We’ve hit the big time!

Break out the champagne substitute. Our humble efforts have finally come to the attention of internet climate giant And Then There’s Physics (real name unknown).

Interestingly, his or her comments section appears to be infested with skeptics in and out of disguise.

Someone called ‘Victor’ venemously mocks the host/hostess with,

Feeling lonely/ignored? Write a post about consensus.

‘John Hartz’ then agrees with our own Ben Pile’s nomenclature system, writing,

If the consensus enforcer shoe fits, wear it!

‘Magma’ endorses, almost verbatim, what I’ve been saying for years about the evidentiary bankruptcy of our recursively-spurious opponents—my emphasis:

Naturally enough the second thing the consensus enforcers did was to enforce a consensus on the consensus studies. They’re not stupid, you know. It’s turtles all the way down.

At that point it all veers a bit far right for my taste, with a ‘David Appell’ claiming that,

Alex Jones is quite sane.

ATTP must have his panties/her bra in a knot right about now. The disloyalty. The betrayal.

What happened? Did the non-existent debate hit some kind of tipping point while I was asleep?

Anyway, flock on over to ATTP’s and leave a comment.

Just kidding.


UPDATE: On a whim I decided to read the OP itself, and I’m glad I did. It’s even funnier than the vigorous debate comments section.

The pièce de résistance would have to be this astrobionomical understatement from Anders:

Climate science is a little unusual in that there is research into quantifying the level of consensus.

Um, yeah. That is a little abnormal. And the insights keep coming:

In most research areas, this isn’t necessary, because…

Dear reader, what do you think the author wrote next? (No cheating by reading the post.) Was it:

a) …consensus has nothing to do with science, which is much more interested in a little thing we call evidence. As the late great Michael Crichton observed, poetically if not literally: “If it’s science it’s not consensus, and if it’s consensus it’s not science.”

b) …a consensus is defined—in the rules of science itself—as having an evidentiary weight of 0.0, leaving the entire subject of consensus far beneath the radar (and dignity) of scientists and scientifically-literate citizens alike.

c) …a consensus is defined—in every English dictionary known to man—as a majority opinion, and opinions are like anuses in science, only not as interesting.

Before you answer, bear in mind: ATTP has claimed to be a scientist and therefore must know the first thing (if not the second or subsequent things) about how science works.

Locked in your answer? Good.

Wrong. Not even close.

What Anders actually wrote is:

…all you really need to do is ask someone.

I must confess to feeling a bit silly now. I’d always assumed that ATTP—for all his/her climate comprehension difficulties—was at least competent in their own field, something called astrobiology (don’t ask).

But apparently Anders is evidence-illiterate even on his or her own astroturf. From the sounds of it, reading the literature is too hard for him/her. Even the classic astrobionomy textbooks are above his/her pay grade, it seems.

Instead our pseudonymous friend has no choice but to wander the halls of the University of Edinburgh, accosting random colleagues and asking, “What do 97 out of a hundred bioastrologers think about [insert any one of the great open questions in bioastrology today]?”

One has to wonder what kind of wild-ass guesses they fob Anders off with. After all, we’ve established that NOBODY EVER QUANTIFIES CONSENSUS IN THE NON-PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCES. So it follows, if you know how to reason—and please don’t tell ATTP this—that whatever his or her workmates say in response to such an imbecilic question has to be calculated ex posteriori. Or as our Scottish conspecifics would say, out of their arses.

I swear that’s the last time I fall for the Gell-Mann fallacy. Until the next one.

I’ve said it before: weep. Weep for Scotland.

439 thoughts on “We’ve hit the big time!

  1. Will,
    Haha. Whoever this “Ken” is, you’ve skewered s/h/it with a masterstroke of teleaggression (or microaggression). Ouch.

    Like

  2. I don’t think Thomas Kuhn would agree with Michael Crichton, it is difficult to have a paradigm (in the sense of Kuhn) without a consensus. I would point out though if you want a polite, constructive discussion with ATTP, this is probably not the best approach.

    Like

  3. ‘I don’t think Thomas Kuhn would agree with Michael Crichton’

    Sure, but that’s OK. Crichton was talking about how scientists should work if they aim to do science scientifically. Kuhn was more interested in how they *do* work, for better or worse. I often find myself arguing at cross purposes with someone because of the ambiguity of the question itself (what is science?).

    If ATTP wants a polite, constructive discussion he can always have it here, where he’s welcome. I can’t have it at his place, where I’m not welcome.

    Unfortunately he’s chosen not to acknowledge the last three (at least) comments I’ve written asking him if he’d like to have a conversation with me.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Does that mean a were-something? Or does it refer to somebunny with an animal-themed pseudonym?

    Like

  5. I disagree “paradigms” are more or less inescapable, sometimes scientific discoveries are made (such as special relativity) that really do change the way that we look at the world, and there is a paradigm shift that happens when they ocurr. However, mostly science progresses by small incremental changes, which implies that there will always be much that science agrees on. Kuhn rather overstates things, e.g. incommensurability, but that is human nature. There are many obvious examples, evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics, relativity, inflationary cosmology where if you just ask someone working in that field, they will with high probability be able to tell you what the majority of scientists accept as true, in other words there is a paradigm on which there is consensus.

    “If ATTP wants a polite, constructive discussion he can always have it here, where he’s welcome”

    but only be being willing to ignore the jibes and insults etc., I don’t think I’d bother for very long as it just gets in the way of substantive discussion and frankly gets rather boring rather quickly.

    Like

  6. Dikran,

    Crichton was a bit sloppy in his wording and came uncomfortably close to implying that there *is* no consensus in science. I don’t believe this (and I doubt he did either), which is why I prefaced the short quote with “poetically if not literally.”

    Like

  7. Dikran,

    you bring up the interesting topic of human nature. It’s human nature that the use of ‘jibes and insults etc.’ by person A against person B, with whom they disagree, is in inverse proportion to time spent in honest, one-on-one exchange of points of view. Conversation produces empathy. To put it another way, ‘jibes, insults etc.’ increase with psychological distance from the target.

    You’re right that personal abuse can get boring, at least for readers who don’t share the writer’s contempt for person B. But then again, I write for my own amusement, and this topic doesn’t bore me yet.

    Like

  8. ” It’s human nature that the use of ‘jibes and insults etc.’ by person A against person B”

    There are lots of things that are human nature, the point of being a mature civilized person is to be able to over-ride your human nature, if only in the interests of furthering your aims. If you want to show that someones ideas are incorrect, then the best way to do that is to have a substantive discussion of the substance of the arguments and not allow it to be derailed by jibes and insults or “nature of the discussion” discussions.

    If person A is contemptuous of person B, then that is a recipe for confirmation bias on the part of person A. If person A is insulting and dismissive towards person B then A put himself in a position where he can no longer admit that he is wrong and B is right because he will have made himself look utterly foolish by having been so insulting and dismissive of someone who was correct all along.

    Sure you write for your own amusement, but the insults and contempt is likely to mean that you won’t achieve much more than that.

    Like

  9. Dikran,

    this is a great description of the dangers of escalating the emotional ante in Climateball (and controversies in general):

    “If person A is insulting and dismissive towards person B then A put himself in a position where he can no longer admit that he is wrong and B is right because he will have made himself look utterly foolish by having been so insulting and dismissive of someone who was correct all along.”

    Is there much doubt that this is why establishment scientists like Karoly, Girgis and Mann will never in a million years be able to bring themselves to politely thank McIntyre for correcting them?

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Just to put your mind at ease, Dikran, I’ve never allowed hostilities to escalate to the point where I’m unwilling or unable to admit my interlocutor is right about something… about which they’re right. If you can bring yourself to peruse the abattoir that is Deltoid’s dreaded Brangelina thread you will see 5 examples of me doing just that: conceding a point to someone whose existence I’m on record as opposing.

