WATCH: A conversation between lay persons

Normally we’ll add videos to the VIDEO page in the menu – please keep an eye out there, or on our Youtube channel here.

Video

Ian Woolley talks with his friend, Vern Griffiths, about ‘conspiracist ideation’, CO2 as plant food, the Hockey Stick and Steve McIntyre, and the growing authoritarianism of the left. (55 mins)

 

Notes:

(1) Around 40 minutes in one mobile phone lost charge and we forgot to keep the good microphone going, so both video and audio quality suffer, but not too much. Of course, what we could have benefitted from is Koch money to do this in a studio with professional camera equipment. We don’t have those connections, alas.

(2) It’s not Sahal, with an ‘a’, it’s Sahel with an ‘e’. And the Sahel is the bit south of the Sahara, which is growing because the desert of the Sahara is greening.

(3) ‘It’s bollocks!’ (24.37) Is the missing heat in the oceans? I’ll put some useful links in here as I find them.

384 thoughts on “WATCH: A conversation between lay persons

  1. There can be no questioning the “agenda” because the agenda isn’t about money, it is about world government which is why it originates from the UN. Since it is about world governance, it can not be debated and have it succeed. Until the people of the world realize that this about eliminating sovereignty and freedom, if they instead accept “climate crisis” and following its leaders, they lose everything they have worked for through the last 2000 years.

    Like

  2. Tom, as I say in the video, I absolutely do not think there’s a conspiracy for world government. There is authoritarianism involved, but it’s a soft authoritarianism. I think the only people who have a hard, world-governing, these are the laws you will follow, authoritarian streak at the moment are the Jihadists of IS. Eco justice warriors, like social justice warriors, only have a kind of chip-on-the-shoulder need to preach. that’s my sense of it. A kind of misguidedness, born of a desire to fill a gap.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Feminist glaciologist responds | Climate Scepticism

  4. Should be mandatory viewing. Not as a science hour but a training video. Not because it covers new ground (for most of us deniobloggers it doesn’t), but because your non-proselytization of your friend respects his intelligence and represents, I think, the only way forward for us qua movement. All other ways are backwards. We won’t win anyone’s vote by treating them the way we treat our Climateball opponents. But it’s always tempting. Perhaps I’m speaking for myself here. So let me rephrase: I’m always tempted. I’m so used to winning over them, I’ve forgotten how to win them over. If you’ll excuse my Cornish.

    Minor correction:

    Our opposites don’t like to call themselves “realists” so much as ” ” (nothing). To use the postmodern terminology, our side is marked and theirs is the innominate default.

    “Realists” is a cute, if rather obvious, attempt to win the argument without having one, and in my experience only a few people—on both sides—have been cheeky enough to try and get away with applying it to themselves.

    “Believers” is unacceptable to them. By “them,” I mean the people who call us “deniers.”

    “Warmists” is even less acceptable—they profess deep offense at the imputation that they’re in a movement, or religion, or cult, or something. This, despite the fact that the word is about as offensive as “snuggly-wugglyists.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Yep, the labels thing was tricky: use of ‘realists’ shorthand in the end, I suppose, for what ‘they’ imagine themselves to be, i.e. people facing up to the ‘reality of climate change’. I also agree with everything else in your excellent review.

    Like

  6. Brad — “our side is marked and theirs is the innominate default.” —

    Oh, I dunno. There are some empty nouns that some like to attach themselves to in the broader climate debate. The green movement will flatter itself that it is a ‘movement’. Some will go on about how tackling climate change will create ‘equality’ (or that, vice versa, creating ‘equality’ will solve climate change. (And war, and poverty, and sad puppies). Others talk about ‘climate justice’ in the same breath as ‘social justice’. Granted, these are as often as not commitments as meaningful as extolling Motherhood and etc. But some are more radical. This all reminds of Monbiot, who battled with a climate camp anarchist, who said only a revolution could end climate change. Monbiot accused her of ‘identity politics’, though in fact, of all the things you can say about anarchism, it categorically isn’t ‘identity politics’.

    For some, the climate debate is an opportunity to breathe life into their dead political ideas. For others it’s an opportunity to present an image of themselves as having eschewed, or transcended ‘ideology’.

    Later on, an only slightly better informed Monbiot battled on Ch4 with mark Lynas over GM after the channel aired ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’. Both green camps accused each other of putting their ‘ideology’ before ‘science’.

    No less of a postmodern phenomenon: casting themselves in historical re-enactments like WW2, Manhattan Project (of all things!), the Moon landing, Suffragettes. Abolition of slavery. I’m sure there’s more, but it’s Sunday Morning.

    I think our slippery counterparts just can’t admit to having committed to anything. Ultimately, they’re nihilists. Or perhaps just its victims. Note one recent visitor here complaining that I had dared to suggest that he was swayed by green politics. How could I know, he demanded to be told. It’s as if all you need to know to be completely swayed is the gradient on that curve Brian Cox held up on Australian TV. It’s not as much protesting too much as non-stop shrieking.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Another thought occurs. I think it was Lenin… but I’ve never been able to attribute the quote… who said ‘once you give something a name, you don’t have to argue with it’.

    This has been going on longer than climate change.

    Like

  8. Scott Adams (he of Dilbert fame) has some pertinent thoughts on such matters as labels:

    ‘When you are trained in the ways of persuasion, you start seeing three types of people in the world. I’ll call them Rational People, Word-Thinkers, and Persuaders. Their qualities look like this:

    Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.)

    Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world.

    Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world.

    If you’re a trained scientist, engineer, or other technical person, you might use data and reason sometimes, especially while others are watching and checking your work. But off-duty – and when it comes to anything important – we’re all irrational creatures who believe we are rational. At least that’s how trained persuaders see the world.

    You can easily spot word-thinkers when they talk about politics. Their go-to strategy involves identifying enemies and fitting them into whatever category matches their biases and cognitive dissonance.’

    More here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see-the-world

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Ben, John

    Is this happening at the moment with Hillary’s speech on the ‘Alt-right’? David Aaronovitch interviewed Cathy Young and Milo Yiannopolous on Radio 4 too and I got exactly that sense that BBC types are relieved now they’ve got the label and don’t have to think beyond it anymore (Cultural Libertarians, as a lot of those people were calling themselves only a year ago, being harder to compartmentalise).

    Like

  10. Ben,

    good points as usual, except that I suspect what we’re seeing here is the exact opposite of Lenin’s (if that who it was) doctrine.

