CliScepGate 2.0

As the entire world is by now aware, the cosy echo-cham­ber of CliScep’s inter­nal mail­ing list was recent­ly the locus of a Conversation that got pretty real at times.

Not to blow my own whistle, but today I’m proud to hack up—for your edumusement—a fresh new tranche of intimate confidences.

This time it’s a twête-à-twête of private DMs, which gives the arguments a more spontaneous and [even] less polished feel.

But there’s another twist: I’m not debating a fellow “denier.”

I hope this story en­courages someone, somewhere, to take the advice all Climate­Ballers should follow (to borrow a metaphor from that neverending irritant ‘Willard’). Namely:

Should you ever encounter, on the field, a vicious opponent who nonetheless comes across—somehow—as tractable to reason, then invite him or her to fight you offline.

It’s a long shot, but if they say yes, you may just make a new frenemy.

I speak from experience.

FRENEMY:

so

AGW

is physics

chemistry

spectral analysis

statistics

geology

etc.

it’s everything

climate is bigly

BRAD:

no

AGW is a process, physics is a science

well

AGW is an attribution statement, in a way

the very acronym is obtuse

it could mean “GW is A”

it could also refer to the overall package deal

not just GW, but all the science behind GW

if it was cooling, it would still be GW

the problem with acronyms is that we think it refers to a thing

like UN

but GW ain’t an entity!

earlier, you solved the Big Question of climate psychology (“why haven’t we convinced people?”)

perhaps when i said that we were seeking machines

we seek to solve problems

our way

and according to our values

this can only work

because we keep one another in check

no, when you said Naomi was using her sex appeal to sell it

lol

that’s why there’s millions of skeptics

nah i think it’s just a contrarian thing

but contrarians may find Naomi even more sexy

and blame her for everything

contrarianism is remarkably selective!

less than being mainstream

well

depends

your own contrarianism is more selective

why do science deniers accept 99.9% of science[s]?

it’s more expedient

i think the beginning of the end of the climate movement was the decision to make the nude Women Of Climate Science calendars

“let’s admit 99% for argument’s sake”

this calendar may be why teh Donald now has an open mind about Paris

but it’s not just for argument’s sake. we really do accept medicine, avionics, etc.

yes, but there are contrarians about medicine

avionics is ok, because it’s tech

we trust airplanes. we trust antibiotics. we don’t trust the hockey stick.

we trust the science underlying avionics, a fortiori

we trust the quantum physics that makes transistors work

we trust the germ theory and microbiology that makes antibiotics work

David P Young from the Boeing Company distrusts the science behind airplanes

it’s the same as climate’s

the number of guys who distrusts quantum physics is non nil

we don’t trust the climate science that makes the IPCC… work… if that’s the right word

bingo

maybe if there was some technology that worked because alarmist climate science was true, we’d believe alarmist climate science

yes

that’s something important

AGW is future-oriented

being conservative means we distrust future-oriented claims

more so when they impact on our values

right.

has any other “future oriented” science ever succeeded, worked, been true, or convinced anyone?

yes

of course

e.g.?

any scientist that claims something that has not been established

that’s the unknown, not the future

you know about the OCEAN theory?

nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

the key is Openness

liberals are more Open

thus more open to future-oriented claims that would change their lifestyles

my point is, science requires testing of predictions in order to improve, iteratively

yes

that’s a trait too

conscientiousness

if the only prediction you make is one you can’t test for a century, your science will go nowhere.

we already know what happens

what we don’t know is what to expect at the climate’s scale

clisci is trying to pass off predictions as the end product of the scientific process

we know about Venus, about Mars, about the GHGs, etc

the problem here

is that predictions are statements

and statements can be parsed

take your own quiz

whereas in proper science, predictions are an intermediate step

i need to interpret your questions

your statements

we can pussyfoot to no end about what each means

thus we can resist testing

that’s why consensus matters

when everyone agrees

then we stop wondering if what we know needs to be revised

but

it’s always possible to doubt

to remain unconvinced

in fact

it could be possible to do science without entertaining strong beliefs about any of this

you just do your job

“here’s what i think”

“i have no idea what this means”

“i could be wrong”

“if i’m right, then this or that follows”

“if i’m right and you bet against me, here’s what it’ll cost”

enough with the political BS. i’ve never tipped my political hand to you, because it never comes into it!

this is about science

when have i ever indicated conservativeness or liberalness in any of our climate debates?

I am telling you that this is how science works

because

this is how language works

language is a social art

we use language to communicate science

even to DO science

thus

science is also a social art

but what is my politics? do you know?

you know my ‘climate,’ so you should be able to deduce my politics, right?

so go ahead. deduce.

you’re a bleeding heart libertarian

that’d be my bet

libertarians score high on openness

but you score higher than I’d expect from an über-libertarian on relatedness and conscientiousness

your insistence on Sound Science suggests conscientiousness, not a libertarian strong point

“bleeding heart”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding-heart_libertarianism

the rightmost leftist libertarian

or the leftmost right libertarian

ok, let’s make it one-dimensional: where on the left-right axis do i fall?

one of the two i just told you

you’re an individualist

but you care about otters

you care about justice

no, say it without using the word ‘libertarian’.

(it’s not just a hypothetical BTW—i’ve taken many such quizzes, so i know the answer.)

anyway, you’re simply saying nice things about me.

which are also true of you. and all nice people.

I’d say L–(Brad)C–R

bullseye!

so shouldn’t i have different climate, given my politics?

let me save you some epicycles: forget the economics axis. I have no economics. i’m a glaze-over guy on economic issues. I don’t have enough money to know or care

i may not be “alone”, but doesn’t the deeper-values-and-beliefs Theory of Climate Movement Stasis predict that I’m a believer, from my politics?

i understand that it’s easy to be against Mike, or Lew, or Naomi

or to be against styleless jerkitude in general, or just Dana’s

ah so it’s my aesthetics that determine my climate?

i understand that auditing is more important than University careerism presumes

i just don’t understand libertarianism

i think it’s incoherent

so

i am an anti-libertarian

i can understand paleo-conservatism

i can’t understand libertarianism

right. but i throw the baby out with the bathwater, whereas you take care to separate the contents of the bathtub before disposal?

my comprehension of libertarianism stops with J S Mill

i doubt you object to Mill

ok, i’m playing

bye

ok, i’m gonna crap on without you for a minute:

the whole art of divining people’s climate from their politics is, IMHO, worse than frivolous.

it’s a way of avoiding (or denying) an inconvenient truth:

that people have legitimate, strong objections to “the science” that do not depend on their own political, psychological, fiscal, economic, social or other baggage.

i’m not attacking you here, i’m talking about the Lews and even the Kahans who think that if only we agreed on everything other than The Science, we’d then agree on The Science.

bollocks.

i have climate “allies” (and to various extents, friends) who share my objections, almost verbatim, to The Science, but come from every background, voting pattern, stance on abortion, religion, economic caste, country, etc.

but our differences never matter to us because (unless there’s a US election going on) we simply don’t have any cause to discuss politics, religion, or the other irrelevantia when we’re on climate fora—we discuss climate, climate change, climate science, and our disdain for it.

we don’t even discuss gender. i have climate “allies” whose sex I still don’t know after all these years. because we don’t talk about our lives.

it is simply delusional to imagine that differences in our personalities and backgrounds will ever be enough to explain away our polarization over climate

IT’S THE SCIENCE, STUPID 🙂

there’s something wrong with the science. after 25 years of denying this, the alarmists wonder why their movement isn’t moving.

if they really think there is a climate crisis, why don’t they stop pretending the science is hunky-dory and do something to fix it? that’s the only way to convince people like me that the crisis is real. if it is. (which i highly doubt, and will continue to doubt until they fix the science.)

do they really think we’re lying when we claim to think the science is broken? that we’ve just been feigning dissatisfaction with the science for the last 25 years?

because that’s Bizarre Specific Delusionville. it’s Haloperidol time.

One more point:

Let’s suppose my friends and I are wrong, and the science is hunky-dory.

the only possible way to break the deadlock, in this scenario, is to explain to us why we’re mistaken about the quality of the science.

but to do that, your guys have to acknowledge our low opinion of it.

not agree with it—just acknowledge it.

stop pretending that skepticism/denialism is “really” about the politics, policy, cost, theology, “implications” for our “world view,” or any other patronizing bullshit.

you have to confront the fact that we think the science is a crock of shit.

that means dropping the psychobabble.

that means extending the presumptions of good faith, adulthood, sanity, average-or-higher IQ, amenability to reason (etc. etc.) upon which any attempt to change anyone’s mind is predicated.

you’ll never change a single mind as long as you insist that there has to be something disingenuous, childish, low-IQ, irrational or insane about everyone who disagrees.

why does nobody on your side understand this and say it out loud?

do you want the worst impacts of climate change to come true as predicted? do you want to spend another 25 years wondering why Action On Climate hasn’t materialised yet?

because that’s what your side’s approach to skeptical and denialistic persons guarantees.

do climate-concerners want the oceans to boil? That looks like a rhetorical question… but I’m beginning to worry the answer might not be “no.”

Is this news to anyone, that you’re doing it all wrong?

Rant over. 🙂

no need to tell me it was hyperbolic at times. I know.

thanks for the rant

  1. I don’t think the correlation between ideology and stance vs AGW needs to erase the genuine concerns regarding THE SCIENCE
  2. I think it does imply higher expectations regarding THE SCIENCE
  3. In other words, the higher the burden of proof imposed on THE SCIENCE, the less sound it sounds
  4. This is most obvious if we consider that many, many Denizens are engineer-minded.

go on…

  1. My main problem with that stance is that the earth is not a bridge

Most of THE SCIENCE is exploratory

It’s mostly junk

Or crap

But it’s crap that works

(Pace XKCD)

6, We should embrace crappiness.

Crap results can lead to Sound Science if we produce many, many, many crappy results.

A bit like IKEA – it’s crap, but it’s light, it’s fast, it’s cheap, and it killed an industry of non-crappy furniture

A bit like Napoléon Bonaparte – it doesn’t matter if your soldier have two bullets, what matters is that they walk faster than your foe’s.

The point behind this provocative thesis is to show that the principles behind capitalism can apply to science.

Let scientists go bankrupt on their own pet projects.

Doesn’t matter.

  1. As long as we can take their results and improve on them faster than before, all is well. The overall effect will be faster, cheaper, and Sounder Science.

There still is a need for some Quality Assurance

There too crappiness could be applied.

Under that light, the Auditor’s work was not crappy enough.

He invested WAYYYYY too much time on a series of papers that are, in the end, of little relevance.

The same applies to C13, to Lew’s crap, etc.

We need auditors, but we need even more editors.

  1. To make sure there is a Return of Investment, the auditors portray these papers as game-changing or iconic.

If we accept that there is no such thing as an iconic paper (except perhaps Einstein’s golden year production and Gödel’s theorems and so on and so forth), then most of ClimateBall is of little relevance in the grand scheme of things.

  1. If we look at what is done around AGW, my reading tends to be confirmed.

Lots of stuff is done.

The caravan moves on, however stuck you and me and our friends are.

Faire et laisser braire.

  1. If we accept that what matters, in the end, is THE SCIENCE, then commenting on THE SCIENCE is of little import.
  2. My own position is consistent with that conclusion, insofar that I have little concern for THE SCIENCE.

I am here for the argument.

I don’t mind wasting my time doing something I study, even if my participation makes my project unscientific, because I intervene in what I observe.

  1. The only way out, I duly submit, is to (a) learn ClimateBall and (b) find a way to produce constructive criticisms and (c) let go of identity politics

Had the Auditor produced a blog in which he wrote constructive criticisms, I would still be on the contrarian side.

I can understand that there are valid reasons to entertain a contrarian viewpoint, and even accept (à la Mill) that there is something to gain from good ol’ dialectics.

But the shaming has to stop.

Or at least the mean-spirited one.

That said, I don’t exclude myself from the shaming business.

It is mostly a defensive mechanism.

[…]

ClimateBall is a bit like ClimateClub.

Respect is earned.

Still following?

  1. I think everybody can agree that THE SCIENCE is crap. Ask MT, Eli, Nick Stokes, everybody on my fantasy draft – they’ll all tell you that.

Moreover, we bicker with one another all the time.

That’s just normal – nobody shares most of my beliefs. Not even I, for I need to type to see what I believe.