    Like

  11. I hate to say this, but McIntyre has been pretty insulting/dismissive towards me, which wouldn’t encouraging me to thank him if he spotted an error in some of my work. I would like to think that I would still do so anyway, but at this point it shouldn’t be the expectation. A lot depends on how you go about demonstrating the error, if you are rude you can’t expect politeness in return and if you get it, it is something to be commended, rather than its absence criticized. In my experience it isn’t a reasonable expectation that the author being criticized will even accept the criticism as valid, no matter how strong the evidence. ;o)

    Like

  12. Yes but have you been insulting to McIntyre? That’s the key question. If not, you shouldn’t lose too much face by admitting he’s right about something. Or if you do, it isn’t predicted by the theory you elaborated above (and with which I agree).

    Like

  13. Not that I am aware of. I suspect I was more blunt when I first started discussing climate online, but I realised (see above) that I would rather keep the discussion on the science and that being insulting/dismissive/blunt is counterproductive as it just introduces the opportunity to get away from the science and have a “nature of the discussion” discussion or worse still a tiresome rhetoric-fest. This is why I recommend (on Nick’s blog) turning the other cheek every now and again and why I would hope that I would be gracious enough to give thanks anyway if an error was spotted.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Brad,

    Perhaps a touch unfair to describe Ken in those terms, only his arguments which invariably morph into something quite different with unnerving and unpredictable frequency.

    I have no evidence that Eli suffers from this problem though there is a famous animated film called The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Whether it is intended to be biographical I couldn’t comment.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. — “Sure you write for your own amusement, but the insults and contempt is likely to mean that you won’t achieve much more than that.” —

    An analogy was offered to Ken, several times, yet he still seems confused, emotional and angry about why the conversation didn’t go the way he wanted… In fact two analogies… One was being a prick at a party, the other a drunk arsehole at the pub.

    It is as if Ken stumbling in, drunk shouting, having cast himself as Socrates in his head, ‘the problem with you c***s is that you don’t know how to have a f***king conversation‘ is a pluasible invitation to a good faith exchange.

    Your advice is probably best directed to him. Yet you tell him over at that place, instead,

    — “Perhaps they would prefer to be ignored or ridiculed like most of those that claim to have evidence against the consensus on general relativity, or evolution by natural selection, or the various other elements of science on which a strong consensus exists. Not that I am condoning ridicule, but going out and performing studies and publishing papers is engaging and engaging constructively, what more do the want (other than a different answer)?” —

    Which is if course the Brian Cox mode of engagement. So in that sense has some advocates, but it marks them out as… Well, let’s say ‘motivated by bad faith’ rather than ‘prick’ or ‘arsehole’. The point being that you’ll never get to find out, really, what the objection to general relativity, evolution, or climate change is on that basis. Neither will you establish whether or not any of those things have actually been objected to. See, the ‘insults and contempt’ make it ‘likely to mean that you won’t achieve much more than that’.

    But that is the point of Ken’s mode of engagement. And of Consensus Enforcement. It is the way conversations go with Ken, and many of that ilk, even with no sceptics present. Any deviation from the binary understanding of the debate, or of a linear or deficit model of public understanding of science and policymaking, results in the same performance from a number of individuals. Not a massive contingent, and not all connected, for sure. But there are enough people who do seem to have internalised the climate debate, and it seems to produce the same expression of character, for us to observe it and identify it as a phenomenon.

    Conversations, between any parties in the debate, is always far more productive without that tendency present. And as non-sceptic, consensus perspectives have identified, the strategy of shrill, overbearing consensus messaging has not succeeded, and has in fact, conceded much ground to us evil deniers.

    Up your game.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. dikranmarsupial, Steve M was probably more blunt than he realised when he first started blogging but did you first engage with Steve M in a positive frame of mind or were you immediately ‘blunt’ because you felt he was on the attack? Were you there to observe whether he was ‘blunt’ with his first dealings with Steve Jones and Michael Mann or did he only turn blunt when they shut the door in his face? Many of us were polite when we started. Over a decade later and little progress and what’s the point in being polite? All it does is lure your side into thinking we can be hustled.

    You could say because we want something, to which I’d reply ‘ditto’. Only you want a lot more than we do and from a much more reluctant audience.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. “Over a decade later and little progress and what’s the point in being polite? All it does is lure your side into thinking we can be hustled.”

    It doesn’t seem to be doing much good here either. I have been polite in my discussions here, and yet you are responding in a partisan and hostile manner. As I explained earlier the point in being polite is to keep your own cognitive biases in check and not to give your “opponent” (if you really want to view it that way) an opportunity to avoid the substance of the scientific argument.

    “Steve M was probably more blunt than he realised when he first started blogging”

    actually the rudeness to which I referred was this year.

    “but did you first engage with Steve M in a positive frame of mind or were you immediately ‘blunt’ because you felt he was on the attack?”

    IIRC I tried to discuss the flaw in the paper under discussion in a reasonable scientific manner. The “he was on the attack” bit is irrelevant, that isn’t how science works, you look at each argument on its merits. Again the focus on motivations is dull and unproductive, a discussion of the science would be more interesting.

    Like

  18. “you are responding in a partisan and hostile manner.

    You are asking Tiny to account for your account of Steve M’s treatment of your claim.

    That’s quite hostile and partisan, in fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. BenPile wrote “You are asking Tiny to account for your account of Steve M’s treatment of your claim.”

    no, I didn’t ask any such thing. I pointed out that ““Over a decade later and little progress and what’s the point in being polite? All it does is lure your side into thinking we can be hustled.” is “partisan and hostile”. It is self-evidently partisan as it talks of “your side”, and the suggestion that “your side” is trying to “hustle” the other is obviously hostile. I did explain however the point of being polite, even when others are not.

    “That’s quite hostile and partisan, in fact.”

    No, there is nothing hostile and partisan in pointing out a comment is partisan and hostile, especially if the message is that we are better off avoiding being partisan and hostile (if only four our own good) and that it is a good idea to turn the other cheek occasionally (which is the polar opposite of hostile).

    Like

  20. But what is it you want to say dikranmarsupial? So far it seems to be that we need to follow science’s rules. A common refrain and one that completely misses the point of public involvement in the CO2 outcome.

    Steve M and quite a lot of other people followed the rules and it carries no weight with a large portion of the consensus si…

    If we can’t talk about sides it’s going to get very confusing. How should I refer to non sceptics?

    Other fields have a lot to teach the climate community but it steadfastly ignores everybody that criticises it. Shrug. We can all do that.

    Like

  21. Paul Matthews I didn’t say that the rudeness was at CA. It is a pity that this focus on a specific bit of rudeness is detracting from the key point I was making, which was turning the other cheek and remaining polite is a good idea, and not getting uptight if someone doesn’t thank you for pointing out their errors etc. The “but they started it” is not a particularly good excuse for not responding in a more mature manner. Yes S McIntyre was dismissive towards me/my argument, no I didn’t particularly care for that (not many would), however I am sufficiently grown up that I didn’t feel the need to respond in kind, so I didn’t.

    Like

  22. tinyCO2 writes “But what is it you want to say dikranmarsupial?”

    in response to

    “the message is that we are better off avoiding being partisan and hostile (if only four our own good) and that it is a good idea to turn the other cheek occasionally”

    The message seems pretty clear to me.

    Like

  23. … and you still haven’t said what you are complaining about, but you continue to whine about it, while saying that you hate to do so!

    I wonder if you are a sockpuppet of WottsLeftofPhysicsKen. You are behaving in exactly the same way he does.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “It is self-evidently partisan as it talks of “your side”, and the suggestion that “your side” is trying to “hustle” the other is obviously hostile. —

    Isn’t Tiny making the same point then, pointing out that there are existing dimensions to the debate. Is it any more hostile than your implication above that it is *we*, not Ken who need advice on conduct?

    Given that this is a debate about a debate, and possibly even more meta than that, it hardly seems unreasonable. We’re not talking here about the right form of analysis of tree ring data.

    I didn’t read Tiny’s comment as particularly either partisan or hostile, though it was categorically debate-weary, your interventions seemingly coming to the rescue of someone we are fairly sure has acted like a prick/arse/Consensus Enforcer (all my words, and I make no apology for them).

