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 401 – 600 of 722 Newer› Newest»> Since I've already quoted Lew's crystal-clear explanation of what he meant by "conspiracist ideation," [1] and since it's compatible with my own understanding of what the term means [2] [...] and with every dictionary I've seen [3], and since everybunny has failed (after 2 days of trying) to produce any contrary definition [4],
[1] Brad switched from definition to explanation. It is neither, nor is it Lew's. It's a paraphrase of a characterization we may find in Susstein and Vermeule 2008.
[2] Brad switched from equivalent to compatible. Had Brad looked at Susstein and Vermeule, he would have seen that this characterization is not the only game in town. In fact, the authors narrow conditions in a way that Brad's "understanding" is excluded from their enquiry.
[3] Brad forgets about the Wikipedia entry which refers to the Oxford dictionary for the word "conspirary" which contradicts his own definition, and again refuses to concede that technical terms like "conspirational ideation" are not defined in dictionaries, but in the relevant literature.
[4] Brad claims this after I just did show him a dictionary and an encyclopedic entry. I already mentioned the concept of knowledge as justified, true belief, which leads to many discussions in epistemology and in analytic philosophy on this.
***
The points [1]-[4] are of no use to establish how Lew used the concept of conspiracy ideation in his papers. To get to "what Lew meant", it is mandatory to RTFPs.
Playing dictionary games while abusing bunnies only replaces RTFPs to those who seek lulz.
Willard:
> [1] Brad switched from definition to explanation.
Nefarious intent!
Kidding.
But Willard, I said "explanation of what he meant by". So I have not switched one iota. I'm still talking about a definition—an explanation of what one MEANS by...
> It is neither, nor is it Lew's. It's a paraphrase of a characterization we may find in Susstein and Vermeule 2008.
Good. I forgot that. So Susstein and Vermeule agree with us as well!
From modest beginning, our little English-speaking community is growing in leaps and bounds!
[2] Brad switched from equivalent to compatible.
Nefarious intent!
Ooops. No. That wasn't meant to be a "switch" either.
Two definitions, if mutually compatible, are equivalent—aren't they?
Finally, Cook and Lewandowsky have helpfully settled this tedious debate by stating the following about their paper, in case it wasn't obvious:
> The criteria for conspiracist ideation are applicable without regard to a statement’s truth or falsity.
Yet here we have BBD, contradicting (with zero evidence or authority for doing so) what the science has just said:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
> GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
Yawn.
How many days of data is BBD going to force me to collect and analyse on him?
I understand that he doesn't like what the science tells us about him, but he'll remain beyond help until he snaps out of his denial.
BBD:
I wonder why you chose not to quote this decisive statement from the SkS page you so liberally copied 'n' pasted from:
> The criteria for conspiracist ideation are applicable without regard to a statement’s truth or falsity.
? Actually, no, I don't wonder.
But it's too late—I've spotted it.
What was that you were confabulating before?
Oh yes... "“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist... GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact..."
Have some dignity, BBD. How much more of the scientific literature are you going to try vainly to deny before you man up?
For your kids, BBD.
Show some gonads.
Brad
I'm always ready and happy to confirm that you are a sociopathic, manipulative liar.
This and every thread you appear on is irrefutable evidence of that.
There was an honesty there.
Don't presume to lecture me about honesty.
And if you are going to quote me, don't do so as a mash-up. Especially not when bits of it aren't even me.
Here's an example of how to do it:
Unfortunately, Brad is a sociopathic liar who made a stupid mistake and now will not admit it. Nor will GSW. Neither clown has yet answered the following simple question:
Have any of the conspiracy theories claimed by “sceptics” been proven to be true, as in ‘not imagined’?
The answer is, no, of course not. Therefore the conspiracies were *imaginary*.
So there’s nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there?
“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
Obviously not.
So Brad (like GSW) is stuffed. Unlike GSW, Brad is clever enough to realise this so he goes on the attack. But he knows, and I know, and everybody bar the morons who has read this knows who got their arse kicked. Again.
* * *
Whose nutty ideas? Mine? Ours? Which ideas?
Yours and others. Many, many others. Most of your fellow pseudosceptics.
* * *
What happened to you, Brad? Minds like yours are usually formed by very difficult childhoods.
Was it your mother? Was she rather cruel to you?
Boarding school on top of that tricky relationship? What turned you into a sociopathic, manipulating monster?
Bunnies bored with your bullshit might still be interested in learning what warped your mind so horribly.
> The criteria for conspiracist ideation are applicable without regard to a statement’s truth or falsity.
How is pointing to MATTERS OF FACT conspiracist ideation?
You have *never* answered this. You are misrepresenting me.
> I'm still talking about a definition—an explanation of what one MEANS by...
A definition is seldom an explanation. If we accept analytic definitions (which my avatar doesn't), we might say that the definition of a triangle also carries an explanation of why triangles have three sides. But that's not the case for the concept of "conspirational thinking," which is not an explanation anyway, but a description.
Brad should simply admit that a definition is not an explanation.
***
Besides, as we already said multiple times, Lew has not defined "conspirational ideation" in the quote Brad exploits for his lulz. He simply paraphrased what Susstein & Vermeule 2008. A characterization that is not the topic of that paper anyway.
> Two definitions, if mutually compatible, are equivalent—aren't they?
Not if they do not convey the same information.
Notice how Brad switches from compatible simpliciter to "mutually compatible".
Logical compatibility is simply the complement of this operator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffer_stroke
Redefining equivalence in terms of non-incompatibility might not be the best way to get lulz.
***
Bunnies will note that Brad has yet to distinguish between logical and material equivalence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence
Brad may need to show some gonads.
Let's repeat our two last points, since Brad forgot to acknowledge them:
[3] Brad forgets about the Wikipedia entry which refers to the Oxford dictionary for the word "conspirary" which contradicts his own definition, and again refuses to concede that technical terms like "conspirational ideation" are not defined in dictionaries, but in the relevant literature.
[4] Brad claims this after I just did show him a dictionary and an encyclopedic entry. I already mentioned the concept of knowledge as justified, true belief, which leads to many discussions in epistemology and in analytic philosophy on this.
Gonads needed.
BBD,
I think Brad reads this:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
as a definition.
If it's the only possible definition, it's false. Lots of researchers will insist more in the justification of a belief rather than its ultimate truth. Truth is not that interesting: even a stopped clock gives the proper time twice a day.
If it's one definition, it may have currency, but it may not be the one Lew uses. To know what Lew means, one has to read Lew and his sources. No, I'm not telling what Lew says, as I want bunnies to RTFPs.
If it's only an observation on the main kind of conspiracy that Lew and his sources study, then you're quite right. This may explain why most of his abuses try to cut that way out.
***
So your joust with Brad depends on what you meant by "means". Brad took it as a definition or something. You seem to have meant something like "implies", since the question you ask that Brad evades answers it indirectly. It shows you are more interested in what Lew studied than how Lew defines "conspirational ideation."
But this indirect answer will not replace a straightforward one. And this is why you and Brad are still jousting.
Hope this helps,
w
Willard:
> Lew has not defined "conspirational ideation" in the quote Brad exploits for his lulz.
He hasn't? Oh no!
[By the way, you mean "conspiracist."]
If Lewandowsky hasn't defined it, how are we supposed to guess what it is? We're not climate cognitologists!
Oh, wait.
Lewandowsky is speaking English.
That's brilliant! What a time saver.
By speaking a major world language, he doesn't need to define every word he uses as long as his readers speak the same language (in which it means the formation of ideas and theories [ideation] about conspiracies).
Sure, it does disadvantage non-English speakers, in whose native tongue “Conspiracist ideation” may mean that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
But nobody said life was fair.
Willard,
> I think Brad reads this:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
> as a definition.
No, it's obviously not a definition and we may never know what it was really proffered as, other than a desperately made-up alibi on charges of conspiracy ideation.
But regardless of what BBD is asserting it "as," he needs it to be something that's necessarily true, or true "by definition" [even though it's not a definition in se], so that he can use it as a premise to plead:
"look! I can't possibly be a conspiracist ideator because there really is a fact involved in my idea!"
Unfortunately for BBD, his salvific sentence fails to be necessarily true, he's given not one scrap of evidence that it must be true, and it's very probably been fatally falsified by data such as:
> The criteria for conspiracist ideation are applicable without regard to a statement’s truth or falsity. [Cook, Lewandowsky]
Why anyone in their right mind would be convinced by BBD's naked, emptyhanded assertion that,
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
is beyond me.
In fact nobody is persuaded. Not a single person is dumb enough to step in and back BBD up on it.
Not even you. All you've been doing for 2 days straight, Willard, is providing compassionate diversionary fire. You're not agreeing with BBD's wishful thinking, nor should you!
But you're just prolonging the inevitable. Is it really humane to keep doing so? It's not as if BBD's
enjoying this, and that's an understatement. This is boring for us and embarrassing for him.
Let it go.
Let nature take its course.
> By speaking a major world language, he doesn't need to define every word he uses as long as his readers speak the same language (in which it means the formation of ideas and theories [ideation] about conspiracies).
The alternative explanation is that, in his introduction, Lew takes advantage of linguistic labor and simply handwaved to Susstein & Vermeule 2008, among others. To see where Lew stands on this, bunnies may need to RTFPs.
***
Bunnies may notice how, with his last comment, Brad tries to switch from "Lew defined" to "if Lew has not defined", and even "Lew does not need to define anyway because he speaks English". Bunnies may now wonder: why would Brad consider that Lew defined "conspiracist ideation" if he does not need to so, as he speaks English? Brad is right about this nit, though: Lew uses "conspiracist," not "conspirational". Thanks!
Brad's Gish gallop goes on and on.
BBD,
1. Do yourself a favor and concede that this is make-believe:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
2. You're dodging the question about "defamatory" none-too-subtly.
Is it defamatory to misattribute conspiracist ideation to somebody on an Internet site? YES OR NO?
3. You said nobody has blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration. Yes they have (though I'm not sure this would amount to or require a conspiracy):
> It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
> MONIKA KOPACZ
> Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences
> Harvard University
> Cambridge, Mass.
Dear BBD,
I hope you realize that Brad is trying to pull you back in what he calls a "conversation."
You may wonder if that's not a way for Brad to express his preference in abusive behavior instead of answering arguments. For instance, notice how Brad ignored points [3] and [4] above, which show that his appeals to "university-compiled" dictionaries are moot at best.
You may also wonder about gonads.
In any case, if you could wait a bit until Brad acknowledges that he has no reply to the arguments submitted to him except his never ending Gish gallop, that would be nice.
Willard,
> I hope you realize that Brad is trying to pull you back in what he calls a "conversation."
No I'm not.
(You're not very good at reading motives, Willard—which might have something to do with your admitted complete disinterest in what my intentions are. If you don't care what they are, it's little wonder you never seem to know.)
I don't think conversation is even a possibility with BBD. I tried it a few years ago, only for him to continue debating as if we were still playing Climateball.
With BBD the best policy is to have low expectations.
Dear BBD,
I hope you realize that this:
> [C]limate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
lacks something essential for it to be conspiracist ideation. After all, what's missing can be read in Lew, Susstein & Vermeule 2008, and even the Wikipedia entry on conspiracy theories.
You could also simply use realize that if Kopacz' argument amounted to conspiracist ideation, then plain common sense may very well be the evolution's way to make humans conspire in the creation of social reality.
In either case, bunnies may expect Brad to only be lulzing with this quote and that he will follow up with another episode of his never ending Gish gallop.
> You could also simply use realize [...]
You could also simply use common sense to realize, that is.
The new, universally adopted blog policy is to let absolutely everything pass and be. Moderation hides things, and since the Lewandowsky debacle it is finally understood that all communications should be done in public on the internet and ffing remain there forever for reference by the usual suspects.
@mummy, I might catch a later train tonight, is that okay with you?
@BBD, oh, the fuckery of it all...
Willard:
> if Kopacz' argument amounted to conspiracist ideation
Ugh. Nobody is pretending, arguing or claiming anything of the sort, Willard.
Do pay attention.
BBD asked me why nobody had blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration. I provided what would seem to be a direct falsification of the premise of his question.
Not everything is about conspiracy/cism/torial/cistic/tors.
> No, I don't. [...] I don't think conversation is even a possibility with BBD.
Then Brad has to explain why he addresses some of his comments to BBD and, more importantly, why he follows on his Gish gallop with BBD instead of answering my arguments.
Whatever Brad's real motivations, that Brad uses and abuses BBD describes fairly well how he interacted with BBD. I have enough experience to believe that only a food fight may save Brad now, and that this can only happen by provoking BBD.
That Brad plays his game as if to start a food fight with BBD is not imcompatible with his personal belief that he doesn't. For all we know and care, he could also simply do it for the lulz. That would be quite compatible with the number of "LOL" we've read so far in this thread alone.
We can certainly imagine that Brad is quite oblivious to ClimateBall tactics, if that's what he wants us to believe.
BBD asked me why nobody had blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration. I provided what would seem to be a direct falsification of the premise of his question.
One very shaky claim by a PhD candidate amounts to nothing, Brad.
Although I notice that the conspiracy theorists and cranks lapped it up as if it were some hugely important pronouncement from the highest level.
BBD:
> One very shaky claim by a PhD candidate amounts to nothing, Brad.
It doesn't amount to nothing, BBD. Watch that binaristic thinking. It makes you sound like a cult member.
And "shaky" is pure question-begging.
But it doesn't amount to much either—Kopacz is just one (purported) whistle-blower, who may or may not be right.
Willard,
most science completely fails to speak to me on any level—maybe that's why I'm "an active member of the anti-climate-science movement," as Victor Venema flatteringly called me.
But here's some science about one of my favorite subjects:
Trolls: A personality study correlated the activities enjoyed by Internet users with personality traits. The study explored whether Internet trolls’ behavior fell into the Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others). The chart below shows the results.
sadism
It shows that the Dark Tetrad traits were positively correlated with self-reported enjoyment of trolling. Of the traits, the researchers found sadism stands out among trolls. The internet has given sadistic trolls, those who think that hurting people is exciting, a broader and more anonymous outlet to express their behavior. We have certainly all run across these trolls on climate change articles.
- See more at: http://jcmooreonline.com/2014/03/03/climate-change-denial-machine-the-psychology-of-denialism/#sthash.b8A1T5gX.dpuf
Well that's an interesting point - I don't think Brad fits the classic Gish Gallop. He's not making a rapid fire collection of statements to bamboozle his opponent and give him no chance to respond, and what he does say is often in response to other people, whereas my understanding of a Gish Gallop is that you ignore everything your opponent says.
I think we can just label him a common or garden obsessive.
> BBD asked me why nobody had blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration.
Where?
Seems that only Brad used "exaggeration" in this thread.
Brad should use quotes to identify to what he's referring, or else bunnies will have a hard time identify when he's talking about conspiracies, conspiracy theories, conspiracists, conspiracist ideation, or something else altogether.
What about "ropes-a-dope" guthrie?
Quoting Kopacz, who does not satisfy the commonsensical definition of a whistle-blower, certainly rope-a-dopes from conspiracy to something else.
Seen that way, a rope-a-dope could be a Gish gallop in slow motion, don't you think?
The Keyster has now begun repeating his repertoire.
Amazingly, Ms Kopacz wasn't studying climate science and may well have just been parroting Freeman Dyson
The incriminating final sentence in her letter linked above, which the deniers pounced on at the time
of course doesn't quite say what they'd like it to mean.
I haven't wasted time reading the entire thread, so don't know quite what you mean.
Certainly a rope-a-dope strategy is a better way of putting it, I think, although it's clearly one sided, i.e. we think Brad is being hit by punches, he thinks he isn't. If only real fights could be like that...
Or are you suggesting that Brad is the one punching all the time? Yet a rope a dope strategy depends on one side blocking whilst the other attacks, surely a gish gallop is actually just a barrage of attacks, and since a rope-a dope is a method done by the person receiving the barrage of attacks, it doesn't work like you suggest.
Since Brad has admitted that most science doesn't speak to him on any level, that's an admission of a detachment from reality that is rarely admitted.
There's sure to be more social science investigations on the level of detachment of denialists and their ilk from science and why they don't feel that it speaks to them.
guthrie,
To me, a ClimateBall rope-a-dope is accomplished with two tactics. First, moving one's feet in the ring, always keeping away from the opponent's reach. Second, small, provocative jabs. I think we can recognize these two elements in Brad's avoidant dodges and innocuous sledges.
