier today:
You mean, other than the fact that Heartland themselves have said the other eight documents are authentic whereas the strategy memo is fake??
Notice also the wording: the fact that. Do facts count as scientific evidence?
> Mosher would have erred if he'd wished for "less Manns" [...]
His request would have comprised what he expressed when he said "less Mann," minus perhaps the cheap ad hom which Brad commends.
Had Mike been among Judy's denizens, the request would also have made more sense.
Sheesh! Has the Brad paint job dried yet?
The captcha is more interesting:
helpharm Locke (I think).
Lionel, Captcha is becoming sentient, I'm convinced. I got "sevile praet" yesterday.
The phonetic is quite the reminder of the Keyster's tired old exercise in futility that's persisted for ... how many years now?
Beware, Lionel & chek, Brad might consider you commited an appeal to the capcha
> when the most engrossing part of an argument is the captcha [...] you're doing it wrong.
Not that bunnies should give a rat's ass whether Brad is engrossed or not.
Might I quickly crowdsource a question:
What percent "dissensus" did Naomi Oreskes obtain when she did her seminal analysis of the literature in 2004?
Anyone remember?
TIA
'Might I quickly crowdsource [not a word BTW] a question'
Why don't you ask your question
over here, then you will be able to engage in sophistry 'till hell freezes over without annoying anybody else?
Captcha strikes again:
partaie Medical
Come on guys, it's a simple question, I'm sure someone can help me—how many papers did Oreskes find that dissented from the, er, consensus? Actually I don't need the raw number; what was it as a percentage?
TIA
Crowdsourcing sounds like a good idea.
Why would Brad insist in using the concept of scientific evidence to investigate the authorship of the Heartland Institute memo?
Heh. Recalling your last attack on consensus as a guide, are you talking Aryan/Semitic ratio or what, you loathsome, lazy little creep?
chek,
your latest ravings are disturbed, even be your low standards.
> ...are you talking Aryan/Semitic ratio or what, you loathsome, lazy little creep?
What. The. Christ. Are you going on about?
Listen people, this is a basic question about basic "science" but as it's clearly too much to ask you for a minuscule favor let me make my question even simple, so that you can replay with a Yes/No:
Am I right in interpreting Oreskes' 2004 consensus article as finding zero papers dissenting from the consensus? Yes or no?
What. The. Christ. Are you going on about?
What a short memory Keysters can pretend to have.this
No interest in adding traffic to a Merchants of Venice [Keyster's joke name for Merchants of Doubt] link, though I’m kinda curious: Did Skoll actually find someone in Hollywood willing to touch Oreskes’ anti-Semitic conspiracy yawner? I mean, other than Mel Gibson?(Brad Keyes, January 4, 2014 at 3:08 am)
or this
The plot of Oreskes’ and Conway’s novel [Merchants of Doubt]is that world opinion is being manipulated behind the curtains by a cabal of elders called Seitz, Singer, Jastorow and Nierenberg.(Brad Keyes, January 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm)
As I said, loathsome.
Another question to be crowdsourced:
When did Brad say if you think I'm going to do homework you're flattering yourself?
Willard, re. Heartland Memo - that'll be because Brad reckons such a framing will confuse more people, and allow more wriggle room.
Or he's just dumb enough to think that scientific investigation is the same as a police one.
Don't ask me which is correct.
Dear guthrie,
Please recall to what Brad was replying when bunnies reminded him of the Newsweek chat between Fred and Dick:
> While this testimony may not satisfy Brad, his claim that Dana has never ‘provided any evidence’ for Dick's contrarian standpoint regarding smoking is false.
Brad's line that "Testimony is NOT a form of evidence" may also be needed to reject Jim's chat with Dick in a cab.
Is that what you had in mind when you talked of a framing that "will confuse more people, and allow more wriggle room"?
Many thanks!
The way this debate shimmers and shakes and careens into different dimensions is hypnotic.
Also my captcha was "socialist" an hour ago. Please don't break Blogger with a million comments!!!!
WIllard me old chum,
having given it a great deal of thought, I realised that I found your faux friendly and thankful method of addressing me to be irritating. Knock it off, there's a good chap.