    I did read, perhaps wrongly, your discussion about McIntye as partisan. Though this may have been introduced by Brad who points out that McIntyre’s work hasn’t been gratefully received. But again, Brad also raises the point that the debate precedes the argument. I’m not sure of the he-said-she-said of it, and you gave no link.

    However, I did agree with this:

    it isn’t a reasonable expectation that the author being criticized will even accept the criticism as valid, no matter how strong the evidence.

    In my experience, most consensus positioning of consequence has the luxury (and I mean exactly ‘luxury’) of not having to account for itself in the face of criticism. It is well protected from it institutionally, by which I don’t mean merely large research budgets, accommodation behind the walls of the academy, or the patronage of the great and good — all of which are true. There is a significant political momentum to the climate debate, which carries the objects of criticism regardless. In other words, and for example, the ‘impact’ of the 97% survey far outweighs its virtue, or contribution to understanding.

    This isn’t a value-free debate, even when it is about analysis of tree ring data.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. BenPile “Is it any more hostile than your implication above that it is *we*, not Ken who need advice on conduct? ”

    My advice about turning the other cheek and staying polite and sticking to the science was not specifically directed at either side, at least not intentionally.

    “I didn’t read Tiny’s comment as particularly either partisan or hostile,”

    If you don’t see suggesting that the opposing side is attempting to hustle the other as partisan or hostile, then I think we differ on the meanings of those words.

    “though it was categorically debate-weary, your interventions seemingly coming to the rescue of someone we are fairly sure has acted like a prick/arse/Consensus Enforcer (all my words, and I make no apology for them)”

    O.K., sorry I am not interested in bandying insults about, I think the discussion has run its course for me.

    Like

  26. Ben:

    In my experience, most consensus positioning of consequence has the luxury (and I mean exactly ‘luxury’) of not having to account for itself in the face of criticism. It is well protected from it institutionally, by which I don’t mean merely large research budgets, accommodation behind the walls of the academy, or the patronage of the great and good — all of which are true. There is a significant political momentum to the climate debate, which carries the objects of criticism regardless. In other words, and for example, the ‘impact’ of the 97% survey far outweighs its virtue, or contribution to understanding.

    Exactly. And it’s precisely that meaning of ‘institutionally’ that has received such a shock from the vote for Brexit. Significant political momentum vapourised. It remains unclear how to apply to climate but it’s well worth asking the question.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. My advice about turning the other cheek and staying polite and sticking to the science was not specifically directed at either side, at least not intentionally.

    But science isn’t the whole of it. Indeed, Ken is resistant, in fact, to discussing the ‘science’, though he mentions it a lot. He prefers to talk about character. Indeed, his entry into most debates is precisely an attack on character, like this one,

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

    … which wasn’t made here, amongst climate sceptics but over at klimazwiebel, which is a far-more consensus-oriented site. It was made in reaction to a point about over-emphasis on science, which creates more problems for consensus messaging than it solves.

    How to ‘stick to the science’ when the topic might not even be ‘science’, and when Ken’s mode of ‘engagement’ is disruptive to any normal conversation?

    — “O.K., sorry I am not interested in bandying insults about, I think the discussion has run its course for me.” —

    That’s up to you. If you don’t think they are adequate descriptions of Ken’s behaviour — which you seem to be here to defend — then there is limited point in discussing it with you, either. It would be different if there was any possibility of defending Ken’s trolling, for example if the conversations here were as hard to follow as your exchanges with Steve M, thereby making it hard to detect the alleged rudeness. But Ken just isn’t quite so subtle either as you, or Steve. I don’t think he can help himself, and that’s the point.

    You seem to be suggesting that we should suffer Ken’s transparent derailing. I said we should simply ban him and delete his posts.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Debates with warmists are always surreal. They want to set rules to suit their position and then expect everyone else to follow them.

    Moaning about Steve M’s attitude is not ‘turning the other cheek’. It’s pretending that you’re on a higher plain and at the same time putting the knife in.

    It would be an interesting experiment for him to try the same ‘why don’t you turn the other cheek’ at warmist sites under a new pseudonym. I’m sure they would not take kindly to a stranger’s first posts, being an admonition for being unfriendly to sceptics.

    If you want to engage, engage. If you want to criticise, expect it returned with extra force. And I accept the same is true of sceptics at warmist sites. But publicly funded scientists, trying to save the planet, really do have to behave better than us plebs. Or not. Their choice.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. I must say I find it somewhat ironic that little Kenny Rice and his sycophants are whining about other posters being somewhat – shall we say – short with him, when he is perhaps the most regularly abusive, patronising blogger in the climate science field. One of life’s self-elected victims is Kenny.

    As for being an “astrobiologist”…Yeah, right!

    Liked by 3 people

  30. I can see from the comment log that Ken Rice has made 356 comments to this site. That’s 10 more than Brad Keys. It’s more than Paul who has made 285, or Ian who has made 142.

    The idea that Ken hasn’t been given the opportunity to set out his case, isn’t plausible. Instead, he has been hostile from the outset. Moreover, Ken’s hostility dominates, and the volume of his posting overwhelms any possibility of simply ‘turning the other cheek’, let alone either indulging his posts or ‘sticking to the science’.

    Dikran’s claims here, as politely as they are framed, turn to smoke when we ‘stick to the science’/empirical facts. I don’t expect him to welcome the criticism.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. To get round to the subject of the post – ATTP’s blog post – why we attack the consensus. Of course he gets the reasons wrong.

    For me there are two reasons. The first is because the consensus is an easy target. It’s not hard to persuade people that an issue as complicated as CAGW shouldn’t be anywhere near a consensus yet. It was one of my early red flags. There were too many unknowns and exposed flaws for me to credit any kind of consensus. Either it was uselessly vague (which it is) or people were lying.

    Which is my second reason for attacking it. Too often it is used as a buoyancy aid for bad science or just wild claims. No matter how extreme and implausible the claim, it only has to be mentioned in conjunction to the 97% to magically become fact. I’ve seen a sceptic quote the IPCC report only to be rebutted with the consensus. What? Yep, the consensus was that the IPCC report was watered down to fit the political landscape. If scientists were allowed to speak freely, they’d be saying much more scary things. If it wasn’t for peer review, the literature would be even more wacky than it is now…

    And to a certain extent that’s true. Dr Lew is right but for the wrong reasons. We’ve reminded them that there are consequences to exaggerating for effect. Sooner or later you will be judged against reality. Queue wider uncertainty bands and stick them in the consensus. But apparently reigning in warmists’ imaginations and making them stick loosely to the fats is a bad thing.

    Liked by 5 people

  32. Tiny — “To get round to the subject of the post – ATTP’s blog post – why we attack the consensus.”

    It’s not even the consensus that’s attacked. Just moments after Geoff reminded Ken that the consensus is broad enough to encompass many consensus positions, Ken tells his audience,

    “In climate science, however, there are claims that there is no consensus, and – consequently – there are studies aimed at establishing if there is one and, if so, quantifying it. The basic consensus is that we are causing global warming and, if you consider relevant experts, or relevant papers, you find that the consensus is probably somewhere between 90% and 100%.

    So where are the ‘claims that there is no consensus’, if that is the consensus?

    The point you rightly make is that the consensus is therefore a trivial truism, under which all sorts of claims are made, many of them completely wild. Which makes Consensus enforcement all the more a bizarre. How many times has the trivial truism been pointed out to Ken?

    Ken claims that his…

    –” …impression of the consensus enforcer narrative is that it is largely supported by those who don’t like what the consensus suggests, but who don’t have the confidence – or ability – to present their views in a manner that is particularly convincing.”