But we don’t hold THE SCIENCE to an impossible standard. Better standards cost money. It also costs time. Considering that we already know everything to safely surmise that dumping CO2 like there’s no tomorrow may not be the best idea, we should get on to it. And we do.

but is there a tomorrow?

not if you ask me. not yet anyway. (I’ll have to sleep on it—I might feel differently in the morning,)

  1. But you’re right – the same should also apply to contrarians. That is, Willard Tony, the Auditor, CliScep, Junior, Senior, Groundskeeper Willie, Judy’s Denizens also need to be accepted for who they are. We can’t expect them to improve that much, and that’s that.
  2. Hence Love and Light wins.
  3. But we can’t expect people to abide by Love and Light. We can only hope that they learn to fight properly. Which means the first objective is to teach ClimateBall so that nobody gets hurt. Because it’ll end in tears, that’s for sure.

I think this expresses most of my rationale.

It also responds to your rant, I think.

There’s some self-fulfilling prophecy that obtains in the ClimateBall exchanges. Take how AT and PaulM respond to one another. Both University teachers. Childish and defensive and sooo meta.

OTOH, there is something that should explain why we got there, not only we’re all childish and defensive, but there’s something in it for both sides. There is something positive that we seek in the in-group out-group dynamics.

Thus I’d generalize your point – we all need to accept that there’s something we all get from ClimateBall. That thing won’t go away if we stop fighting.

What I get from playing CB, I get it here, now.

It’s a creative outlet where I can express myself.

But instead of passively waiting for generations I’ll never know to read my writing, I have immediate feedback.

Look at me. I’m a chess player who happens to study philosophy. ClimateBall joins both worlds – I fight using words!

Both are more a martial art than a sport – there are no clear rules, the quest is mostly aesthetic, the reward is elusive.

To show that my fantasy draft is critical of the establishment: “I’ll say it. Peer review is bogus.”

Eli doubles down just below.

James Annan reminds the common and appropriate reaction:

Ignore uninteresting crap

Then follows an exchange where MT and Eli clearly chooses two different approaches

Now, consider having to deal with the hypocrisy of Senior and Junior year after year – it’s easy to imagine why this gets this way. It’s also trivial for both Senior and Junior to play victim.

how much of this fascinating and (for me) educational twête-à-twête would you be comfortable with putting into an article? […]

good idea

i like Vladimir and Estragon dialogues

i haven’t seen the play, but were Vlad and Estragon on opposite “side” of the “greatest moral and economic issue of [their] times,” like we supposedly are?

Was one of them a devout theist, while the other didn’t believe in Godot?

if so, why weren’t they called Testosterone and Estragon? or Insulin and Glucagon, at least?

We’re not on opposite sides

the two characters oppose a melancholic guy and a more choleric one

we’re not on opposite sides of the fight that matters—the Science Wars—or we’d never be friends.

But are you suggesting we’re not even on opposite sides of the trivial side bout—the so-called Climate Wars?

Because I don’t think global warming is a net threat to the globe; and it was my understanding you didn’t share my climate insouciance. You don’t, do you?

i don’t

i am agnostic

what i believe is irrelevant

i see no reason to believe any of this crap

beliefs are overrated

i don’t need them to know where i stand

well I’m agnostic too, but only in the ‘agnostic-about-vampires,’ ‘teacups-orbiting-the-moon’ sense

all i need to know is that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow may not be a good idea

i can add to this that it’s a resource

and thus subject to fair share

of course.

or it may lead to A Better Tomorrow.

or maybe Tomorrow Doesn’t Care.

the thing is that it opposes two establishments

science vs economics

just as “my” side defends the scientific establishment, yours defend the economic elites

thus we see a clash of narratives

where both sides portray themselves as the underdog

or the established viewpoing

t

i think there is cause for concerns

we should distinguish alarm and alarmism

alarmism begs a question that is not easily answered

my one-sentence position:

the lack of an AGW crisis is the most expensively-, tediously-, repeatedly- (if provisionally-) confirmed null hypothesis in the history of science.

and yes, both sides are all too human, in the pejorative sense

but that doesn’t change the fact (or strong impression) that you’ve chosen to police the crimes against reason and compassion of one side—”skeptics”—more than the other

you routinely intervene to castigate me for the same faults you let slide in my climate-concernist interlocutor

if you’re relatively even-handed (and you are) it’s only by the bitterly-partisan standards of the climate controversy

what’s wrong with the word “viewpoing”?

Edward de Bono would surely approve, know what I mean? Yes/no/po?

po

and that’s the memo

it’s impossible to be even-handed

i don’t spot everything

also

i don’t need to

no, but it should be possible to be even-handed enough that you don’t falsify (with p < 0.5) the hypothesis that you're even-handed

just like the Auditor does not need to audit Willard Tony’s crap

yes and indeed the epistemology of science is not remotely symmetrical

i’ve criticized friends more than enough times to disprove that

i’m filling in a niche

nobody does what i do

but the thing is, it’s far more important to be critical of the “side” that’s proposing the hypothesis, not the side that’s pushing the void peanut-shell of the null

i don’t think so

i’m interested by the contrarian matrix

and by the comedy of menace you guys play

but our matrix is scientifically irrelevant (and will remain so unless and until there’s a theory to oppose)

it actually is relevant

for the most part

come on, menace takes three. it’s a menace-à-trois.

ideally, all the criticism should be valid

in the treesome of rats, i’m the pariah

(if you know the experiments with rats)

all the criticism is unnecessary. there’s no evidence, in the sense of net support for alarm, to criticize.

as i’ve said, you’re relatively even-handed.

i’m not, because random-handedness would be inappropriate.

i systematically hand out the pain in the direction contra your usual tendency.

and i realize i just contradicted myself, which is my cue to make myself some coffee.

you wouldn’t like me when i’m hypocaffeinemic.


† Or at least a cut’n’pasted imago, xerox or brass-rubbing thereof. Ceci n’est pas une twête-à-twête!

Systems of meaning have always fascinated me, and my greatest regret is that I switched to a Science degree half-way through my B. Sem. (I still remember making that decision in a side-spliting, knee-slapping convulsion of rage at the author of the sentence, “Langdon was a dashing Professor of Symbology from Harvard.”) The best I can call myself now, in good conscience, is a quarter of an otician.

I don’t really like talking about this stuff in meatspace; there’s a lot of antisemioticism in my neighborhood.


Acknowledgement:

Without my frenemy Willard‘s collaboration this Conversation would have been a Colliloquy. My sincere thanks to him.

—B.K.

318 thoughts on “CliScepGate 2.0

  1. A very interesting interchange and echoes several of my own. Several things spring to mind.

    It is curious why the other side refuses to allow us our opinion. They scrabble around trying to come up with reasons why we’re against them and usually settle for something insulting. Of course that’s part of the game Willard refers to. Smear the opposition. Ummm, tell me again how that’s working in 2016? I’m sure that a number of votes cast in both Brexit and the US election were done so because of sustained sneering by the other side. If you try hard enough to make other people the enemy, eventually they’re going to believe you.

    Not only does this technique make determined enemies out of a peaceful opposition, it stops their side understanding sceptics and improving their own side accordingly. It would make sense for them to view their side as the best of the best of the best if they were winning the climate debate but if anything, they’re losing ground. The best companies listen to the complaints and do their best to solve them. They don’t treat people with a problem like dirt.

    But that’s business, not science. Sure it is, and every moan I’ve heard from the other side about how we have unreasonable expectations, how they’re doing their best, how the next product will be much better if only we’d trust them… business has already made those excuses. It didn’t mean they couldn’t, shouldn’t and wouldn’t improve. Out of recognition of those flaws, we have quality control systems; health and safety systems; archiving policy; consumer rights; standard operating procedures and much, much more. Business fought tooth and nail all the way but by and large those systems are essential, if for no other reason than they allow the public to have confidence in an area where they need to trust much of what goes on behind closed doors. That’s how we get the public to trust in the complex, not some glib ‘97% of scientists believe’ argument.

    That’s the key. People don’t trust in science, they trust in evidence. They want to see what the scientists see and if the scientists can’t demonstrate it, they need to show that they are trust worthy. Irrespective of any truth behind climate alarm, climate alarmists have ticked off every box on the shysters handbook. Limited time offer, ever changing claims, the next product version will have eradicated all the flaws you know about the current one, smearing the detractors or rivals, refusing to debate the pros and cons, saying that all your neighbours have signed up but it will all fall through without you, having glossy brochures that only put the salesman’s case, dodgy statistics, misleading statistics, don’t worry about the small print, think of your children, etc.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. To add, people don’t trust the science of flight, they don’t even trust engineering. They trust the evidence that planes do fly, again and again and again. They trust that there are massive systems in place to test new plain designs and an ongoing drive to improve safety. They trust that if the worst happens that there are systems in place to find out why and punish where appropriate. If they stopped trusting in those things, many of them would stop flying.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Thanks for taking up the baton, Tiny.

    Could you elaborate on:

    “people don’t trust the science of flight, they don’t even trust engineering. They trust the evidence that planes do fly, again and again and again.”

    Do people distrust or disbelieve in the Bernoulli effect, the equal-and-opposite forces at play in jet thrust, et cetera…

    Or do they just never give it a second thought?

    In the latter case, what happens when you draw their attention to the underlying “science”? Will you find that they hold it in the same contempt and incredulity half of America feels towards clisci?

    Like

  4. People don’t need to understand science if the reality speaks for itself. If man made climate change was obviously a problem, the scientists would be able to demonstrate it. Since it’s complicated an uncertain it needs trust. Even the question ‘do you believe in climate change’ is essentially a lie. Instead of an innocuous question about science it means ‘do you blindly accept any and all science we deem to be covered by ‘climate science’ and hand over all decision making for what we do about it, no matter how arduous or ineffective or costly, and do so in perpetuity for yourself and any descendants, regardless of any changes in the science since by agreeing you also agree to any and all social engineering we may decide to throw in.’ In other words, write us a blank cheque and shut up. To which the only logical answer is NO!!!!!!

    Warmists tend to see themselves as the little guy, the brave hero in the movie and their opposition as big, evil industry. What they don’t seem to realise is that they’re the big faceless organisation in this story.

    When a lone fisherman in a boat hits rocks and sinks, people don’t bother very much. If a cruise ship makes the same mistake, there is rightly a hue and cry. Why? The two people have made the same mistake. Because the responsibility on the liner pilot and the company was much greater. There should have been many more things in place than for the lone sailor to prevent the accident. In neither case was there any intention to drive onto the rocks (barring suicide). The pressure difference is due to the size of the event, not the evil/good nature of those who caused it to happen.

    While climate science was the preserve of backwater meteorology departments, it was the equivalent of the lone fisherman. When it went global and started making demands on everybody, it became the cruise company. Procedures, responsibilities, safeguards etc, all have to reflect the change in circumstances. And they don’t. More science doesn’t equate to better science. Too much money is going into an ever expanding subject and not enough into honing the basics. Above the water, the ship is massive, with gleaming cabins, nightclubs and pools but below the water it’s still a small fishing boat. Is it any wonder it’s sinking?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Tiny,

    Here’s a fun tip. When you encounter one of these warmists:

    Warmists tend to see themselves as the little guy, the brave hero in the movie and their opposition as big, evil industry. What they don’t seem to realise is that they’re the big faceless organisation in this story.

    …quote all the CRU scientists who “openly” (well, behind closed doors, but unashamedly) discuss their plans to get Big Oil to be their sugardaddy.

    Like

  6. A certain kind of “warmist” will drop his/her bundle when you do that. Their world will fall apart. It’s surprisingly effective—since the same tactic used against us is just boring, so we tend to assume everyone finds it as inane as we do. Apparently not. Apparently it is central to some people’s worldview that Their Scientists get every single research dollar from free-range, organic, cruelty-free sources.

    Like

  7. Let me copy and paste a fixed spiel I use on any “warmist” who is still peddling the oil-funded narrative.

    Warning: This is a few years old, imperfect, took me 10 minutes to research, and any suggestions/criticisms would be welcome….