    Witness the other side’s refusal to so much as name their own hypothesis. We know it’s “catastrophic AGW” or words in that neighborhood, but they sneeringly deny ever propounding such a thing.

    That’s just a denialist strawman, they’ll insist, terrified of allowing themselves to be pinned down to it.

    “Our slippery counterparts” as you aptly call them seem to be making use of the trick, er, I mean principle:

    If you’re not allowed to name it, you can’t argue with it.

    EDIT: You’re also right that members of the so-called green movement are more than happy to be so called. But I wasn’t really talking about them, or not in that capacity at least. I was talking about what people who believe in The Science™ will permit us to call them for believing in the science. And “believers” is a term they don’t accept. “Warmists” is a term they don’t accept. The only term some of them seem to accept—and which is even appropriated by us sometimes—is “realists.” But that’s a bit too brazenly question-begging for most people’s blood. What believer would really prefer to be called, in my experience, is nothing.

    Like

  11. (Brad at 10.31 – Get Vern on subjects like the media portrayal of men (ineffectual dullards needing women to put them straight etc.) or the war between the sexes and he’ll talk for ages but generally he’ll avoid politics if possible. I think that conversation was about as far as he’d go with climate – there are just too many Nerdist podcasts to listen to instead. His loss.)

    Like

  12. But Ian,

    we do need women to set us straight. Have you seen the kind of stuff that goes on in all-male boarding schools, submarines, prison, the navy, the maritime armed forces, aircraft carriers, etc.? I’ll put it this way: it’s totally gay.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. If you want further proof of how good your video is, notice that our resident believalists aren’t coming anywhere near this post.

    Like

  14. On the video page, where it also is, Russell Seitz accuses us of a galloping gish. Well, maybe. But this is why I was keen to make clear we’re both lay people and also to suggest at the start that conversations along the same lines should be being seen in the mainstream media between key figures in the debate, people capable of ungishing gishes.

    Like

  15. You keep saying things that make it appear that you’re interested in some kind of conversation, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that you really are. At best, what you seem to be suggesting is some kind of dialogue with rules that you get to define. You seem to want people to take your views seriously, and to treat your views with some kind of respect. Personally, having watched some of your video, I think Russell Seitz is about right and that you’re simply repeating the standard misrepresentations of our current understanding and – I suspect – most who are capable of ungishing gallops are quite happy to do so without engaging in conversations with those who are galloping.

    It’s my view that if you are serious about wanting conversations, then you don’t get to set the rules. You can, of course, try to do this, but it’s unlikely – I think – to be particularly successful. Okay, it does depend on what your goals are. If your goal is to pretend to want conversations but to set down guidelines so that noone will actually do so, then you may well be successful.

    Like

  16. John: thanks very much for the Scott Adams link. Glad I saw that. Will reuse 🙂

    I tend to agree with Brad that consensus types eschew labels for themselves. They’ve also been extremely coy about naming their most substantive critics, thus Steve McIntyre as He Who Must Not Be Named for so many years.

    Moronic babytalk? I think that’s being kind.

    Like

  17. Ian,
    That’s what you say, but that is not how it appears. As I said, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that you really are interested in conversation, despite what you appear to be suggesting. A conversation requires two parties; you would typically need to make it worthwhile for both parties.

    Like

  18. ATTP: Did you think it would enhance ‘conversation’ at places like this when you added your name to a piece of malicious crap from Lewandowsky? We think not. A grovelling apology would only be the first step back.

    Like

  19. Richard,

    Did you think it would enhance ‘conversation’ at places like this when you added your name to a piece of malicious crap from Lewandowsky?

    No, but I wasn’t about to use that to determine what I should do or who I should choose to associate with.

    We think not.

    Of course you do.

    A grovelling apology would only be the first step back.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath, if I was you.

    Your sense of entitlement is really quite remarkable.

    Like

  20. Ian,
    Sorry, what I mean is that my impression is that you aren’t really interested in conversation. The evidence for this is basically your conduct here. I may have interpreted this incorrectly, and you may – of course – disagree. Whether you like it or not, my general impression is that there is much discussion here about how to conduct conversations and complaints about the lack of any conversations taking place, but little actual evidence that anyone here is really interested, and plenty of indications that you really are not (well, not in one where the other party is likely to say anything with which you might disagree).

    Like

  21. Ken Rice — ” but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that you really are.”

    –” That’s what you say, but that is not how it appears. ”

    Personalities vary, and the expressions of behaviour vary between individuals accordingly.

    The simple explanation for your observation, Ken, is that you are an arsehole. A pub bore, but on the internet.

    You’re not in a position, as one of the most prolific commenters in climate blogging circles, to either accuse of Ian of limiting debate to suit his own purposes, or otherwise for manifest bad faith. Your own ‘contributions’ to the debate are so well recorded that there is no need to enumerate your own shortcomings here, again.

    Of course you’ve ‘seen nothing to indicate’, your own pathological arseholeness precludes it. On any slight deviation from the orthodox position, your response is always the same “I fail to see…”, “I do not see how…”.

    You’re the only one saying it, however, and demanding that we have to submit to some nebulous test of our commitment to ‘discussion’. One reason for which is the sheer abundance of your comments. It’s clear you spend more time commenting than reading. Hence you don’t ever approach the substance of discussion. You’re preoccupied with undermining the character of everyone else — a psychopathic trait, as discussed at Nick Brown’s blog — to justify your own.

    The unfortunate corollary of you telling Ian that he doesn’t ‘get to set the rules’ is that you do.

    The climate debate has not happened. As we, and many sceptics have observed, the ‘consensus’ is used to shut out debate in the mainstream and elsewhere by individuals such as yourself, and organisations who will brook no dissent, even from climate scientists. The electorate have been denied a debate by the fact of a cross-party consensus on climate change policy, and a substantial (until now) democratic deficit across Europe. The very principles — never mind ‘the science’ — of political responses to climate change have not been tested at the ballot box.

    Your weak, wimpish and narcissistic protest that Ian wants to ‘set the rules of debate’ look, characteristically, like the words of a climate activist who has failed to develop a sense of proportion.

    You see, only a first order arsehole could form the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some other person was not really interested in debate, and decide that this made an opportunity to intervene in that debate. Yet you are here, once again, to say how sceptics don’t want a debate, counter-positions having been banned from your own blog. Your entire online purpose, it seems to me, is to poison any possibility of discussion in which perspectives that deviate from official climate ‘science’ or policy might get an airing.