    Indeed the Consensus Enforcer narrative is precisely one that precludes discussions of substance! Ken’s inarticulateness causes him to stumble over the truth accidentally. The consensus doesn’t tell us much of any necessary consequence, and so exploring the actual substance of the consensus and its consequences is anathema to the Consensus Enforcer, who must sustain the notion of ‘Science’ vs. ‘deniers’.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. We have to remember that there are more than one type of evil denier out there. The most elusive but most most mentioned is the moon hoax denier. The one that rejects everything, is funded by oil billions, is at once incredibly cunning and stupid and is single handedly stopping significant action on climate change in every country in the world. The warmists mention this mythical beast all the time. The trouble is, it’s attracting quite a public following. What kind of trouble are the warmists in when their self generated, fictional enemy is doing better in opinion polls than they are?

    Liked by 4 people

  34. Oh no, the dreadful Brulle paper makes its appearance again. Does he ever actually specify who gets funded? Or is it, as with the consensus enforcers on this site, just a tissue of suppositions and assertions?

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Tiny,

    “We have to remember that there are more than one type of evil denier out there. ”

    Anyone who denies evil has led an enviably sheltered existence.

    Like

  36. ATTP,

    what is it about me that scares you to the point where not only won’t you converse with me, you won’t even tell me that you won’t converse with me?

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Fair amount of victim bullying going on here. Whining about being wronged does not give you leverage over others, nor has anybunny here been so wronged that anything goes in return as CK Gunsalus would point out. (Oh yeah Eli knows he is asking for it but old bunnies need a hobby and no Nigel did not try and reset any debate he just tried to collect some rent 🙂

    Like

  38. ATTP,

    What if I promise NOT to bring up the fake research you participated in on your employer’s dime?

    What would you have to fear then?

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Dikran sayz “but only be being willing to ignore the jibes and insults etc.”
    Maybe Dikran should have a look how Richard Told has been lynched by the mob on Ken Rice’s own blog? Brother, let me take the grain of dust out of your eye, when you yourself do not see the bit of wood in your eye?

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Because of Eli’s odd intervention, I went across to his site and was then diverted to James Annan’s puritanical site. He is not getting the point of Reiner Grundmann’s intervention other than as a piece of egotism.

    Annan is a very strrange chap. Apparently well educated, but he has no people sklls.

    “”I know that people like to add on their favourite hobby horses of climate variability and social vulnerability etc, and some of the wording is vague, but the basic problem that has motivated and dominated the research agenda for many years is due to us pumping out millions of tonnes of fossil-fuel-derived CO2 into the atmosphere. Cut net emissions to about zero and the problem is solved.”

    A verbatim quote. http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/wickedly-simple.html

    So…the science has spoken and it says that we need to cut emissions to zero.

    You can see why he does not like the Grundmann position. Richard Tol explains to him that this problem is not like cfcs and the ozone layer.

    “Grundmann is correct that we’ve been more successful in solving the problem of the ozone layer than the problem of climate change. He argues that this is partly because climate policy is modelled on ozone policy, even though the problems are structurally different.”

    The usual players, inluding ATTP pile in, missing the point.

    Grundmann steps in to say:

    “The simple point I tried to make (but which did not get across) is that wicked problems do not have a stopping rule. They are embedded in other problems, and the expression of other problems. In the ozone case, all drivers of ozone depletion were industrially produced. The policy problem was still complex and daunting (industry resistance). But the ultimate stopping rule was clear, and it clearly expressed in Susan Solomon et al 2016. No such thing exists for “climate change”, as defined by the IPCC.”

    He does not extend his argument but I hold it to mean that with the ozone problem, the solution was to hit the refrigeration industry – a few hundred companies…thing solved. But CO2 is another matter. Grundmann does not seem to say it expilicitly but I hope I understand his reasoning, otherwise I would be as impovwrished an intellectual as Annan or Rabbett.

    With Co2, the dynamics are different and you have to use a different approach. To start with, there are extraction industries – coal, oil, gas, etc.

    Then there are users – power, steel, automotive..etc

    Then there are entire countries that rely on extractive industry revenues – the Gulf States, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil, Venezuela

    Then to cut CO2 emissions, you have to do something about the millions of people in Africa, South America and Asia who burn wood and dung and ….

    So you want the whole world to change civilisation….
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/wickedly-simple.html

    Then you realise that you are dealing with simpletons. If Annan cannot get back to San Francisco, he will weep. But the 3rd world can burn up as long as he is concerned.

    Clinate science at the cutting edge. Me first.

    Liked by 4 people

  41. Nope, Vlad and Est took care of that for Eli

    Est: The geothermal gradient is just a theory endorsed by the anti-shovel lobby, as shown by these emails which hide the decline. Really, it’s cool down there.
    Vlad: Are you crazy? Look, if we dig any deeper the mantle will start to melt by decompression and the hole will fill with lava, how do we adapt to that?
    Est: Well, the last time there was a pit full of molten lava, our ancestors survived by not living in it.

    Like

  42. Just when I thought CliScep would never publish a post as un-Liked as my last one (the “joke” about doctors discriminating against the denialetariat), I go and do it again.

    Like

  43. Eli

    I said it earlier but here is the precis:

    For ozone, just negotiate with he industry.

    “With Co2, the dynamics are different and you have to use a different approach. To start with, there are extraction industries – coal, oil, gas, etc.

    Then there are users – power, steel, automotive..etc

    Then there are entire countries that rely on extractive industry revenues – the Gulf States, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil, Venezuela

    Then to cut CO2 emissions, you have to do something about the millions of people in Africa, South America and Asia who burn wood and dung and ….

    So you want the whole world to change civilisation…”

    Still too hard?

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Science has spoken, according to Eli…”stop emitting greenhouse gases”.

    He appears to mean it. he wants millions of people to die. But these moronic scientists will not let real people try to speak on their behalf. Eli and James Annan really want millions of people to die, and they will never ever admit it.

    I thought Michael Tobis was a sociopath. He is a cudddly psychobunny compared with Rabett and Annan.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. man in a barrel: “He appears to mean it. he wants millions of people to die.”

    Make that billions.

    Like

  46. Strikes me it’s got nothing to do with CO2 really.

    These weirdos just don’t like mankind, it’s as simple as that.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Eli Rabett ,(31 Aug 16 at 11:31 pm)
    summed up clmate science for us in four words: ”stop emitting greenhouse gases” and Man in a Barrel and Catweazle correctly spelled out the implications.

    If you’re looking for a Single Solution to Everything it’s got to be a Final one.

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Guys, guys. Slow down, ease up, rein in, chill out.

    Eli merely wants everyone to stop breathing. What we do after that is entirely up to us.

    As I keep explaining: he’s guilty only of caecotrophy, not psychopathy.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Geoff:

    If you’re looking for a Single Solution to Everything it’s got to be a Final one.

    Back to Isaiah Berlin and pluralism for me. It necessitates smaller solutions, which is a disappointment to some self-anointed elitists, but also less unnecessary deaths, possibly to the tune of billions.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. “Exactly. And it’s precisely that meaning of ‘institutionally’ that has received such a shock from the vote for Brexit. Significant political momentum vapourised. It remains unclear how to apply to climate but it’s well worth asking the question.” Richard Drake.

    Our politicians and their buddies have been out of touch for some time. They surround themselves with an artificially constructed public. In the fictional public, there’s no real objection to mass immigration, they all want to cut CO2 and they’re just waiting for the EU world the politicians are planning for them. Only it isn’t true. The Brexit vote was a shock but it could have been even bigger. I don’t think anyone knows how many people lurched one way or the other at the last minute. Even people I know who were 100% for staying in, wavered as they stood in the voting booth. It was only the likely vindictiveness of the EU that saw them vote to remain.

    Similarly, for the benefit of climate science (and the planet if CO2 is a problem) the warmists have to come out of their fictional society. Nobody in the real world wants to reduce their energy consumption and renewables aren’t fit for purpose. Warmists need to understand how much they’re asking for. At the very least it would generate a bit more humility. They would see that the least of their problems are fossil fuel companies or blogging sceptics. Their real barriers are the plebs. The billions of people who just want a nice life and know that cheap fossil fuels is part of the route. They measure it in their petrol receipt and their gas bill. They hear it when their employer expresses concern about energy costs. Unlike us or our Guardian reading opposition, they can’t express themselves without dropping into a politically incorrect hole. But deep down we all feel the same. Few people are prepared to sacrifice their economic position for anyone else, let alone a stranger. Sure, they’d be happy to cut CO2 if it was easy and didn’t cost very much. Wouldn’t we all? Unlike previous generations they’re hard to force. They have democracy and aren’t afraid to use it.