    Big Oil is Big Energy. Its interest in climate science is self-explanatory: public fear of global warming has created new markets for the energy corporations out of thin air while doing little or no damage to their traditional revenue streams. Demand for fossil fuels is essentially inelastic, whereas the new demand for Medieval, bird-decimating technology that barely works is an artificial construct. Wind farms; carbon credits; carbon capture; carbon sequestration—New Energy has no raison d’être but the CAGW hypothesis, its best (and only?) selling-point. Shell International has a huge Clean Development Mechanism [CDM] division. It also has $billions riding on the carbon credit exchange, formerly worth $130 billion/year. You only need to imagine how much value it’s haemorrhaged from that portfolio since the CCX started tanking to know why Shell has never supported CAGW skepticism (except in Michael Mann’s mental cinema).

    Thanks to FOIA—who’s like Julian Assange to Big Science—we know “Your Guys” are up to here in oil dollars. We know the University of East Anglia CRU (formerly the Tyndall Centre) came to be seen by British fossil-fuel giants as a business partner. Big Energy was worth a lot of funding to these alarmist ‘scientists,’ their alarmist ‘science’ was worth a lot of revenue to Big Energy, and both parties knew it. 

    The following emails come from a single year, 2000, which marks the start of a bidding war between Shell, Esso and BP for the ‘science’ of the CRU. 

    The scientist Mick Kelly writes to his colleagues Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan (Climategate file 0962818260.txt):

    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new [Foundation], as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.

    Mike Hulme then discusses with O’Riordan the potential benefits for the Tyndall Centre:

    Tim,

    I am meeting with Mick at 09:15 next Tuesday to talk about his links with Shell—and Tyndall dimension re. studentships, etc.

    Are you here and can you join us?

    The courtship goes well. Later in the year Kelly sends out a progress report:

    Mike and Tim 

    Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached….

    What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

    1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the T[yndall] C[entre], broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

    2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

    Now “Esso”—which is UK English for “Exxon-Mobil”—also sees the investment opportunity. Mike Hulme writes (Climategate file 959187643.txt):  

    I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.

    The CRU climatologists grow so accustomed to the attention of the fossil-fuel giants that by year’s end they’re taking it for granted that Beyond Petroleum will be another suitor. The scientist Simon Shackley writes:

    Subject: BP funding

    …dear TC colleagues, it looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge University? Cheers, Simon

    BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EMISSIONS STUDY

    This kind of collaboration isn’t just a British phenomenon. Here we can read (thanks to Freedom of Information laws) an interesting email from the University of Arizona climate scientist Dr Jonathan Overpeck. ”Peck” writes to an Exxon-Mobil executive:

    In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society.

    Anthony Watts makes an ‘ironic juxtaposition’ between that email and another one written by “Peck” only a few months earlier, in which he wishes the CAGW-skeptical Senator James Inhofe lived in the path of hurricanes. Overpeck states:

    Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast – then these guys might have a more realistic view. Until then, they’ll just do what the oil industry wants them to do, I guess.

    best, peck

    Are scientists in the pocket of Big Oil ‘credible’ on climate change?

    Like

  8. Tiny,

    It is curious why the other side refuses to allow us our opinion.

    Are you thinking of the kind of fanatical incuriosity and censoriousness embodied in DeSmogBlog’s right-hand sidebar?

    They scrabble around trying to come up with reasons why we’re against them and usually settle for something insulting.

    I don’t think they (and we’re talking only about the assholes here, not our more thoughtful “opponents”) ever did much scrabbling to begin with. They certainly never scrabble deeper than the first inch, but of course it might just be that they’re endowed with short beaks.

    I don’t think they ever did much trying.

    Why would they? People like Oreskes and Lew have no interest whatsoever in making sense of climate skepticism. I doubt they’ve given a second thought in their mediocre lives to why we ACTUALLY don’t believe the narrative.

    Their interest begins and ends with coming up with a FALSE, NEFARIOUS explanation which delegitimizes and demonizes us.

    You don’t really think Oreskes racked her brains to unlock the riddle of climate skepticism and at length, drenched in sweat, had no choice but to “settle” for the cockamamie Tobacco Strategy / Merchants of Doubt slur, do you?

    I rather suspect that’s exactly the kind of defamatory pseudoexplanation she set out, from the very beginning, to confect. And I rather suspect she didn’t have to go wander very far from the impoverished reservation of her own barren mindscape to get there. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t able to hack out the Abstract for her entire career as a heretic-smeller pursuivant in advance, in the early 2000s, in 5 minutes flat.

    I’m pretty sure the idiotic cli-psy-fi premise of M.O.D. was among the first 2 or 3 ideations she brainstormed.

    And why probe further? It satisfied her needs perfectly.

    She never wanted to make SENSE of climate skepticism, remember. (Why the heck would she want to do that? If she made SENSE of our position, her readers might get the idea that maybe there was something to it after all.)

    All she ever set out to do was make NONsense of climate skepticism so that her readers, and her gullible Harvard freshers, would—as they say—wonder no more. To stop them thinking, in other words. Give that woman a National Educator of the Year Christmas bonus!

    Ditto Lew, Corner, Maslin, and almost every practicioner of the cosmic joke that is the word “Climate” followed by the word “Psychology,” treated as a non-April-Fool’s phrase by someone dumb enough to say it with a straight face.

    Smear the opposition. Ummm, tell me again how that’s working in 2016?

    Compared to what?

    Suppose climate catastrophists of the lineage that stretches from Gore downwards *hadn’t” smeared skeptics. Ever. Suppose they *hadn’t* poisoned the entire bien-pensant class against us, conditioning a billion people to involuntarily associate us with moon-landing denial, mesothelioma, Holocaust denial, mental illness, lung cancer, Bhopal and the Exxon Valdez.

    Suppose they *hadn’t* repeatedly refused to dignify us by being in the same room as us and thus risking getting whatever form of sexually-transmitted leprosy we’ve got?

    Suppose, in other words, they’d let the 8bn people on this planet listen to our ideas and compare them to their ideas without prejudice.

    Would there even BE a climate debate by now? I suspect it would have died where it deserved to die: in the womb or, failing that, the crib or, failing that, by falling from the bough of a tall tree.

    We probably would have “won” (i.e. satisfied ourselves and everyone else to move on because this whole climate panic was a false, purely moral alarm) sometime last century.

    So I don’t think it’s analogous to Brexit or Clexit.

    In those debates, there were at least one or two legitimate points to be made on both sides. And the Bremoaners and Clinsplorers might even have convinced the public to side with them, had they used a less obnoxious tone of voice and cut out the shysterism and hate speech.

    But what makes you think there is any argument, any argument at all, for Acting on Climate?

    Let me put it to you that pomposity, hate speech and shysterism is all they have.

    Such tactics may not be working out quite as well as they’d ideally hoped, but they’re infinitely more useful than the honorable alternative, because being honest would have meant being KOed in the first five seconds of Round 1.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “it stops their side understanding sceptics and improving their own side accordingly.”

    Of course. Quite sensibly. What would they stand to gain from doing either of those things?

    “That’s the key. People don’t trust in science, they trust in evidence.”

    Interesting: This is exactly the claim I made in an old CN article, only when I wrote it, I wrote it ironically. How did we get to this point? It’s not that you’re being silly at all; but check out how silly it sounded 2 years ago, when couched in a slightly different style:

    The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit….how can I put it politely?…. of a moron.

    It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.

    I’m not as clear as you are on how phrases beginning in ‘trusting/seeing/based on/being willing to fly because of’ mean one thing when the next word is ‘science’, and another thing when the next word is ‘evidence.’

    This is a brilliantly compiled [check]list:

    Limited time offer, ever changing claims, the next product version will have eradicated all the flaws you know about the current one, smearing the detractors or rivals, refusing to debate the pros and cons, saying that all your neighbours have signed up but it will all fall through without you, having glossy brochures that only put the salesman’s case, dodgy statistics, misleading statistics, don’t worry about the small print, think of your children, etc.

    But let me ask: WHY does the “shyster’s toolbox” contain these tools?

    Is it because shysters, like climate catastrophists, are too dumb to realize how repellent their techniques are?

    If you gave a shyster a better toolbox for Christmas, would it solve his sales difficulties? Would he become Salesman of the Month if he started being honest, non-sleazy, divulgatory, collegiate, up-front, respectful of his customers’ intelligence, etc.?

    Well, it depends.

    Is his product complete shit? Because if your product is complete shit, then being an honest, ethical salesman guarantees you make ZERO sales in your entire career. People might think you’re a nice person, but since you’re obviously selling complete shit, the most they’ll ever do (best case scenario) is kick some tires, chit some chat, maybe invite you fishing one weekend, wish you and your family well, and (when you die of pneumonia at 36 because you can’t afford a paper box to live in) they might even turn up at your funeral, grow solemn all of a sudden and spend a couple of minutes wondering: why are the good guys always such losers, God?

    What they’ll never do, what no one will ever do, is knowingly hand over money in exchange for complete shit.

    So if your product is complete shit, that’s when you need to be a sleazy shyster to survive.

    Have you stopped to wonder if maybe the reason climate-fear salesmen are such lying sleazebags is NOT that

    ◼︎ they’re dumb enough to seriously think what they’re doing is an attractive, well-liked, trust-inspiring approach that ensures repeat custom,

    but rather that

    ◼︎ they’re smart enough to recognize that honesty is literally the worst policy when your product is shit.. and their product is complete shit? They know 90% of people will walk out of the store as soon as they figure this out, so the best they can hope for is to somehow flog some units off to the other 10%. But they can’t do this by being honest, nice guys. That’d sell precisely 0% of their inventory. They toolbox of the angels won’t work. The Dale Carnegie toolbox won’t work. Only the shyster toolbox has any hope of sort-of working, at least until they get ridden out of town on a rail. That process is beginning, but it would be crazy of them to help it along. They need to sell maximum units, so they need to operate their business as usual until the last possible minute, then book a cab to the airport.

    Like

  10. Frenemy: “liberals are more Open”

    Snort. From that wiki page:

    “Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent…”

    That’s another thing – like Tiny’s example of thinking of themselves as the little guy against the big corporation – that is completely inverted. The so-called liberals are the sheep, with no curiosity, imagination or independence, clinging to whatever the currently trendy SJW cause is – global warming, or whatever comes next in the LGBTQWXYZ sequence. It’s the sceptics who have curiosity and independence, as illustrated in your debate with Ben.


    I agree with (one of) your main points:

    Brad: “the whole art of divining people’s climate from their politics is, IMHO, worse than frivolous.”

    But whenever I’ve brought this up in regard to me and some other people I know, eg you, with, say Kahan, he just says, well that’s you, OK, fair enough, but you are exceptional. And plots one of his graphs from one of his surveys showing that right-wing people tend to be more sceptical than left-wing ones. And that’s the end of the conversation.

    To be fair to Kahan, he doesn’t claim to be able to deduce climate views from political views, he just points out that there is a correlation in the general population. You would accept that, right?


    But I disagree with you about Willard. I’ve never found him to say anything useful, helpful, constructive. Or even clear and coherent, which is the starting block for having a conversation, or debate, or argument with someone. I have no idea what he is trying to say here. If somebody else speaks Willardish and can translate it into plain English for me, that might help.

    Like

  11. Paul,

    this…

    >> “OK, fair enough, but you are exceptional.”

    means this….

    OK, my theory was wrong then…
    I got bupkes, it was a dead end, back to the drawing board
    no ands, no ifs, and no “but you are exceptional”s!

    >> To be fair to Kahan, he doesn’t claim to be able to deduce climate views from political views, he just points out that there is a correlation in the general population. You would accept that, right?

    I “accept” that he can draw, and has drawn, a graph.

    I “accept” that the dots on the graph are not doctored, and that they come from dots in the real world that were arranged in roughly the same-type arterial spray as the misty fuzz in Kahan’s drawing

    what I don’t “accept” is that any of this is interesting, useful or worth the pixels.

    IF kahan purports to explain some part of the world, but his explanation gives rise to an anti-true prediction, then he must either “explain away” this fuckup or admit he hasn’t explained anything

    but

    If he does NOT purport to explain anything, but merely to arrange some correlated data along some chosen axes, and print out the resulting rohrschach scatter-blot on his laser jet printer, and say “hey, it’s just a correlation, who the hell knows what the causal mechanism is?”, then why is anyone paying him? he’s not adding anything, let alone anything “interesting”, to human knowledge here.