    I doubt even you know why you do it. People are mysterious creatures. I used to live near a woman who was in the habit of standing in the middle of the road, and lifting up her dress to expose herself to passing traffic. It took a long time for the authorities to intervene. She was clearly nuts, and therefore not entirely accountable for her behaviour. Yet as nuts as she was, depriving her of her freedom would seem to be a worse thing than the occasional terror she would inflict on the B480. I point it out because, no matter what you have ‘failed to see’, your claim that this blindness reflects on Ian sounds like her claim that the rest of the world’s behaviour is obscene.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. An arsehole walks into a pub….

    — “The evidence for this is basically your conduct here.” —

    Should he be surprised that the other punters and bar staff treat him like an arsehole?

    Like

  23. Ben,

    The simple explanation for your observation, Ken, is that you are an arsehole. A pub bore, but on the internet.

    If you’re ever in Edinburgh, let me know.

    I doubt even you know why you do it.

    I find the topic interesting and I’m always hopeful that I will – one day – be pleasantly surprised. So far, no such luck.

    Like

  24. “If you want further proof of how good your video is, notice that our resident believalists aren’t coming anywhere near this post.”

    Reverse psychology works, kids!

    Like

  25. ATTP, if I may be so bold, would you keep in mind my last comment –

    No, I am interested in conversation. I’m all ears.

    – while you compose a reply to Ben? Then get back to me later?

    Like

  26. You said I gave the impression I wasn’t interested in a conversation. I refuted by stating that I am interested in a conversation. What did you want to say?

    Like

  27. Ian,
    That was what I was wanting to say. That was my conversation. If you wish to add anything, please do. However, this is starting to become a little like this. In fact, this is more apt than I had at first appreciated.

    Like

  28. Well, then, I can only say ‘I am interested in a conversation’ if ever you want to have one.

    And conversations between sceptics and their opposite should be had in the mainstream media. With no rules applied.

    Like

  29. — “It would be interesting to know if you’re this mouthy in real life.” —

    Right. But why would I want to hook up in real life with someone who strikes me, in cyberspace, as being a first-order arsehole? Merely to satisfy your curiosity? What?

    Ditto, why are you here, if you think we’re such arseholes? Such arseholes in fact, that you’ve banned many of us from your own blog.

    It’s an odd thing to do, isn’t it — ‘engaging’ with people you don’t believe can take part in a productive engagement?

    Who would do that? To what end? Why?!!!

    You’re a very odd chap indeed.

    Like

  30. Ben,

    Right. But why would I want to hook up in real life with someone who strikes me, in cyberspace, as being a first-order arsehole? Merely to satisfy your curiosity? What?

    Then don’t. It was just a suggestion. I happen to hold the view that people should try to engage online roughly as they would in real life, and I was just fascinated by the idea of you storming up the Royal Mile effing and blinding at Greens, Consensus Enforcers, etc, and calling everyone you met an arsehole. Would make an interesting act at next year’s Fringe Festival?

    Ditto, why are you here, if you think we’re such arseholes? Such arseholes in fact, that you’ve banned many of us from your own blog.

    I don’t think I’ve ever described anyone here in quite those terms (although I may have not hidden my views quite as well as I should have). I’ve also banned far fewer than you may think. I do find the topic interesting and even though my attempt to maintain some kind of civil dialogue has mostly failed, I still hold out some hope of it being possible. The more time I spend here, the less likely it seems, but I still hold out some hope.

    It’s an odd thing to do, isn’t it — ‘engaging’ with people you don’t believe can take part in a productive engagement?

    I don’t think you can, but you could always try to prove me wrong.

    Like

  31. How about this as an opener: would it be good to see sceptics and their opposite having no-rules debates/conversations in the mainstream media?

    Like

  32. ATTP,

    let’s have a conversation about the scientific or other legitimate academic purpose of your CoC study.

    Like

  33. Ian,

    would it be good to see sceptics and their opposite having no-rules debates/conversations in the mainstream media?

    I don’t have a problem with this, but I don’t actually see sceptics being prevented from engaging. If you mean an actual conversation/dialogue/debate, then you need to conduct yourself in such a way that other parties feel like engaging. It also depends on what you mean by “no rules”. If you mean “behave like Ben Pile does, if you want to” then you’re unlikely to get many people who would be interested in having such a conversation. If you mean “express whatever view you like, without being explicitly rude” then, of course. The problem, though, is that some people (who many would regard as experts) regard some views as particularly silly and probably won’t want to engage with someone who promotes these views. So, if you want to have conversations, I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.

    Like

  34. Ken — “It was just a suggestion.” —

    Right, but why would you even suggest it?

    — “I was just fascinated by the idea of you storming up the Royal Mile effing and blinding at Greens, Consensus Enforcers, etc, and calling everyone you met an arsehole” —

    Luckily for you, there’s a test case. I’ve been to Edinburgh several times. A few years ago, I went to debate Climategate at the University. The hosting organisation’s website no longer seems active, but you can read the convener’s announcement here.

    You can read what I said here. And you can read Ken McLeod’s follow up words and some discussion between me and someone who sounds an awful lot like you here.

    I don’t know if I stormed up the Royal Mile, because I didn’t notice any street names. Or storming. I climbed, rather than stormed up Arthur’s Seat before I got my train home. I didn’t call anyone an arsehole, and neither did anyone else. The panel went for pizza and drinks after, I stayed for pints with one of the other speakers, who is now ‘Programme Director for MSc in Carbon Management and Lecturer in Carbon Policy’ at the school of Geosciences, just down the road from you. We disagreed with each other, but didn’t do any ‘effing or blinding’.

    The exchange under the blog does get slightly more heated. A prolific, pseudonymous climate commenter, who had been somewhat following me around online for a while had mentioned at the announcement of the talk that he hoped I would get ‘ripped to shreds’ in the discussion. He would have been disappointed. I can’t say it’s because I won everyone over… It just wasn’t the kind of discussion in which people get ripped to shreds. You see, his symptom, too, is a prior understanding of the debate, and over-confidence in his own rectitude, before he’d even heard the argument — an ongoing preconception with a mission to vanquish the opposition in some highly polarised battle between goodies and baddies. You’re of the same species. It doesn’t matter is actually said, it must be denial.

    — “I do find the topic interesting… ” —

    I don’t believe that you do. That’s because I see you poison so many discussions.