To me, a ClimateBall Gish gallop is accomplished with only one tactic. One keeps pitching so much red herrings on the field that it becomes impossible to sequentially address everything. I think we can recognize that it may not be humanly possible to address every single personal abuse Brad proferred in this thread.
I agree that Brad's ratio of arguments/insults is so low that we can doubt he's Gish galloping. On the other hand, if you look for "because it always is" in the thread, you'll see a classic example of a Gish gallop. In that moment, it's again nearly impossible to address every single email he's throwing at bunnies.
***
Speaking of CG and whistleblower, I wonder if the Miracle Worker, i.e. the one who released CG I, II and III, can still be considered a whistleblower. I mean, since when whistleblowers ask for Bitcoins? It's quite clear that, legally speaking, the Miracle Worker might have problem qualify as a whistleblower.
Here's an interesting definition of "whistleblower", btw:
> S: (n) whistle blower, whistle-blower, whistleblower (an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it) "the law gives little protection to whistleblowers who feel the public has a right to know what is going on"; "the whistleblower was fired for exposing the conditions in mental hospitals"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=whistleblower
The theory that the Miracle Worker is a whistleblower may have more plausibility in
theory than in practice, e.g.
https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/how-to-blow-the-whistle
Over 430 comments devoted to the Keyester... Why?
A_ray - because he's everyones favourite punching bag? When you're feeling bored or sleepy or want to let off some steam, Brad helpfully starts spouting nonsense. I certainly hope nobody has any other aims, unless perhaps they want any casual reader to see how useless Brad is.
> Over 430 comments devoted to the Keyester... Why?
The first sentence is inexact, Ray, and answering why questions is always tricky.
But it's a good question.
My own answer is that Brad is good at what he's doing:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/83013202963
Sorry willard, I can't agree.
As long as energy in keeps exceeding energy out, then all the word games in the world are utterly specious. In those terms Keyster is incorrigibly stupid and has no incentive or understanding to be other than his ego leads him to believe he already is.
Keyster is just another symptom of what can't be afforded for much longer. And he'll never change. He's too disconnected from the real world.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space, that Keyes gets to be universally recognised as The Keyster is but one small victory.
I had reason to Google him a few days ago, and the havoc he wreaks on well-meaning folk who don't know him or his M.O. is truly sad to behold.
The man hours wasted by the well-intentioned and informed off the beaten track will not be entirely wasted should the Keyster be universally recognised as a common-or-garden sophist with nothing to add to social discourse.
And Keyster is a memorable, well understood and closely related internet handle.
> As long as energy in keeps exceeding energy out, then all the word games in the world are utterly specious.
Word games are what we use to solve problems, chek:
http://youtu.be/m8mdBbzHAKg
Until and unless bunnies can solve the monkey wrenches Brad & alii hurl at bunnies, bunnies don't stand much chance to solve the energy problem. Living is too important to be taken so seriously.
Homo ludens,
w
OK, willard, I'm about 20 mins into Novaes's presentation when it strikes me that the energy budget problem will not be solved by any input that the Keyster constituency can ever muster, collectively or individually.
What they can contribute amounts to zilch. As far as I can see. How they can hinder, likewise.
> What they can contribute amounts to zilch.
I did not notice you were an optimist, chek. It could be way worse than that.
Novaes' presentation was a way to remind bunnies that the history of logic started as a way to formulate dialogs. Proofs are more naturally conceived as an interaction between players. What we're doing right now, here and elsewhere, in ClimateBall and other endeavours, may be a way to rediscover that history.
What logicians have not foreseen is that we need to be able produce interactive proofs while getting cross checks and illegal tackles all the time.
Stu2:
> As far as the definition of ‘conspiracist ideation’ goes, and BBD’s questions and aggressive assertions in regard to his definition, I would suggest, again with respect, that it is very likely one of those occasions when BBD is in the aforementioned ‘sometimes not [right]’ category.
BBD:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky. Conspiracist ideation doesn’t necessarily imply that the conspiracy is imaginary.
BBD before:
> “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
> Do you understand this definition now?
> You know what, Brad? Every single time you have attempted to correct my language, you have made an arse of yourself.
> The formation of ideas or concepts includes the act of imagining a non-existent conspiracy.
> Perhaps you should consider the *meaning* of the two words when used together.
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
As we tried to tell you.
BBD before:
> Lewandowsky based the use of the term on the previously published literature on the term. Nor can he reasonably be described, in this specific discussion, as a "random unqualified" source.
> More telepathic argument from assertion.
> What about Lewandowsky's definition? (See above).
> And remember, Brad, Lewandowsky based the use of the term on the previously published literature on the term. Nor can he reasonably be described, in this specific discussion, as a "random unqualified" source.
> So why are you talking about BBD's *private* definition?
> The problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language. As I have patiently (for me) explained to you several times now, conspiracist ideation is a fantasy process which goes well beyond matters of fact.
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
We know.
The problem continues with BBD's "bizarre warping of the language":
> Since I only deal in matters of fact I cannot be guilty of conspiracist ideation. You *still* seem incapable of understanding the meaning of conspiracist ideation. I posit no hypothetical conspiracy.
> I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.
> You are, inevitably, wrong and for the usual reasons: a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part.
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
We know. It was a woeful failure of reading comprehension on your part.
BBD before:
> Go back and read what I wrote again. It is crystal clear. Do not create confusion where none exists.
> Do not claim that there are errors in my use of language where none exist.
> That is lying, and lying is wrong, remember?
> No, GSW, you moronic liar, I am providing evidence for what I am saying. And you are ignoring it, which is the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty. So you can fuck off.
> You are confusing conspiracist ideation with matters of fact. And you are persisting even though this has been pointed out. This is monstrous intellectual dishonesty. Fuck off.
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
Oops.
BBD before:
> Incidentally, the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes did exactly this on his defamatory blog. Since you have never demonstrated any capacity for original thinking (or indeed mentation of any kind) I assume you have simply copied your latest error from Keyes. The dangers of parroting!
> And you are still a liar, GSW.
> How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?
> Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself. Lies again, GSW.
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
We all make mistakes. It's not the end of the world. At least you didn't made a gigantic fool of yourself by insulting everyone who didn't share your mistake.
Oh wait...
BBD before:
> Just because *you* are a climate change denier doesn’t mean that what CAP does is misinformation. That’s just how it seems to you because you are insane.
> Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself. And you, like Shub, condone this. What does that make you?
> Umm, stupid lying fuck…I’ll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you.
> I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation.
> So stop doing so.
> It is a lie.
> Can’t you understand that you are being blatantly fucking dishonest? Don’t you get that? Really? Can anyone be that stupid and or morally bankrupt? What is wrong with your brain?
BBD now:
> Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
I guess you've diagnosed our neurological problem then: correctness.
Which partly answers—only partly—the question of what's wrong with your brain, BBD.
BBD before:
It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How? It is not.
It is simply a matter of fact. The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact.
I keep on coming across this: deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what ‘conspiracist ideation’ actually means despite being enmired in it themselves. I don’t suppose I should be surprised, really. It’s just par for the course.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
Yes.
Yes you did.
BBD before:
Try to understand, GSW. Try.
I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation. So stop doing so.
It is a lie. Lying is wrong, GSW.
You are now simply ignoring my main point: your incessant accusations that I am engaging in conspiracist ideation are false because I am dealing only in matters of fact. Well documented, undisputed, fully established matters of fact. I posit no hypothetical conspiracy.
I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.
Are you denying this matter of fact? And raising the HI again? Are you mad? The people who – funded by the infamous “Anonymous Donor” – were solemnly proposing to create a curriculum for school children that was packed with climate change misinformation? Are you sure you want to talk about this? Because I cannot imagine a single reason why since it is an excellent illustration of my exact point.
I get the sense, GSW, that you are simply flailing around with your pig’s bladder on a stick because you don’t know what else to do. Careful you don’t trip over it and end up on your arse.
But I *can* provide evidence. See eg Brulle (2013) or any of the links Jeff posted upthread. You really should read the material people here link, GSW. You could then avoid making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public.
Donors Trust. Why does it exist unless my statement is true and correct? Answer me, GSW. Why does Donors Trust exist?
Fuck but I loathe “Brad Keyes” aka “Darrell Harb” etc. One of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG.
And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck, there’s a good chap. Brad can’t get over the fact that whenever we meet, his nose gets metaphorically broken.
So why the concealment? The secrecy? Why won't the GWPF disclose even its seed donor? Why the Heartland Anonymous Donor? Why does Donors Trust even exist? Why all the secrecy? But why the secrecy? Anonymous Donors, the GWPF, Donors Trust...Why such effortful concealment of where the money is coming from?
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
Why such effortful obtuseness, BBD? Why do this to yourself in front of the Internet?
BBD before:
Words fail me.
And while Brad should not drag another blog in to this one, this excerpt from the melange above bears repeating: delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit
So there's nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there? “Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist. Your commentary about me is mostly vicious lies. Your definitional arguments are specious nonsense. Your activity here nothing more than a smear campaign. I am a little surprised that you have been permitted to carry on for so long. As you know, I have long been of the view that the best way of dealing with sociopathic liars who will not admit their errors is to shut them out.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
I have long been of the view that the best way of dealing with idiots who will not admit their errors is to give them as much time/rope as they need.
BBD before:
Now watch Brad try and bury this yet again in another spew of nonsense and lies.
- examples include the conspiracy theories I believe in
And there it is. The misrepresentation upon which his "argument" rests.
The original discussion arose from GSW's confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
BBD before:
GSW isn't very bright.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
He didn't need to be very bright to outfox you, BBD. He just needed to speak English.
BBD before:
Brad has no such excuse and can be presumed to be acting in bad faith, as usual.
Instead, we get a sustained attempt at delegitimisation. The usual Brad shit in other words.
You are wasting time again with silly evasions.
You screwed up. You got it wrong. I did warn you that you were confused, right at the outset, but on you went anyway. And here we are again, with you reduced to risible evasions, again.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
People may think me callous. And yes, maybe I could have warned BBD more strenuously what he was doing to himself, but—I'll admit it—I was enjoying the spectacle too much. I think we all were (except willard, who seemed to feel a duty to palliate BBD's condition).
BBD before:
Now that your blog post about me has been demonstrated to be incorrect, even perhaps defamatory, are you going to take it down?
Mimicking
Yes. Sociopath. Manipulator. Own worst enemy:
The frog and the scorpion.
Which bit didn't you understand?
Let's look at the words again:
The original discussion arose from GSW's confusion at Deltoid over the difference between conspiracist ideation and matters of fact. GSW was unable to understand that Donors Trust and Brulle (2013) are evidence that the covert funding of organised denial is a matter of fact. He does not grasp that my pointing this out cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy theory because it is a matter of fact.
You were wrong. You have misrepresented me as a conspiracy theorist.
Frontiers caved in to the threat of barratry, not ethical considerations. This is the reverse. I'm not threatening you with legal action. What I am asking you to do is act in good faith and admit your mistake and remove your mistaken blog post.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
BBD before:
That would be the ethical thing to do.
Please explain your intransigence.
Bunnies are all ears.
You explained it more succinctly than I ever could:
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
LOL...
BBD before:
And yes, your blog post is defamatory. I am not indulging in conspiracist ideation. Donors Trust is a matter of fact and you remain stuffed.
I see that true to form, Brad has inserted a misleading non-definition of conspiracist ideation in an attempt to conceal the fact that he is defaming me on his blog.
BBD now:
Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.
Brad now:
And then you tried, with almost Nixonian competence, to cover up your mistake.
Thanks for the laughs
The fact that BBD misread Lew does not imply Brad reads Lew correctly. Nor does it imply Brad reads BBD correctly either. For instance, on 18/4/14, at 10:11 AM:
> BBD asked me why nobody had blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration.
Here's what BBD said:
> Unless you can demonstrate that your nutty ideas about scientists concertedly exaggerating the potential seriousness of AGW (something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists at the very least because none of them are blowing the whistle) you have a problem.
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-mysterious-mr-revkin.html?showComment=1397816189675#c5181682256045363205
Kovacs did not say anything about concertation, which looks a lot like a conspiracy. This is at least what BBD implies by his parenthetical clarification.
But here what Brad said:
> Nobody is pretending, arguing or claiming anything of the sort, Willard.
This was in response to my "if Kopacz' argument amounted to conspiracist ideation"
***
Acknowledging this misrepresentation might be nice.
Chek: "And Keyster is a memorable, well understood and closely related internet handle."
Not to mention a synonym for "ass".
Ew, spambots.
May I suggest that the good professor redirects their linkies to Gamblers Anonymice or some such, in retribution for blocking the tunnels with guff?
Willard,
What misrepresentation?
> Kovacs did not say anything about concertation, which looks a lot like a conspiracy. This is at least what BBD implies by his parenthetical clarification.
In BBD's challenge, the vague and vapid adjective "concerted" (which has no verbal or nominal form that I know of, BTW) adds little because it could refer to anything from cooperation to mere effort/deliberateness. It's like describing Heartland's alleged war on science as an "active, well-funded, vicious campaign." When someone says that, I hear one word: "campaign." The rest is rhetorical noise; that kind of shit might wow the non-scientific rubes but it's of zero interest to a person like me, who just wants to guage the truth-value of the supposition.
In any case, what has been (concertedly?!) omitted from this discussion ever since I was quoted quoting Kopacz is that I made a "parenthetical clarification" of my own—to remind you:
> 3. You said nobody has blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration. Yes they have (though I'm not sure this would amount to or require a conspiracy):
I suspect that in BBD's mental model, if a scientist exaggerated The Truth this would be obvious to all his/her colleagues, because they'd know what a True description of The Truth should sound like. Ergo it would require an international conspiracy of silence to allow an exaggerator to get away with exaggerating.
No. It. Would. Not.
What doesn't seem to have dawned on BBD is that:
— scientists don't know what findings their colleagues are "supposed" to find; that's why they're called findings
- the only possible way to tell a dishonestly-reported finding from The Truth is to compare it to the raw data
— in some corners of climate science nobody does this. Phil Jones explicitly, bashfully, haltingly admitted in front of the Climategate panel, live on UK TV, that nobody checked his data. (The occasional outsider may have tried to, but they would have got Jones' famous brushoff that perfectly symbolises his contempt for busybodies, a.k.a. skeptics).
Nothing would be simpler, in such an unhealthy field, than for an unscrupulous researcher to "sex up" a finding every once in a while. Fortunately that never happens, because exaggeration is anathema to climate scientists—the cleverest and most incorruptible scientists of them all.
BBD still wasn't done digging!
BBD before:
Do let us know when the penny drops.
I bet Brad will think twice before supporting your rubbish again, GSW.
You have both made utter clowns out of yourselves. And not for the first time, as veterans of the Brad thread will recall.
As we know to our cost, GSW is too stupid to understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a matter of fact. Brad isn’t, so one has to assume he’s just pretending that he doesn’t.
Brad, Getting into bed with a moron like GSW makes you look, if possible, even worse. Opportunistic and vicious and dishonest are an unlovely combination.
Unfortunately, Brad is a sociopathic liar who made a stupid mistake and now will not admit it. Nor will GSW.
So there’s nothing wrong with the following statement at all is there?
“Conspiracist ideation” means that the sufferer *imagines* conspiracies where none exist.
Actually, yes, there is something wrong with it: it’s wrong.
You misread Lewandowsky, and came up with a definition nobody else in the English-speaking world has heard of.
BBD before:
Obviously not.
So Brad (like GSW) is stuffed. Unlike GSW, Brad is clever enough to realise this so he goes on the attack. But he knows, and I know, and everybody bar the morons who has read this knows who got their arse kicked. Again.
It’s interesting that the scum have decided to deny that there is any difference at all between imaginary conspiracies and matters of fact, eg Donors Trust.
Well, it’s interesting that you thinkthe scum community has decided to do that. As a scum American, and proud of my scum heritage, I can honestly say I’ve never denied “that there is any difference at all between imaginary conspiracies and matters of fact.”
BTW: as I’m sure you know, facts sound like sentences, not nouns; Donors Trust per se obviously cannot be a “fact.” Out of cognitological curiosity, then, to what “fact” were you referring? Is it the fact:
- that there is a thing called Donors Trust?
- that there is a Trust called Donors Trust?