As for Brad, I don't tend to read his replies, it's more interesting reading other people's.
I'm sorry you feel that way, guthrie.
If prefer, I'll say that your hypothesis was kinda broad enough to explain just about anything Brad could ever say, and that being more specific might help bunnies dig Brad, besides showing you read the comment thread, you know that thing you're commenting on.
Guthrie,
I've realisde willsrd doesn't have much respect for me, but I understand that he works in mysterious ways and that I generally find the outcomes (such as they can be in blogland) of his participations a learning experience.
Without trying to sound patronising, please don't take offence and go with the flow. You're contribution to the Keyster infection is appreciated.
It may (or -no guarantees! not) be rewarding.
Dear chek,
Thank you for the kind words. The most fundamental element of my mysterious ways is paying due diligence to what people say. Another one is that I do not always editorialize about people's modus operandi, but when I do, I can provide evidence by quoting what people say.
When you linked to the Oreskes episode at Judy's, you abode to the first element. Your editorial was about Brad's character (i.e. his memory and loathsomeness), but that's par for the course, I guess. As long as you provide links that can make bunnies read about Brad's misdemeanors, I could not care less.
Guthrie goes for the editorial on Brad too, but on the basis that he won't read Brad's comments. This contradicts my first rule. This can't be felicitous: how can you criticize a contribution without reading it? I would go so far as to say that this kind of behavior may even explain why Brad can escape over and over again.
I abide to love and light. Flames are useless against regenerating characters and hate only leads to hate. Once due diligence has been paid, for instance about Brad's shifty concept of evidence, there's no need to do it twice.
All bunnies will need to do will be to link to this discussion.
Seeing as none of you could be bothered / had the factual proficiency to answer my straightforward question...
> Am I right in interpreting Oreskes' 2004 consensus article as finding zero papers dissenting from the consensus? Yes or no?
...this is what happens.
chek,
> ...I've realisde willsrd doesn't have much respect for me... please don't take offence and go with the flow. You're contribution to the ...
My god. And here I was, thinking you were just scientifically illiterate! LOL
willard,
> I would go so far as to say that this kind of behavior may even explain why Brad can escape over and over again.
ROFL... Newsflash: I've never escaped from anything, because there's never been anything to escape from. I would go so far as to say that if you think you've ever laid a functioning trap for me, you're flattering yourselves.
> I abide to love and light.
This boast [?] would be more convincing if
1. it were idiomatically English. What does it mean to "abide to" + noun?
Who knows?
2. you were actually on the side of "love and light" rather than that of pseudoscience and stupidity.
> I've never escaped from anything, because there's never been anything to escape from.
Bunnies can see that it's only a flesh wound, Brad.
***
Courtesy of chek, Andrew had this to say to Brad at Judy's:
You are of course perfectly entitled to dispute and criticise her survey and its findings, if that’s all you had done I wouldn’t have bothered to respond and I’m sure that Oreskes herself would not lose any sleep about it. But that’s not what you did, you made a bogus accusation of anti-Semitism against her.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433306
Brad's imperviousness in the discussion that follows shows his talent for ignoring the existence of his escapes.
***
Bunnies will also note that Brad has yet to justify the relevance of the conception of evidence, and to acknowledge that his choice reduces his evidence basis for his conjecture about the authorship of the Heartland Institute document.
willard,
You appear to think I've yet "to acknowledge that [my] choice reduces [my] evidence basis for [my] conjecture about the authorship of the Heartland Institute document."
But I do acknowledge that. I've already acknowledged it. Please accept my apologies in case I wasn't clear enough in my earlier attempt to acknowledge the truth of what you're asserting—but that's exactly what I intended to do when I said I withdraw my use of testimony as evidence in "Peter's episode" and conceded that it was illogical of me to use [Heartland's testimony] that way.
I'm always happy to acknowledge my errors. There's far too much mutual incomprehension as it is, without the added burden of mistrust due to mistake-denial.
> [T]hat's exactly what I intended to do when I say I withdraw my use of testimony as evidence [...]