    Here’s another debate I was at. With Mark Lynas and Joe Smith, both of whom I disagree profoundly with. I can’t say it was my strongest debate performance. But nobody called anyone an arsehole. (Though Joe Smith did call us all animals). Lynas didn’t stick around, but Joe and I had a few drinks later with another sustainablist, who I also managed to disagree with, without calling her an arsehole.

    So you see, I have had many debates with people of the seemingly opposite persuasion, which have not gone down the path that I have seen every ‘discussion’ with you go down, whether I am there or not.

    –… and even though my attempt to maintain some kind of civil dialogue has mostly failed, I still hold out some hope of it being possible.–

    As pointed out in another discussion here, you are the constant in what you perceive — sceptics nastiness. You are an antagonist, who only kids (and flatters) himself that he is ‘trying to keep the conversation civil’. It seems to me that it is Consensus Enforcement that most prevents progress towards reconciling different perspectives, or at least, dialogue across differences of opinion. No doubt the sceptical side has its own trolls. But they’re invariably not part of the higher profile discussion in the way that, for instance, so many academics seem to have appointed themselves as Consensus Enforcers.

    And this is why I make a distinction, in fact, between Consensus Enforcers and other people in the debate on the putative ‘pro-climate’ side.

    Like

  35. I’m sure we could set up the rules under which ATTP could have a conversation with one or any or all of us. It’s been done before between me and Green activist/ University Lecturer Adam Corner. We had three conversations and got a lot of internet interest. The first one was at
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=581

    ATTP is free to suggest the rules of engagement. With Adam we had the conversation in private, then stopped when we felt we’d had enough and published the result.

    Like

  36. Ken — “Maybe don’t take it so seriously? ” —

    Apart from this blog, I think I’ve commented on maybe 2 or 3 others this last year, once or twice. You’ve turned up at nearly every blog on climate blog I’ve read, never mind commented on. And you’ve commented on them in this style:

    — “this is so obviously stupid, that I’m amazed anyone with a basic understanding of the topic would possibly excuse it.” —

    So who is taking it too seriously?

    Like

  37. Ben,
    Oh, is that still getting to you? Well, it would have been a stupid thing to say and so I was simply commenting that it seemed odd that anyone with a basic understanding would somehow excuse it. Strange that you would object so strongly to that.

    Like

  38. Ken is always “… simply commenting….”. Just sain’, you know?

    It’s a way of not taking responsibility for what he writes, while demanding that other people account for what they have written.

    Like

  39. Ben,
    That’s just a turn of phrase. Of course I take responsibility for saying that. I think it would be a stupid thing to say (you, of course, keep leaving out the bit I had quoted and that I regarded as a stupid thing to say) and would find it odd to have anyone who understands the topic appearing to excuse it.

    Like

  40. What I think Ken, is that it demonstrates your own considerable lack of self-awareness and poor judgement, that you could enter a forum with people who are broadly sympathetic to your own preferences with respect to climate policy, and yet alienate yourself as the first comment.

    The point being, again, that whereas we utter-bastard sceptics seem able to hold perfectly reasonable and productive discussions with ‘warmist’ counterparts — when you’re not there — you can’t even keep yourself restrained in a forum when we’re not there.

    You say debate with us is not possible, because of us… But it’s not us; it’s you. You’re the constant, here, there, everywhere. And it if it’s not you, it’s someone with the same pathological inclinations.

    Like

  41. Brad — “let’s have a conversation about the scientific or other legitimate academic purpose of your CoC study.” —

    Blog post maybe, where Ken can defend his paper. A viva, so to speak.

    Like

  42. ATTP
    So are you willing to have a conversation, on a topic of your choosing, here? Suggest a subject and rules of engagement and interlocutor (I’m assuming you’d prefer one on one, but feel free to suggest alternatives). Please make it soemthing substantive.

    Like

  43. Ben,
    A viva isn’t really a conversation.

    Geoff,
    I do come here and comment (much to many of your regulars’ disgust, as far as I can tell). Whether or not we can have a conversation is mostly in your collective hands (although I realise that it’s all apparently my fault that it isn’t possible). The topic is entirely up to you. I wasn’t specifically advocating for one.

    Like

  44. ATTP
    I suggested that you could suggest a subject, and you suggest I do the same. This is Ian’s thread, so I think he should have first choice, if he’s interested.

    If it was me starting, I think I’d ask you what it is you find “fundamentally flawed” about what you read here. Most of us are more or less within the pseudo-consensus as so badly defined by Doran, Cook etc. From that extremely vague position, we find dozen, maybe hundreds, of things to disagree with and to get blazing angry about in and around the climate movement.

    A possible modus operandi would be for our “side” to post a question. You could reply in comments and we’d immediately edit it up to above the line, and reply. I’m not personally ready to do this for several days since I have poor internet connection here. Maybe Ian or Ben or Brad?

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Geoff,
    I don’t know if I’ve actually described anything here as “fundamentally flawed”. Mostly it seems to be articles complaining about others, rather than anything specific.

    What do you mean by this?

    Most of us are more or less within the pseudo-consensus

    Do you mean that you largely accept the conclusions from the IPCC AR5 WGI, or that your view overlaps, or something else altogether?

    Like

  46. Ken — “Mostly it seems to be articles complaining about others, rather than anything specific.” —

    Heav’n save us from nebulous whinges!

    Like

  47. Ken –“I wasn’t complaining.”–

    Heav’n save us from nebulous utterances of indeterminate intent!

    Geoff gave you an opportunity to set the terms and tone of a discussion, which above, you claim is impossible because us. You *seem* to have objected to us, for something… though not a complaint, and now you’re walking away from the experiment…

    It’s you, isn’t it, that can’t discuss things.

    Take Geoffs challenge, or go away.

    Like

  48. Ken — “I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.”

    Geoff — “If it was me starting, I think I’d ask you what it is you find “fundamentally flawed” about what you read here.” —

    Ken — “I don’t know if I’ve actually described anything here as “fundamentally flawed”.” —

    FFS, guys, let’s just chuck this waste of time out. He can’t even commit to his own words.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. FFS, guys, let’s just chuck this waste of time out. He can’t even commit to his own words.

    Come on, you know you want to.

    I think you left out this bit of my comment

    What do you mean by this?

    Most of us are more or less within the pseudo-consensus

    Do you mean that you largely accept the conclusions from the IPCC AR5 WGI, or that your view overlaps, or something else altogether?