- that there is a conspiracy called Donors Trust?
BBD before:
Can they really be that stupid, or is this simply a deliberate lie with the sole intention of smearing me? I think we know the answer to that one as well.
Read the previous page, Stupid. Don’t be so lazy. Read the links, Stupid. It will save pain later.
Matters of fact are not theories. Read the words, Stupid.
What happened to you, Brad? Minds like yours are usually formed by very difficult childhoods. Was it your mother? Was she rather cruel to you? Boarding school on top of that tricky relationship? What turned you into a sociopathic, manipulating monster?
LOL!
What happened to me? School.
And you?
Keyster said:When someone says that, I hear one ord: "campaign." The rest is rhetorical noise; that kind of shit might wow the non-scientific rubes but it's of zero interest to a person like me, who just wants to guage (sic) the truth-value of the supposition.
Before going on to say with a thunderclap-style blast of rhetorical noise: Phil Jones explicitly, bashfully, haltingly admitted in front of the Climategate panel, live on UK TV, that nobody checked his data.
So I just see 'nobody checked Jones' data'.
And why would they: it was Jones' life's work up to that point collating data from across the world, mostly in pre-internet paper form, and making sense of it in order to construct his temperature series. Who should check his data - some self-appointed cranks? Maybe in Keyster World.
Cranks don't seem to understand that their fondness for 'auditing' isn't how science is done. If Jones' (or Mann's or whoever's) work had been a crock it would have stood out like a sore thumb. But it didn't.
Hence the deniers' full-on campaign of which Keyster is only another jumped up Johnny-come-lately, no matter how large a volume of denier trash myths he's given houseroom in his braincells.
chek,
What a rousing defence you've given of post-normal, Mystery Meat Science.
Few comments are more symptomatic of the misosophical, anti-knowledge Will To Believe that's epidemic in your dying little cult.
May you die quickly, along with all who oppose science.
> So I just see 'nobody checked Jones' data'.
> And why would they:
Q: Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
A: Because my aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
If you were too ignorant to see that punchline coming, perhaps you should think twice before regaling us with any more of your peasant superstitions regarding the scientific process.
> it was Jones' life's work up to that point collating data from across the world, mostly in pre-internet paper form, and making sense of it in order to construct his temperature series.
So he was some kind of archivist? Or historian maybe? Seems a bit of a waste of a science degree.
Why didn't he spend his career doing science? Which entails SHOWING YOUR WORKING?
> If Jones' (or Mann's or whoever's) work had been a crock it would have stood out like a sore thumb. But it didn't.
That's not how science works, fuckknuckle. Anomalous findings aren't wrong because they're anomalous, nor vice versa.
And FWIW if Mann's results hadn't 'stood out' you would never have heard of his name.
Thanks chek.
I think I speak for everyone here in saying how much we all benefit from hearing how turd-burgling shitwits who don't know how science works believe science works.
Willard was right: there should be zero of you.
> challenge, the vague and vapid adjective "concerted" [...] adds little because it could refer to anything from cooperation to mere effort/deliberateness.
Brad omits that BBD clarified what he wanted to see "something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists". Kovacs' quote does not show "conspirational behavior" dog-whistled, as Kovacs does not even qualify as a dog-whistler.
Quoting a non whistle-blower does not meet that challenge. Neither does quoting someone expressing some concerns about some indefinite interest bias.
***
In this instance alone, Brad made three misrepresentations:
You said nobody has blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration. Yes they have (though I'm not sure this would amount to or require a conspiracy):
First, this is not what BBD said.
Second, Kovacs did not whistle-blow.
Third, he misled bunnies he claimed "I provided what would seem to be a direct falsification of the premise of his question."
BBD did not claim that nobody had blown the whistle on AGW exaggeration, but that nobody whistle-blown a conspiracy.
BBD asked Brad to demonstrate that scientists concertedly exaggerating the potential seriousness of AGW, something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists.
***
Let's hope Brad will have BBD's courage and admit that he misread BBD.
Keyster, you know the context of nothing and your poisonous sounding mined quotes only work on rubes. Don't for a moment think anyone else here thinks you've made some point or other.
Muller et al. didn't go pestering all and sundry for their data, nor does anyone else. Only your motivated auditor chums who are too fuckwitted to do any original work with it.
And regarding Mike Mann, if you want to tear him down then you have to refute his work. The same with Phil Jones. But where are all the papers from Crankworld fired by all that liberated data?
The thing is you and a legion of your fellow cranks are singularly unable to do it, as you've already been told. So you're left with innuendo and malice, which doesn't weigh much in the balance of what still remains good, sound science, after all is said and done and blogged.
Despite your fantastically high opinion of yourself, I rather think the world can get along fairly well without a "science communicating" Keyster.
And if that sounds vaguely like a joke, that'll likely be because you are.
The word "concerted" seems well-defined:
> Jointly arranged, planned, or carried out; coordinated; strenuously carried out; done with great effort.
Another interesting definition:
> [T]he belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theory
Our emphasis.
"I think I speak for everyone here in saying how much we all benefit from hearing how turd-burgling shitwits who don't know how science works believe science works.
True dat. Thank you for your public service.
Oh, and Keyes, it's better to shut your mouth and be thought a sociopath than to open it and remove all doubt.
Willard:
> The word "concerted" seems well-defined: "Jointly arranged, planned, or carried out; coordinated; strenuously carried out; done with great effort."
Why do you think that's "well-defined"?
It's not. There are at least two entirely non-overlapping concepts in the four definitions you just cited!
That means it's badly-defined. You shouldn't even use such words if you can help it.
(Unless, of course, you're describing an individual person's action, in which case the adjective unambiguously refers to the effortfulness of the action.)
> BBD asked Brad to demonstrate that scientists concertedly exaggerating the potential seriousness of AGW, something that requires conspiratorial behaviour among scientists.
> Let's hope Brad will have BBD's courage and admit that he misread BBD.
Courage?
It doesn't take the slightest courage for me to "admit" this:
— I don't know what BBD meant by "concertedly." Do you? Which of the 4 senses you've cited did he intend, Willard?
— My answer probably didn't satisfy BBD because I refused to accept the premise of his question, and I readily said so at the time:
"I'm not sure this would amount to or require a conspiracy"
Exaggeration of AGW by climate scientistswould not imply or require or prove conspiracy, collusion or "concertation [sic]" in the first sense you cited. BBD would have grasped the invalidity of such an inference if he knew how climate science works (and how it differs from a normal, healthy, open science in which researchers show their working).
"Keyes Porridge Hot, Keyes Porridge Cold" said:
> ...be thought a sociopath than to open it and remove all doubt
Does this mean you've ruled out psychopathy, which (for everyone else) appears to remain an open question?
How did you do it? What was it that finally proved, IYHO, that I'm ["just"] a sociopath?
chek perseverates in his quixotic one-man rage against, and denial of, the modern scientific method:
> Muller et al. didn't go pestering all and sundry for their data, nor does anyone else.
Why should they have to, chek? Scientific data should already be available. If it's necessary to harass or cajole or FOI a scientist for the data that went into a paper years after the fact, they're doing it wrong. Modern scientists open that stuff up when they publish their paper. If it's not online (for whatever reason) then it's just a matter of burning a copy on disk. It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes, because in science your data has to be in an organised, fit-for-inspection form before you can even use it yourself.
If you have to ransack your memory for a hundred different vague filenames and ransack your hard drive for boluses of heterogeneous, ugly data you did it wrong. If you're embarrassed to show the world every single line of code that you used for a computation you did it wrong. And if you're so fucking incompetent that you "live in constant fear of" and feel "intimidated" by the simple prospect of having to show someone your code, as "scientists" like Santer and Mann are, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN SCIENCE in the first place?
In short, if an FOI request sends a chill down your spine you're not even a scientist, you're a charlatan.
> Only your motivated auditor chums who are too fuckwitted to do any original work with it.
"Original work" is all well and good but it can never fix or get rid of someone else's shoddy work if it's already contaminating the literature—the best you can possibly do is dilute the contaminant. But if you had any understanding of how science works, even at a Wikipedia level of sophistication—if you were even familiar with the oil drop problem—I wouldn't have to explain this. You'd know how frightened and naive and unconvincing you sound when you plead that "auditing" isn't necessary.
It was McIntyre, not Muller, who forced Mann to admit mistakes in his hockey stick and issue corrections. It was McIntyre, not Muller, who forced Gergis to retract her mathematically fallacious hockey stick. It was Douglas Keenan, not the legitimate paleoclimate community, who forced Wang to flee to China when his UHI work couldn't withstand even the most basic audit. It was my "motivated auditor chums," not the respectable behavioral-sciences community, who forced Frontiers to retract Lewandowsky's joke of a "paper."
No wonder you're so bitter.
Are you a climate scientist by any chance, "chek"? Certain quirks—your incomprehension and attempted revision of the scientific method; your bilious resentment of auditors; your prepubescent name-calling; your congenital lack of skepticism—fit the profile to a tee.
> I refused to accept the premise of his question,
This contradicts what Brad said earlier:
> I provided what would seem to be a direct falsification of the premise of his question.
One can't falsify a premise by simply rejecting it.
For Brad's refutation to work, it must work even if the premise is true.
Bunnies will notice that this works whatever premise Brad is talking about. He has yet to identify what he calls a premise.
***
> Exaggeration of AGW by climate scientist swould not imply or require or prove conspiracy, collusion or "concertation [sic]" [...]
A concerted effort by scientists that amounts to a conspiracy would, which is why BBD asked for an example. We can even call this a premise of BBD's challenge.
Bunnies will note that Brad has failed to recognize one of the premise of BBD's challenge.
This does not bode well for Brad's skill in identifying premises.
***
> I don't know what BBD meant by "concertedly." [...]
Whatever BBD's intention, it is clear which one is relevant: the one that characterizes a conspiracy.
Let bunnies decide which definition of "concerted" is required for a conspiracy to be considered as a concerted endeavor.
***
Bunnies may appreciate how Brad dropped his premise that Kovacs was a whistle-blower.
You know, at this point, if we all tiptoed quietly out of the room, the Keyster might not notice and might just stay here mumbling to itself.
Please do, ray. I'll stay here to make sure no one else but Brad remains.
Brad's contributions are interesting for anyone who studies ClimateBall (tm).
Willard,
> I provided what would seem to be a direct falsification of the premise of his question.
I know that.
BBD's question had more than one premise, Willard—so perhaps I should have been consistent and clear as to which one I meant at all times. One can never be too explicit in the climate debate, I guess! The premise I rejected (because it was a baseless, arbitrary and implausible assumption on BBD's part) was that the only way the scientists could exaggerate AGW was by conspiring.
> Bunnies will note that Brad has failed to recognize one of the premise of BBD's challenge.
Yawn. I saw and understood BBD's other premise—he could hardly have shoehorned it into his question any more conspicuously: he decreed, a priori, that the only way the scientists could exaggerate AGW was by conspiring.
I understand this. I don't agree. I don't accept such a conspiracy theory. Because it's bollocks.
If BBD had any idea how climate scientists work it'd be self-explanatory to him that a single dishonest apple in that noblest of professions would have no difficulty playing up or playing down almost any finding he wanted. He would't need accomplices. Nobody needs to find out, and certainly nobody is going to go looking for problems. The only person a dishonest "climate scientist"—any dishonest "climate scientist"—would lose a wink of sleep worrying about is Steve McIntyre.
Why are you inventing problems in our dialogue praeter necessitatem, Willard? How can I get it through your skull that you can stop debating me already—the sooner the better. I'm not going to lift a finger to "beat" you, but nor an I going to allow you to beat me, so WHAT ARE WE DOING THIS FOR?
Willard,
> Brad's contributions are interesting for anyone who studies ClimateBall (tm).
Please, dear God, let that not be my legacy.
I don't even like Climateball. I may be cursed with a talent for it, I may even enjoy the odd Climateball marathon, but morally I'm against the existence of the entire sport. Where has it ever gotten anyone??
Now that the Keyster has built an alternative reality for himself where McinTyres is the one true Scotsman and Other Denier Myths, words fail me.
Willard, I hope you liked Reggie Watts' revisiting of Barry.
> BBD's question had more than one premise [...]
Identifying these so-called premises would be nice. Here's a definition of "premise":
a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=premise
Now, which conclusion can be drawn from a question?
Brad misrepresents BBD's question.
***
Here's the one premise Brad identified so far: "[T]he only way the scientists could exaggerate AGW was by conspiring." This premise is absent BBD's question. BBD and Brad have been jousting over conspiracy ideation, not good ol' CAGW. All BDD needs to assume for his challenge to have merit is that providing evidence of a concerted effort to downplay AGW would show that there exists a conspiracy among climate scientists.
Brad misreads BBD.
***
Bunnies may note that Kovacs' quote does not even falsify what Brad calls a premise, viz. "[T]he only way the scientists could exaggerate AGW was by conspiring." Bunnies may also note that the assumption that Kovacs is a whistle-blower is false.
Brad mislead BBD with his Kovacs example.
***
So far, we have established that Brad misrepresents, misreads, and mislead BBD.
It was McIntyre, not Muller, who forced Mann to admit mistakes in his hockey stick and issue corrections
[citation needed]
It was McIntyre, not Muller, who forced Gergis to retract her mathematically fallacious hockey stick.
[citation needed]
It was Douglas Keenan, not the legitimate paleoclimate community, who forced Wang to flee to China when his UHI work couldn't withstand even the most basic audit.
[citation needed]
It was my "motivated auditor chums," not the respectable behavioral-sciences community, who forced Frontiers to retract Lewandowsky's joke of a "paper."
And the crank community have no comment on the scientific analysis other than hurt feelings and murky threats of legal action.
How very scientific that must rate in Keysterworld.
chek,
it was McIntyre who proved Mann lied about being investigated and exonerated by:
the Oxburgh Panel
the Muir Russell Inquiry
the UK Commons Committee
the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Change
and the NOAA OIG.
hahaha
The NAS report in 2006 concluded:
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
I guess RSpung's citations revert at base to Steve and Steyn say so?
> Mann lied about being investigated [...]
A quote might be nice.
I don't suppose we'll know any time soon the persona behind the intellectually stunted gnome that is the Keyster.
Someone so eager to tell the professionals how they should be doing their jobs; someone so fired up with purpose that they know how science should really done. Except for their hiding behind an anonymity.
My guess is a bored legal clerk in a State, never mind town, you'd have to look up on wiki.
Someone in love with McinTyres, or at least what such an entity would presume that the little spitball ex-mining exec. would mean, if it were all true.
Unfortunately for the Keyster it isn't.
Bernard J,
this is weak shit:
> Bill Koutalianos, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party, thinks that because the ABC did not have any climate scientists on yesterday’s episode of Q and A, there is not a consensus on the science of climate change.
Imagine my surprise when I clicked on your link only to find Koutalianos DIDN'T say that, did he? If you think your opponents are so stupid, why don't you paraphrase them honestly? Or am I expecting too much integrity of you, BJ?
chek:
"Someone so eager to tell the professionals how they should be doing their jobs; someone so fired up with purpose that they know how science should really done."
Just because you have literally no idea how science works and have shamed your ancestors every time you've tried to shoot your mouth off on the topic, it doesn't follow that the scientific method is especially arcane knowledge or that I'm in an elite group. Conservatively 2% of the population knows it—and most climate scientists fall in this class. A few, like Phil Jones, haven't had to use it since they graduated—but I expect they have vestigial memories of being taught about it.
Bernard J, this is weak shit
Did we just witness the moment when the Keyster achieved Transcendence?
Keyster, you're a shining example.
But you really don't want to know what you're a shining example of.
Tell us all what you do for a living Keyster, just so we can gauge your casual dismissals of those who exceed your apparent intelligence by a magnitude.
Yes, yes, I know it's not perfect, but with some regard for the truth and input from you, it'll help put your moronic imaginariums into some sort of context.
Hey, Eli, I reckon we've got about enough material for that psych conference now...
> Just because you have literally no idea how science works [...]
So far, Brad is 0/4 in his mansplanations of how science works.
His latest was conflating how science actually works with what he calls "normal science", a post hoc rationalization that justifies all kinds of conspirational theories.
"Keyes" said:
"...this is weak shit"
You know, when I typed that post I knew that you would reply, but I thought that it would be over at Deltoid. Still, I am not surprised...