    >> If somebody else speaks Willardish and can translate it into plain English for me, that might help.

    that’s one thing I like about Willard. that I have to work at understanding him. which makes it impossible to have a knock-down drag-out fight with him. which made it necessary to move our duel elsewhere, not on the Climateball field.

    i have learned conversational Willardish by now, though by no means would Willard mistake me for a Willard.

    so i could definitely find some time this week to try to translate, which would require checking with him for accuracy

    but do you care what he thinks enough for me to do all that?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Given that almost every pundit has made some massive mistakes regarding what people are thinking this year, I’m not sure it’s safe to try and define anyone’s politics by what they think or their thinking by their politics. It’s also very confusing trying to equate an American voter with a British one, let alone any other nationality. There is a lot of muttering about the ‘popular vote’ as opposed to what? The unpopular vote? Should the winner automatically be set aside for the option fewer people wanted?

    I try very hard not to judge important issues based on personalities but when it comes to climate, it’s very hard not to. Apart from scientists themselves, it’s a dream team of people I avoid. Greens, anti capitalists, government funded office types, luvvies… Rather than say it’s their politics I’d sum them up as people who have no idea when stuff comes from and don’t care until it doesn’t turn up. Because of western wealth, their jobs/skills are unrealistically valued against those who supply the important things in life, like food and steel. Globalisation allows them to turn a blind eye to the muck from where their brass has come from. Ironically that book Emily St John Mandel’s Station Eleven, that Missy Higgins was moved by is a good example of the stupidity of that type of person. “A book about a travelling theatre group who journey from scattered camp to camp, performing Shakespeare to anyone who survived the flu pandemic. I fell in love with this disease-ravaged, post-electricity world where artists were the saviours” Sure, because in a post electricity world, we’d want to spend our time listening to a bit of Shakespeare. Not. As an erudite (spelling deficient), moderately well off adult, with time on my hands, I love a bit of Shakespeare but if those actors wanted to eat they’d better do a lot more than wander about doing a bit of the bard. During the height of the Bird Flu alarm, a survey was done asking people what they’d do post massive pandemic. Almost all said they’d try to recreate what we have now – power stations, business, the lot.

    In a green future, most of the people demanding action would be redundant. I wouldn’t even fund 90% of the scientists if my energy allotment shrinks. Question – do I fund a scientist studying penguins or do I have the heat on for another hour – no brainer. Do I have that juicy beef steak or keep Dr Lew in his psych job – put the grill on. And all those city types pushing bits of paper from A to B and back again – would we value them more highly than the concrete in our homes?

    At the moment, the plan to reduce CO2 seems to be put all the fundamental business out of work and buy exactly the same things with even higher CO2 footprints from another country. That allows our city dwellers to have their cake and eat it, while everyone else does without. ‘Let them live off batteries’ isn’t exactly the Bard of Avon but I’m sure he could imagine how society would react.

    Like

  13. > “zero ability to keep to the point”

    Deviare humanum est. I’m lucky if I manage to stick to the point (i.e. guess what the other person tacitly assumes the point is, and stick to it) within one standard aberration. The nerve on those Castro Bros., hey? Tell ya what.

    Like

  14. Brad Keyes says: (28 Nov 16 at 9:52 am) “Do people distrust or disbelieve in the Bernoulli effect, the equal-and-opposite forces at play in jet thrust, et cetera…Or do they just never give it a second thought?”

    Some do, most don’t. When I was a child I discovered the joy of flying my hand while my parents or grandparents drove an automobile down the road. By tilting my hand it would catch the wind on my palm and create lift. Some of that lift is Bernoulli effect, most of it is just viscosity and acceleration, the force of the wind going from horizontal to downward by the slant of my hand, or a wing.

    The Bernoulli effect makes a wing efficient but is not the sole source of lift.

    A curious person will ponder wings, incurious do not while at the same time observing that planes fly. Since I am a curious person I don’t really have a lot to say about incurious persons.

    About Willard: I seem to have more respect for this person than is commonly seen here, in part because he early on extended some respect to me and I “grok” his kind, at times he plays with his victims like a cat with a mouse, making jokes and non-sequiturs that you try to answer. Deep inside he probably does not care which way the wind blows; just that it blows and you can make something out of it; ClimateBall in this case. The only way to lose is not to play!

    To understand Willard you must understand ISTP’s

    “According to Keirsey, Crafter Artisans are masters at using tools of every type – artistic, technological, martial. Although they are introverts, they are authoritarian in their interactions with others and can be forceful at influencing people. They focus on accomplishing tasks efficiently and skillfully. To master the tool of their interest, ISTPs require a certain degree of seclusion in which to practice. The result is often a virtuosity that other types find difficult to match”

    [http]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISTP_(personality_type)

    What that means is that Williard is likely to respect excellence or virtuosity in a person as evidenced by the adeptness with which you use your own tools, language in this case. A curious side effect of being respected is that you won’t often be permitted to play in Willard’s playground (ATTP for instance).

    I suspect he is careful with his words except when he is playing around with someone.

    “just as my side defends the scientific establishment, yours defend the economic elites”

    Notice that he does not say his side defends science, but rather the scientific establishment. Science does not take sides, and no side can legitimately claim to have a monopoloy on science. A careless reading of his words will activate in your mind “memes” that are already there, and you will hear words, or read words, that aren’t actually there.

    Consider the bible for a moment. What does it say about the creation of life? If you live in most western nations, you’ve heard all your life of a magical 7 days of creation, poof, there’s life. But reading the plain words reveals a very different story: The Earth brought forth life, and God saw that it was good. It is not ex-nihilo magical poof creation and the sun was created (formed, described) on the third “day” so we most certainly are not talking solar days.

    Willard is a master at helping you find your box and crawl into it. But if you do, it was your choice. You can also choose NOT to crawl into a box of your own making.

    He is more libertarian than I; real libertarian: I choose for me, you choose for you, and I will respect your choices as much as is reasonably possible.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Frenz, Frenzal Rhombans, Contrarymen, Gentlewymyn,

    1) Paul et all, I’ve changed the title from the misleading “Hacking Our Own Emails—Part Deux” to “CliScepGate 2.0,” which I hope is more leading.

    2) I’m yet to see, from any of you, the kind of loathing I used to pour on Willard… publicly, indelibly and googleably. If you want us to believe you really hate the guy, you’re going to have to sell it. Enough of this praising by faint damnation, fellas.

    3) The point being, if we can do it, there’s hope for one or two other dyads out there.

    Not every one, of course. In most cases our enemies are our enemies for good reason, and it would be a crime against the Republic of Science to show them clemency. Far be it from me to recommend, incite or give comfort to treason.

    And equally obviously, it doesn’t have to be Willard. It could be another nemesis in your circle of enemeses. Someone you notice yourself respecting, in spite of yourself, in the heat of HateBall.

    The point of this post was to challenge you to reach out to, say, one opponent per decade. Make an overture, not necessarily of amnesty, but of amenability to forgiving and forgetting and forging the bonds of non-enmity if they’ll agree to take it off-field and settle matters of honor on the field of honor, rather than perseverating in the vain hope that something edifying is going to come out of the slave-on-slave spectator sport that is ClimateHockey.

    4) Does anyone have their own heartwarming, ice-rink-melting tale of forbidden friendship to share with us? He was a capnophobic Capulet, she was a Monckton-loving Montague?

    I can’t be the only one.

    Let the turning of faux foes to Best Frenemeses Forever begin!

    Like

  16. Michael 2,

    “Notice that he does not say his side defends science, but rather the scientific establishment. Science does not take sides, and no side can legitimately claim to have a monopoloy on science.”

    Depends on the assumed axis of cleavage.

    If you’re talking about Climate horrorism v Climate apathism, you could possibly argue that “science” is found on both sides, whatever that means.

    But in the case of Oreskes et Al v the scientific method, the partition is perfect. We, the defendants, are the sole inheritors of anything recognizable as “science.” We’re simply trying to defend it from the predations of a white, tertiary-educated wing of Boko Haram.

    I’m pretty much the last person in the world to trust a simple, Manichaean, good-versus-evil narrative, but when the shoe fits (as in the classic Supreme Court showdown Goode v E. Ville), then… you know.

    Like

  17. Michael 2,

    “The Bernoulli effect makes a wing efficient but is not the sole source of lift.”

    The wing of a bird obviously exploits a whole variety of forces. But let’s assume a fixed wing, and a fixed shape overall, as of an anthropogenous aircraft.

    I’ve probably misremembered the definition of the Bernoulli effect, but I thought that at a given airspeed (courtesy of the jets or propellers), Bernoulli accounted for 100% of the pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the aircraft—most dramatically at the wings, but not only at the wings—and that the net upwards force due to that difference was 100% of Why Planes Don’t Fall Out Of The Sky…?

    I know I’m missing something, but can you remind me what it is?

    “Since I am a curious person I don’t really have a lot to say about incurious persons.”

    I find your closed-mindedness sad. Sad and deplorable. Incurious people are people too, but I guess you’ll never know, will you, because you can’t be bothered trying to understand them. 🙂

    Like

  18. “I know I’m missing something, but can you remind me what it is?”

    The angle of attack modifies the airflow over the wing, for example in the case of a symmetrical aerofoil as used on aerobatic planes such as the Extra300 and transsonic/supersonic planes such as the Lockheed F104 Starfighter.

    The airflow ends having to travel further over the “upper” surface of the wing, causing a low pressure area.

    Of course, Newton comes into it too, even an asymmetric aerofoil generally runs at a positive angle of attack.

    Very complicated subject, aerodynamics!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Thanks, Catweazle!

    Just to be clear: am I wrong in thinking this…

    The airflow ends having to travel further over the “upper” surface of the wing, causing a low pressure area.

    …describes an example of the Bernoulli effect?

    Could you spelll out exactly which parts of that Aerodynamics 101 micro-teaser refer to principles covered versus *not* covered by the Bernoulli effect?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. or are you saying something more like:

    “yes Brad, it’s all Bernoulli, but (at the same time) Bernoulli isn’t everything, in the sense that if you want to build an object that actually flies, you also need to understand a whole heap of *other* physics just to exploit Bernoulligenic forces efficiently enough to get it off the ground”

    ?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Paul — Frenemy: “liberals are more Open”

    Says liberals.

    What is odd is that seemingly ‘right wing’ (here standing as not-liberal, whereas the word ‘liberal’ might equally apply to conservatives) cognitive scientists don’t seem to need go to such lengths to approve of themselves and give themselves a pat on the back. Or perhaps they do, but there’s just fewer of them*.

    (* Having said that, I can now think of one or two. But they at least manage to say something interesting between attempts to pathologise and mind-probe to establish differences in political beliefs. Which is like trying to push a duvet into its cover.)

    I’ve never read anything of any value from Willard, either. And I haven’t noticed him make any progress within whatever it is ClimateBall is. Most people who emphasise climate change in the expression of their perspective allow us to piece together the picture from that view, such as it is. The coordinates of George Monbiot’s outpourings were given far too much attention in the early (and many of the middle) days of my old blog, for instance. I thought he was important, because the Graun and the Graun’s adherents seemed to celebrate him. It turned out the climate movement doesn’t have thinkers; it has lost souls.

    The point was to try to understand what kind of perspective environmentalism was either indulging or forming, what sense of the future it was creating, and how this manifests as understanding and relationships between people, institutions, and so on. Environmentalism is ideological. No matter how cack-handed that effort, I only ever saw Willard sniff and sneer at it. So much for openness.

    I have never found liberals, as a category, to be particularly open. I think I’ve given it a try. I was a member of the Woodcraft Folk from the age of 7 into my twenties. I stayed on Pioneer camps in the Soviet Bloc as a young teen. I was even a green troll for a bit. I was a fan of George Monbiot. Yes, him. But not for all that long. It is perhaps an accident of history, but it isn’t contemporary campus conservatives that will no platform those who will do not show sufficient deference to its hierarchy of identities. In my own experience of campus politics, it would be the right-of-centre societies that would invite perspectives from without their fold, whereas their leftish counterparts were largely identikit, unaccustomed to debate across differences of perspective, and would fail to engage with the substance of debates intellectually, abstractly, as a battle of ideas. They became emotional instead. This I would explain as the left’s (“left”) retreat from politics to ‘ethics’, amongst other changes.

    Climate is political, though, to the extent that it reflects broader political transformations. Here’s a bigger lie:

    [Liberals are] thus more open to future-oriented claims that would change their lifestyles

    Liberals are preoccupied with lifestyle. It is the contemporary form of class conscience — differentiation. You can’t say ‘dirty plebs’ any more. But you can express the same chauvinism with Gaia’s blessing.