    That doesn’t mean that mankind isn’t capable of massive sacrifice, we just need a really good reason. And climate science isn’t up to the job. Until they drop ‘this is how we do science’ and take up ‘it has to be the best of the best, please tell us how we can improve it’ we have a stalemate. Stalemate with growing disinterest which will achieve what so far sceptics haven’t. The US might not have reached peak enthusiasm but in Europe, enthusiasm is clearly on the decline.

    Liked by 4 people

  51. Over at And Then There’s Not Replying To Brad, some wag has asked them what the Consensus actually is.

    One BBD suggests.

    — “the scientific consensus is that warming is real, is us, and is potentially hazardous.”

    izen, however, admits that,

    “…it is context dependent and largely a marketing exercise.”

    But finishes with what I’ve always agreed is the approximate consensus…

    — “The IPCC WG1 section is as good a statement of that as any. “–

    However, Tom Curtis offers a 6-point yawnfest, the last of which…

    –“The economic cost of mitigating global warming (ie, restricting its likely increase) is less than the economic cost of allowing the increase to occur without specific strategy to avoid it, and adapting to the consequences when considered in global terms.

    Has zero to do with science — i.e. WGI — and everything to do with subjective economic, social and political presuppositions, to be charitable.

    Dikran’s version is that,

    “I don’t think there is a single “consensus position” per se, but we can reasonably ask if there is a consensus on a particular question.” —

    Which is, of course, contra Ken’s claim that,

    — “The basic consensus is that we are causing global warming…

    And this is significant because it’s also Ken’s claim that,

    — “In climate science, however, there are claims that there is no consensus”

    Again, Ken’s inarticulateness makes understanding him so much harder. If it were the case that ‘claims that there is no consensus’ really emerged from ‘in climate science’, then there would, ergo, be no consensus. It’s sufficient to say ‘there are claims that there is no consensus’.

    There certainly seems to be no consensus on what the consensus is, however, amongst its staunchest enforcers. Curtis gives the game away most, of course, with his inclusion of economic claims. But there’s plenty more amongst those candid replies, not to say the consensus itself, which includes sceptics.

    Consensus Enforcers are promiscuous with the science that seemingly forms the consensus. The real object of their ‘consensus’ is not the substance of WGI or any IPCC report, but the authority of institutional science.

    Liked by 7 people

  52. Absolutely.
    What strikes me again and again is that there is no go to reference resource other than the IPCC reports for what is or what is not current. And the IPC report is designed to obscure how little definitive information there is. We don’t even have an agreed series of measurements. There’s no version numbering so not only do we know which is the latest graph, chart, theory but we can’t observe the old versions because there’s few public archives. Where there are archives, there are no public records of what adjustments were made and why.

    A lot of small companies work the same way. They’re too busy making progress to dot the is and cross the ts. Then something happens and/or they attract the attention of the authorities. They end up in deep water because vital records have been lost or were never made or are a complete mess. Climategate should have been that wakeup call. But wasn’t. They’re still operating more like a little back street business than a multi trillion dollar conglomerate.

    Liked by 3 people

  53. Without wishing to be drawn into the abyss of vituperation, I quoted Edward P Dowd on this site once. Not sure about the consensus on its expressive eloquence but in my opinion (as humbly arrogant as it is) Mr Dowd’s recommendation still holds for me. https://cliscep.com/2015/11/01/some-thoughts-on-climate-change-is-real-and-important/ which leaves me with some empathy with Dikran.
    I have been away for some time but on returning to the wonderful world of climate change discussion it seems as shrill as ever. Nothing has changed much, the claims get more preposterous by those with vested interests and data is bastardised to a level where I’m expecting Mr Tumnus to make an appearance at GISS. But all that aside, I still concur with Mr Dowd even if Mr Tumnus did turn out to be a lying little shit.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. That doesn’t mean that mankind isn’t capable of massive sacrifice, we just need a really good reason.

    We could always let the crap hit the fan and then retroactively attempt to prevent it.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Welcome back to Badgerbod.

    Taking up Ben’s comment above on the discussion of what the consensus actually is over at ATTP, the most popular interpretation (which includes Ken himself) appears to be acceptance of the AR5 attribution statement, i.e. fossil fuel emissions are extremely likely responsible for more than 50% of warming since 1950, with the best estimate (based on a simple probability density function graph) being 110% – which allows for some cooling due to natural variability/anthro and natural aerosols. But this isn’t science, it’s statistics, it isn’t so much based upon empirical evidence, but upon attribution studies and climate model runs. I keep quoting Pierre Darriulat’s opinion of the AR5 attribution statement, I know, but it sums up so nicely all that is wrong with the ‘science’ which makes its way into IPCC’s WG1 SPM:

    “Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions onglobal warming. Statistical uncertainties, inasmuch as they are normally distributed, can be quantified with precision and it can make sense to distinguish between a 90% and a 95% probability, for example in calculating the probability of getting more than ten aces when throwing a die more
    than 10 times. In most physical problems, however, and particularly in climate science, statistical uncertainties are largely irrelevant. What matters are systematic uncertainties that result in a large part from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play, and also in part from the lack of relevant data. In quantifying such ignorance the way they have done it, the SPM authors have lost credibility with many scientists. Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions.”

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360

    Liked by 2 people

  56. BRANDONRGATES: “We could always let the crap hit the fan and then retroactively attempt to prevent it.”

    The crap isn’t going to hit the fan BRG, or not the crap you’re wetting your bed over, at any rate.

    Mankind is no more capable of significantly changing the Earth’s climate than significantly changing the time the sun rises and sets.

    And no matter how much you hoot and howl and wave your little arms and stamp your tiny feet and swear blind that black’s white, there is absolutely not one iota of empirical evidence to the contrary.

    So stop frightening the children with your Chicken Little apocalyptic prognostications and get a life!

    Liked by 4 people

  57. To take a different tack for Brandon, let’s assume the planet is in severe danger. Until there’s a reliable ‘solution’ to any of the problems with cutting CO2, the only way to reduce it in any significant way is to have little, do little and go nowhere. You may or may not add nuclear but it’s not a complete alternative and isn’t cheap. You can also add renewables but they’re about as effective as throwing your money into the wind. It’s an interesting guesture but the rest of us would rather not. Every step closer to a low CO2 future will be more painful than the last. Governments and the public are balking now.

    Relying on technology that isn’t currently on the market is a fools errand. Fusion has been a few years away from a working model for 50 years. Even when you have the technology you have to roll it out, which could take decades.

    Look at your own CO2 and ask ‘am I as low as I could go or as low as I want to go’? Be aware that blaming others for your lack of action is just an excuse. There are people the world over that have the right CO2 foorprint… they just live horrible lives. Without sensible alternatives we would all have to live a horrible life. I’m sure that there isn’t a person here who would talk you out of putting your CO2 where your mouth is. So the only one stopping warmists are themselves. Get on with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  58. @Barry Woods 01 Sep 16 at 12:23 pm

    Science Denial and Conspiratorial thinking-Professor Stephan Lewandowsky

    OMG! One wonders how low Lew can go in the course of his exercises in self-exculpatory “revisionist” drivel.

    I’ve said it before – and, at this point, I have little doubt that he and his co-“thinkers” will provide opportunities to ensure that it is worth saying again: Lew and his lesser-light cohorts (whether behind the scenes, or front and centre) put the likes of “revisionist scholars” – such as Ernst Zundel and David Irving – to shame!

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    Liked by 2 people

  59. CATWEAZLE666,

    Mankind is no more capable of significantly changing the Earth’s climate than significantly changing the time the sun rises and sets.