    Like

  50. Ken — “Come on, you know you want to.” —

    I make no secret of it – hence I banned you from my blog and blocked you on Twitter years ago, much to your whingeing. I am surprised by the patience of the others here who are saying you shouldn’t be banned.

    Even when your own words are in front of you, and in stark contradiction, it still causes no self-reflection.

    Like

  51. Even when your own words are in front of you, and in stark contradiction, it still causes no self-reflection.

    It would help if you didn’t constantly misrepresent them. Are you fundamentally dishonest, or just thick?

    Like

  52. Ken — “It would help if you didn’t constantly misrepresent them” —

    They were YOUR OWN WORDS:

    Ken — “I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.”

    Geoff — “If it was me starting, I think I’d ask you what it is you find “fundamentally flawed” about what you read here.” —

    Ken — “I don’t know if I’ve actually described anything here as “fundamentally flawed”.”

    Now, are you going to take Geoff up on his challenge, or are you going to go away?

    Liked by 1 person

  53. Ben,
    Okay, this isn’t complicated, but I’ll explain it slowly so that you can understand.

    “If it was me starting, I think I’d ask you what it is you find “fundamentally flawed” about what you read here.”

    This would seem to imply that I’ve said something to suggest that I’ve found something here that I regard as fundamentally flawed. Since I don’t think I have, I respond with

    I don’t know if I’ve actually described anything here as “fundamentally flawed”

    and then I ask Geoff a question so as to maybe start some kind of conversation. Simple. Got it now? So, yes, I have responded to Geoff’s comment. That you didn’t understand that, really isn’t my problem.

    Now, are you going to take Geoff up on his challenge, or are you going to go away?

    Now, are you going to ban me, or stop whining? It really is getting pretty tedious, and you would probably be doing me a favour if you did. On the other hand, you don’t have to participate in this conversation. Despite all your protestations, I’m largely unconvinced that you’re really capable of holding one.

    Like

  54. Ken — “This would seem to imply that I’ve said something to suggest that I’ve found something here that I regard as fundamentally flawed. Since I don’t think I have, I respond with” —

    There’s no point quoting Geoff. Geoff was asking you what you were referring to when you said:

    — “if you want to have conversations, I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.”

    Which is to say that you have ‘found something here that [you] find fundamentally flawed’.

    If you haven’t, then what the hell is your problem?

    You’ve turned down Geoff’s offer. And you’ve turned down Brad’s challenge, too. And yet you persist in this absurd, interminable cascade of whingeing self-justification and insistence that you’re not responsible for the quality of the discussion.

    I’m not in a position to ban you. This is a collective blog, and this post is Ian’s.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Ben,

    “if you want to have conversations, I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.”

    Which is to say that you have ‘found something here that [you] find fundamentally flawed’.

    No, it doesn’t. Come on. If you’re going to pretend to be some kind of intellectual, at least get this kind of stuff right.

    I’m not in a position to ban you. This is a collective blog, and this post is Ian’s.

    Then stop whining. And, FWIW, if this is what people here regard as conversation, you really would be doing me a favour if you banned me.

    Like

  56. — “if this is what people here regard as conversation, you really would be doing me a favour if you banned me.” —

    If you weren’t here, the quality of the conversation would be much higher, wouldn’t it.

    That doesn’t say anything about us, Ken.

    Like

  57. If you weren’t here, the quality of the conversation would be much higher, wouldn’t it.

    Possibly, it couldn’t exactly get much lower.

    That doesn’t say anything about us, Ken.

    Really? This is not obvious. Come on, just ban me and get it over with. This really is tedious.

    Like

  58. Ken has refused the offers of allowing him to set the subject and rules of a discussion.

    He seems merely to want to behave in a way that will result in him being banned.

    I propose we do this and consign his comments to the trash. I agree with him 100%: “just ban [him] and get it over with”.

    Like

  59. …and Then There’s Physics (29 Aug 16 at 5:20 pm):

    “I don’t know if I’ve actually described anything here as ‘fundamentally flawed’.”

    You (29 Aug 16 at 1:12 pm):

    “…if you want to have conversations, I think you need to both be willing to listen to the other party and accept that you might be criticised if you choose to express views that many regard as fundamentally flawed.”

    You:

    What do you mean by this?: “Most of us are more or less within the pseudo-consensus”

    As I said, the 97% consensus as defined by Doran and Zimmmerman: that the world is warming and we are partly responsible. Cook’s defnition is less clear. Anderegg’s and Oereskes’ I don’t know exactly. That corresponds pretty well with the IPCC’s joint opinion that they’re 95% sure man is causing some (or did they say most?) of current warming. If you asked me those questions in an opinion poll I’d probably say yes, maybe, why not? If in a court of law I’d be more precise and careful, of course. You must know from having frequented sceptic blogs that most sceptics would say something of the kind.

    Like

  60. benpile (29 Aug 16 at 6:43 pm)

    I don’t think ATTP should be banned, and I’d hate to see this “conversation” disappear. It’s very significant, I think, but of what, I’m not sure.

    Like

  61. Cann you tell me though, Geoff, have you seen Ken, or any other Consensus Enforcer ever add any value to a discussion, rather than detract from it. Have you learned anything, in other words, other than the fact that Consensus Enforcers are arseholes, and that they are draw to the climate debate for exactly the reason arseholes are drawn to toilet seats?

    Like

  62. Geoff,

    That corresponds pretty well with the IPCC’s joint opinion that they’re 95% sure man is causing some (or did they say most?) of current warming.

    The IPCC’s statement was that it is extremely likely that more than 50% of the observed warming since 1950 was anthropogenic. They also added that their best estimate was similar to the observed warming for that period (i.e., the best estimate is that it is mostly/all anthropogenic). Do you agree with that, or accept it?

    I don’t think ATTP should be banned, and I’d hate to see this “conversation” disappear. It’s very significant, I think, but of what, I’m not sure.

    If this is roughly what you would regard as the kind of conversations you would like to have more of, you really should do me a favour and ban me.

    Like

  63. — “Do you agree with that, or accept it?”–

    The are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been of Consensus Enforcement.

    He’s already told you he agrees with it. As have countless people you’ve written off as ‘deniers’.

    And you wonder why there is a consensus that you’re an arsehole.

    Like

  64. Ben,

    He’s already told you he agrees with it. As have countless people you’ve written off as ‘deniers’.

    No, he hasn’t and, no, I haven’t written anyone off as a denier.