    The green liberal’s (such as they are) political (such as it is) project (such as it is) has been about avoiding the future for at least the last quarter century. The future is risky, on the liberal perspective. Hence:

    “AGW is future-oriented”

    …is simply wrong. “AGW” is future averse. The past is optimal in all green narratives, which are retellings of The Fall. The Fall requires lifestyles to be policed, and ‘ethics’ to be obeyed, lest the chaos afflict all of creation, its balance and its stasis. In this sense, contemporary ‘liberals’ — especially greens — do not share much with their historical antecedents that did conceive of futures that had thrown off tradition, natural orders, gods and monsters, to put man at the centre of his understanding Against Nature. Indeed ‘Liberals’ are the new reactionaries. “Liberals” have departed from humanism, in reverse gear. At full speed. The “Liberalism” espoused by “liberals” (if I have read the conversation’s understanding of the term correctly) is inverted. Liberals aren’t liberal any more. And Liberal Democrats are neither, either.

    A similar confusion persists in

    “just as my side defends the scientific establishment, yours defend the economic elites”.

    Which is funny to anyone who keeps an eye on Breton Woods institutions’ forays into climate. Or who watches to see which Peer has his fingers in which pies. And how many financial institutions have gambled on the green, hoping to score some market share from the financialisation of the energy sector. It has been interesting, throwing off that Stalinist youth camp programming, to see how erstwhile comrades and critics came to stop worrying and love the IMF and World Bank. Most of those I am aware of who dabble in climate from ‘our side’ and comment on matters political, economic, were in fact steadfastly against the bailing out of economic elites during the recent crash. (I worked for one for a while – he thought the scale of the officials’, politicians’ and bankers’ theft so great, they deserved long stretches in prison, if not the gallows). They warned, before and after, about the dangers of the proximity of financial institutions and government. Witness, on the other hand — and the other side — the rise and rise of José Manuel Durão Barroso… From green socialist to… non-executive chairman at Goldman Sachs International via the EC!(!!!!1111ONE!!!1)

    Lest the point be lost on you. In his decade-long stint as non-elected president of half a billion people until 2014, Barroso oversaw the drafting and implementation of no small amount of climate policy, including the EU’s packages to the UNFCCC, as well as the most farreaching EU-wide and domestic interventions. Goldman Sachs
    is no less confident about the opportunities that climate change creates. For them.

    Quite simply, Willard doesn’t know what he is talking about. The binary division of the debate he offers, can only have been formed by not having understood anything that has been uttered in or around the debate, in spite of bearing witness to so many, many, many rounds of Climate Ball. It would be generous to say he has his head up his arse.

    Which brings us to…

    “the whole art of divining people’s climate from their politics is, IMHO, worse than frivolous.”

    But that only depends on what we understand about politics and what we understand about climate to aid our divination. It may look like the Dark Arts. Or just bollocks. And it often is. It would be right to claim, for instance,

    “the whole art of divining people’s estimate of climate sensitivity from their adherence to Marx’s Capital, Vol. III, is, IMHO, worse than frivolous”.

    But there’s more to ‘climate’ than climate sensitivity. And Capital is a long read, too. But that point was made during the last great Cliscep leak.

    Language is a social art. Beautiful. But sometimes it’s just the vehicle for someone else’s interminable wank. Which would be fine — everybody needs to let off steam once in a while. But it is not once in a while; Willard’s Climate Balls have been emptied over every other website about climate change in the entire English speaking world on each occasion they came dangerously close to permitting a decent exchange… were it not for the cast of characters known as Consensus Enforcers. Different to their majority in style perhaps — obtuse to effect a superficially ‘erudite’ impression — but ultimately no more about substance than the performances of the One Who Brings Us Physics.

    Stuff him. The Neverending Dullard has added nothing to any of the countless debates elsewhere, and he adds nothing here.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. TL;DR version:

    What you and Willard get up to in the privacy of your own DMs is your own business.

    Like

  23. “Just to be clear: am I wrong in thinking this…

    The airflow ends having to travel further over the “upper” surface of the wing, causing a low pressure area.

    …describes an example of the Bernoulli effect?”

    Indeed it does.

    But the point is, it is created in a different manner to a “normal” asymmetric aerofoil where the upper surface has a larger curvature – hence a greater physical length – than the lower surface which on a symmetric aerofoil has the same curvature and length on both faces.

    In practice, most aerofoils create lift with a combination of Bernoulli effect and Newton’s laws.

    Like

  24. As to Willard, I think the whole of his blogging output can be summed up and simplified down to “LOOK! A SQUIRREL!”.

    And that – as they say – is that.

    Like

  25. Ben,

    My intention has never been to seek to impose my lifestyle on the cis-lateral (homosocial) climate community.

    I’m just trying to raise awareness about trans- relationships, and put a human face to them.

    Hey, public: I’m a form of people too, just like the next people!

    Like

  26. Brad Keyes asks: “I thought that at a given airspeed (courtesy of the jets or propellers), Bernoulli accounted for 100% of the pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the aircraft”

    At higher speeds the Bernoulli effect is more pronounced up to the moment the airflow completely detaches from the wing (Mach 1, supersonic).

    Below that speed lift is a mix of the Bernoulli effect and the force of air hitting the bottom of the wing.

    Lift is created by increasing the path length of air molecules, this has the consequence of an increase in velocity of that air which in turn has a consequence of reduced air pressure (the venturi effect is the same thing). Obtaining lift by this method is (probably) more stable than obtaining lift by simply tilting the wing. High performance aircraft are inherently unstable and don’t rely on the Bernoulli effect; but they can also fly upside down with equal performance which of course is impossible for a wing that uses the Bernoulli effect (it’s lift would be toward the ground).

    Re my comment: “Since I am a curious person I don’t really have a lot to say about incurious persons.”

    You write “I find your closed-mindedness sad. Sad and deplorable. Incurious people are people too, but I guess you’ll never know, will you, because you can’t be bothered trying to understand them.”

    I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. I will never know whether I do or do not know, and neither will you or anyone else ever know if you have, or have not, succeeded to understand someone else. Therefore it is better not to try to judge a person that is so unlike you that your models fail even worse than climate models.

    That’s not to say I do not try, for if I did not try I would not have these observations and I would not have commented on the topic. ISTP is a shorthand for a type of model that reasonably describes a pattern of behavior that is somewhat predictable for persons whose personality is similar. That is to say, it is possible to observe extraverts, identify the property or properties that make them so, and identify a few characteristics that make it possible with modest accuracy to identify a person as an extravert. Likewise for introverts. Likewise for the S/N axis; if a person loves Japanese animations from Studio Ghibli (or even knows what it is) then it is observed that this person has imagination and is motivated by it (the “N” characteristic). Combine that with introversion and thoughtfulness and you have “geek”. But suppose instead of “N” you have “S”; the person doesn’t care for comic books, Japanese animations or any animation — they are fake, made up, fiction, pointless defiers of gravity and physics! Bah, humbug!

    So I can create a “model” of Willard that can be modestly predictive of things not asked; I can ask the model (figuratively speaking) what Willard would do, say or even thing about things. Is it accurate? No, but it might be adequate for the purpose of dialog and answering political necessity.

    It is much more complex than the 16 types of MBTI suggest. Each of the 16 will have different requirements to communicate to the other 15 and some of them are “null” — complete opposites generally cannot communicate, it is impossible. Oh, they can use words, but they use them for different purposes. An early work in this direction is conveyed in the book “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”.

    So, try all you like to explore the uncurious. You will fail. The very act of exploring it means you are curious, not uncurious, you cannot know what it is to be uncurious. Conversely, the uncurious person makes no effort to discover why he is uncurious and someone else is curious; the word has no meaning to him. What is curiosity? He doesn’t have it. He can observe that people turn rocks over to see what is underneath and he will likely express contempt at this wasted effort. Who cares what is underneath? The curious person cares, that’s who.

    The uncurious are indeed people; eat, poop, live, die and along the way perhaps produce more of the same. They are not here on this blog learning about other people, other ways of seeing the world, disputing things with intelligent, curious people that are not like self.

    I recommend to your viewing the movie “The Accountant”. He’s on the autistic spectrum somewhere, is very different from other people, recognizes that he is different but has no tools to understand the magnitude and direction of those differences. Does he ever understand other people? No, such a thing is impossible — but he learns to use the brute force of his intelligence to figure it out, to model other people so he can predict their behaviors in response to his own behavior, a thing most people do automatically.

    What does he fear? Someone like himself; for it becomes recursive.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Oops, I chased a squirrel: Bernoulli Effect!

    The grand key to Willard he reveals:

    “language is a social art”

    And so it is. What a person talks about is almost irrelevant. Agreement is poison! With agreement conversation stops; there’s nothing to talk about, socialization ceases. Disagreement is better, but it must be delicately handled so as not to get banned. So, you seem to agree but not quite 100 percent, provoking the True Believers into a frenzy of proselyting and converting you to their religion.

    But deep inside, the ISTP’s opinions are set in stone. It is what it is; talking is just a “social art”.

    NT’s are imaginative thinkers; ST’s are “knowers” and your words cannot change a knowing. You can approach a knower as a student, and by your questions possibly steer the knower into knowing something else so he can teach you.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. “I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.”

    I can tell what country you’re from 😉

    To clear things up: I always make sure to comment /blog/write Amazon reviews under the name ‘Brad Keyes’ when I’m being facetious.

    Sometimes I’ll throw in the odd non-sarcastic paragraph, just to liven my writing up, like: thanks for your edutaining digressions on aerodynamics, and the rest of your thoughtful engagement with this post. It was a bit of an experiment, I’ll admit, but so far the quality of comments suggests it was a success. Take care!

    Like

  29. M2,
    to repeat, I’m indebted to you for your detailed comments. They’re thinkers.

    I know curiosity killed the Curies, but I can’t resist asking a follow-up…

    “Lift is created by increasing the path length of air molecules, this has the consequence of an increase in velocity of that air”

    But increasing path length *doesn’t* entail increasing velocity unless the travel time is somehow kept invariant, does it?

    How does an air molecule on the top surface of the wing of a commercial 747 ex Sydney bound for Auckland know it has to traverse that curved surface in exactly the time it takes another bit of air to traverse the flat (lower) surface?

    Are the molecules QANTAS entangled?

    Do they say to each other, OK, let’s split up—you take the high road and I’ll take the low road, and let’s both get to Scotland in exactly 0.00525s?

    “(the venturi effect is the same thing). ”

    I’m familiar with that only through ventilation masks, but that’s an easier context to understand because the airflow is constrained inside a lumen. Which seems to allow some simplifying assumptions.

    Like

  30. M2,

    “Disagreement is better, but it must be delicately handled so as not to get banned.”

    Don’t worry, this is a safe space.

    Not safe from being indelicately disagreed with. Safe from getting banned by me for the crime of disagreeing without delicacy.

    Disagree with abandon!

    “So, you seem to agree but not quite 100 percent, provoking the True Believers into a frenzy of proselyting and converting you to their religion.”

    Who’s the ‘you’ that the singer sings to?

    I’d love to be paid a compliment like that, but I don’t think that’s how you were using the 2nd person. Could you clarify and, if possible, exemplify? I’d enjoy seeing such a strategy at work!

    Like

  31. I’d love to find out one day who it was who first set weazles and squirrels against each other! Was it Abe Simpson? Must the mustelids ride each others’ nuts so?

    Like

  32. I was under no illusions that Willard’s linguistic idiosyncrasies would be unfamiliar to denizens here. But I *was* hoping to make the mystery last a couple seconds longer by the trick of ostensibly criticizing Willard in my intro. Did I succeed in throwing you off the scent at all, just a little… or did I just make the puzzle even easier by priming you with his name?

    Like

  33. I think Catweazle best sums up Willard’s technique of determined distraction. Willard is part of a small gang of… body guards. Rabett is another and a guy called Joshua on Dan Kahan’s site. They hover round the site hosts and if ever that person or anyone else wavers from the warmist path into a reasonable interaction, up pops the body guard to hustle the important person away or generally block the interloper. They remind me of the Scientology guards.