    The evidence combined with theory I have suggests otherwise — but being omniscient, you already knew that.

    TINYCO2,

    Until there’s a reliable ‘solution’ to any of the problems with cutting CO2, the only way to reduce it in any significant way is to have little, do little and go nowhere.

    Reliable solutions (not in “scare quotes”) don’t invent themselves. That means doing something and going somewhere. And besides, hundreds of millions of warmunists not showing up for work for the rest of their lives to “save” the planet wouldn’t be much better for the economy than the alarmist strawman scenario of taking away everyone’s fossil energy without suitable replacements would be.

    I’m sure that there isn’t a person here who would talk you out of putting your CO2 where your mouth is.

    And I’m sure there isn’t a person here who would follow that example. So your appeal to hypocrisy, while certainly self-satisfying for you, isn’t really any more a practical solution than you assert renewable energy is. If dragging you kicking and screaming out of the Carbon Age by political force is what it takes, so be it. Same for anti-fission zealots of any political alignment or ideology.

    Like

  60. It’s consensuologists, you cynic!

    Haha. And lest anyone wilfully misinterpret MiaB’s jest as some sort of death threat, I’m sure he just wishes Naomi Oreskes to return to her career in the mines beneath Western Australia.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Barry:

    “Science Denial and Conspiratorial thinking-Professor StephanLewandowsky”

    That’s too good! So, Lewandowsky’s sub-literate habit of substituting conspiratorial for conspiracist isn’t just a slip of the tongue. It’s the title of his video.

    How did this mediocre mental midget become a professor? At a university? In the actual, non-Onion universe?

    Oh, I see:

    OIC.

    Only In Climate™.

    Liked by 2 people

  62. Brandon “And I’m sure there isn’t a person here who would follow that example”

    What part of being sceptical of CAGW do you not get? It’s one of the perks of the position.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Now where, oh where has Eli read the same sort of nonsense. Oh yes, the dire threat of the Montreal Protocols to kill the poor

    A breakdown in refrigeration occurs when the required replacement of the refrigeration equipment with expensive new units is not feasible. As there are no direct replacement chemicals available to take the place of the CFCs all the equipment must be replaced the world over with new equipment that is specially designed to work with a different type of chemicals. In other words, a complete replacement of every refigeration system is required when normally a simple repair would suffice. The global cost for replacing all existing refrigeration systems prematurely is estimated to be in the five trillion dollar range. Since most nations cannot afford to pay even the interest on their debt, much less capital expenditures on such a huge scale, it is most likely that refrigeration gradually disappears for the economic and social landscape with corresponding losses in food products that refrigeration currently protects. The inevitable result will be a total breakdown in refrigeration capability across the world, especially in the poor nations where increased losses of food are intollerable. This breakdown is estimates to increase the gllobal death rate by an additional 20-40 million deaths per year after the year 2000

    Just substitute CO2 emissions for CFCs and rinse.

    Like

  64. Eli,

    “Just substitute CO2 emissions for CFCs…”

    Your own excerpt explains that CO2 is NOT a substitute for CFCs.

    Or are you now suggesting that because the poor somehow managed to survive the Protocols of the Elders of Ozone, nobody has anything to lose by signing up to the Protocols of Eli “Stop Breathing” Rabett?

    OK, Perfesser, you first.

    Like

  65. Uh, yeah, Brad got it.

    (Eli presumably means that switching from CFCs was supposed to kill the poor, but hey: close enough for government work.)

    Eli probably didn’t know this, being a chemistry teacher and all, but abstaining from CO2 exhalation *will* kill the poor.

    Nah, what is Brad saying? That can’t be right—Eli once heard a different claim, which turned out wrong; ergo all claims are wrong.

    Logic With a Rabbit continues next week…

    Liked by 1 person

  66. TINYCO2,

    What part of being sceptical of CAGW do you not get?

    Certainly not the C.

    It’s one of the perks of the position.

    How very privileged of you.

    Like

  67. BRAD KEYES,

    Eli probably didn’t know this, being a chemistry teacher and all, but abstaining from CO2 exhalation *will* kill the poor.

    Human respiration amounts to about 8.5% of fossil fuel emissions. Produce food without desequestering carbon to do it, and breathing becomes carbon-neutral.

    Unless perhaps the poor start eating coal directly.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. Brandon,

    “Produce food without desequestering carbon to do it, and breathing becomes carbon-neutral.”

    Uh, no. Accounting doesn’t work that way.

    The only conceivable scenario in which “breathing becomes carbon-neutral” is if we all spend our entire lives in the middle of a field exhaling directly onto one of these magical non-desequestering food crops. Then, if the stomata are sufficiently voracious, MAYBE you could call breathing carbon-neutral.

    “Certainly not the C.”

    So you don’t regard AGW as catastrophic? Good to know. Welcome to denierdom.

    Like

  69. BRAD KEYES,

    Uh, no. Accounting doesn’t work that way.

    Dual-entry accounting most certainly does. One entry you left out is photosynthesis, which fixes atmospheric carbon.

    So you don’t regard AGW as catastrophic?

    My crystal ball is on the fritz, and my magic 8-ball keeps changing its story. I’ve decided that I’m not curious enough on others’ behalf to let them find out empirically.

    Like

  70. “Dual-entry accounting most certainly does. One entry you left out is photosynthesis…”

    No, the two columns for human breathing—which you said could be made carbon-neutral—are headed:

    — breathing in
    — breathing out

    Photosynthesis plays no role in human breathing. That would be what we call (euphemistically) creative accounting.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. Brandon,

    “My crystal ball is on the fritz, and my magic 8-ball keeps changing its story. I’ve decided that I’m not curious enough on others’ behalf to let them find out empirically.”

    So you think there’s a reasonable chance AGW could turn out to be catastrophic?

    Yet you don’t know what CAGW means?

    I’m confused. No, wait—you are.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. The Planet is 4.543 billion years old. It’s supported carbon-based life forms for 3.8 billion years. We don’t have great estimates of CO2 levels much past 500 million years (at least not that I can lay hands on quickly) but if we’re trusting models today …

    … GEOCARBIII’s central estimate peaks at 7,000 ppmv CO2 around 500 million years ago. We’re at 400 today, the range over the past million years has fairly reliably varied between 180 and 300.

    If the sum total of respiration on this rock isn’t carbon-neutral, please explain to the class how it is that CO2 didn’t head north toward 100% like a bat out of the proverbial hot place.

    Like

  73. I’m confused.

    It might help to read my original comment in context, and not infill, interpolate, or otherwise invent information which isn’t there. I thought all sceptics knew this.

    Like

  74. If human breathing (remember: the topic is human breathing) is carbon-neutral, please explain to the class how we’re not all dead from respiratory acidosis.

    Like

  75. Brandon “How very privileged of you.”

    No, no, it’s open to all. In fact people all over the world are taking the opportunity to not give CO2 a second thought, and getting on with their lives.

    I doubt many sceptics mind that money is spent on researching new energy technologies. It’s frittering money by rolling out renewables that aren’t fit for purpose that upsets us. Pinning your hopes on a technology that doesn’t yet work is not a viable plan. What if those technologies don’t emerge? Just becuse we want something and throw loads of money at it, doesn’t guarantee a breakthrough. So what’s plan B?

    Plan B has aleady started. It’s a subtle and not so subtle plan to keep the lowest emitters where they are. Make the poorest pay for the green whims of the richest. It’s all rather ugly.

    Like

  76. Brandon,

    I did read it in context—that’s HOW I was able to perform a perfectly justifiable infilling of your meaning. Very clearly, to anyone who speaks English, you were saying words to the effect that you’d rather not let the world find out “empirically” whether or not AGW was going to turn out to be catastrophic.

    After denying any knowledge of what CAGW meant.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. BRAD KEYES,

    If human breathing (remember: the topic is human breathing) is carbon-neutral, please explain to the class how we’re not all dead from respiratory acidosis.

    Because the human body isn’t the sum total of the biosphere (remember: the topic is human breathing in the context of global atmospheric CO2 concentration).