The thing is Keyes, the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party thinks that the absence of climate scientists on an episode of Q and A indicates that they are "hid[ing] out", and that this occurs in the face of a public "We" that "keeps[s] hearing consensus".
Quite aside from the fact that the absence of climate scientists on a particular panel of Q and A has nothing to say about whether climate scientists are "hiding", scientific consensus is not established by the presence of climate scientists on said episode of Q and A. You might be deaf to the dog whistle but many Denialati are sensitive to the tone.
However, as you have reaised the subject here, perhpas you can explain why it mattered that there were no cliamte scientists on last Monday's Q and A, and why Bill Koutalianos is right to say that climate scientists "hide out", and what either of these two notions have to do with the "consensus"?
And for bonus points perhpas you'd like to describe the nature of that scientific consensus in your own words, and what that consensus implies for the veracity of the subject matter...
> the head of the Australian Climate Sceptics Party thinks that the absence of climate scientists on an episode of Q and A indicates that they are "hid[ing] out", and that this occurs in the face of a public "We" that "keeps[s] hearing consensus".
Citation needed.
Is this what you are looking for willard:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/04/01/april-2014-open-thread/#comment-177887
and note the Twitter link to Koutalianos's very words therein?
It is also worth noting that, contrary to the Keyester, Bernard J's characterization of the tweet is accurate.
Yes Rattus, that is something I was pleased to make clear.
I had been about to answer The Keyster's false characterisation when willard provided an alternative hook.
Here's what @IndirectAction says:
> Did anyone notice that no one on tonight's #qanda panel was a climate scientist? We keep hearing consensus but where do these guys hide out?
I don't think @IndirectAction denies there's a consensus, but that IF there's a consensus, THEN we should have a climate scientist in the #qanda.
It might be more profitable to dispute @IndirectAction's counterfactual thinking than to go a bridge too far and attack its implicature.
At the very least, we should make sure that what we attack is established via an implication, not by mind probing statements like "@IndirectAction things that".
There's no evidence that @IndirectAction's thinking is relevant here. Bunnies may even wonder if it's present at all.
Willard,
Anders refuses to let you read the following comment, which disappears "without notice or notification," as Tom Curtis put it, whenever I try to submit it at his "Free Speech" thread.
(Yes, Anders is a cowardly eunuch and his pretense of hosting an open discussion is a lie—did the lie fool you, or did you know comments were being concealed from you?)
—————————————————
Anders:
> I don’t know the specifics of the situation you mention so don’t know if what you claim to be objectively true, is actually objectively true. You haven’t provided any evidence.
Oops, I did try to post the evidence earlier—my comment got lost somewhere. Sorry about that.
In this tobacco-themed polemic by Dana Nuccitelli, Richard Lindzen is accused of denying the link between smoking and lung cancer.
(Link: www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1)
Dana has never ‘provided any evidence’ for this.
But this isn’t the first time Lindzen has been charged with tobacco denialism.
James Hansen made the same allegation, against which <a href="www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismisses-hansens-defamations/“>Lindzen defended himself forcefully</a>:
<i>”…I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order. I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma. … “</i>
> it would be great if everyone who did libel someone else would simply apologise and retract what they say. Sadly, that doesn’t often happen and is why we have the legal systems that we do.
Lindzen continued:
<i>”In his book, Hansen goes so far as to claim that I testified on behalf of the tobacco industry. This claim is absurd… I might add that I looked into the possibility of legal redress after Hansen published his book, and learned that I had neither the money nor the time to pursue such a remedy…”</i>
> What you say has to be true and defensible, especially if what you’re saying reflects on someone else.
Dana’s claim appears to fail this standard. Which is a shame, if it’s true. So I invite, and hope, and encourage, Dana to clear this up by showing that he does, in fact, have some evidence of Lindzen denying the carcinogenicity of tobacco (despite denying denying it).
Your blog would be the perfect place for Dana to repair the impression that he’s falsely maligning a brilliant and honest scientist.
Over to you, Dana.
>Objectively false libel is, however, intolerable.
I agree.
> [AT's] pretense of hosting an open discussion is a lie [...]
Brad did not provide any quote and cite for that claim.
Brad makes that claim after failing to acknowledge that he:
- misrepresented, misread, and mislead BBD;
- mansplained science incorrectly many times;
- pretends he's seeking dialog while abusing just about every maxims of conversation.
Bunnies may also note that the very sentence Brad disputes in Dana's article contains a link to an article in which we read:
> Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
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.
When Anna met Dick for the first time:
> Cautiously and slowly, I start to walk in [Dick’s house] anyway. But then I halt. Stale cigarette smokes hit me like a wave. The stench is so overpowering that I start coughing and have to retreat back to the front steps. I’d read the profiles of Lindzen that mentioned is chain-smoking, of course, but I hadn’t imagined this challenge when preparing for a meeting.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/23797951282
Wilard
> [AT's] pretense of hosting an open discussion is a lie [...]
> Brad did not provide any quote and cite for that claim.
The pretense (not CLAIM) of hosting an open discussion is inherent in the act of hosting a comment thread with rules/policies.
It is a lie because you're only allowed to read some of what the other participants are trying to say to you—and you're not even allowed to know what was hidden from you. And the reasons given hiding it (if any) never seem to come from the ostensible Moderation Policy. And they frequently lie to you about the nature of the thing hidden!
Why hang out where the host won’t let you see what he’s seen?
Why hang out where you, the reader, are treated like a fucking child?
You say I:
> - misrepresented, misread, and mislead BBD;
Huh? I don’t remember that.
Are you talking about when GSW and Stu2 and I:
— identified BBD’s comments, correctly, as indicating “conspiracist ideation”
— insisted on obeying a single, correct definition of the term
And to thank us for showing him the error of his ways, BBD spent 2 (two) entire days:
— handwaving about how, if you ignore the dictionary, he couldn’t possibly be conspiracist-ideating according to Lewandowsky’s premise
— calling us deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what ‘conspiracist ideation’ actually means despite being enmired in it themselves, you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation, it is a lie, lying is wrong GSW, your incessant accusations are false, are you denying this matter of fact?, are you mad?, you are simply flailing around with your pig’s bladder on a stick because you don’t know what else to do, careful you don’t trip over it and end up on your arse, avoid making a grotesque prat out of yourself in public, why does Donors Trust exist?, fuck but I loathe “Brad Keyes,” one of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg Foxgoose, off you fuck, there’s a good chap, whenever we meet Brad gets his nose gets metaphorically broken, why won't the GWPF disclose even its seed donor?, but why the secrecy?, you’re delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit, your commentary about me is mostly vicious lies, your activity here nothing more than a smear campaign, I am a little surprised that you have been permitted to carry on for so long, sociopathic liars who will not admit their errors should be shut out, watch Brad try and bury this yet again in another spew of nonsense and lies, the misrepresentation upon which his "argument" rests, GSW isn't very bright, Brad has no such excuse and can be presumed to be acting in bad faith, as usual, a sustained attempt at delegitimisation, the usual Brad shit in other word, wasting time again with silly evasions, you screwed up, I did warn you that you were confused, right at the outset, but on you went anyway, reduced to risible evasions, Yes. Sociopath. Manipulator. Own worst enemy: The frog and the scorpion, you were wrong, you have misrepresented me as a conspiracy theorist, please explain your intransigence, your blog post is defamatory, you remain stuffed, Brad has inserted a misleading non-definition, he is defaming me on his blog, do you understand this definition now?, you have made an arse of yourself, the problem arises with your bizarre warping of the language.
And lo!, on the third day, Stu 2 did say unto BBD that with respect to his questions and aggressive assertions and personal definition, it was very likely one of those occasions when BBD was in the ‘not right’ category.
At which point BBD quietly admitted, “Yup. I misread Lewandowsky.”
Please explain how it is that I owe BBD an apology, Willard. Because species higher than bunnies will see the debt as going in precisely the opposite direction.
Willard,
You say I have
> - mansplained science incorrectly many times;
That’s awful. Please quote these alleged bad mansplanations so that I can apologise for, retract and fix up each and every one of them. It is crucial that we get rid of as much as we can of the misinformation, deliberate and otherwise, that’s circulating about how science works.
> - pretends he's seeking dialog while abusing just about every maxims of conversation.
Is it possible to abuse maxims one has never even heard of??
> Bunnies may also note that the very sentence Brad disputes in Dana's article contains a link to an article in which we read:
> > Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.
> 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.
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.
Let me restate what Dana doesn’t want you to know:
Gossip IS NOT evidence, no matter how many people repeat it.
Dana has merely quoted another person who espouses the same myth about Lindzen. That person probably quotes Dana for all I know/care! It’s a cheap, circular, incestuous, fallacious Vegas trick. I’m actually surprised you’d fall for it, Willard.
> Testimony is NOT a form of evidence.
Then Brad might have a hard time finding evidence of Dick's beliefs.
***
> It’s a cheap, circular, incestuous, fallacious Vegas trick.
It's still refutes Brad's claim that Dana has not provided evidence.
The Keyster wailed: it’s TESTIMONY!
Which somehow is magically supposed to let people off from words they've freely uttered being reported.
Only in a Keysterworld.
What would The World's Greatest Keyster offer instead? Only those words witnessed by a thousand blessed and sanctified virgins, perhaps?
Or only those words witnessed by corporately endowed lawyers?
You do actually realise what you're doing don't you Keyster, all in order to prop up your little fantasy world?
> Huh? I don’t remember that.
V. 22/4/14 10:13 AM
***
> [S]pecies higher than bunnies will see the debt as going in precisely the opposite direction.
Brad would owe an apology to BBD for the same reasons BBD would owe Brad an apology, i.e. misrepresentations and verbal abuses.
> The pretense (not CLAIM) of hosting an open discussion is inherent in the act of hosting a comment thread with rules/policies.
Brad pretends that any moderated blog is not open. Defining an open discussion as something "unmoderated" is refuted by XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/1357/
Incidentally, this was AT's argument in the blog post Brad failed to quote and cite:
This really brings me to the main reason for writing this post. It was really just an excuse to post the cartoon below which – I think – summarises the position succinctly and accurately.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/free-speech/
Hence the need to provide a quote and a cite.
* * *
Just like some of our Internet ancestors conflated free speech and free beer, Brad conflates an open discussion with an open house.
Willard,
No! You've got my meaning BACKWARDS here!
> > The pretense (not CLAIM) of hosting an open discussion is inherent in the act of hosting a comment thread with rules/policies.
> Brad pretends that any moderated blog is not open. Defining an open discussion as something "unmoderated" is refuted by XKCD:
But as I used "pretense" ambiguously, your misunderstanding is...er, understandable. What I meant is: By hosting a comment thread, with rules/policies designed to protect civil discourse, you ARE purporting to host an open discussion.
I am NOT saying moderation rules are incompatible with open discussion.
I am NOT suggesting open discussion requires zero moderation.
Moderation is absolutely compatible with open discussion, and may even promote it, PROVIDED it is transparent, honest and consistent with stated or obvious principles/rules/policies.
Get it now, Willard?
By HOSTING a comment thread, and ostensibly having Moderation Policies, Anders claims/purports/professes to be hosting an open discussion.
That pretence is, in Anders' case, false.
He does not follow his own Moderation Policies—he probably hasn't given them a second thought since the day he wrote them. They're just boilerplate bullshit.
Anders invisibly, arbitrarily deletes comments he doesn't want you to read.
I know because I've submitted some of those comments myself.* I can only imagine how many other people's comments are also erased before we even get to read them.
Anders is CHEATING YOU, WILLARD.
He is pretending to host a space that allows other people to converse with you, but he's covertly controlling what they are and are not able to say to you.
*And no, my comments weren't in violation of the letter or spirit of any Moderation Policy that's ever been mentioned—I take great care not to give Rachel/Anders an easy excuse to delete me. Nor do my deleted comments insult anyone. Their only crime was to mention something (like Dana's libel) that Anders is too paranoid to let you read. They're a threat to the narrative Anders feels responsible for maintaining.
So no, I do NOT equate "open" with "anything goes" but rather with "fair." Limits on what you can say MAY be necessary, but they must be PRINCIPLED. The moderator must NOT seek to "win" or "control" or "shape" the conversation to his own whims by arbitrarily destroying comments that abide by the rules (and, of course, leaving others intact which violate them).
Tom Curtis' comment nailed it:
"There is only one case that genuinely represents censorship in moderation IMO. That is when you pretend to have an open discussion about a particular topic while deleting without notice or notification your opponents evidence, and arguments."
Tom's clearly indignant at the kind of shit that goeas on at SkS, and rightly so.
But he doesn't seem aware that what he condemns is happening AS HE SPEAKS, right there, at Anders.
It seems to me then Keyster that your only option in the wake of all your blog travels is to manage your own blog and the five or six airheads who might look up to you.
Elsewhere, you're reaping what you've sewed.
> The pretense (not CLAIM) [...]
To repeat, the CLAIM was this one:
[AT's] pretense of hosting an open discussion is a lie [...]
Brad may not have been clear on that either. Here are definitions of lie:
lie, prevarication (a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=LIE
To provide evidence of Lindzen's alleged tobacco denialism you must quote and cite.
Anyone credulous enough to think the hearsay testimony of one of Lindzen's opponents paraphrasing what Lindzen said, or meant, or thought constitutes EVIDENCE is begging to be deluded.
chek:
"... words they've freely uttered being reported."
This is exactly the kind of bullshit I mean. You climate gullibilists make the rest of us laugh!
Willard is right: there should be fewer than 1 cheks in the world, if only to protect the brand. You're powerfully skeptogenic, chek.
> my comments weren't in violation of the letter or spirit of any Moderation Policy that's ever been mentioned
Brad again forgets to cite what he's talking about. Here are the policies:
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/moderation-policy/
Here are some items:
Libel/defamatory: If you’re going to accuse someone of something, either have evidence or make it very clear that it is your opinion.
Brad never defames anyone.
* * *
Thread-bombing: As much as I enjoy getting comments on my posts, try to avoid bombing a thread with lots of unrelated comments. Try to stick to one conversation at a time.
Brad never bombs threads.
* * *
Being disruptive: If you’re going to make a comment, try to make it constructive and in context, rather than simply a comment aimed at disrupting a thread.
Brad never disrupts threads.
* * *
Brad never defames, boms or disrupts threads. And we have not more than 500 comments on this thread alone.
Willard,
why do you manufacture objections to everything I say? You KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that there is a metaphorical sense of the word "lie," which you've deliberately omitted to mention. Fuck your continual goddamn gamesmanship, Willard. You're wasting my time and nobody could be stupid enough to think you're winning points by it.
Thus, now you force me to copy and paste the obvious:
lie 2 |lʌɪ|
noun
an intentionally false statement: they hint rather than tell outright lies | the whole thing is a pack of lies.
• used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression: all their married life she had been living a lie.
Next time you pedantically feign obtuseness just to avoid acknowledging my point you can go fuck yourself, time-waster.
> I take great care not to give Rachel/Anders an easy excuse to delete me.
Let's see:
Brad uses a comment to rehash old Dick stories.
Brad bombs the thread with it.
Brad obviously defames Dana using a wrong concept of evidence.
And now Brad plays the ref.
The claim that Brad takes great care has been falsified.
You have powerful ju-ju belief in your own claims, Keyster.
Here's the way it works in the real world, as opposed to Keysterworld: if you want to discount somebodies testimony, you first have to show them to be unreliable witnesses.
Not because you'd prefer them to be unreliable, not because it helps you and wish they were, but because you can show it beyond a doubt. Of course you can't show it or you would. So huffing and puffing and citing your own made-up KeysterWorld rules is all you can do.
> used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression [...]
Good, let's retake Brad's new wording:
[Brad's New Whining] Anders is a cowardly eunuch and his pretense of hosting an open discussion is deceptive.
Brad's New Whining is a CLAIM. Not that the pretense is a claim. Not that a lie is a claim.
Brad's claim is a claim, for fuck's sake.
***
AT's is so deceptive that Brad takes "great care not to give [...]an easy excuse to delete" him.
Now, I want bunnies to think about what this entails.
AT is so deceptive that Brad tries real hard not to be easily deleted.
Now, that shows how deceptive AT is.
Brad bombs threads after threads, defames just about every person he mentions and now plays the ref because his comments got deleted.
But AT is the one who is deceptive here.
***
> Next time you pedantically feign obtuseness just to avoid acknowledging my point you can go fuck yourself, time-waster.