    Like

  34. With regard to Brad’s remark in his dms to Willard that we’ve been picking up on in the comments here,

    “the whole art of divining people’s climate from their politics is, IMHO, worse than frivolous”

    there is a new article at the Conv on exactly this, Our political beliefs predict how we feel about climate change (I say new, but there is absolutely nothing new in it at all).
    It’s by our old friend Neil Levy, who people may remember from his previous article that was the source of much entertainment.

    Like

  35. Ben:

    “Distracturbation.”

    Far be it from me to say anything in defense of the neverending irritant called Willard, but if I might don my advocatus diaboli hat for a moment:

    Distracturbation is an act between two consenting adults. There’s no law that you have to be distracturble. It’s your body, and it’s your right to tell your partner NO if you don’t feel anything for them (distracturbatorily).

    Like

  36. TL;DR version:

    Don’t rise to the distractor bait. That’d be rising to their level. Rise above. Be the bigger fish. What are you, a man or a fish? Walk, don’t swim, in the opposite direction when you see a juicy, wriggling worm. No matter how #DistractinglySexy it seems right now, remember: worms turn. And when the worm has turned, that’s when you’ll really miss your school. But you can never go back. We none of us can. The one thing the gradualists taught us when they weren’t too busy fighting the punctuated equilibriumists is the Ratchet Model of the bolt of time. Once you’ve cranked the crossbow, you can’t *ungraduate.* Don’t like it? Quivering with indignation? All I can say is your quarrel isn’t with me, it’s with those saltationist mothers that hang around that bodega on 105th and 49th.

    Like

  37. Yas, Dan Kahan has been at it again. Apparently it’s not our fault we’re sceptics, we’ve just been led astray by our political, intellectual superiors. The merchants of doubt got to us early on and we’ve never recovered. Sadly it never occurs to the guy that he’s guilty of something he sees in others – outsourcing his thinking. WARNING – seriously long and dull paper.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057

    The short version.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/political-beliefs-climate-change-2016-11

    What I’d like measured is ‘if someone you like and respect says something you disagree with, do you a) think better of that viewpoint or b) think worse about the person.’ I’d fall strongly into the b) category. I assumed that most people would do the same but Dan thinks the opposite. He thinks people are unduly swayed by their peer group/political side. PR people obviously live by that meme but shouldn’t recent events be eroding that idea? How many influential people from all walks of life and all political sides supported Remain? And how did we vote? And yet most of us didn’t vote UKIP, so we didn’t need our politicians to make our decision for us.

    Do people buy a product because they’re swayed by the advertising or do they like the sound of the product? A bit of both, but while good advertising can attract people to a product they want, it can’t sell them something they don’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. There’s no law that you have to be distracturble.

    I believe the point has been addressed. But it was a long and dense comment, and so it could have been missed. I’ll rephrase it, so it is especially clear…

    Nobody is criticising anybody for masturbation. And likely, nobody is in a position to. There are, however, times and places for it — I think we agree. It’s not merely that the park on Sunday afternoon is not the right place and time; the problem is that it is every park and at every time.

    Like

  39. I’m sick of the nanny-statism that tells us when and where we, as Americans, can’t rub one off. First you couldn’t wank in a children’s hospital. Then the whole hospital. First you had to stand 20m away. Then 30m. They targeted cemeteries next. And once we ceded that sacred space, it was only a matter of time before we weren’t allowed to do it while operating a car. Their ambitions, however, were not so easily satiated; they wouldn’t rest until they literally controlled the skies above us, making it a crime to pleasure oneself while flying a commercial airliner.

    Heads up, Sons and Daughters of Liberty: our transAtlantic enefriends have disturbing intelligence about the location of the next front in the Culture War On Law-Abiding Onanists:

    Like

  40. Ben:

    You posted it, inviting comment.

    Did I post distractor bait? I’m surprised to hear that. When we twote-à-twote the twête-à-twête, Willard didn’t distract me (except from, you know, my job, education, social life, girlfriend and spending time with family).

    And now that we’ve twitten-a-kitten and it’s all over and the thread, like Zed, is dead, I would have assumed the ossified fascimile thereof (the fossil proffered in my post) would have even *less* distracting power than it did live.

    Also, what is it actually [capable of] distracting one *from*?

    Willard’s past words, as rendered in all their rigid read-onlyness, can’t possibly leap across into all-new contexts to shield whoever it is you’re trying to attack, can they? They’re dead. Inanimate.

    Even if Willard’s ecological role in ClimateBall is to run interference for the Indefensibles—which is the conclusion I came to during my online tussles with him—surely my post, above, couldn’t follow suit even if it wanted to, because it’s not part of any ClimateBall match.

    Like

  41. Online tussles are fruitless. We knew that in the 1990s. And we knew that in the 2000s. And we know it in the 2010s. The difference between now and then is that Consensus Enforcement is more formally constituted.

    The point — I am now only assuming — of ‘joint ideas under construction’ is to construct some ideas, jointly. That doesn’t need to be a po-faced, formal process. But it does have to discriminate: first against external wank; and its own participants’. If it wants to share, that is. This is the ‘social art’, or rather, the consensus between individuals. Even in an essay, a solo author has to define ones terms if one wants to be understood.

    What do you think your exchange reveals, which we didn’t already know, or needed confirmation of, such that we can say ‘well, that’s progress’?

    I’m *all* for discussions with people I/we/you disagree with — ‘frenemies’. I’ve taken part in them myself, and found them productive. But it has to be more than the climate debate’s equivalent of Chatroulette, the basis of such an encounter being mutual appreciation of each others’ I know not what. What? I can’t see it. No harm done, you say — it’s a no score draw. But be that as it may, it is nonetheless an artefact, now, of the project, which invites comment, per ‘joint ideas under construction’. I think it’s a bad idea, for reasons stated.

    Here’s a transcript of the futile conversation I had with a bloke at the pub.

    Oh, and here’s a picture of some belly button fluff.

    It’s all so very, very… Tumblr.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. “What do you think your exchange reveals, which we didn’t already know, or needed confirmation of, such that we can say ‘well, that’s progress’? ”

    It probably reveals nothing to *you,* because…

    “I’ve taken part in them myself, and found them productive.”

    It was my impression that most of us *haven’t.*

    And I want to inspire more of us to do it.

    Finally, I’ve never eavesdropped on a *private* disagreement between an Affirmative and a Negative speaker that was also *amicable.*

    By *private* I mean we had no intention of publicising what we wrote until later. So we thought we were safely behind closed doors. Hence the (admittedly grandiose) title CliScepGate.

    I thought others might enjoy the experience I’ve never had the chance to sample myself.

    Like

  43. Ben,

    “Online tussles are fruitless.”

    Almost entirely, yes.

    But if you’re lucky, it is sometimes possible to lure one of our enemies* into a fair fight—a situation they never get into if they can help it, and for very good reasons—and when they inevitably lose, if you’re lucky, third parties will be watching, and will find themselves moved by the pathetic spectacle.

    *This means unethical and antiscientific warmists; the remaining 90+% are (at worst) our “opponents.”

    Like

  44. It was my impression that most of us *haven’t.*

    I was pretty sure almost all of us *have* managed to have relatively civil discussions with even people who have internalised the climate debate. What is odd is the Consensus Enforcer’s inability to communicate. Congratulations to Willard for learning the basics of human interaction, and sustaining them for ten minutes…

    I’m giving up now.

    Like

  45. “It was my impression that most of us *haven’t.*” Brad

    I think most of us have. There’s just not that much to say at the moment that we haven’t already said.

    Like

  46. Tiny,

    > I think most of us have.

    Maybe. Have a lot of skeptics said so?

    Anyway, I still claim specialness as the only member of our group who’s done so with Willard, AFAIK!

    > There’s just not that much to say at the moment that we haven’t already said.

    Except all the things we haven’t tried saying, which, if we tried, might be more successful than the things we always say.

    Like

  47. > “and when they inevitably lose, ”

    But did anybody lose here Brad? It’s not clear to me that anyone did. If anything, he pulled the rug from under your feet by saying that he’s an agnostic. He doesn’t really take one side or the other.
    He’s not a Climateball player – he’s in the commentary box. He just sneers and goads from the sidelines. To get back to your earlier tone, he is a master baiter.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Brad Keyes writes “if you’re lucky, third parties will be watching, and will find themselves moved by the pathetic spectacle.”

    Precisely so. It is that potentially huge, and future, audience that you play to. In the case of ClimateBall the winner won’t be known for another 80 years so what matters is how you play the game while not simultaneously violating your sense of ethics.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Brad Keyes “I thought others might enjoy the experience I’ve never had the chance to sample myself.”

    I appreciate and sometimes enjoy pretty much everything here. One of the Great Questions is whether any, or how many, CAGW advocates actually believe in imminent danger versus jumping on that wagon for some other more mundane purpose like obtaining government or big oil grants (or both in various blendings).

    Liked by 1 person

  50. benpile wrote “Online tussles are fruitless. We knew that in the 1990s. And we knew that in the 2000s.”

    There is no we. I engage in online tussles because I believe such things bear fruit. Not a lot, but all it takes is a bite of the apple by a legislator. As Willard says, the only way to lose is not to play. Ultimately my reason is selfish; I want to know what you know, and how you came to know it. Your mileage probably varies.

    “I’m all for discussions with people I/we/you disagree with — ‘frenemies’. I’ve taken part in them myself, and found them productive.”

    Potentially far more productive than endlessly repeating things everyone present already knows and agrees is so. Getting past the “scripts” is the hard part. It took about 1,300 comments on a single thread to get past BBD’s scripts.

    [http]://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/12/22/mark-steyn-the-dc-appeals-court-and-congress/

    Along the way I examined the nature of the debate itself, whether it could be quantitatively determined that “skeptics” were of a different character than AGW advocates. With 1900 comments on one thread it was a pretty good sample size.

    Nearly without exception the skeptics debated the topic, warmists debated the person:

    Skeptics:

    M2: 21 comments, of them 1 is somewhat “ad hominem” .
    Dan: 10 comments, zero I find “ad hominem”.
    RickA: 3 and zero.

    CAGW Believers:

    O’Neill: 19 comments, 12 of them ad hominem.
    BBD: 12 comments, 4 of them I consider “ad hominem”.
    Marco: 6 comments, two I consider ad hominem.
    Bernard J: 5 comments, 4 are ad hominem.
    Obstreperous Applesauce, 5 comments, all five I consider ad hominem.
    Dean, 2 for 1.
    Brainstorms, 2 for 2.
    Steve P: 2 for 1.
    Desertphile: 4 comments of which 3 I consider ad hominem.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. TinyCO2 asks “What I’d like measured is ‘if someone you like and respect says something you disagree with, do you a) think better of that viewpoint or b) think worse about the person.’ I’d fall strongly into the b) category. I assumed that most people would do the same but Dan thinks the opposite.”

    I’d be on “a”. Liking someone isn’t influential but *respect* is relevant and influential. If someone I respect declares on a topic I disagree with, I will examine my views. Most views are composed of many mini-views, some of which may be amenable to adjustment. However, after examining my views and finding them not in need of adjustment, I suppose my level of respect for someone could decline depending on his willingness to examine his beliefs and adjust as needed.

    But I recognize that people are different, very different, and a person can be respected without ever achieving agreement simply because his mind works differently. Dan Kahan will never “grok” a libertarian; his mind does not work that way. He can explore libertarians but he cannot understand them (nor, for that matter, is a libertarian a single kind of thing anyway).

    Bob Altemeyer studies Christians, why they believe in God, but so sure is he that there’s no such thing that his surveys do not include the obvious choice of believing in God because you’ve met him.

    Stephen Lewandowsky is so certain that to deny catastrophic global warming puts you in the conspiracy theory looney bin that this surveys lead to that conclusion. It apparently wasn’t possible to express “no opinion” on the JFK assassination but that would have been my choice: I suspect many conspiracies exist all the time but whether any of them actually succeeded to pull the trigger I have no idea.

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Michael, thanks, lots of interesting things in those comments. Regarding the gentleman mentioned in your final paragraph, the notorious so-called Conversation has a podcast by him. So if you have 51 minutes of your life to throw away, you can listen to his words of wisdom on conspiracies there.
    Or, you could just post a quick sarcastic comment instead.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. Paul,

    > But did anybody lose here Brad?

    I should hope not; win-win is always my druther. Let us live as brothers in a drutherhood of brethren.

    Let me quickly tell you about my Equality, Sorority and Liberty platforms.