    I did read it in context—that’s HOW I managed to perform a perfectly justifiable infilling.

    Let me check my own brain for the actual information stored there … er, nope, you’re wrong …

    After denying knowledge of what CAGW meant.

    … WAAAYYYY wrong.

    Like

  78. Lets imagine that 50% of people are worried about CO2 and 50% aren’t. Which is the smartest plan – for the 50% to get on with whatever they think is needed (even if it’s their half of what’s needed) and hope the other side will eventually follow suit. Or do nothing but whine until the other half agree? Which is more important, cutting CO2 or not letting the nasty deniers get away with doing nothing?

    After all, a Di Caprio, a Gore and an Obama would equal a lot of the CO2 footprints of the CO2 bloggosphere.

    Liked by 1 person

  79. TINYCO2,

    No, no, it’s open to all.

    … all who meet the membership conditions of The Club. To wit:

    In fact people all over the world are taking the opportunity to not give CO2 a second thought, and getting on with their lives.

    Meanwhile, those of us who think such a requirement carries with it significant risks are supposed to go live in a cave and stop breathing. It’s implied (but not entailed) that this course of action might gain some credibility from those obtaining the perquisites of privileged existences.

    Pinning your hopes on a technology that doesn’t yet work is not a viable plan.

    I didn’t realize all my eggs were in one basket. When did that happen?

    Make the poorest pay for the green whims of the richest.

    lol. Africa has either been getting screwed over or neglected by the western world for several centuries now … which centuries mostly did not include “greens” in the sense used here. Now all of a sudden, The Club want to ensure the downtrodden poor have access to their fair share of the fossil fuel cornucopia.

    Pull my other one.

    I can spin a good yarn myself, you know. Here’s one:

    Plan A is polluters pay. Plan B is the fabrication from whole cloth which makes “greens” look bad whilst The Club pretend to not be blocking Plan A.

    Like

  80. “Plan A is polluters pay.”
    And what if they say ‘no’? And remember the ‘polluters’ are most of the western world, rich or poor. The pesky little devils vote for the person who says ‘I’m not sure we need to’. That makes it a very big club.

    And you don’t have to stop breathing – just do whatever it is you think we should all be doing. That way you’d be halfway there, rather than nowhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Brandon,

    “Let me check my own brain for the actual information stored there … er, nope, you’re wrong …”

    My mistake. So you DON’T think there’s a reasonable possibility that AGW will turn out to be catastrophic.

    Good to know. Welcome to denierdom.

    “‘After denying knowledge of what CAGW meant.’
    “… WAAAYYYY wrong.

    Ah, so you DON’T deny knowing what CAGW means.

    Progress!

    Liked by 1 person

  82. Brandon,

    I said:

    “If human breathing (remember: the topic is human breathing) is carbon-neutral, please explain to the class how we’re not all dead from respiratory acidosis.”

    Your, er, “explanation” to the class was:

    “Because the human body isn’t the sum total of the biosphere”

    What the? That doesn’t explain why we haven’t all dropped dead from respiratory acidosis despite the (alleged, by you) carbon-neutrality of human breathing.

    It doesn’t even address the topic.

    F minus.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. Brandon is in possession of the “evidence” and the “theory” which suggests that man has a “significant” impact on the climate; thus we may reasonably assume that “significant” may very soon turn to “catastrophic” unless we urgently reduce CO2 emissions. Fair enough. I think we all know enough about the “theory”; it would be nice though if he could share the “evidence” with us, then we can all pack this lark in and get on with the urgent mitigation business.

    Liked by 2 people

  84. There’s a sly bit of misdirection that warmists use – blaming ‘the polluter’. By this they mean companies. Now while each company has its own energy impact, the ultimate polluter is the customer. So if I demand petrol, all the CO2 emitted by my vehicle is mine. I might not be responsible for any energy wasted getting that fuel from the ground to my tank, but I must accept that to get it there, there is an inherent energy cost. Any inescapable pollution (ie CO2) from that activity is therefore also mine. Anyone who chooses green product A over cheap product B is responsible for the differences in pollution (and the calculation of ‘green’ is very complex and not reflected by any claims the company might make). So if ‘the polluter pays’ it means WE pay. Companies might be the ones taxed but they’ll just pass that on to us.

    Warmists are bemused how few people have fallen for theit ‘polluter pays’ trick.

    Liked by 2 people

  85. What’s the point of trying to get the science right with Brandon when he can’t seem to get the words right? It strikes me as a rather forlorn hope.

    Semantics matter.

    But hey, that’s my hobby-horse. I’ll leave you to it. Good luck. If I’m right about Brandon (and I hope I’m not), you’ll need it.

    Liked by 1 person

  86. BRAD KEYES,

    So you DON’T think there’s a reasonable possibility that AGW will turn out to be catastrophic.

    That’s a false statement. The original question was about what folks are sceptical of: What part of being sceptical of CAGW do you not get?

    My answer, *for myself* was: Certainly not the C.

    Stripping out the potentially confusing double-negatives, I’m saying, “I’m sceptical of the catastrophic part myself.” Implication: the A part of the GW not so much. Some folks are sceptical of all four letters … which is fine, been there done that myself.

    Ah, so you DON’T deny knowing what CAGW means.

    Of course I know what it means, I just don’t know if it will be catastrophic. Much also depends on the threshold for “catastrophe”. Slippery word that, especially when used as a cudgel to bash interpolated and homogenized Chicken Littles.

    Like

  87. Now your comments no longer seem delirious.

    I’ve never been so happy to be wrong about someone, with apologies to Thorin Oakenshield. Sorry for misjudging you, Brandon.

    You’re yet to explain how the heck human breathing (in, out, in, out, in, out) can possibly be described as carbon-neutral, but let’s quit while we’re ahead and drink a toast to belated mutual comprehension.

    Like

  88. And many sceptics including myself accept a certain amount of AGW. It’s the C that is in question. But the C determines what you do about CO2. What you would be prepared to do for ‘mildly annoying’ is very different from ‘oh god, oh god, we’re all going to die’.

    Like

  89. TINYCO2,

    There’s a sly bit of misdirection that warmists use – blaming ‘the polluter’. By this they mean companies.

    Putting your words in my mouth could constitute not-so-sly misdirection on your part.

    I mean polluter pays. As in end users. That’s what pricing carbon entails. They who use the most carbon pay the most for it.

    Your best options from here on out might be to prove that I’m lying or take my words at face value. Which?

    Like

  90. Brandon has changed his tune. He started with “We could always let the crap hit the fan” but now he’s saying he’s sceptical about catastrophe.

    Like

  91. Well, interpreting Brandon’s statements charitably, couldn’t he coherently:
    – be skeptical about it, in the sense of doubtful as to its catastrophicness,
    – yet have little appetite for finding out “empirically” whether he’s right?

    Like

  92. BRAD KEYES,

    So you don’t NOT get the “C”, is that what you meant?

    Correct; I know what “C” means (catastrophic) and I get why folks are sceptical of it.

    Sorry for misjudging you, Brandon.

    Not at all, most kind. I’m sure I can live down to expectations in other ways. Just now I’m pondering what other d!ck!sh things to say to you about the carbon cycle. I’ll probably sleep on it.

    Cheers.

    Like

  93. Aaarrrghh! Science ensnared in a mire of terminology. You were right Brad.

    Nobody KNOWS whether AGW is significant. Nobody KNOWS for sure if it even exists. Certainly nobody KNOWS if it will turn out to be ‘highly dangerous’ to human civilisation and the planet. All we KNOW is that the planet has warmed (in fits and starts) since the Little Ice Age ended and that some of this warming MAY be attributable to anthropogenic GHG emissions, according to physical theory. Sadly, there is next to NO empirical evidence of a human fingerprint on modern climate change, but there is growing evidence of the influence of natural processes which drive climate change and these MAY have contributed significantly to the rise in GMST circa 1750-2016. That’s it. NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH “evidence” to justify the current economic/social/environmental madness which is whimsically termed “climate mitigation policy”.