So now Brad pretends I don't answer his point. Brad's point has been refuted and his playing the ref has no merit.
That's just great. Is Brad the best that can emerge from the contrarian debaters?
I'm sure BBD sends the same regards to Brad.
***
Let's recall XKCD's point:
IF YOU'RE YELLED AT, BOYCOTTED, HAVE YOUR SHOW CANCELED, OR GET BANNED FROM AN INTERNET COMMUNITY, YOUR FREE SPEECH AREN'T BEING VIOLATED.
There are two hypothesis. The first is that AT is deceptive. The second is the one XKCD promotes:
IT'S JUST THAT PEOPLE LISTENING THINK YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE, AND THEY'RE SHOWING YOU THE DOOR.
If Brad believes that his tentatives to exploit situations using deception or mistaken impressions go unnoticed, then he's a sorry chap.
> To provide evidence of Lindzen's alleged tobacco denialism you must quote and cite.
I have no idea where Brad takes his "tobacco denialism", for here's Dana's paragraph:
In the end, the Weekly Standard piece revisits comparisons between Lindzen and Galileo. There's one major difference between the two: Galileo was right. His positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence, and they withstood scientific scrutiny and the test of time. Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right. 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.
Dick does not seem to deny that there's a link, only that it's a weak one:
Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. His parents arrived in the United States from Germany in 1938, two years before his birth. His father, a bootmaker, worked in a shoe factory in Massachusetts but eventually moved his family to the Bronx in New York City to live in a Jewish community. Lindzen won a scholarship to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and tranferred to Harvard a year later. An interest in ham radio piqued his curiosity about how the atmosphere affects radio waves, and this led him to meteorology.
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
Here are the definitions of evidence:
http://vdict.com/evidence,7,0,0.html
What Dana provided could very well satisfy these definitions.
***
Instead of disputing Dana's evidence basis, Brad prefers to claim that Dana has no evidence.
Instead of accepting that Dick's endorse many contrarian disbeliefs, including some witnessed incredulity regarding the evidence base we have connecting cigarettes and cancer, Brad goes berserk.
Willard,
> I have no idea where Brad takes his "tobacco denialism", for here's Dana's paragraph:
UPDATE:
It seems my harassment of Dana has paid off! The snivelling little fuckwit has quietly modified his lie:
"The above figure caption has been revised to reflect that Lindzen doesn't necessarily deny smoking causes cancer, but he is 'skeptical' about the strength of the link."
So Willard,
how does it feel, knowing you wasted hundreds of words defending an indefensible libel, only to have the fake scientist who perpetrated it in the first place pussy out like the lying piece of shit he knows he is?
Guess this makes you the slowest kid on the block!
Anyway, please resist the temptation to learn any kind of lesson from this, Willard—keep standing up for for The Pseudoscientists™ even after they've scurried off their own ship—no matter how humiliating it is, rats must be loyal.
LOL!
> It seems my harassment of Dana has paid off!
So Brad harassing Dana.
At AT's.
About something unrelated.
While bombing a thread.
While whining about being moderated.
Invoking the wrong principle.
With a claim that is either absurd or question-begging, i.e. a pretense that is a lie.
On another blog (Eli's).
In another thread he bombed.
For a caption.
A caption Brad failed to disclose.
That was misrepresented by Brad.
That got replaced with a revised text that repeats what Dana said in the text.
A revised text that is consistent with what I have claimed so far, i.e. that Dana provided evidence about Dick's smoking disbeliefs.
A claim that contradicts Brad's empty assertion.
An empty assertion that rests on a concept of evidence that can be contradicted by playing his own silly dictionary game.
After misreading, misrepresenting, and abusing BBD.
Brad certainly deserves this victory.
A victory that would make Pyrrho quite proud.
Well played, Brad!
You gotta hand it to the Keyster.
He works very hard for his lulz whilst changing nothing.
chek,
Check this out:
Brad Keyes, no comment I made at And Then There’s Physics was a criticism of moderation at Skeptical Science, and if you have so interpreted it, you have misinterpreted me. I note that on your interpretation, I contradicted myself in that I endorse as not being censorship procedures very similar to moderation procedures as SkS, but which you describe me as criticizing. That is because you do not understand what I wrote. Not because of any contradiction in my opinion. I further note that SkS have an active moderation policy that moderators should not comment on the same threads that they moderate, which precludes the situation I describe from arising. I do not consider you a rational disputant, so I will not bother responding to the misrepresentation or stupidity your present in response to this post.
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/censorship-is-bravery/#comment-980
Compare and contrast with what was said earlier:
> Tom Curtis' comment nailed it: [...]
Willard, I think it was Dickens in his middle career period who was paid by the word, but an older commenter really has him nailed:
it is a tale
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
If I was recovering from surgery or somesuch, it might be an interesting pastime to count how many truckloads of words he and his socks can generate in a week, but as the limit of his powers seems to be how many denier myths he can regurgitate, and tales of his victimisation it would hardly be of much interest.
Which isn't to say there may not bee rich pickings there for somebody in the right field to make hay with.
Willard,
sigh. I thought you'd given up. Clearly I overestimated your good sense.
> So Brad harassing Dana.
> At AT's.
And on Twitter; don't forget Twitter. People always forget Twitter.
> About something unrelated.
It would help if you read Anders' post. But I'll save you some time by highlighting the pertinent sentence:
"What you say has to be true and defensible, especially if it reflects on somebody else."
In other words (as Anders says in the comments below), "Objectively false libel is intolerable."
Dana's hit piece on Lindzen is therefore not "something unrelated" to the topic of the thread. On the contrary, its relevance is self-explanatory. (Except to you.)
Questions surrounding Dana's libel certainly have more to do with "Free Speech" than the lengthy discussion of extreme weather event trends which was, oddly enough, tolerated without deletion.
> While bombing a thread.
You famous ability to have a coherent thought seems to be fraying under the strain of humiliation, Willard.
"Bombing a thread" is defined as introducing a plethora of unrelated topics into a thread. (You yourself quoted this definition—have you forgotten already?)
Exactly how you think it's possible to "bomb a thread" by mentioning a single, intimately relevant, topic boggles the mind!
> For a caption.
> A caption Brad failed to disclose.
Fortunately I copied it before it was "revised":
"The Weekly Standard's Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen also denies cause cancer"
> That was misrepresented by Brad.
How telling: you've conveniently "failed to disclose" how I "misrepresented" the caption!
Probably a smart move, since I didn't misrepresent the caption at all. You've stooped to outright fiction now, Willard.
> That got replaced with a revised text that repeats what Dana said in the text.
LOL! You're throwing yourself into your career as a fiction writer with zeal, aren't you?
The evidence-free thing "Dana said in the text" is:
"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."
The evidence-free thing said in the caption is:
"The Weekly Standard's Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen is also 'skeptical' cause cancer."
Just because these claims have a common failing—they're both offered without a shred of defending evidence—it doesn't follow that they're repetitions of each other.
Except in your mind.
> After misreading, misrepresenting, and abusing BBD.
ROFL! This is too funny—you must be the last person on earth who's still in denial about BBD's ideation! Psst, Willard: even BBD knows he was wrong.
"Yup. I misread Lewandowsky...My intemperate language and errors have been plastered about at Eli’s, but it makes no fucking difference to the big picture at all... Which might in part explain the sustained kicking he gave me over the conspiracist ideation gaffe at Eli’s."
Misread. Errors. Gaffe. Hello? Earth to Willard: the Emperor has acknowledged his non-divinity to Allied High Command and asked the Japanese people to put down their bayonets. You can come out of the jungle any time now. Really. Game over, dude.
To be sure, BBD is still trying to bargain with the facts (this changes nothing! it's all trivia! trivia, I say!). Psychologists can't say how long it will take him to progress to the next stage: apology.
All they know for sure is: no matter how reality-delayed BBD might be, you'll always be two steps behind. Banzai!
:-)
Willard,
I should be appalled—but sadly, I'm not even surprised—by how glibly you admit BBD argues in bad faith "all the time":
> 'I’d be willing to bet they’ll continue to use the same “show me where in the literature or I win” gambit on [...]'
Everyone is allowed to use that move. BBD, to name a name, used it all the time. What ain’t in the lichurchur ain’t in the lichurchur.
ClimateBallers who refuse to admit this have tougher times moving their ball onward.
You don't even seem to be embarrassed by this.
I think you should be. I think it's embarrassing.
Normal, honest people request to know the evidence because they want to know the evidence.
What kind of disingenuous, time-wasting wanker demands evidence as a tactic?
> Questions surrounding Dana's libel certainly have more to do with "Free Speech" [...]
Anything can be said to have something to do with Free Speech. AT's post was about moderation and the stupidity of invoking free speech when moderated. Brad simply tried to exploit AT's use of the word "libel" in the comment thread.
Had Brad any experience in journalism, he would know that a caption is not the author's responsibility, but the editors. Editing errors like that happens all the time. It might have been wiser to contact the Guardian's editor than to go whine at AT's.
Trying to peddle this story into AT's just after was irrelevant, cheap, and obnoxious. Worse, it could easily be moderated out by invoking the rules, which contradicts Brad's claim that he "great care not to give Rachel/Anders an easy excuse to delete me".
***
Recently, Brad tried to whine at Brandon's. Brandon may not have appreciated:
> Brad Keyes, I think your comments are often lengthy and barely topical. That, combined with the openly hostile tone of many of them makes it hard to see why people should be bothered if you get moderated. I think Anders or Rachel could have reasonably deleted all your comments about Dana Nuccitelli’s Guardian piece just by saying they were off-topic.
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/censorship-is-bravery/#comment-986
Our emphasis.
Brad - I'm not sure where you think you're going. Lindzen has been a well-known denier of the tobacco-cancer link for more than two decades.
Remember the game plan- cast doubt. So what does he say?
"The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."
Now, why did he add the 'but'? Oh, that's right, it helps to cast doubt. And that's for primary smoking and lung cancer.
He goes much further with passive smoke. When a scientist says that a link is weak it is the same as saying that the link is unconvincing.
I am a nicotine addict as were both my parents. I know firsthand the effects of both primary smoke and secondhand smoke. It doesn't take a genius to discern these effects. Lindzen follows the typical denialist gameplan of looking for the outlier studies that cast doubt on the main body of evidence.
In short, we know that smoking leads to a myriad of health complications. Many smokers will ultimately die as a result of smoking. We also know that passive smoke can have detrimental effects on otherwise healthy non-smokers - not to mention non-smokers with asthma or other respiratory problems. These are facts. There is no doubt about it. As a smoker I wish it were otherwise, but it's not.
And as for climate change, we should remember that Lindzen was willing to take James Annan's 2004 bet that global temperatures would be significantly colder twenty years later - but ONLY at odds of 50:1
Based on that can't we conclude that Lindzen thought circa 2004 that there was only a 2% chance of significantly cooler temperatures over that time period?
At the end of the day Brad just likes arguing about arguing, in this light following exchanges with Brad becomes like 'watching paint dry' - tedious in the extreme.
Maybe this thread's title would be changed to 'The Mysterious Mr Keyes' were there any worthwhile mystery as to why he behaves thus.
Perhaps Mr Keyes has donated his brain to science. The wiring diagram could certainly be interesting if only to 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' as a lesson in what not to repeat.
Willard,
Congatulations. You've plumbed new depths:
> a caption is not the author's responsibility, but the editors. Editing errors like that happens all the time.
I'd have paid good money to see Dana argue in court that he had no idea, for 3 months, that such a gross misunderstanding had occurred because he.... er... doesn't read The Guardian. LOL
I drew it to Dana's attention at The Guardian, as did other commenters, in threads Dana himself condescended to frequent.
"The Guardian editor" deleted the questions, but not without giving Dana ample time to see them.
Naturally, I Tweeted him about it for good measure. (With today's fake scientists you should never rely on a single medium of harassment to get an idea through their thick skulls.)
> It might have been wiser to contact the Guardian's editor than to go whine at AT's. Trying to peddle this story into AT's just after was irrelevant, cheap, and obnoxious.
Of course it was obnoxious. It had to be obnoxious. Sufficiently obnoxious to finally force Dana to walk back his libel... after 3 months of brazening it out.
> Worse, it could easily be moderated out by invoking the rules
But it wasn't, was it? My comment was merely mutilated to protect Dana's identity, on the bogus pretext that I "hadn't provided evidence." How do I know this was bogus? Because when I DID provide evidence, Anders suddenly didn't want to know about it.
> Recently, Brad tried to whine at Brandon's. Brandon may not have appreciated:
Wow—I'm surprised you consider Brandon's opinion worth quoting. That's unlike you, Willard.
While Brandon is normally an insightful commentator—and I applaud your new-found interest in his writing, Willard!—on this occasion (with all due respect) he had no idea what he was talking about. Had he actually read the ATTP thread, which he admits he had no interest in doing, he would have known that my comments there are surprisingly free of all trace of overt hostility. Unfortunately it seems Brandon simply extrapolated from my uncompromisingly honest writing at Izuru and assumed that I always communicate the moral outrage of my generation with the same incendiary clarity wherever I go. Not so—I am a past master of the art of Hide My Hate!
> Had he actually read the ATTP thread [...]
Brandon did not need to read the thread attentively to confirm that Brad bombs threads with confrontational off-topic rants.
Brandon does not need to read the thread to get that "specific instances of wrongdoing by commenters on other sites isn’t topical.":
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/censorship-is-bravery/#comment-990
This contradicts Brad's claim that his comments at AT's were on topic. Only one or two were. And they contained enough confrontational content to have been deleted.
Kevin,
thanks for your questions, which deserve to be taken seriously.
> Lindzen has been a well-known denier of the tobacco-cancer link for more than two decades.
Even Dana and The Guardian are no longer willing to say that, presumably because they know there's zero evidence for it. Plenty of "well-known" things are imaginary. This is one of them, as far as I can tell.
> Remember the game plan- cast doubt.
What makes you think Lindzen has subscribed to that game plan? Or to any game plan? Whose plan, exactly, are you talking about?
> Now, why did he add the 'but'?
For the normal reason—there's semantic tension between the first and second clauses of his sentence. (Otherwise 'and' would have been the appropriate conjunction.)
Or are you asking why he even mentioned the Japanese studies at all?
I don't know, but I'll take a stab and say that like all truly curious scientists he's disproportionately interested in those recalcitrant, rebellious data points that most people are content to write off as "outliers." It's those bizarre results which (if they're reproducible and not just mistakes) spur the most discovery. If we hope to nail down the question of HOW tobacco smoke inhalation "causes" the neoplastic process to get underway in the respiratory system, which is still unclear, then the knowledge that some minority of people seem to have a comparative genetic protection against this chain of cellular mishaps, whereas others are more susceptible to it, is an intriguing clue which it would be insane to ignore.
That's (honestly) why I'd assume a scientist like Lindzen would mention it. I don't see why one should read any more into it.
> Oh, that's right, it helps to cast doubt.
Realy? Does it?
How? Lindzen has already agreed: "The case for lung cancer is very good." How can he cast doubt on something he's already stipulated is true? All he's saying, it seems to me, is that smoking is MORE dangerous for people with certain genotypes, and LESS dangerous for others (according to Japanese studies).
> I am a nicotine addict as were both my parents.
Careful—"Anna" might visit your house and describe how smoky it is, and then Willard would use that as narrative evidence that you deny the link between smoking and cancer. See above—he uses that "logic" for Lindzen.
> Lindzen follows the typical denialist gameplan of looking for the outlier studies that cast doubt on the main body of evidence.
Again: how do outliers, suggestive of a heterogeneous distribution of risk throughout the population, cast any doubt on the basic fact that smoking is risky?
> Based on that can't we conclude that Lindzen thought circa 2004 that there was only a 2% chance of significantly cooler temperatures over that time period?
No—most people aren't gamblers, and will only risk betting if the upside is really, really tempting. For all we know Lindzen might think the odds are 40%, but insist on a disproportionately high payout to justify putting his name on the line. It's impossible to tell. You're reading a lot into a little, I think.