    As King, I would make all men equal—rich or poor, villein, serf, freeholder, Baron, Viscount, Marquess, Count, Duke, Earl, Queen—none would look down upon the other, leaving them more time to look up to me.

    As King, I would guarantee freedom for all, and that means freedom for the Ninety Five Percent, those who were born without the Will to Mastery and yearn for the chain, the lash and the yoke. If you want to be a slave, I won’t stop you. The servile majority need no longer be ashamed of their orientation. Gimps, bondsmen and subs of the world, come out of the closet! Out of the closet and into the reassuring predictability of being told what to think, what to opine and what to believe.

    As King, I would put a security camera in every room of every sorority house in my realm. We all know there are pervs and devos out there, but you no longer need to fear for your daughter’s honor when you tearfully send her off to college. If a pillowfight breaks out, I will see it. If an uptight cheerleader is seduced by lesbians, I will see it. If the hot water runs out mid-shower, I will see it. .

    When I twote the DMs above, I wasn’t fighting Willard. I only fight my enemies.

    And the issue (here) is what Ben called the fruitlessness of online tussles.

    My response was not an allusion to the post.

    I wasn’t tussling with Willard the other day (though I used to), and it wasn’t online (though it is now).

    > He doesn’t really take one side or the other.

    I know; if there’s one thing he’s against it’s people who take sides.

    And almost everyone in life does take a side, one way or the other; centrists are outliers.

    > If anything, he pulled the rug from under your feet by saying that he’s an agnostic.

    Damn, you’re right! Well spotted. (Unlike that spotless rug and the immaculate deception Willard pulled off by pulling it from under me, which totally went over my head.)

    Oh, now I’m mad. It’s on.

    What makes a man turn neutral? It sickens me.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Brad Keyes “Could you clarify and, if possible, exemplify? I’d enjoy seeing such a strategy at work!”

    It’s complicated. I’ll try to develop a succinct response. Basically, I learn things by exploring opposition, but opposition does not wish to be explored (usually), it does not see itself as opposition, it sees itself as Truth and I am Error to be stamped out.

    So I wiggle into a blog not directly opposing the prevailing theme, and instead challenge little bits here and there and in that manner develop an awareness of the boundaries of this “thing” that I would explore more directly were it possible to do so, and if it were possible to trust the words people say and write, which it isn’t and I don’t.

    But truth is there stuck like lint here and there waiting to be discovered because it wants to be discovered.

    People of the Left will judge you by the company you keep; if not like us, that’s bad. Libertarians do likewise, but with a twist — it is GOOD to explore “not like us”.

    WUWT has a wide and varied blogroll; Izen’s blogroll is an echo chamber. What is the point of everyone agreeing? I don’t know and I find that behavior fascinating.

    https://cliscep.com/2016/04/19/dog-bites-man-climate-careerist-in-bald-faced-lie-shocka/#comment-3026

    ATTP asks “So, is everyone who associates with this site happy to be associated with this post?”

    Groupthink; echo chamber, herd maintenance and boundary maintenance activities. Do not associate with the enemy; do not read his blogs. It would be like being caught with a copy of Das Kapital on a coffee table in Idaho somewhere. Oops.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. There are scads of places where Willard “outs” himself in the above exchange of twits with Brad, I particularly appreciate this one:

    Look at me. I’m a chess player who happens to study philosophy. ClimateBall joins both worlds – I fight using words!

    Both are more a martial art than a sport – there are no clear rules, the quest is mostly aesthetic, the reward is elusive.

    Most of the time I see complaints that he adds little to “The Debate” (lulz, whatever), they’re associated with him having just kicked someone’s non-argument to the curb and set it on fire.

    ***

    I have not made any permanent peace with any of my online AGW arch-nemeses that I can think of. There are a few instances when peace temporarily broke out … usually over some non-AGW topic on which we both mostly agreed. It has, unfortunately, gotten to be a very tribal issue, which tends to lead to Bad Things. I often toy with the notion that if AGW itself doesn’t kill us, the fight over it might.

    But then ‘Murica lost its collective mind (again) and presumably has gone and positioned Trump to win the cursed archaic Electoral College, so all bets are off in my most humble estimation.

    This was a nice diversion from any of the usual fare on any climate blog anywhere, Brad. Thanks for posting it.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Brandon,

    AGW won’t kill us.

    And I will fight to the death anyone who says the fight over whether the fight over whether AGW will kill us will kill us.

    I’m not alone. We are a silent army, ready and itching to drown the cities of the world in blood if that’s what it takes to silence the violence-mongering panic-merchants filling our children’s minds with anxiety about purely theoretical, scientifically-unproven predictions of urban conflict.

    ______________________________
    Edit: Hello, WUWT hoverers! As a way of welcoming you to CliScep, allow me to honor your local traditions by appending the following tag to this comment:

    /facetious

    Like

  57. > People of the Left will judge you by the company you keep […]

    The comment thread seems to show that it’s a bit more general than that.

    The creativity behind M2’s thinkers was more about associating the S to knowledge and the N to creativity.

    While the MTBI provides a nice touch, it is not exactly in the same tradition as Haidt’s work, which has been cited above. It’s a good read. Auditors are asking for data and code as we speak.

    ***

    Everyone, do continue to talk about me while snorting over squirrels.

    Fascinating.

    Like

  58. “How does an air molecule on the top surface of the wing of a commercial 747 ex Sydney bound for Auckland know it has to traverse that curved surface in exactly the time it takes another bit of air to traverse the flat (lower) surface?”

    It is entrained, constrained by neighbor air molecules. As the wing pushes forward, at the leading edge air molecules are forced up and down; more up than down initially and this by itself produces a down force. The air is compressed just above the leading edge of the wing. It squirts out exerting equal pressure in all directions — forward, up, back. Down is the wing so it cannot go down. Forward doesn’t work very well since the wing is traveling in the same direction; this is the shockwave if the wing is traveling at the speed of sound it will build very high pressure. But before it is a shockwave it is still a pressure wave that relieves pressure by moving forward, up and back. The air doesn’t actually know the wing is traveling under it, it only knows it is free to move in only three directions, so it moves.

    Meanwhile the thinner portion of the wing has arrived but now the air pressure is much reduced because of the inertia of the air having moved forward, up and back but not down. The air moving backward encounters this reduced pressure and increases its velocity. The increase in velocity is actually a side effect of the actual cause which is the pressurization of the leading edge. The trailing edge of the wing simply prevents air under the wing from equalizing that low pressure by rising. It still tries to rise and gives lift. At the wing-tips you get a vortex caused by the higher pressure air under the wing wrapping around to the top.

    The stability of the wing shape is caused by the relationship of velocity to lift. Velocity cannot change suddenly so neither does lift. But angle of attack CAN change suddenly. So the more lift you get from Bernoulli the more stable the wing, but also the less maneuverable the aircraft. All bets are off once you pass the speed of sound and the wing starts to cut through its own shockwave.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Willard comments: “The creativity behind M2’s thinkers was more about associating the S to knowledge and the N to creativity.”

    Yes, exactly. I don’t recall precisely why I felt it important but as an indication for general information that people are more different than even some social scientists acknowledge.

    From time to time I mention it (MBTI) as a smoke signal to engage possibly interesting conversation with other people who have similar, or better yet different, ideas on such topics. You are therefore the “seed” of this raindrop or hailstone around which we can discuss various topics.

    With regard to this axis, is knowledge or creativity better? Neither, or both. A computer has perfect knowledge but (so far as I know) zero creativity. A typical fantasy novel has plenty of creativity but at times very little knowledge. Imperfect knowledge is at times actually dangerous; attempts to fly airplanes without adequate knowledge of aeronautical principles for instance. Faulty creativity is relatively harmless but one could easily starve to death eating dreams.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. brandonrgates writes (quoting Willard) “Look at me. I’m a chess player who happens to study philosophy. ClimateBall joins both worlds – I fight using words!”

    Alas, there is no prize for winning. It is not clear what constitutes a win. But yes, I also observe similarities not only to chess but to religion. Religion is what it is, chess is how to play. You might sacrifice a pawn (an expressed belief of lesser importance) to gain strategic position. Winning is the moment of being banned; an acknowledgment of worth as an opponent that cannot therefore even be admitted to the ring or to the chess table.

    “they’re associated with him having just kicked someone’s non-argument to the curb and set it on fire.”

    Well, not really. It’s just a banhammer, doesn’t count for much. Winning is losing.

    Story time! Older brother liked to win and staged games to ensure that outcome. So one day he set up a bicycle race. Naturally he beat his younger sister who was still on training wheels. When she finally crossed the finish line, she announced, “I win!” and older brother was furious, declaring “I won!” but it did not move little sister in the slightest. In her mind, she was the winner, and that was that.

    So it is that I have never lost an argument. I don’t insist on winning, but I could easily do so by declaring that the rules of my game are that I win.

    “I have not made any permanent peace with any of my online AGW arch-nemeses that I can think of.”

    Naturally not. Can you imagine a football game where the teams suddenly make peace and there is neither winner nor loser? It is barely possible with the finest international diplomacy backed up by terrible weapons of war.

    If your foundation requires winning, which is always the case for a narcissist and frequently the case for “ESFJ” types, you cannot do otherwise. It is not in your DNA. What you might do is choose which battles to fight; choosing not to engage someone superior in intellect lest you “lose” (even though on the internet there is neither winning nor losing).

    “I often toy with the notion that if AGW itself doesn’t kill us, the fight over it might.”

    Or something else. For every winner there are many losers. Odds are you are one of the losers (one of my favorite “Demotivator” posters).

    “But then ‘Murica lost its collective mind (again) and presumably has gone and positioned Trump to win the cursed archaic Electoral College, so all bets are off in my most humble estimation.”

    So why were you betting in the first place? That is the weakness of substituting emotion for thought, sensation for knowledge, but if you are that kind, you cannot be something else. I have studied the People of the Left for decades; sometimes served them in the military.

    The United States of America was settled by refugees from Europe, for the most part, and despite several generations of ease and luxury there’s still a cultural difference. We did not “lose” what we have not ever had, a dependence upon government, monarchies and most of all, the “herd”.

    But in another generation I suspect the US of A will lose its libertarian spark; but I still wouldn’t bet on it.

    “This was a nice diversion from any of the usual fare on any climate blog anywhere, Brad. Thanks for posting it.”

    Yes, it is that. An opportunity to have a conversation with a warmist that is not permitted at your usual haunts. As you review my comment history you will perhaps notice I do not argue with correctly executed scientific results. I cannot drill my own ice cores nor do I have instruments to analyze oxygen isotopes. Where we differ is that I have formed no conclusions that New York will be under water in 80 years (or 10 or whatever is the current prediction) where you probably believe in a variety of scary futures. My scary futures are political in source and consequence.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. Brad Keyes writes: “What makes a man turn neutral?”

    Experience and caution. While rare, enemies and opponents have at times become my friend, usually through a mechanism of respect rather than affection. Therefore it is better to NOT too loudly proclaim your enmity and ridicule your enemy lest he become President of the United States. 😉

    If I am certain that someone is not going to change, and is an opponent, I might develop a respect for that person but also will use that person to play Climateball or its religious equivalent. It is better to do battle of any kind with a worthy opponent. Where’s the benefit or sport in arguing with someone squishy whose beliefs and opinions change with the wind? One of my best and most enjoyable arguments was with BBD and actually produced a conclusion that ended my participation without rancor. It took over a thousand comments to achieve it; I rely on him to NOT change his opinions and beliefs while I work out exactly what they are and why he has them.

    Anyway, the MBTI plays into that need for certainty. The left wing attracts a type, and the type creates a critical mass that attracts more of that type to itself and repels everything else. You can see this on the leftwing, AGW blogrolls — they cite each other but no opponent blog.

    But over on WUWT the opponent blogs are listed; not only is there no fear of opponents, life would be boring without them, there would be nothing to discuss.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. “life would be boring without them, there would be nothing to discuss.”

    The same is true for the other side.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Most of the time I see complaints that he adds little to “The Debate” (lulz, whatever), they’re associated with him having just kicked someone’s non-argument to the curb and set it on fire..

    So much for ‘language as a social art’; in this case an anti-social art, maybe, but only on the scantest justification. It all vanishes into smoke when trying to explain it to the cops by the same curb, that the spectacle of exposure and defecating in public was both performance and protest. “Social” only in the sense that it takes place in public; “art” only in the sense that the expression satisfied and cemented the sense of alienation. And that’s just it — environmentalism as an infantile expression of alienation. I can’t think of anything which better epitomises the disjuncture between those who think climate is the most important thing ever, and those who don’t care, don’t know, or don’t think the same way.