    And you wonder why there is a consensus that you’re an arsehole.

    Really? You wouldn’t be trying to enforce a consensus, would you?

    Like

  65. It bears repeating…

    — “Do you agree with that, or accept it?”–

    If only Consensus Enforcers had ever listened, they would by now have understood that the question that preoccupies them isn’t a question that defines the debate.

    It was pointed out to Ken, years ago. The putative zero-level of the debate… And they still don’t know.

    This is remarkable.

    Like

  66. Ken. — You wouldn’t be trying to enforce a consensus, —

    You’re doing all the heavy lifting, Ken.

    Like

  67. Maybe some reflection on this comment might be worthwhile.

    If you mean an actual conversation/dialogue/debate, then you need to conduct yourself in such a way that other parties feel like engaging. It also depends on what you mean by “no rules”. If you mean “behave like Ben Pile does, if you want to” then you’re unlikely to get many people who would be interested in having such a conversation. If you mean “express whatever view you like, without being explicitly rude” then, of course.

    Ben,
    As I think I have pointed out before, I’m not trying to, or have any interest in, enforcing anything. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like.

    Like

  68. ATTP
    So are you OK for a debate? Yes of No?

    I’d amend my opening question to: “What views expressed here do you think many would regard as ‘fundamentally flawed?’”

    Or you can open the debate with a question about the consensus, if you like.

    Thereafter, as I said, each would reply in ther own time, giving considered opinions (not a real time spat). Yours would automatically appear as comments first, and one of us would rescue them and put them above the line. The boundaries of the discussion, as I see it, would be the differences of opinion between us. You must know what these are roughly by now. They don’t include discussion of the thermohaline circulation belt, for example.

    I seriously value your opinions. As a searcher for exo-planets, you’re our best hope for finding intelligent life somewhere else.

    Like

  69. Ken — “I’m not trying to, or have any interest in, enforcing anything.” —

    That’s obvious bullshit. Nobody from the SkS fold can claim not to be a Consensus Enforcer, the traits of which have been explained. In detail.

    The question that remains about it is whether Consensus Enforcement is pathological — i.e. what level of insight Consensus Enforcers have into themselves and their behaviour.

    If you don’t like being labelled a Consensus Enforcer and the traits of Consensus Enforcement being enumerated, you perhaps should resist your own folds more influential — but less grounded — attempts to probe sceptics’ minds.

    Like

  70. ATTP: you make the point that you haven’t claimed a lot of the stuff on this site is ‘fundamentally flawed’. You merely say many would find it so. Do you yourself find much of the content here fundamentally flawed?

    Like

  71. Geoff,

    So are you OK for a debate? Yes of No?

    No, I think I’ve rather gone off it, to be quite honest. I also thought we were talking about being able to have a conversation, rather than something formal. A conversation doesn’t have to have a purpose, or some kind of goal. It is simply a conversation.

    I’d amend my opening question to: “What views expressed here do you think many would regard as ‘fundamentally flawed?’”

    Why are you focusing on this? As I said, I don’t think I’ve suggested that I’ve found something here that is “fundamentally flawed”. I was intending that to refer to our scientific understanding, not your opinion about environmentalists. You might need to express some views on that if you really want me to comment on that.

    My reason for mentioning that, was that the context in this post seems to be about having more conversations. I was simply pointing out that if you want to engage in conversations with others, you might need to avoid promoting views that are regarded as “fundamentally flawed”.

    Like

  72. Surely a conversation would be able to cope with fundamentally flawed opinion? One person could show why the other’s views were flawed.

    Like

  73. Ian,
    It could possibly cope, but I was suggesting that other parties may simply not be interested if they thought that the conversation would include such ideas. Also, the idea that you can show someone that their views are fundamentally flawed is wildly optimistic.

    Like

  74. Ian,
    I thought I had. I was, however, making a more general point. If you really think that more conversation overall would be worthwhile, then you need to make it worthwhile for others to participate.

    Like

  75. — ” I think I’ve rather gone off it, to be quite honest. “–

    Oh, but you were never keen.

    “I also thought we were talking about being able to have a conversation, rather than something formal.”

    It was Ken who raises the subject of ‘rules’, of course, though does nothing to illustrate what rules have been set, much less how setting hte rules transgresses the rules.

    — You keep saying things that make it appear that you’re interested in some kind of conversation, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that you really are. At best, what you seem to be suggesting is some kind of dialogue with rules that you get to define.
    […]

    It’s my view that if you are serious about wanting conversations, then you don’t get to set the rules.

    It was Consensus Enforcement passive aggression from the start, of course. Ian no more tried to define the rules than Ken observed an attempt to define the rules. It sounds plausible, but it’s hollow, confected.

    Then Ken was offered the opportunity to establish the rules… And chickened out.

    He can no more commit to rules than he can commit to his own words. This is the fundamental flaw.

    Like

  76. The torrent of Consensus Enforcement passive aggressive revision continues…

    — “other parties may simply not be interested if they thought that the conversation would include such ideas” —

    I’m not saying your girlfriend is fat, ugly and stupid, I’m just saying that’s how some people might perceive her.

    Like

  77. This seems to be the case Ben.

    Attp: worthwhile in what sense? There’s the tantalising possibility you might win the argument. How else could it be made to be worthwhile?

    Like

  78. — ” you need to make it worthwhile for others to participate.” —

    Agreed. Let’s ban Ken.

    Like

  79. Ian,

    Attp: worthwhile in what sense? There’s the tantalising possibility you might win the argument. How else could it be made to be worthwhile?

    I’m not trying to win an argument.

    Agreed. Let’s ban Ken.

    Please do.

    Like

  80. — “I’m not trying to win an argument.” —

    The point of Consensus Enforcement is disruption. To prevent, not enable discussion, or resolution between different perspectives. ‘There is no debate’, after all.

    Witness, for E.g. Dana’s fury that I was published on the MSP blog. That’s the point of the 97% survey — to shut down debate.

    Ken is involved in that enterprise, not some passer-by, who ‘merely comments’.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Ian,
    I’m not really aiming for anything. This is your post. You seemed to be suggesting that it would be good if there were more conversations. I have no problem with more conversations, but I don’t think the point would be to win some kind of argument.

    Like

  82. is this conducive to ‘conversations’?