Kevin,
Notice this comment at AT's regarding
> The tradition of crying “censorship” when your comments have been erased may come across as a tad melodramatic but to call it delusional would be equally… er, melodramatic. For starters, they don’t literally believe they’ve been silenced anywhere else. But put yourself in a human’s shoes for a second, Joshua: you’ve spent considerable time crafting the best argument of which your finite intellect is capable—then you’ve submitted it to someone else’s blog in good faith (90% of the time)—yet rather than responding to your idea, or even just ignoring it, they’ve deleted it. If that thought doesn’t piss you off then I dare say motivation is interfering with your empathic faculties. If your first instinct in that situation was to cry “censorship!”, it would strike me as pretty pompous and—in your words—”out of touch” for a third party to object on jurisprudential grounds. Sure, Oliver Wendell Holmes must be rolling in his grave every time a dissatisfied customer of a censorious blog uses the term so loosely, but until you can suggest a better way [for the common man, who lacks a Law degree] to express the unpleasantness of being redacted from a comment thread, don’t be surprised if (normal, lucid, oriented) keep blurting out the first word that comes to mind.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/free-speech/#comment-20064
Now, replace calls to censorship with calls to denial.
Let's hope Brad is not surprised when people consider that what Dick says amounts to denial.
Let's hope Brad does not consider himself melodramatic.
Willard,
> Only one or two were. And they contained enough confrontational content to have been deleted.
LOL. This is too good. You've resorted to the argument from hallucination now! I must really have you on the back foot.
All my comments were premoderated, Willard—and had been ever since Anders and Rachel grasped (long ago) how dangerous my denier rhetoric was. I'm surprised it took them so long to figure out they had to ban me altogether.
So they were "deleted" before they were even published. The fact that you even have opinions about their "content" is suggestive of a false memory syndrome. Reality check, dude: you've never seen my "deleted" comments.
I have. They were mostly superhumanly polite.
I'm well aware—because it's common knowledge—that Anders is... subnormal. Unlike any other blogger, he can't handle "confrontational" comments. And I knew this; I was always keenly aware that intellectual "confrontation" could break Anders' brain. What kind of insensitive oaf do you think I am? I tailored my words specially for his fragile mind.
Alas, it wasn't enough. Some ideas just can't be made accessible to the differently-scientific.
Kevin,
You might be interested in this:
http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=lindzen
More than 200 hits for "lindzen" in the Heartland Institute's Policy Bot.
There's this link:
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/heartlander-july-august-2009-full-text
Notice the section titles:
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL RETREAT
SCIENTISTS, ECONOMISTS CHALLENGE ALARMISM
CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED
ENVIRONMENT UPDATE
REPORT CARD RANKS INSURANCE CLIMATES
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
BUDGET AND TAX
SMOKING BANS, TOBACCO TAXES
HEALTH CARE
IT and TELECOM
SCHOOL REFORM
LEGAL REFORM
CORE PARTNERSHIP
REDISCOVERING BLACK CONSERVATISM
CONGRATULATIONS!
Thus we can say that, in Heartland's Institute policy documents, only five sections separate "climate change" from "smoking bans" and "tobacco taxes".
That does not imply that Dick denies anything, of course. That would be very wrong. Liable, according to some.
> So they were "deleted" before they were even published.
Brad's grasp of the publication process knows no bound.
So Brad gets moderated at the Guardian.
Then Brad goes whining at AT's.
Then at Eli's.
Then at Brandon's.
And now again at Eli's.
Has Brad whined at his own blog?
Not yet.
Brad - You are not reading honestly. There is no reason for the 'but' other than to denigrate the main point; that smoking causes severe health effects often resulting in cancer.
As you yourself point out, the outlier studies should not cast doubt on the basic scientific point. The question then is why some always mention the outliers without reinforcing the main point.
Had Lindzen repeatedly said, "Despite some studies that suggest genetics may play a part in contracting cancer, there is little doubt that smoking is akin to playing russian roulette with your life." Then no one would be questioning his motives.
It is of little value to claim genetics can save you when few of us will ever know whether we have the right gene set. Lindzen has no good reason to bring up the Japanese study except to cast doubt on the major point. His pronouncements are public statements made to lay audiences - not scientific papers that need to cover every caveat. That you refuse to acknowledge this and seek a semantic explanation shows the inherent dishonesty in your argument.
Remember, Lindzen told the interviewer that laws banning public smoking were simply political; that they had no basis in science. You skipped over his 'weak link' comments, but they do not disappear just because you didn't address them. I try to be a charitable reader and read honestly. One cannot read Lindzen's comments and come away believing he has been misunderstood based on some nebulous notion of how a scientist thinks or speaks.
Regarding the climate bet: Lindzen's name was *already* on the line claiming it would be cooler in 2024 compared to 2004. The bet - as most of them are - was intended to see if people espousing this view *really* believe that. If Lindzen was truly convinced that it would be cooler 20 years hence, then *he* could have given the 50:1 odds and taken the easy money. Again, you choose not to read honestly. In fact, many people when offering an opinion they do *not* have much confidence in will conclude by saying, 'but I wouldn't bet on it.'
For instance, Brad Keyes could be correct - but I wouldn't bet on it.
> Brad Keyes could be correct - but I wouldn't bet on it.
Bunnies will also note that Dick alleges that he read "the studies" regarding second-hand smoke and presents himself as someone who can evaluate the strength of statistical relationships.
So I wouldn't bet that Dick ignores what refusing a 50:1 odds bet means to those who know how statistical relationships work.
willard - yes, he was an MIT professor - it should go without saying that he probably can do all the necessary calculations in his head quicker than I can get them from a calculator.
You're right, Kevin: Dick was an MIT professor. This information appears from time to time on Heartland Institute's website. For instance:
> Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
https://heartland.org/richard-lindzen
But you say "was". Does it mean Dick's not professor there anymore?
Let's check:
> Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Faculty
http://cgcs.mit.edu/people/lindzen-richard
Hmmm. There's some ambiguity here.
***
In any case, recall Brad's answer:
> No—most people aren't gamblers, and will only risk betting if the upside is really, really tempting.
Brad does not seem to have provided evidence of the second fact.
Brad also seems to presume that it takes some kind of "gambling know how" to take a 50:1 odds bet on an event one claims is likely to happen.
In any case, notice that Brad's response seems to presume that he himself understands such betting problem better than Dick, as it implicitly concedes the point you make.
***
Another interesting page where "Lindzen" can be associated with a smoke and mirrors campaign:
Senator Stephen Fielding paid his own way to Washington DC to listen to such experts as Dr Richard Lindzen (MIT), Dr Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics), and Dr Roy Spencer (NASA and University of Alabama-Huntsville) who dispute claims that the ``debate is over'' or that global warming is a crisis. These scientists are not ``noisy naysayers''. Every one of them has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature on climate more frequently than has Mr England.
The Heartland Institute was not ``made famous for its view that smoking is not a health hazard''. It is famous for its 25-year record of producing credible research on a wide range of public policy issues, for the 120 distinguished academics and 150 elected officials who serve on its advisory boards, and for its reputation for independence and high-quality research. The only people who think otherwise are the
folks who have made careers out of lying to people about the science of public policy issues, a list that grew one name longer with the publication of Mr England's essay.
http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2009/06/17/heartland-replies-matthew-englands-ugly-and-dishonest-essay
I'm not sure how "procucing credible research" contradicts being "made famous for its view that smoking is not a health hazard".
Anyway, bunnies may note that Dick and smoking are only separated by a paragraph, now.
Kevin,
Just to be clear, I agree that this...
> "Despite some studies that suggest genetics may play a part in contracting cancer, there is little doubt that smoking is akin to playing russian roulette with your life."
... is a more aesthetically and morally satisfying way of saying the same thing. Well put.
I think all "denier" atmospheric scientists ought to have some such pre-prepared line handy just in case an Arts graduate like "Anna" tries to entrap them into saying something that can then be quote-mined to sound almost like a subliminal pro-smoking, or smoking-agnostic, message.
After all, the problem with a nuanced, paragraph-long answer is that not everyone will have the time and/or intellectual curiosity and/or honesty to read the whole paragraph, e.g.:
"The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to. I'm simply saying anything in science requires you look at it. You know, I have always found it profoundly offensive that to question something indicates you're doing something wrong. It pays to look at the studies. Have you read the studies?"
Brad - it's not a matter for agreement or disagreement. There is *no* justifiable excuse for the 'but' - and the reason I say you're reading dishonestly is because you also ignore the history. Lindzen was in league with TASSC in the early 90's. They were using him as a source then and he has never disavowed those sentiments - he has reinforced them.
Face it, you're defending the indefensible.
Kevin:
> It is of little value to claim genetics can save you when few of us will ever know whether we have the right gene set.
Who said "genetics can save you"? Not Lindzen. Where did you hear such a thing?
You're obviously right—such a "claim" makes no sense, or would make no sense if anyone had advanced it, given that "few of us will ever know whether we have the right gene set." This is so clear, I suspect even blue-collar workers, single mums and other muggles (non-scientists) might just be capable of working it out on their own! The less mentally-impoverished ones, at any rate.
But of course I wouldn't bet on it. ;-D If the sad history of the climate movement has taught us anything, it's that the muggle population still hasn't mastered the whole "thinking" thing.
> His pronouncements are public statements made to lay audiences - not scientific papers that need to cover every caveat.
Er, yes. That's self-explanatory.
> That you refuse to acknowledge this and seek a semantic explanation shows the inherent dishonesty in your argument.
No, it just shows my interest in semantics, particularly when answering questions like What does this person mean?
I've always found semantics—the study of meaning—useful in these situations.
(BTW, I *do* acknowledge it. See above. Just because I consider a point too banal and insufficiently relevant to bother mentioning, it doesn't follow that I consider it false.)
> Remember, Lindzen told the interviewer that laws banning public smoking were simply political; that they had no basis in science.
I must admit I didn't understand his point there, which seems (the way he expressed it) to be based on a false dichotomy. As Lindzen himself points out, it's inconsiderate for you, as a smoker, to smoke in the vicinity/airspace of someone you don't know; the other person may find it objectionable; and if he or she suffers asthma, you might even trigger or exacerbate it by smoking in his or her face.
Therefore the case for having codes of behavior (whether etiquette or law) that disapprove of smoking in a restaurant pretty much makes itself, and so can't really be called "purely" political. Even if we don't have "science" telling us that non-smokers find smoking obnoxious (and sometimes even asthma-inducing), there's still a good, "apolitical" argument to prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces: non-smokers find smoking obnoxious (and sometimes even asthma-inducing).
That's why it's a false dichotomy, or if you like a non sequitur, to assume that anything not directly derived from peer-reviewed scientific articles is ergo "purely political."
> You skipped over his 'weak link' comments, but they do not disappear just because you didn't address them.
No, but (assuming you're talking about the passive-smoking question here?) I do have every right to skip over controversies I don't know enough about to adjudicate. But perhaps you know better, Kevin. In which case, don't be coy: share your knowledge! Is Lindzen, in fact, wrong about the 'strength' of the 'link'?
For what it's worth I've watched hundreds of doctors take medical histories from patients and while it's absolutely mandatory to ascertain a patient's active-smoking background (calculated as a number of "pack years"), I've never seen a doctor show any interest in the patient's "passive" "smoking" history. Not once. So if there really is some prognostic significance to, or risk factor involved in, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke then the medical profession is apparently unaware of it!
(That doesn't necessarily prove ETS is medically irrelevant, of course—it's possible that the medical profession, for some reason, simply hasn't caught up with the scientific evidence. But it would be a bit strange, don't you think?)
> I try to be a charitable reader and read honestly.
Good. That's all too rare in the climate debate.
> One cannot read Lindzen's comments and come away believing he has been misunderstood based on some nebulous notion of how a scientist thinks or speaks.
That's not why I think he's been misunderstood.
> If Lindzen was truly convinced that it would be cooler 20 years hence, then *he* could have given the 50:1 odds and taken the easy money.
How and why do you expect him to be "truly convinced" the Earth's atmosphere is going to do a particular thing? As a scientist, Lindzen is presumably aware that nobody can be sure what the Earth's fluid envelope is going to do over the next 20 years. I'd be a little worried about his scientific intellect if he expressed certainty on the matter.
To clarify what I said about gambling earlier, I did not mean to suggest that science isn't about betting. Of course it is! But in science, the stakes you place on a bet are your hypothesis. Not your money; not even (normally) your reputation. Just the hypothesis that underwrites whatever prediction you're making. So it's a bit of a case of uncharted territory for me when you ask me to draw conclusions from the way a scientist reacts when he's put on the spot to make a casino-style bet. That's not something most scientists are used to.
> Again, you choose not to read honestly.
So much for charity!
> In fact, many people when offering an opinion they do *not* have much confidence in will conclude by saying, 'but I wouldn't bet on it.'
Sure, Kevin, but the converse doesn't follow.
Just because someone wouldn't formally bet on something, doesn't mean they're not confident about it. It could just be that they're not a gambler at heart.
> For instance, Brad Keyes could be correct - but I wouldn't bet on it.
Correct about what?
NB I certainly am willing to bet, and in a sense I already have bet, a great deal—my children's future, for instance—that there is NO scientific basis for considering AGW a major threat. I've bet my online reputation on this negative.
One interesting datum—don't you find?—is that most of the people who've built comfortable careers out of proclaiming very adamantly indeed that AGW is a huge threat...never seem to behave as though they believe it. Sure, BAU emissions are going to destroy everything and everyone we know, but that's no reason for climate scientists to turn down a taxpayer-funded flight to the next IPCC conference at a tropical hotel, is it? I mean, yes, we have to act immediately if not sooner if we're to have any hope of saving the human rance, but let's not go overboard and start teleconferencing or anything like that! A tropical junket is a tropical junket.
Also please note that unlike (say) willard, BBD, chek, Lotharsson, Lionel A, Bernard J, FrankD, Rachel M, AndThenTheresPhysics, bill or Stu, I'm confident enough to put my full name to my arguments in this debate.
That means wearing not only the supposed stigma of being a "denier" of a whole complex of scientistic speculations to whose truth only bad people (supposedly) would refuse to accede, but also the theoretical possibility that The Science™ might actually come true one day!, which would leave me in the unenviable position—would it not?—of having publicly and indelibly argued against taking said Science™ seriously.
Do you think I've ever lost a moment's sleep worrying about pitchfork-wielding mobs? Because no. I haven't. I expect pitchforks will enter the debate at some stage—actually I'm looking forward to that—but it won't be denialist doorbells the mobs ring. ;-)
Willard,
Could this be the most childishly you've ever debated in your life?
Have I really got you into such a panicked rout that you're saying things like this with a straight face:
> Anyway, bunnies may note that Dick and smoking are only separated by a paragraph, now.
?
Bunnies may note that Willard and conflict-diamond trafficking are only separated by the conjuction 'and', now.
Bunnies may note that the climate movement and Maoism are as intimately co-mentioned as Willard and blood diamonds, now.
Bunnies may be too dense to realize that this kind of "argument" practically writes itself, but trust me: it does.
> [T]he converse doesn't follow.
There's no need for that converse to follow to realize that Dick's confidence means little if he can't even accept a ridiculously advantageous bet compared to his own estimates. In other words, Dick shows less confidence when comes the time to commit a small fraction of symbolic money where his omnipresent mouth is. It also shows that Dick does not have the same confidence when dealing with James than when he was patronizing Anna.
That last tell is the big one.
***
> Correct about what?
That there's any merit in rejecting Kevin's "if Lindzen was truly convinced that it would be cooler 20 years hence, then *he* could have given the 50:1 odds and taken the easy money." Correct about being right that Dick not being a betting man, that he does not understand how bets work, or else.
In other words, something about the converse.
***
> I'm confident enough to put my full name to my arguments in this debate.
This shows little honour if we consider how Brad behaved so far in this thread alone.
***
> [T]here is NO scientific basis for considering AGW a major threat[.]
The notion of "scientific basis" sounds nice, but is still empty.
> Bunnies may note that Willard and conflict-diamond trafficking are only separated by the conjuction 'and', now.
Perhaps Brad is suggesting that The Heartlander is so absurd that it wrote itself.
Perhaps Brad has an explanation as to why Dick gets mentioned in the same document where the Heartland Institute has to dodge the bullet that it was "made famous for its view that smoking is not a health hazard"? Our own is smoke and mirrors.
There's no need to establish any logical connection. Sometimes, documents are all the fact that matter.
***
Here's another one:
So, good morning, fellow lunatics. It is a great honour for me to be invited to speak at this historic conference. And what a delight it has been to hear and meet so many people whose good work I have been reporting on over the past year or two: Professor Lindzen, Dr. Fred Singer, President Klaus to name but three--not forgetting those two heroes of our time Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That.
[............]
