tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1284914115736698302..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Mysterious Mr. RevkinEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger722125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8414608497693832582014-05-16T13:51:22.790-04:002014-05-16T13:51:22.790-04:00I did actually read the specific comment referred ...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. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17713841415026552302014-05-16T13:40:00.269-04:002014-05-16T13:40:00.269-04:00Dudes abide, chek, dudes abide.Dudes abide, chek, dudes abide.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83888502500293719782014-05-15T19:04:20.817-04:002014-05-15T19:04:20.817-04:00723 posts here and so concludes another futile att...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.<br /><br />Seriously, who do these self-appointed science-communicating trolls think they're fooling apart from their vacant selves?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 threadchekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09076463055055404580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51848352278509284272014-05-13T11:31:23.384-04:002014-05-13T11:31:23.384-04:00> The dude abides?
That depends:
Point taken,...> The dude abides?<br /><br />That depends:<br /><br /><i>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. </i><br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433633<br /><br />Bunnies may notice <br /><br />- that Brad's point about pedantry may apply to his grammar zeal;<br /><br />- that Brad acknowledges a point that was not being made.<br /><br />It's "the Dude", by the way. <br />willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61292956266084327572014-05-13T09:35:32.494-04:002014-05-13T09:35:32.494-04:00The expression "self-evident" deserves d...The expression "self-evident" deserves due diligence:<br /><br />> The "strategy document's" bogosity is embarrassingly self-evident with or without HI's confirmation of the fact.<br /><br />How is bogosity related to evidence? Relying on evidence alone for one's epistemology impoverishes skeptical judgements. <br /><br />The notion of "skeptical judgement" may very well be an oxymoron.<br /><br />***<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Such quandaries are more interesting to me than the authorship of the Heartland memo.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70909716710696058642014-05-13T09:29:36.181-04:002014-05-13T09:29:36.181-04:00See, you're not so bad.
The dude abides? ;-)See, you're not so bad.<br /><br />The dude abides? ;-)Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39876689964674099132014-05-13T09:23:11.816-04:002014-05-13T09:23:11.816-04:00> Abide by?
Yes. I stand corrected. "Abid...> Abide by?<br /><br />Yes. I stand corrected. "Abiding by love and light" it is.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73918788445172127002014-05-13T09:04:42.554-04:002014-05-13T09:04:42.554-04:00willard,
don't read too much into the fact th...willard,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.) <br /><br />Meanwhile why not clarify what you meant by abiding "to love and light"? <br /><br />Abide (i.e. tolerate)? <br /><br />Abide in? (Are you advertising that you consider yourself to dwell in love and light?? Cute!) <br /><br />Abide by?Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7511338207157047852014-05-13T08:52:22.473-04:002014-05-13T08:52:22.473-04:00Deleatur: > That Brad failed to do so his suff...Deleatur: > That Brad failed to do so <b>his</b> suffices [...]willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81936531912069300482014-05-13T08:40:29.479-04:002014-05-13T08:40:29.479-04:00MattStat observed that Brad did not wait to collec...MattStat observed that Brad did not wait to collect evidence before accusing Oreskes of anti-semitism:<br /><br /><i>Brad Keyes: What about German-sounding *scientists* in the US?<br /><br />I’d have to look into it, because I don’t know. <b>You inferred first and are seeking justification post hoc?</b></i><br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433531<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33457550759713393242014-05-13T08:33:40.959-04:002014-05-13T08:33:40.959-04:00> [T]hat's exactly what I intended to do wh...> [T]hat's exactly what I intended to do when I say <i>I withdraw my use of testimony as evidence</i> [...]<br /><br />Acknowledging one's error is not the same thing than revising one's position accordingly.<br /><br />That testimony is not evidence, has an impact on Brad's evidence basis for his conjecture about the authorship of the Heartland Institute memo.<br /><br />***<br /><br />It also has impact elsewhere. For instance, it refutes the overall stance of the Auditor regarding the Deming affair:<br /><br /><i>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).</i><br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/<br /><br />The concept of "circumstantial support" is interesting on the light of Brad's doctrine that "testimony is not evidence".<br /><br />Bunnies will also note that Deming's Affair is based on his own testimony:<br /><br />http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/demingaffairwillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4542830301339415382014-05-13T04:39:35.464-04:002014-05-13T04:39:35.464-04:00willard,
You appear to think I've yet "...willard, <br /><br />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." <br /><br />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>I withdraw my use of testimony as evidence in "Peter's episode"</i> and conceded that <i>it was illogical of me to use [Heartland's testimony] that way.</i><br /><br />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.<br />Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21064167942695457272014-05-13T01:30:11.523-04:002014-05-13T01:30:11.523-04:00> I've never escaped from anything, because...> I've never escaped from anything, because there's never been anything to escape from.<br /><br />Bunnies can see that it's only a flesh wound, Brad.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Courtesy of chek, Andrew had this to say to Brad at Judy's:<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-433306<br /><br />Brad's imperviousness in the discussion that follows shows his talent for ignoring the existence of his escapes.<br /><br />***<br /><br />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.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27240741054316436862014-05-13T00:44:36.925-04:002014-05-13T00:44:36.925-04:00willard,