Acknowledging one's error is not the same thing than revising one's position accordingly.
That testimony is not evidence, has an impact on Brad's evidence basis for his conjecture about the authorship of the Heartland Institute memo.
***
It also has impact elsewhere. For instance, it refutes the overall stance of the Auditor regarding the Deming affair:
However, it seems to me that the closer re-examination of the documents carried out here, if anything, adds circumstantial support for Deming’s recollection (I emphasize circumstantial).
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/
The concept of "circumstantial support" is interesting on the light of Brad's doctrine that "testimony is not evidence".
Bunnies will also note that Deming's Affair is based on his own testimony:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffair
MattStat observed that Brad did not wait to collect evidence before accusing Oreskes of anti-semitism:
Brad Keyes: What about German-sounding *scientists* in the US?
I’d have to look into it, because I don’t know. You inferred first and are seeking justification post hoc?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433531
If Brad would acknowledge that accusing Oreskes & Conway of anti-semitism at Judy's was mistaken, that would be nice. That Brad failed to do so his suffices to show that Brad's "I'm always happy to acknowledge my errors" does not imply he always does.
Bunnies will notice how Brad switched from "Oreskes & Conway are anti-semitic" to "Oreskes & Conway's book are anti-semitic" without any evidence, let alone circumstancial support.
Deleatur: > That Brad failed to do so his suffices [...]
willard,
don't read too much into the fact that I'm busy. I'll look over that ancient thread again when I get a chance and if anybody has an apology coming to them, I'll issue it.
The "strategy document's" bogosity is embarrassingly self-evident with or without HI's confirmation of the fact. Stop insulting both our intelligences by feigning agnosticism. (At least I assume you're feigning—if you've read it and still think HI produced it, the only imaginable excuse would be that English is your second language.)
Meanwhile why not clarify what you meant by abiding "to love and light"?
Abide (i.e. tolerate)?
Abide in? (Are you advertising that you consider yourself to dwell in love and light?? Cute!)
Abide by?
> Abide by?
Yes. I stand corrected. "Abiding by love and light" it is.
See, you're not so bad.
The dude abides? ;-)
The expression "self-evident" deserves due diligence:
> The "strategy document's" bogosity is embarrassingly self-evident with or without HI's confirmation of the fact.
How is bogosity related to evidence? Relying on evidence alone for one's epistemology impoverishes skeptical judgements.
The notion of "skeptical judgement" may very well be an oxymoron.
***
An alternative would be to consider that Brad may only have something akin to the Auditor's circumstantial evidence to support his favorite conjecture. This may not be reconciliable with Brad's conception of evidence. Brad's conception of evidence may only be self-evident to Brad himself.
Such quandaries are more interesting to me than the authorship of the Heartland memo.
> The dude abides?
That depends:
Point taken, Willard. (See, this is why I’m more patient than others with your pedantry: because, much like a Philosophy degree, it very occasionally pays off.) It’s possible to write an anti-Semitic book without being an anti-Semite.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433633
Bunnies may notice
- that Brad's point about pedantry may apply to his grammar zeal;
- that Brad acknowledges a point that was not being made.
It's "the Dude", by the way.
723 posts here and so concludes another futile attack on the concept of 'scientific consensus', and a rather cack-handed and all-too-fucking-obvious implementation of the 'Serengeti Strategy' (give up Gleik and Mann an' we'll be rilly nice t'y'awl. Honest!) by Brad 'the fuckwitted but wordy Keyster' Keyes.
Seriously, who do these self-appointed science-communicating trolls think they're fooling apart from their vacant selves?
I can only imagine Keyster is self-appointed, because I find it difficult to believe that this wreck was either interviewed or surveyed or otherwise charged with any responsibility. Apart from being a Keyster.
I suppose summarising entails at least a little editorialising, willard. Hope there's not too much unsupported by the there-for-all-to-see content of the thread
Dudes abide, chek, dudes abide.
I did actually read the specific comment referred to, or the one before the request for suggestions. But I have other things to do than get a handle on the immensity of Keye's output. I prefer a more gadfly approach myself to pointless blatherers like him.
Post a Comment