    Liked by 1 person

  94. Brandon but you made out that there was a Club, which suggests a certain amount of exclusivity. I pointed out that the Club includes most people in developed and developing countries. Why use ‘the polluter’ when you mean ‘us all’ (since those emitting much CO2 are unlikely to be reading this). Most people don’t think of themselves as polluters, and would interpret it as the original use of the phrase which was directed at companies that directly polluted rivers or the air. Whether you intended to use that misdirection, doesn’t negate my point that warmists often do.

    Like

  95. BRAD KEYES,

    Well, interpreting Brandon’s statements charitably, couldn’t he coherently:
    – be skeptical about it, in the sense of doubtful as to its catastrophicness,
    – yet have little appetite for finding out “empirically” whether he’s right?

    Yes. With the added kick that the only way to be sure of castastrophe is to actually let it happen. That isn’t our preferred mode of operation, we anticpate threats and hedge them all the time. Sometimes things get through the screen. Screwjacks installed upsidedown in aeroplanes’ tailfeathers, one crashes, people die, lawsuits happen … eventually engineers get involved and make the thing better so *that* doesn’t happen again.

    We can tolerate post hoc hazard mitigation on small scales. Cranking on the parameters of the entire planet when we don’t the full design specs, or even an operators’ manual to speak of … yeah, that makes me a little twitchy.

    Ok, now I really must retire for the evening.

    Like

  96. “With the added kick that the only way to be sure of castastrophe is to actually let it happen.”

    No, that’s not the only way. They could do better science. Science that meets a much better level of rigor than peer review (ie getting a few mates to give it a read through). It might still not be conclusive but it would be a lot more credible.

    Liked by 1 person

  97. TINYCO2,

    I lied, I’m still awake. I disagree strongly. There is no substitute for hard data. I don’t look at forward-looking predictions, no matter how “good” the science, as being “sure” — only plausible and only as good as their underlying assumptions. I also consider that the physics models, for all their countless flaws, are the most robust link in the chain. Start getting into biology models, economic models which rely on AOGCM output … that uncertainty propagates. It’s as far from being sure as I can imagine, especially when “actual” data carry a good deal of uncertainty with them.

    I can only say with honest reasonable confidence that we’re warming, that we’re doing most of it and at a rate that looks to be a geological eyeblink. The geologic past does offer some hints about the consequences of a rapidly changed environment. Those two things form the basis for most of my precautionary position.

    Like

  98. “There is no substitute for hard data.”

    “…physics models, for all their countless flaws, are the most robust link in the chain…”

    The hardest data in the world can yet be asked the most stupid question in the world, and cannot reply, ‘that is a stupid question’.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. Then get on with it, reduce your CO2 or fund whatever you think works, we’re not stopping you. I require more. Most people require more. How do I know? Because they’e not getting on with it, they whine about rising energy costs, they haven’t done the easy stuff, let alone the hard. eg The green reject nuclear. Either accept that action on CO2 isn’t going to improve much until the hard data arrives or perhaps see that the science isn’t doing everything it could to persuade.

    Liked by 1 person

  100. @Hoi Polloi
    Wottsywotts indeed allows rather unpleasant comment on his blog. His treatment of Matt Ridley (a doctor of biology, a peer of the realm, and a best-selling author of popular science books) is a good example.

    Liked by 1 person

  101. ATTP Denizen “izen” is now trying to smear David Romer’s name, but seems unable to tell him from Paul Romer, Lester Romero and Cato the Elder — all in an attempt to find an excuse not to have to read David Romer’s textbook on Advanced Macroeconomics.

    Liked by 3 people

  102. Let’s see. Plants convert CO2 to O2, Humans raise plants, Animals eat plants Humans eat plants and animals, but please, no bunnies. Seems to be pretty carbon neutral to Eli.

    Liked by 2 people

  103. Richard, This has always been a very unpleasant feature of the Alarmist climate blogosphere. Real Climate allows the same thing. Are the moderators just lazy or do they actually think they are so righteous that smearing people you don’t like is just fine?

    Liked by 2 people

  104. A (grown man dressed as a) bunny in Daisyworld says,

    — “Plants convert CO2 to O2, Humans raise plants, Animals eat plants Humans eat plants and animals, but please, no bunnies. Seems to be pretty carbon neutral to Eli.”

    But just as easily…

    Humans convert fossils to CO2. Plants eat CO2.

    The myth of balance haunts the fully-grown adult male speaking about himself in the third person.

    Liked by 2 people

  105. Ben, I think this aphorism courtesy of bill Murray may be apposite here.

    “it’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person”

    In fact, that could apply to evangelical CAGW apostles in general.

    Like

  106. Matt King Coal, who profits off the coal mine on his land and who took one of the largest banks in the UK broke? That the Matt King Coal you blathering about Dickie?

    Like

  107. Poor Eli, probably drooling after licking LSD off his organic rabbit pellets. Northern Rock was a small bank, very small in fact. The run on its liquidity was orchestrated by a BBC journo called Peston who was best mates with Gordon Brown the PM. The bank is still paying out on its bonds. Ridley was a non executive chairman, not the CEO. Try to get your facts straight.

    Liked by 2 people

  108. Richard,

    Wottsywotts indeed allows rather unpleasant comment on his blog.

    Maybe you could provide some examples; just so that I know the kind of thing that you regard as “unpleasant”.

    His treatment of Matt Ridley (a doctor of biology, a peer of the realm, and a best-selling author of popular science books) is a good example.

    Why would any of this matter? And, again, some examples might be nice; just so that I can have some idea of what you regard as “unpleasant”.

    Like

  109. Wottsywotts has forgotten what happened in the past on his blog. So he asked Richard Tol to tell him. Some people are so biased they see everything through the prism of their prejudices. Lots of comments by WebHub and Dhogaza are very rude and insulting and lies to boot. The treatment of Judith Curry is shameful too.

    Liked by 1 person

  110. DY,
    No, I asked Tol for examples, so that I can see what he regards as “unpleasant”. It’s quite hard to tell, given what some seem to condone, and say, themselves (some examples from you might be interesting too).

    Like

  111. KRice, So instead of taking Tol’s criticism seriously you are already looking to discredit it. You are really rather dishonest if you don’t regard WebHub and Dhogaza as examples of extreme impoliteness and in fact libelous tripe. But you allowed them free reign on several threads. Why is that Ken?

    A hint. You need to try to take other people seriously and respect their views. If you hold politically motivated characatures of them, then you like Lewandowsky may appear to be a hypocrite.

    Liked by 1 person

  112. DY,

    So instead of taking Tol’s criticism seriously you are already looking to discredit it.

    No, I’m asking for some examples.

    You are really rather dishonest if you don’t regard WebHub and Dhogaza as examples of extreme impoliteness and in fact libelous tripe. But you allowed them free reign on several threads. Why is that Ken?

    Again, some examples would be nice. I’m not a fan of discussing other people when they aren’t present, but both those you mentioned have had comments moderated (and they’re not alone). So, no, they have never had free reign. I will add that apparently my blog is also bad because I moderate (censor?). People really need to make up their mind. Should I moderate “unpleasant” comments, or not?

    You need to try to take other people seriously and respect their views. If you hold politically motivated characatures of them, then you like Lewandowsky may appear to be a hypocrite.

    Bizarre. I’m guessing you don’t read your own comments before posting them?

    Let’s also be clear. You’re complaining about “unpleasant” comments on my blog, while suggesting – on another blog – that I’m possibly both dishonest and a hypocrite. In fact, you can almost not make a comment to me, or about me, that doesn’t imply such things. So, somehow, you think I should do something about “unpleasant” comments on my blog (even though you can provide no examples of such comments) while feeling free to make “unpleasant” comments on other blogs. You don’t, I imagine, see the irony in this?

    Like

  113. “People really need to make up their mind. Should I moderate “unpleasant” comments, or not?”

    Yes. Start with your own, here, and go away.

    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