    — “my impression is that you aren’t really interested in conversation. The evidence for this is basically your conduct here. I may have interpreted this incorrectly, and you may – of course – disagree. Whether you like it or not, my general impression is that there is much discussion here about how to conduct conversations and complaints about the lack of any conversations taking place, but little actual evidence that anyone here is really interested, and plenty of indications that you really are not.” —

    Or is it passive-aggressive rule-setting-without-setting-the-rules, arseholism?

    Like

  83. Well, shedding light on positions (based on a vigourous interrogation of their validity) is bound in the end to result in a ‘win’ for one or other participant. But readers would be the judge of course.

    Like

  84. This is difficult. On the one hand, freedom of speech says bla bla. On the other, Drag Queen Ken wants to brag with the morons that he has been banned. It is clear that Ken is either unable or unwilling to debate honestly. He has been asked often enough to explain and debate, and yet still resorts to the tactics of a teenager with bad acne. The real solution would be to examine the funding of his institution. Is he really teacher material?

    Let him bloviate and try to drag discussions off the rails. We can all decide whether or not to do say. A freedom denied to everyone by Ken. Maybe Brad can ask what the IPCC null hypothesis is…..

    Like

  85. Ian,

    Well, shedding light on positions (based on a vigourous interrogation of their validity) is bound in the end to result in a ‘win’ for one or other participant. But readers would be the judge of course.

    Then you might need to define who you expect to hold such conversations. I don’t think many scientists would regard this as a suitable way in which to determine the vaidity of various scientific ideas. If you’re talking about your policy views, then that would seem to be a different group of people who you would think should hold these conversations. Maybe you could clarify quite what it is that you would hope to establish by having these conversations?

    Like

  86. ATTP
    ”I was simply pointing out that if you want to engage in conversations with others, you might need to avoid promoting views that are regarded as ‘fundamentally flawed’.”

    Well, that’s clear enough. If I want a conversation, I should avoid saying anything others might disagree with. But I still want a conversation. Do you? Or do you want to be banned so you don’t have to answer an awkward question?

    Unlike Ben, I’m not willing to do you that favour.

    Ben is undoubtedly right when he says: “That’s the point of the 97% survey — to shut down debate. Ken is involved in that enterprise, not some passer-by, who ‘merely comments’.”

    But I’m trying to look at it from the point of view of a genuine passer by, who might see a pointless argument in which one guy gets insulted and then banned and the other three or four express satisfaction.

    I’d love a debate Ken. Would you? Name your rules. Call it “conversation” “debate” what you will.

    Like

  87. Back-peddling furiously, but in the politest way it is possible to effect…

    — “Then you might need to define who you expect to hold such conversations. ” —

    Not you. Which means almost anybody else amongst the 7 billion. we know what you have to say. We know what you think. We see it all too often. And now you’re rule-setting. Which you were against.

    Go and Enforce the Consensus elsewhere. Or rise to Geoff’s/Brad’s challenge.

    Like

  88. Geoff,

    Well, that’s clear enough. If I want a conversation, I should avoid saying anything others might disagree with.

    No, that’s not what I said. I suggested that if you’re likely to promote stuff that others think is nonsense, they may not be interested.

    But I still want a conversation. Do you?

    I comment here. If you want to have a conversation, start one.

    Or do you want to be banned so you don’t have to answer an awkward question?

    I don’t really care. If your goal is to ask awkward questions, then it’s not really a conversation. I’m not hugely interested if it’s likely to be a game of “gotcha”.

    I’d love a debate Ken. Would you? Name your rules. Call it “conversation” “debate” what you will.

    As I said. If you want to have a conversation, start one. I’m not really interested in rules.

    Like

  89. Setting rules:

    — “I don’t really care. If your goal is to ask awkward questions, then it’s not really a conversation. I’m not hugely interested if it’s likely to be a game of “gotcha”.” —

    — “Come on, either ban me, stop whining, or go away.” —

    It isn’t my decision to make. As you know. I’m happy to help you demonstrate that you contribute nothing to debate, however. I worked out that you’re a mere cipher 3 years ago.

    Like

  90. — “If you think the goal is to win some kind of argument, ” —

    We know what the goal is…

    — The point of Consensus Enforcement is disruption. To prevent, not enable discussion, or resolution between different perspectives. —

    On that point, you’ve done much to convince us that you believe this site to be irredeemably hostile to debate. It was pointed out that this is a reflection of your own behaviour. Either way, though, it raises the question, again, why you would remain. It’s not to have a conversation, you admit that much. It must be to prevent one breaking out, ergo.

    Like

  91. Ian,

    Fair enough. Presumably you can win the argument though? Or is there no argument to be had?

    Again, it depends what argument you think we might be having. I don’t think that we resolve scientific disputes by arguing (although scientists may indeed argue at times). You resolve them by collecting more information/evidence and trying to rule out various possibilities. It’s why scientists are often reluctant to debate. What would be the point? Whether they win or lose doesn’t influence our actual understanding. If you mean something other than science, then I don’t actually have very strong views, as surprising as that may seem.

    Like

  92. ATTP
    No, the goal is not to win some argument. It’s to display our differences in order to limit future misunderstanding. For example, you could explain what you mean by “views that are regarded as ‘fundamentally flawed’”, (which you have just redefined as “stuff that others think is nonsense”) and we could take it from there.

    “If you want to have a conversation, start one.”

    OK I will, tomorrow, since it’s a bit late here. It won’t be an interrogation, although of course we both have the right to ask questions. Do ypu want it to be about the fundamentally flawed ideas to be found here, or our relation to the consensus, or what? Just say, and I’ll put it up early tomorrow, under the heading “Conversation with AndThenThere’sPhysics”. I’ll try to reply promptly, but as I said, the internet connection is sometimes ropey here on the Mediterranean coast.

    Liked by 2 people

  93. — “It’s why scientists are often reluctant to debate.” —

    This is not something I’ve noticed about scientists. I’ve been to many debates. Hundreds. And organised them.

    Scientists generally like talking about their work.

    Like

  94. — “If you mean something other than science, then I don’t actually have very strong views, as surprising as that may seem.” —

    And yet there was that paper… What was it again, Brad?

    Like

  95. Ben,

    Scientists generally like talking about their work.

    I’ve never seen a scientific debate and I’ve seen plenty of scientists talk about their work.

    Ian,

    Including the policy side? Or is it just climate science you find interesting?

    The scientific side is the one I think I understand.