For 15 years we had found ourselves investigating a long succession of those “scares” which became such a conspicuous feature of Western life in the closing decades of the twentieth century. Repeatedly we had seen supposed experts hitting the headlines by raising some new fear, some supposedly terrifying new threat to human health or well-being: food scares such as “mad cow disease,” which was soon going to be killing half a million people a year; the Asian bird ‘flu that the WHO said in 2005 was soon going to kill 150 million people; 2YK, the “Millennium Bug” that was going to bring civilised life to a halt by knocking out millions of computer systems; dioxins; lead in petrol; passive smoking; the deliberate confusion between different types of asbestos, and many more. And again and again we had seen how these scares followed a remarkably similar pattern.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/mother-all-scares
Kevin,
you're going to have to move past the argument from insinuation and get specific. This kind of assertion doesn't do any work for you:
> They were using [Lindzen] as a source then and he has never disavowed those sentiments - he has reinforced them.
Zerothly, you've simply linked us to a paper about second-hand smoke. Lindzen has already been quite explicit in saying it's obnoxious for smokers to smoke in non-smoker's faces, and that it can even exacerbate or trigger their asthma. So we're left with no way of guessing, until you tell us, where exactly Lindzen is wrong on SHS, in your analysis, and why.
Firstly, "those sentiments" is disembodied and meaningless. Did you accidentally delete the words to which the demonstrative ("those") pointed?
Secondly and finally, scientists tend to be less concerned with sentiments (and more preoccupied with falsifiable hypotheses) than muggles. So it may simply be unrealistic for you to expect them to go around "disavowing" every single "sentiment" with which their opponents allege they had some past sentimental liaison.
GSW:
"This is quite common BBD, the want/need for others to participate in the conspiracy ideation. Sufferer’s try to seek confirmation that their “facts” are commonly agreed and that as a result, it can be argued they are not mentally ill/basket cases like you.
"I’m not going to help you there BBD, your ideations, of amongst other things, opinion as nefarious intent, are all yours. You’re just going to have to come to terms with the fact you’re a nut job and live with it.
;) "
...
"The evidence for a lack of cojones on your part is the fact you’re sat moaning about your lot here [at the Deltoid Sheltered Workshop for the Rhetorically Disabled], where Brad can’t get you, and the action is taking place somewhere else.
"Brad’s made you look like a complete idiot BBD, you can’t let him get away with that when he’s still “dis”ing you over at Eli’s, or can you?"
ROFL...
GSW FTW.
"That's all too rare in the climate debate.
Which debate, exactly?
Bernard J:
"Which debate, exactly?"
Ah, the final redoubt of the routed debate loser:
Debate denialism.
"Debate denialism."
Logical fail.
I'll ask again - which debate, exactly?
Or is this the prelude to another trademark Keysian quickstep?
And speaking of "debates", did you ever come to an understanding of the non-dendrochronological hockey sticks?
Or, to put it more tightly, knowing your predilection for semantic slipperiness, did you ever come to an acceptance of the existence of non-dendrochronological temperature proxies that reflect millenial trajectories that resemble the popularly referred-to hockey stick shape?
LOL... BBD perseverates in his impotent rage against the English language:
> I see that Brad is still incapable of unselective quotation.
Unhappily for BBD, all species higher than the common bunny know that quotation is, by definition, selective.
It takes a special kind of person to pull off English language reform, and BBD is not special. (Not in a good way, I mean.)
Brad - the paper linked is from 1991.
It uses Richard Lindzen as a source to attack the existing science (remember, cast doubt.)
It was revealed to be a TASSC paper in the documents produced through litigation with the tobacco industry.
You kind of missed the whole point, didn't you?
> It takes a special kind of person to pull off English language reform [...]
Indeed:
A problem illustrated by Pat Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War is the rampant use of selective quotes. No animus toward the author: “I like a man who grins when he fights,” as Churchill said. But selective quotations edited to distort the facts and to fit a predetermined mindset are out of bounds.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/books-about/we-read-them-so-you-dont-have-to/the-fine-art-of-selective-quoting
***
Another example:
Analysis of the evidence submitted by the British Homeopathic Association to the House Of Commons Evidence Check On Homeopathy contains many examples of quote mining, where the conclusions of scientific papers were selectively quoted to make them appear to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
***
The Heartland Institute seems to know the expression:
This selective quotation of Arrhenius work ignores an
important sfatement [...]
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/5622.pdf
The reporh ore not copyrighted and readers are welcome b reproduce them, provid-ed they acknowledge their provenance and do not distort their meaning by selective quotation.
https://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/5998.pdf
***
Let's hope Brad won't alert the Auditor's community of penny stock holders about all of those who use the expression quote mining.
This is the 550th comment in this thread...Why?
Let's thank Willard and Wikipedia for reminding us that there exists an even dafter phrase than "unselective quotation": "quoting out of context."
As opposed to "quoting in context," of course—a.k.a. "copyright infringement"; "piracy."
Thanks Willard—keep the LOLz coming!
This is the 550th comment in this thread...Why?
Willard needs a hobby??
Kevin,
Is there some reason you appear unwilling/unable to answer my questions (which would go a long way toward making your position intelligible and your argument tractable):
— What "sentiments," exactly, was Lindzen supposed to "disavow" (but instead has "reinforced")?
— Where exactly is Lindzen wrong on second-hand smoke, in your analysis, and why?
- Even on the most generous evaluation of your argument, would any of this change the fact that Dana's article (claiming Lindzen denies the carcinogenicity of cigarette smoking) was libelous, and that the watering-down of its libelous elements was 3 months overdue?
I briefly scanned that TASCC smoking-gun (he he) document but the sum total of Lindzen's complicity in the Merchandising of Doubt appears to be this opinion:
> 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 avail- able, 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.
Have I missed some other signal of his guilt?
Is it your contention, Kevin, that we DON'T leave society with a resource of some importance diminished by ruining our credibility now, or that the implementation of public policies must NOT be based on good science (to the degree that it is available), but on emotion or on political needs, or that it's OK for those who develop such policies to stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies?
Or would you agree Lindzen is right to make the points he's quoted as making?
If you're trying to change hearts and minds then at some point you're going to have to stop beating around the bush and tell us what Lindzen has done wrong (in your opinion). If you think you've hinted at it clearly enough, please think again.
> [T]here exists an even dafter phrase than "unselective quotation": "quoting out of context."
Right on:
Do not rely on quotations to tell your story for you. It is your responsibility to provide your reader with a context for the quotation. The context should set the basic scene for when, possibly where, and under what circumstances the quotation was spoken or written. So, in providing a context for our above example, you might write:
When Franklin Roosevelt gave his inaugural speech on March 4, 1933, he addressed a nation weakened and demoralized by economic depression.
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/quotations/
***
From the Policy Bot's mouth:
Common Core’s English language arts standards will not develop critical thinking or college readiness, will reduce the quality of the teaching force, and cannot be changed unilaterally by Michigan educators no matter what legislators and parents are told, says Dr. Sandra Stotsky in invited testimony to the Michigan legislature on a bill to withdraw the state from Common Core. She explains why the research that purports to support Common Core has been taken out of context or otherwise slanted and suggests better alternatives that will actually help students learn while retaining Michigan control over its education system.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-michigan-common-core
Meanwhile over at the Tim Lambert Sheltered Workshop for At-Risk Believalists...
> But then what’s a chap to do? There being no scientific counter-argument to the strong scientific consensus on AGW and all…
Oh dear. So BBD still hasn't managed to shake the suspicion that my agenda is to somehow discredit AGW. It doesn't matter how soothingly I repeatedly reassure him that I have nothing against the hypothesis, he just knows I'm up to no good [NI].
Call it a hunch; a sixth sense; female intuition. Call it spidey sense; call it a nagging and rationally intractable anxiety; call it paranoia; call him nuts, a nutjob, nutty, a nutter or nutcase. Call BBD crazy if you like; openly mock his delusional fixations.
Nothing you say is going to change the fact that BBD thinks the very reality of AGW itself is at stake in our little argument.
Another thing BBD wants to make quite clear is that the [imaginary] anti-climate-scientists he imagines he's debating against are not—repeat, are not—conspiracy theorists like him:
> “Climate science is rubbish because they aren’t proper scientists and hide their data” isn’t a conspiracy theory, but neither is it demonstrable or defensible.
The only true conspiracist ideator is BBD himself, he argues:
> Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary?
The point that matters is that there is plentiful evidence that a denial [NI] industry exists and that it is being covertly funded ... there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial [NI] industry exists and that it is being covertly funded ... foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations ... Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies [NI] ... The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose [NI]: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives ... Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary? The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial [NI] industry exists and that it is being covertly funded...Who cares if conspiracist ideation doesn’t actually require that the conspiracy be imaginary? The point that matters is that there is *plentiful evidence* that a denial [NI] industry exists and that it is being covertly funded...
Oh, and if you were wondering how there can be "increasing evidence" of something that's "covert," that's only because you don't know how self-sealing reasoning [SS] works! It is the sheer invisibility of the conspiracy which proves, in what Lewandowsky calls an "ever-widening circle" of non-evidence, how real it is! Let BBD demonstrate:
> Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies ... Evidence denial by Brad continues, and now widens to include evidence of his evidence denial ...
(NI = Nefarious Intent; SS = Self-Sealing Reasoning)
Dear Eli,
Could you ask Brad to publish his comments about BBD on his own blog?
Thanks!
Apologies willard,
BBD's posting a running commentary of proceedings on another site as he cannot/will not post here; "everybody despises him", "genuinely believes that rules are for the little people[huh?]" that sort of thing. Every now and then Brad says "Boo" to him and BBD shits himself.
It's not pleasant, but it is hilarious and a damn site more entertaining ClimateBall than watching you post endless laboured quotes from the Heartland Institute.
If you could up your game, that would be good. Your sides flagging a bit and could do with a little oomph from somewhere.
;)
You will have more fun if Brad keeps his lulz on his own website, GSW. My promise to Shub does not apply here. Since you like Heartland Institute quotes, here's another one:
Satellite measurements of the polar ice caps show polar sea ice remains above the long-term average, as has been the case for most of 2013. The satellite data, provided by NASA and NOAA, provide appropriate context to assertions made in Thursday’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings that global warming is causing a decline in Arctic sea ice. As the satellite data show, expanding Southern Hemisphere sea ice is more than compensating for modest declines in Northern Hemisphere sea ice.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/19/boxers-own-experts-contradict-obama-climate-change
Hope you don't mind me making sure Brad's rope-o-dope does not go unnoticed.
I've no idea what you're talking about willard. If this is some discursive pattern intended to bore the opposition to death, you're winning.
Haven't you anything with a bit more "life"? Watching you post this stuff is like spectating grandpa tennis:
http://gbtimes.com/china/video-99-year-old-tennis-grandpa-break-record
rope-o-dope or no rope-o-dope.
TIA
;)
Seems to me any comment thread containing Brad Keyes announcing "I'm bored, 'Bye" and then carrying on for the better part of a month is worth abandoning.
The steady deterioration is not worth the pixels it promotes. And speaking of boredom, glad I've been elsewhere. Boring indeed.
Luckily the authors actually have some knowledge about the subjects whereof they speak.
Thank you for the kind words, GSW.
In return, here's another instance of "quoting in context":
To quote out of context is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. The context in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. For this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote. Of course, in some sense, all quotation is out of context, but by a "contextomy", I refer only to those quotes whose meaning is changed by a loss of context. The fallacy of quoting out of context is committed when a contextomy is offered as evidence in an argument.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html
Our emphasis on Brad's lolzful omission.
Only in some sense indeed. Brad's trick is so strong as to question expressions like "social contract" or "skeptic scientist" on the basis that there oxymorons. To consider Brad's tricks oxymoronic is tempting, though.
Susan, I think the Keyster's schtick is to be as arse-numbingly pedantic as his so-far acquired language skills will permit, and as brain-numbingly stupid as his understanding of denier-learnt climate science will allow.
There is no core to the Keyster beyond that.
A Keyster is a Keyster is a Keyster as a Keyster does, and has done across many, many blogs for what is now years.
It learns nothing, and wants to learn nothing beyond its own narrow scope.
Willard,
> Brad's trick is so strong as to question expressions like "social contract" or "skeptic scientist" on the basis that there oxymorons.
The phrase "skeptic scientist" might sound oxymoronic to you, but to scientists (and skeptics) it's more like a tautology.
But hey, what would life be without laughter? Thanks for your latest revealing rhetoric malfunction!
—Brad
PS It's not like you to commit a native-speaker solecism by getting "there" and "they're" mixed up, Willard! Tut tut. I must really be getting to you. Perhaps you should take a break, walk your dog or something and re-ravel those nerves?
chek:
> [Brad's] meme is that all quotation is selective, therefore quote mining is as valid as any other selection for its purpose with no regard required for the intent of the original text. Have I got that right?
Now that would be a first.
Alas, no: my "meme" is simply that by marvelling "that Brad is still incapable of unselective quotation [sic]," BBD shows he is still incapable of coherent criticism.
Changing topics, whatever happened to the last coherent criticism Willard made (that there should be fewer cheks in this thread)? Now there was an idea that enjoyed bilateral support.
> The phrase "skeptic scientist" might sound oxymoronic to you, but to scientists (and skeptics) it's more like a tautology.
My mistake. In return, Brad should beware that tautology refers to propositions, not concepts, and grammatically speaking it's not the relevant idea.
So "pleonasm" it was.
***
> I must really be getting to you.
It's all about Brad, after all.
Grammar zeal may not be the most felicitous way to fetch self-fulfilling fantasies.
"Brad Keyes" says:
"For the last fucking time, you sociopath: my name is Brad."
"Brad Keyes" also says:
"Also please note that unlike (say) willard, BBD, chek, Lotharsson, Lionel A, Bernard J, FrankD, Rachel M, AndThenTheresPhysics, bill or Stu, I'm confident enough to put my full name to my arguments in this debate."
Um, "full name"?! So what?
By your own admission it's a pseudonym - remember this:
"Hmmm. You know my first [screen] name. By not using it, you come across as almost… well, annoyed with me for some reason, buddy."
You've also admitted elsewhere (and implied above) that "Keyes" is a pseudonym, but I can't be shagged trawling the internet for the post(s).
So how is a two part pseudonym different from an incomplete name? And further, in my example how do you know that "J" isn't my full surname?
More importantly is the fact that you're inferring that your "full name" somehow equates with a real name, which it most certainly is not (to that end my incomplete name carries more authenticity than your made-up one). So if you're not confident in putting your real name to your arguments, why should you be listened to? And to what extent is your implication that you "full name" is your real name an actual, you know, lie...?
The link at ""Brad Keyes" also says" goes to 27/4/14 10:15 PM above - on my browser at least the link doesn't travel to the post.
Oh, the last criticism I made was in the last comment, where a PhD in logic was kindly mansplaining Brad that it makes sense to talk about quotes that are out of context.
Before that, there was the fact that Brad was using the thread to burden bunnies with a conversation he could not have elswhere.
Before that, there was the criticism of his caricature of the argument according to which "Lindzen" and "smoking" appear from time to time on the same Heartland Institute documents.
Before that, there was the criticism of his defense of Dick's gambling shyness.
***
And that's just the last comments. We could pay due diligence to all the criticisms Brad roped-a-dope since my first comment in the thread. More popcorn, GSW?
Brad writes: "— Where exactly is Lindzen wrong on second-hand smoke, in your analysis, and why?"
RL from the TASSC article:
"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."
Tell me, Brad, isn't this an indefensible attack on the science? Is any refutation cited? Is any study singled out? No. It's an attack that can't be refuted because it's nebulous in its claim. Yet, ironically, you need all this spelled out word for word.
Again, this was 1991. This is not a new game. It's been playing for decades. Dozens of additional studies during the intervening years HAVE NOT changed the numbers. We still consistently see a 30% additional risk of lung cancer for non-smokers exposed to ETS.
We had 25 years worth of studies showing this link in 1991 when the Surgeon General wrote that passive smoke was a significant health hazard. We've had an additional 25 years worth of data confirming this analysis. Yet has Lindzen changed his tune? No. He's still a tobacco denialist.
I remember in olden days when someone posted here:
"There are reasonable, intelligent, good, honest people on both sides.
My side has NOTHING to do with tobacco denialism. That would be a nasty, paranoid, silly thing to think."