> I would go so far as to say that th...willard,<br /><br />> I would go so far as to say that this kind of behavior may even explain why Brad can escape over and over again.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />> I abide to love and light.<br /><br />This boast [?] would be more convincing if<br /><br />1. it were idiomatically English. What does it mean to "abide to" + noun? <br /><br />Who knows?<br /><br />2. you were actually on the side of "love and light" rather than that of pseudoscience and stupidity.Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86295279156510965932014-05-12T23:03:14.744-04:002014-05-12T23:03:14.744-04:00chek,
> ...I've realisde willsrd doesn'...chek,<br /><br />> ...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 ...<br /><br />My god. And here I was, thinking you were just <i><b>scientifically</b></i> illiterate! LOLBrad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53839003280598086222014-05-12T22:57:54.753-04:002014-05-12T22:57:54.753-04:00Seeing as none of you could be bothered / had the ...Seeing as none of you could be bothered / had the factual proficiency to answer my straightforward question...<br /><br />> Am I right in interpreting Oreskes' 2004 consensus article as finding zero papers dissenting from the consensus? Yes or no?<br /><br />...<a href="http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/05/11/a-very-special-opinion/" rel="nofollow">this is what happens.</a><br /><br />Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31106361216143737142014-05-10T10:35:23.250-04:002014-05-10T10:35:23.250-04:00Dear chek,
Thank you for the kind words. The most...Dear chek,<br /><br />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 <i>modus operandi</i>, but when I do, I can provide evidence by quoting what people say. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />All bunnies will need to do will be to link to this discussion.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33512860631762789252014-05-09T19:52:29.417-04:002014-05-09T19:52:29.417-04:00Guthrie,
I've realisde willsrd doesn't hav...Guthrie,<br />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.<br />Without trying to sound patronising, please don't take offence and go with the flow. You're contribution to the Keyster infection is appreciated.<br />It may (or -no guarantees! not) be rewarding.chekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09076463055055404580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83801282977756724032014-05-09T19:28:04.421-04:002014-05-09T19:28:04.421-04:00I'm sorry you feel that way, guthrie.
If pre...I'm sorry you feel that way, guthrie. <br /><br />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.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15464371784408554142014-05-09T15:30:38.392-04:002014-05-09T15:30:38.392-04:00WIllard me old chum,
having given it a great deal ...WIllard me old chum,<br />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.<br /><br />As for Brad, I don't tend to read his replies, it's more interesting reading other people's. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29238008565321310762014-05-09T01:58:47.762-04:002014-05-09T01:58:47.762-04:00The way this debate shimmers and shakes and careen...The way this debate shimmers and shakes and careens into different dimensions is hypnotic. <br /><br />Also my captcha was "socialist" an hour ago. Please don't break Blogger with a million comments!!!!Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62923081194564722892014-05-08T18:39:35.550-04:002014-05-08T18:39:35.550-04:00Dear guthrie,
Please recall to what Brad was repl...Dear guthrie,<br /><br />Please recall to what Brad was replying when bunnies reminded him of the Newsweek chat between Fred and Dick:<br /><br />> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Is that what you had in mind when you talked of a framing that "will confuse more people, and allow more wriggle room"?<br /><br />Many thanks!willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57967073428599305882014-05-08T16:13:20.135-04:002014-05-08T16:13:20.135-04:00Willard, re. Heartland Memo - that'll be becau...Willard, re. Heartland Memo - that'll be because Brad reckons such a framing will confuse more people, and allow more wriggle room.<br />Or he's just dumb enough to think that scientific investigation is the same as a police one. <br />Don't ask me which is correct. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75517041086191877342014-05-08T08:41:45.616-04:002014-05-08T08:41:45.616-04:00Another question to be crowdsourced:
When did Bra...Another question to be crowdsourced:<br /><br />When did Brad say <b>if you think I'm going to do homework you're flattering yourself</b>?willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80992979559483679462014-05-08T05:11:09.798-04:002014-05-08T05:11:09.798-04:00What. The. Christ. Are you going on about?
What a...<i>What. The. Christ. Are you going on about?</i><br /><br />What a short memory Keysters can pretend to have.<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-432551" rel="nofollow">this</a> <br /><i>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)</i><br />or <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-432722" rel="nofollow">this</a><br /><br /><i>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)</i><br /><br />As I said, loathsome.chekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09076463055055404580noreply@blogger.com