    Like

  96. — “I’ve never seen a scientific debate and I’ve seen plenty of scientists talk about their work.” —

    It seems to me that you have a very poorly-developed understanding of science. In particular, of science which is held to have significance for the rest of society. Perhaps that’s not surprising for your field.

    Here’s a debate between scientists. With agreement and disagreement, variously.

    You might learn something.

    I’m at the back. I didn’t call anyone there an arsehole. But that’s perhaps because they each had something interesting to say.

    Except Rapley, of course.

    Like

  97. Thinking about this a bit more…

    — “It’s why scientists are often reluctant to debate.” —

    I wonder if they just think… Oh, shit, It’s Ken again. Let’s talk about something else…

    Like

  98. Scientists are seldom reluctant to debate.

    Not that they’re often invited to do so (AFAICS). But when they are, they have little to lose and much to gain by taking up the gauntlet. It’s a chance to get the public thinking about science, and in a modest sense thinking scientifically, so it’s a win no matter what the scoreboard says.

    The only exceptions appear to be:

    1) Evolutionary biologists of the “bright” school, because they pride themselves on being undebatably correct and couldn’t care less how that kind of pomposity plays to a general audience.

    2) Climate catastrophists, because they know they’d lose. They’re wrong and they know their opponents know it.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. I’m with Geoff—I see no reason to ban Raff, Ken or anyone else. And yes, I have been paying attention to Ken’s less-than-creditable performance on this thread. Nonetheless.

    But I suppose it’s academic (in the proper sense of the word: irrelevant and uninteresting) which way I vote, since Ken has wisely elected not to talk to me.

    If he allows himself to be drawn into a dialogue with me he knows I’m going to ask him to justify the CoC paper at some point, and he knows it was unjustifiable, and he knows he’ll only wind up owing the Scottish taxpayer a refund.

    Better to just go on ignoring me.

    And by better I mean cheaper.

    Like

  100. If you really want to have a conversation, since the thread started with a video of Ian Woolley proposing ideas that any climate scientist would argue with but which his friend was not in a position to refute, why not discuss a few of Ian’s ideas. For an example, why not discuss whether, as he told his friend, the idea that heat is going into the oceans only arose a few years ago. That should be an easy one to start with.

    Like

  101. Thanks Raff.

    What were Ian’s exact words? The possibility that the oceans could be useful as an alibi for missing heat did, of course, occur to scientists long ago, but they only started using it once the slowdown (I don’t want to start a ‘pause’ war) became undeniable, in my understanding. Am I wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  102. @benpile (29 Aug 16 at 9:00 pm) Thanks for sharing this video. Particularly considering that the debate took place two years prior to Climategate. In my view, there were a lot of lessons that could have been learned from that 2007 video.

    As Fred Pearce had noted, in early Dec. 2009, and as I have mentioned on my blog occasionally, e.g. here:

    I have been speaking to a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations. Most unusually, he didn’t want to be quoted. But his message is clear. The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.

    But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.” [my bold -hro]

    But, that aside, I can’t help wondering if our semi-resident soldiers from the lower ranks of the blight brigade had been in that 2007 audience what questions they might have asked.

    View from here, so to speak, is that between 2007 and today neither the leading lights nor the lesser lights have learned a damn thing, except how to recyle ‘n smear ad infinitum … while the so-called “experts” of the UNEP/WMO/UNFCCC’s IPCC-kind continue to up their unscientific alarmist ante.

    Liked by 1 person

  103. I notice that once Geoff Chambers made his eminently reasonable suggestion, ATTP ignored him, and still hasn’t responded. His modus operandi is to deflect threads and disrupt them. He certainly seems to have succeeded on this thread. It seems to me from his repeated requests to be banned, that his real purpose was to make himself sufficiently annoying that you would ban him. He could then put a big article up on his own echo-chamber of a site telling people how those hypocrites over here, who complain about him banning people from his own site, had banned him from theirs.

    I can understand Ben’s frustration with him. In my opinion he’s the most irritating blogger on the web, and there’s plenty of competition for that title on both “sides” of the climate debate (not that there should be sides if scientists behaved like scientists). However, I think you’d make a mistake if you banned him. Freedom of speech is important, and apart from that, any disinterested person watching ATTP perform must surely be less than impressed by his antics.

    Liked by 1 person

  104. I notice that once Geoff Chambers made his eminently reasonable suggestion, ATTP ignored him, and still hasn’t responded.

    I’ve responded to Geoff on a number of occasions. The discussion here is about the ability to have conversations, which I’m happy to do. What I’m not interested in, is some kind of inquisition. If Geoff would like to start a conversation, go ahead. I’m not interested, however, in some kind of question and answer session.

    He could then put a big article up on his own echo-chamber of a site telling people how those hypocrites over here, who complain about him banning people from his own site, had banned him from theirs.

    Maybe don’t judge me by your standards. As I said, feel free to ban me. I don’t really care and I won’t complain or write about it elsewhere.

    Like

  105. Ian,

    Anyway, my last query is dangling. Ken, are you interested in the policy side of matters climatic?

    I’m interested in how the scientific evidence may influence it, rather than in the policy side specifically. I, however, don’t have a great deal of interest in discussing wind turbines, for example. Just to be clear, a conversation doesn’t normally involve simply asking a bunch of questions.

    Like

  106. ATTP,

    Just to be clear, a conversation doesn’t normally involve simply asking a bunch of questions.

    Really?
    Why not?
    Got a citation for that?
    What are you afraid of?
    Why aren’t you conversing, huh?
    Huh?

    Kidding aside, are you amenable to having a conversation with me?

    Liked by 1 person

  107. Yes, perhaps talk with Brad instead. (The reason for the questions is just to establish a foothold. You can ask questions too if you’re curious. I mean, we want to find out about each other don’t we? Or are we just gonna talk about the weather?)

    But Brad’s question/s is/are more pressing here. Back to him.

    Like

  108. I had an intro ready for a conversation thus:
    It’s well known that most climate sceptics do not disagree with the basic climate consensus – that the earth is warming and that man’s activities are probably partly responsible. The physical properties of greenhouse gasses are not in question. Yet defenders of the consensus clearly find our views unreceivable, unsupportable even. Instead of disputing our ideas one by one, most ignore them, while a few intervene to dismiss them wholesale, by describing them for instance, as “fundamentally flawed”. I’d be interested to have Ken’s opinion of why this is so.
    But Firefox (or WordPress?) won’t let me stay logged in long enough to set it up. I’d therefore prefer to hand the job over to Brad of Ian

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s