Of course you wrote that two weeks ago. Obviously now you are like Lindzen a tobacco denialist - despite 50 years of evidence on ETS.
Keyster, let's cut to the chase and finish this thread which so far stands only as testament to your own self-absorption.
Do you agree that since atmospheric CO2 concentrations have exceeded 350ppm, that the Earth's energy budget is no longer in balance, which is to say that energy received is now exceeding energy re-radiated into space and is thus accumulating energy experienced as heat?
Its a yes or no question.
Do you further agree that the more the CO2 ratio increases the energy imbalance will grow worse?
Again, a yes or no question.
Do you further agree that vested interests i.e. the wealthiest industry history has ever seen which is also the root cause of that energy imbalance is actively working to block any reduction in its revenue stream by political means?
Again, a yes or no question.
Let the meaningless evasion by possibly the most proudly uninformed entity yet seen, begin.
chek:
> Keyster, let's cut to the chase and finish this thread which so far stands only as testament to your own self-absorption. Do you agree that since atmospheric CO2 concentrations have exceeded 350ppm...
yadda yadda.
This off-topic obsession of yours is not "chase-cutting." It is "meaningless evasion," to use your own words. Willard, though, might not be so polite. He might call it "thread-bombing."
Kevin:
> "My side has NOTHING to do with tobacco denialism. That would be a nasty, paranoid, silly thing to think."
>Of course you wrote that two weeks ago. Obviously now you are like Lindzen a tobacco denialist - despite 50 years of evidence on ETS.
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, who notoriously kept selling tobacco and taking the tobacco lobby's money years after his own sister, Nancy Gore Hunger, died of lung cancer very plausibly linked to her lifelong heavy smoking habit.
If either "side" could be said to have anything to do with tobacco denialism—though I don't really think it would be fair—it would be your "side," Kevin.
"Thank you for the kind words, GSW."
Forgive me willard, my words weren't intended to be kind. It's your dreary posts that are the problem, and trying to add a bit of colour by referencing "bunnies" every now and then isn't really working.
If drying paint could post, it would be you. Your argument style's kind of slow (to extent it even counts as such), spicing it up with the odd funny may help, and I'll hold off on the popcorn thanks until you've demonstrated some progress at least.
brad:
"Changing topics, whatever happened to the last coherent criticism Willard made"
Indeed. Why not just cut and paste another dreary slab of text from some online source, highlight a few words and Hey presto you're done!
Another coherent willard comment about something[?], genius!
;)
What, Keyes, you have nothing to say about being called your touting of your pseudonym (28/4/14 8:59 PM) as if it actually meant something by comparison with other -nyms?
Typical.
And how is your education about (28/4/14 1:32 AM) progressing? I seem to remember that at Deltoid about a year ago you were in a bit of a tizz about their existence...
And Keyes - what debate (28/4/14 1:24 AM)?
Take 2:
What, Keyes, you have nothing to say about being called on your touting of your pseudonym (28/4/14 8:59 PM) as if it actually meant something by comparison with other -nyms?
Typical.
And how is your education about non-dendrochronological proxies for temperature hockey sticks (28/4/14 1:32 AM) progressing? I seem to remember that at Deltoid about a year ago you were in a bit of a tizz about their existence...
And Keyes - what debate (28/4/14 1:24 AM)?
BJ:
> What, Keyes, you have nothing to say about being called on your touting of your pseudonym (28/4/14 8:59 PM) as if it actually meant something by comparison with other -nyms?'
What, J, is this "Keyes" business? Do you speak to your mother with that mouth? And do you call her "J"? A minimum of courtesy wouldn't kill you, Bernard.
> By your own admission it's a pseudonym ... You've also admitted elsewhere (and implied above) that "Keyes" is a pseudonym, but I can't be shagged trawling the internet for the post(s).
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.
But as they say, True Believers are selective believers!
Willard:
> Oh, the last criticism I made was in the last comment, where a PhD in logic was kindly mansplaining Brad that it makes sense to talk about quotes that are out of context.
Meh. I vaguely remember a sea of cut and pasted words to that effect—not particularly manvincing.
Maybe if the author had a BBD in Logic instead, he'd be qualified to say what "unselective quotation" is and how to use it.
> what "unselective quotation" is [...]
Something like satisfying the injunction be careful to quote enough of the context not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote.
***
> not particularly manvincing.
There's little hope to manvince a true skeptic about anything. A manvinced skeptic might even be oxymoronic.
Bunnies may notice how Brad ropes-a-dope from "quotation is, by definition, selective" to "not particularly manvincing", the usual last stand of the true skeptic.
Bunnies might appreciate how Brad tried to pull BBD back in this thread with his a conception of quotation that falters when due diligence is paid to it.
***
The previous criticism before the ones we identified earlier was 27/4/14 11:27 AM, to the effect Brad was whining about moderation in many places except his own blog.
Still nothing on Brad's own blog, expect perhaps this:
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/16/seen-in-a-fortune-cookie/
No context. No attribution. No link.
Brad might have some more mansplaining to do.
> And you just took my word for that [...]
That may imply that Brad may not feel compelled to be truthful. Or that Brad likes to tease for Lulz' sake. Or that a true skeptic knows how first-person testimonies are to be disbelieved just like everything else. How could a true skeptic believe anything anyway?
Interestingly, Climate Nuremberg's Whois registration is set to private. How could bunnies verify that "Brad Keyes" is Brad's true name?
chek:"It's a yes or no question"
Keyster:"yadda yadda.
This off-topic obsession of yours is not "chase-cutting."
Which seems an odd evasion from those expected, because I can't seem to find any reference to 'The mysterious Mr Revkin' or his works in any of Keyster's multitude of comments.
Although I'll concede boredom may have clouded my ability to note it.
Dear chek,
If we accept that our topic is the mysterious Mr. Revkin, then the topic starts to derail by 10/4/14, at 4:29 PM.
The problem with Brad's comment is simpler than that. You made no diversion because you made no commitment toward the jello Brad tries to nail on Eli's wall.
You are thus free to burden Brad with any topic you fancy.
***
On the other hand, notice what's on the table with my most recent comments:
- the authenticity of Brad's identity;
- Brad's truthfulness;
- Brad's lack of attribution of the Planck's quote;
- Brad's conception of skepticism;
- Brad's misconception of quotation;
- Brad's baitings of BBD;
Brad has commitments toward every items on that list, which only comprises one of my previous criticism. Notice that by asking what was my last coherent criticism, Brad may have opened up the possibility to revisit everything he rope-a-doped so far.
***
BTW, if you could tell me how a skeptic can claim he's a skeptic, that would be nice.
I'm not sure I can be that nice, willard.
I think that classical scepticism is roughly synonymous with the scientific method, being interested in the examination and inquiring into the nature of the world around us.
Then there's the more recent contemporary scepticism, in which the sceptic cannot trust that his scepticism is sceptical enough to draw any objective conclusions as all such conclusions must by their origin be subjective.
And lately there's climate change scepticism, which more often than not turns out when prodded to be one flavour or another of denial.
Keysterism on the other hand, it seems to me is entirely bound up in maintaining focus on the Keyster come what may, in which case 580+ comments here alone are but a mere first step in a journey of a thousand miles.
> Then there's the more recent contemporary scepticism, in which the sceptic cannot trust that his scepticism is sceptical enough to draw any objective conclusions as all such conclusions must by their origin be subjective.
Actually, chek, this form of skepticism is the oldest one:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Popper was such a skeptic, btw. He rejected knowledge as justified, true belief.
***
Note that skepticism is distinguished from ordinary incredulity. More on that later, when Brad will return to own his commitments.
Thanks willard, your posts have cured my insomnia. ;)
Sorry bunnies, Griselda (GSW) is Deltoid's underemployed yes-man od denial, attracted by the stench of the Keyster's denial record, but unable to do more than cheer vaguely and pitifully whenever it feels appropriate. Imagine, if you will, the quandary of the colour-blind following to the best of his ability a game of billiards.
Griselda's comments will make more sense if viewed in that context.
I'm glad to be of help, GSW.
Searching for "Heartland Institute Insomnia", I stumbled upon this story:
Here's George Carlin's words:
> Because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners, now. The real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.
> But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.
Here's what the Heartland Institute lifted for their Facebook meme (bolded above): [...]
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/heartland-institute-edits-george-carlins
Emphasis not mine. You'll never guess how the story continues, GSW. Here it is, this time with my emphasis:
I suppose they thought they'd grab enough of his quote to be recognizable without bothering with context. Except in this case, context is everything. They managed to turn it around so that it appeared as though Carlin said exactly the opposite of what he actually said.
For one reason or another, that reminds me of George Orwell, don't you think?
"You'll never guess how the story continues, GSW."
I've no idea willard. Bunnies are drifting in and out of catatonic states even as you deftly "cut and paste".
;)
I going to take a punt here as I think it may ultimately help you willard.
"Early or Warning Signs of Psychosis"
http://www.hopevancouver.com/Early_or_Warning_Signs_of_Psychosis.html
There are a number of "tells", among others; "Excessive writing without meaning", "Peculiar use of words or odd language structures".
"The following symptoms may indicate that an individual is experiencing psychosis or is in theprodromal phase. Frequently, individuals will display unusual behaviours prior to the onset of the acute psychotic episode. It is useful to educate individuals with psychosis about these symptoms once they've recovered from the episode, and to help them identify which symptoms are their personal "warning signs" of relapse."
"Early Intervention: Why is it Needed?
Several studies have shown that there is often a major delay in initiating treatment for people affected by a psychotic disorder. These delays vary widely from person to person, but in many studies the interval between onset of psychotic symptoms and commencement of appropriate treatment is more than one year."
"Some evidence shows that long delays in treatment may cause the illness to become less responsive to treatment. It has been found that delays in receiving treatment are associated with slower and less complete recovery and that long duration of psychotic symptoms before treatment appears to contribute to poorer prognosis and a greater chance of early relapse. It is hypothesized that untreated psychosis causes greater biological entrenchment of schizophrenia"
Oh dear willard, I'd say there's a good chance you're screwed already.
Have you got anymore random heartland stuff you'd like to post before you go the full "Darrell"?
Bunnies really do need to know.
;)
Two things.
The Griselda creation never understands the difference between "cut'n'paste" and "copy'n'paste".
And the passive-aggressive knee-jerk emoticon wannabees are part of the package. Even when the coding doesn't allow them to work;
"catatonic" is pretty much the natural state that prevents it ever noticing
chek,
Why are you always so damn miserable? The heartland/big oil (/tobacco)/agents of McIntyre/George Carlin[?] conspiracy ideation club isn't as much fun as it used to be (a late onset of reality), but you can't let it get you down, KBO for goodness sake. Try counting solar panels and windmills in your head before you go to sleep tonight, you know, your happy thoughty land.
Enjoy
;)
> ;)
As CB told RyanO a while ago:
Lose the smilies, they don’t become you.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/437169937
> The Griselda creation [...]
Are you suggesting that GSW is a sock puppet, chek?
Perhaps the answer is that being abused by a bag of wind is such a joy.
chek,
You're right that an older sense of "s[c|k]epticism" is "roughly synonymous with the scientific method, being interested in the examination and inquiring into the nature of the world around us."
My emphasis. Willard says that a phrase such as "skeptic scientist" would be a pleonasm (Gk for 'neoplasm; redundant growth; tumor').
But since you don't even know what the scientific method is you can never be a skeptic in this sense, so try to put it from your mind.
> And lately there's climate change scepticism, which more often than not turns out when prodded to be one flavour or another of denial.
No need to prod: 'climate change skepticism' invariably refers to ordinary incredulity, unbelief, disbelief, denial, etc. (though not with regards to climate change per se).
A helpful mnemonic (for those who go in for such things) might be that old-school 'skepticism' entails a process, whereas colloquial 'skepticism' is a position.
That's why you should call people like me climate infidels, kafirun, etc.: those who, having read and understood the message, commit kufr.
chek,
Try to guess how a skeptic can know what the scientific method is if skepticism is only a process that leads to doubt.
Good luck with that.
Willard,
> Try to guess how a skeptic can know what the scientific method is if skepticism is only a process that leads to doubt.
Are you suggesting the process of skepticism to which I referred only leads to doubt? Wrong. It can also lead to belief beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. away from colloquial 'skepticism.'
Also, be careful to distinguish between knowledge about nature and knowledge of methods.
"> By your own admission it's a pseudonym ... You've also admitted elsewhere (and implied above) that "Keyes" is a pseudonym, but I can't be shagged trawling the internet for the post(s).
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."
Point at squirrels as much as you like, "Keyes". The only person here that you're fooling is GSW, and that's not a fair contest as that numpty could be entertained with a piece of paper that has 'PTO' printed on both sides.
And how's your proxie hockey stick education progressing?
Willard:
> Are you suggesting that GSW is a sock puppet, chek?
And why not? chek may never attain scientific skepticism but that doesn't mean he can't do Nihilistic Skepticism, a.k.a. "Nothing is as it Seems" [NS].
It's one of the six steps.
Don't forget that in Keyster World sockpuppets aren't the same thing at all as noms de grrrrr
Brad - there is a difference between a denialist and a skeptic. If we examine Lindzen's (and your agreement with Lindzen) attack on the ETS studies we find no analysis from Lindzen. He simply attacks the science with generalised innuendo.
When this was pointed out to you, you simply ignored it.
This makes you and Lindzen tobacco denialists. You are denying the science.
BTW - your 'Al Gore is a tobacco denialist' schtick may have made you think you scored some points, but it's a complete logical fail. Throwing red herrings - and inept ones at that - doesn't make your argument stronger, it merely makes you look more foolish (if possible).
> Willard [...]
Brad answers a question addressed to chek when he has yet to clarify the authenticity of his identity, to acknowledge that he failed to cite and attribute properly when he revisited Planck's quote, and that his latest taunts of BBD rest on a misguided conception of quotation.
We can add to that a failure to declare that GSW is not a sock puppet. Interestingly, GSW appeared just after I made a list of commitments Brad failed to own. As if Brad's recent victim playing (v. "kufr") will make bunnies forget his failures to own basic commitments of this communication.
chek,
FWIW, I don't think Brad is GSW because Brad, contrary to the boredom he expressed on the first page of this thread, now finds my comments entertaining enough to find them lulz-worthy. GSW does not seem to find them amusing. But I'm sure that if GSW or Brad could take a stand, you'd find it nice.
I'd rather pay due diligence to Brad's commitments.
* * *
To that effect, notice that when Brad says that his flavour of skepticism "can also lead to belief beyond reasonable doubt," he does not exclude that it may lead to something beyond reasonable doubt, and thus be equivalent to ordinary incredulity.
In any case, Brad has now committed himself to describe what "reasonable doubt." If Brad could describe what he means by "reasonable doubt," that would be nice.
***
Also notice, chek, that all we have so far from Brad now may concede that "skeptic scientist" is a pleonasm. I say may because it is quite possible that Brad is simply using my words against you for lulz' sake. It is also still possible that Brad believes it is rather a tautology, which would be improper in my opinion. Brad has silently dodged that question.
Whether it's a tautology or a pleonasm, the expression "skeptic scientist" seems to rest on the "scientist" part alone. This may explain why he uses the expression pseudo-science so much. Brad even trademarked it.
So not only Brad has committed himself to characterize what "reasonable doubt" means, but he also shovelled his conception of scepticism under his conception of science. So if Brad could tell bunnies how "reasonable doubt" operates in science, that would be nice too.
***
Let's hope, dear chek, that paying due diligence to Brad's commitments would help Brad clarify his conceptions. After all, isn't it what a scientific communicator ought to do?
His priority, now, would be to make sure he does not define scepticism as science and science as scepticism.
Apologies Willard, I hadn't intended to imply that GSW and BK were related in any way, the two have different stylistic quirks separate past histories over the past few years at Deltoid. But then again, you never know what a straying arrow might unintentionally hit
While not ashamed to admit having to look up what a pleonasm was, now I have, I wonder if what was alluded to was that denialist favourite kind of scientist, but with a twist - the previously unknown 'sceptical pseudo scientist' whose 'doubt' invalidates everything. Except, strangely, any stray filament woven into the denialist mythos.
But we know this isn't quite true either, in that there are no known Keyster-style excursions charged with setting to rights the conducting of nuclear physics or chemical genetics, or anything else of equal import. Only climate science it seems. Perhaps it's a field limited to what's right outside your window.
Post a Comment