    Kicked to the curb? Flicked over the wrist, more like.

    ‘”The Debate” (lulz, whatever)’…

    The question that remains is whether those who take a particular position WRT the ‘climate’ are pathologically disinclined to debate or merely intend to prevent it. Is the holy mission encoded in their DNA, or do they understand the language of their instructions? Either way, cynicism of “The Debate (lulz)” is the characteristic of contempt for people — the architects and advocates of environmentalism’s institutions only ever being concerned with democracy as an afterthought at best. The fruit of that tendency in the wider political sphere should come to any remaining guffaws as a brickbat square to the nose. It won’t end with Brexit and Trump if that tendency fails to develop some modesty where it had hubris.

    Not to draw too literal a parallel between Brexit/Trump and climate politics, but the latter much more epitomises what gave rise to the phenomena of the former victories then even they. I don’t say it to say, “Haw haw, we won, get over it”. I say it to say, “oh wow, look at what you did!” And I would add that you did it without our help. “Language as a social art”, and by implication “science as a social art” hasn’t helped the communication. The only thing that has been communicated has been overt cynicism and contempt. Language being a two-way street, what response have you been expecting to such a call? Are you still going to be surprised when the final memo says “You’re Fired”?

    So for all the ‘luls’ about the ‘debate’, and for all the belly laughs when Willard’s obtuse verbiage sent some interlocutor’s ‘non-argument’ ‘to the curb’ in so many ways that the poor victim didn’t even understand, such is the power of his “social art”, it is ultimately Willard who is likely to come of worse for the kicking. Is it possible that you don’t even know what your cynicism looks like? In the end it will be you chucking yourself under the bus. This is what is meant by saying Willard’s words are mere masturbation. You’re all alone with your ‘social art’.

    Like

  64. Michael 2 – I rely on him to NOT change his opinions and beliefs while I work out exactly what they are and why he has them.

    + 1,000

    But there really is no need to waste any more time on it. There is already a vast volume of text, none of which has developed since the 1990s. There is nothing more to learn from Consensus Enforcers. All that remains is to thank them for the “debate (lulz)”.

    Like

  65. Michael2,

    Well, not really. It’s just a banhammer, doesn’t count for much. Winning is losing.

    He doesn’t have the banhammer over at Judy’s which is one place where I think Willard shines. I guess part of my opinion is biased by me feeling that I’m at my best when I’m not playing on my home pitch.

    It’s too late here for me to do justice to the balance of your post.

    Like

  66. M2,

    ” One of my best and most enjoyable arguments was with BBD and actually produced a conclusion that ended my participation without rancor.”

    Without rancor? About a hot-button topic like the weather? With a dogmatic domini canis like Big Boring Dominic? I don’t believe you.

    Are we talking about the same BBD?

    Not only do I wonder how you could have such saintlike patience, I also wonder why you’d bother. Except maybe as an exercise whose sole virtue is its difficulty. Unlike Willard, BBD has never said anything (to me) suggestive of original mentation. Even if I were on the same “side” as him on every question, I can’t imagine a reason to bother talking to him. His sole entertainment value, for me, is that we’re *not* on the same side and that, instead of being a grownup about this banal factum he is compelled by some pre-historic inner hurt to shrillly, adrenergically, and humorlessly take to the streets and protest my existence. Oh, what LOLz I’ve had.

    “AGW blogrolls”

    Strictly speaking, aren’t many if not most “denier” blogs run by people who accept AGW, in both senses of the verb “accept” (not only granting its plausibility as a physical hypothesis, but also welcoming the possibility, yawning, or at worst resigning themselves to it)?

    That’s certainly my impression, but I hasten to admit this might be due to my lens. (I’m far more interested in the line between fearing and tolerating AGW than that between believing in and doubting AGW.)

    Like

  67. The person who says,

    I think Willard shines.

    Also says,

    Lulz

    and

    Yaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn …..

    High praise for the shining wit.

    Like

  68. I’m at my best when I’m not playing on my home pitch.

    You flatter yourself. Which is what Consensus Enforcement is all about though, isn’t it. It’s tough being modest and a Planet-Saving Super Hero.

    Like

  69. M 2,

    “The left wing attracts a type, and the type creates a critical mass that attracts more of that type to itself and repels everything else. You can see this on the leftwing, AGW blogrolls — they cite each other but no opponent blog.”

    Does this apply to the left-wing, AGW-believing Stephen McIntyre’s blog? If not, you need to rethink this.

    I think you can do better, Michael. Let’s have another stab at it… Fill the blanks:

    “______ attracts a type, and the type creates a critical mass that attracts more of that type to itself and repels everything else. You can see this on the __________ blogrolls — they cite each other but no opponent blog.”

    Hint: it’s not a political orientation.

    Like

  70. Brad for me, there just isn’t enough evidence to dismiss CAGW but there isn’t enough to say it’s true either. There is reason to believe that some AGW is likely. There’s little evidence that a bit of AGW is harmful and some that it’s actually good. Like Willard, I would claim to be an agnostic. I have stopped expecting the science to improve and am happy to wait and see.

    When it comes to renewables I’m very sceptical. I’m not averse to nuclear and I’d never reject a renewable simply because it’s not fossil fuelled but the human race (me included) love energy. It’s a romance with far more passion than any green dalliances we might be tempted by. Warmists seem to me to be hopeless idealists whose sole plan is wishing very hard. Well meaning but not about to do anything but spend a lot of money and whine about merchants of doubt. They’re as reluctant to cut their own CO2 as any oil working, SUV driving Texan (not meant as an insult because there’s nothing wrong with any of those things). It’s a particular type of idiocy I despise. Problems (real or imaginary) are not solved by hand wringing and nagging.

    Liked by 2 people

  71. “Warmists seem to me to be hopeless idealists whose sole plan is wishing very hard.”

    But “idealists” traditionally wish for a better world, not a heat-raped wasteland with only a few breeding pairs of humans, don’t they?

    Liked by 1 person

  72. “I have stopped expecting the science to improve and am happy to wait and see.”

    I don’t expect it to improve, either. When I call for improvement, I know full well the call won’t be answered. They *can’t* improve The Science without destroying climate alarmism. Fear only persists because The Science is not science at all, but speculative fiction. The function of science is to kill off delusional panics like the CAGW idea. Were there a science of climate change, it would have performed this duty decades ago and CAGWism would be a brief-lived historical curiosity, like the laughing-gas-asteroid panic.

    Like

  73. Tiny — there just isn’t enough evidence to dismiss CAGW but there isn’t enough to say it’s true either

    It’s not the ultimate claim — ‘climate change is happening’, etc — which permits any true/false judgement. Those are distractions. It’s in the case made consequent to the warming where we can find the BS. They need no retelling. And this is why I don’t find environmentalists to be driven by well-meaning but hopeless idealism, but straightforward bad faith — self deception at best. These aren’t street-level activists, hoping to bring about the revolution by selling their own newspaper outside the local supermarket. They are peers, aristocrats, lobbyists, and the beneficiaries of billionaire philanthropists. It is position that is at stake, not the atmosphere and its dependents. The scare stories emerge in lieu of ‘ideals’.

    Liked by 2 people

  74. TinyCO2,

    if you doubt me about the utter vacuity of the Potemkin “Science,” then I wonder—which would you say is more believable:

    1. that climate science is a field of science and yet, utterly uniquely in the history of modern science, is the only one capable of combusting several times as much money as the Manhattan Project researching a topic without revealing a single useful or interesting thing about that topic that we didn’t know 25 years ago

    or

    2. that the word sequence “climate science” is a bit like “the sweet science,” “Christian Science,” “proletarian science,” “koala bear,” “flying fox,” “long pig” and “guinea pig”

    ?

    Liked by 1 person

  75. “But “idealists” traditionally wish for a better world, not a heat-raped wasteland with only a few breeding pairs of humans, don’t they?”

    The problem with idealism is you can throw away ‘not bad’ in the fruitless chase for the perfect.

    Brad, lots of sciences and scientists are not behaving in a scientific manner. Calling climate science ‘climate science’ is just a label that allows other people to know who I’m talking about. I believe that the science is in such a mess it could fail to demonstrate CAGW, by the same poor qualities we observe.

    Like

  76. “These aren’t street-level activists, hoping to bring about the revolution by selling their own newspaper outside the local supermarket. They are peers, aristocrats, lobbyists, and the beneficiaries of billionaire philanthropists. It is position that is at stake, not the atmosphere and its dependents. The scare stories emerge in lieu of ‘ideals’.”

    I get no impression from most of those people that they don’t think that they’re doing good. There could be some debate whether they care about CO2 or anticapitalism or wealth redistribution but they truly feel that highlighting the problem is doing their bit. They’re so used to their bit of PR having results, that they are perplexed when those who normally sort the highlighted problem, don’t. I’m tempted to believe that self delusion is their defining feature, as built into them as gender.

    Look at many of those who campaigned for Remain. People who were convinced the public loved them so much they’d let some actor or pop star do their thinking for them. And Tony Blair FFS! He’s even tempted to return to politics to save Labour! That’s some super strength self delusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. Tiny,

    This makes me think you may have misread me…

    Calling climate science ‘climate science’ is just a label that allows other people to know who I’m talking about.

    Yeah, I knew who you meant. I wasn’t suggesting you not use that label. That’s what I call it too.

    You didn’t use the wrong term! Likewise, people who talk about “guinea pigs” or “flying foxes” are not saying anything wrong. (“Koala bear” is another story though—the right term is “koala.”)

    My question was whether the thing you and I both refer to as ‘climate science’—which is just a label!—is scientific.

    Brad, lots of sciences … are not behaving in a scientific manner.

    Really? Whole fields of science are behaving as fields of non-science?

    So what then (in your view) is the SECOND worst field of science?

    Brad, lots of … scientists are not behaving in a scientific manner.

    That’s hard to deny.

    But who (in your view) are the SECOND worst-behaving scientists?

    I believe that the science is in such a mess it could fail to demonstrate CAGW, by the same poor qualities we observe.

    Yes. That’s an ironic twist I’ve often been struck by too.

    If CAGW were really coming round the corner, climate scientists would be the LAST people you’d trust to

    1. realize what was about to happen
    2. explain it to the world, and
    3. not sound like lying/mentally-ill drama queens.

    So for all I know, CAGW is really coming round the corner.

    But for all I know, an extraterrestrial armada is coming even sooner to enslave us all.

    And for all I know, the robots will beat them to it.

    The fact that nobody can really prove otherwise doesn’t mean you should lose a minute’s sleep taking any of these scenarios seriously, though, does it?

    Remember, nobody even gave the idea of CAGW a second thought 30 years ago, did they?

    So why should they now? Why should you now?

    What’s changed?

    Like

  78. Psychology is often described as a science but it’s even more distorted than climate science. I’m sure that there are others. The drive towards ever increasing journals is in part to blame for the dumbing down of research. If even medicine can be accused of pushing upwards of 50% poor papers – that’s non science right there.

    I don’t lose any sleep over climate. This is a hobby/annoyance over the wasted effort and money. I’m moderately concerned about my future energy bills.

    Like

  79. Tiny.

    “If even medicine can be accused of pushing upwards of 50% poor papers – that’s non science right there.”

    Poor papers are a fact of life, but it’s not the end of the world unless the world uncritically and incuriously treats them as brilliant papers. *cough* MBH98 *cough*

    In medical science, the poor papers don’t undo the good the good ones do.

    In the last 25 years, to quote myself,

    “medical science has given us the completed Human Genome Project, the first cancer-preventative vaccine (for HPV), HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors [‘statins’], an awareness of the therapeutic and prognostic significance of omega-3 fatty acid levels, stem-cell therapies for adrenoleukodystrophy and other conditions, functional MRI, self-expanding stents made of nitinol and next-generation materials, minimally-invasive robotic surgery, the bio-informatics revolution, lifesaving genetically-engineered drugs like tissue plasminogen activator, gene-targeted therapies like Herceptin and Gleevec (for breast cancer, chronic myeloid leukemia and GIST), the multi-lumen tubing which is now a mainstay on high-dependency wards, highly active anti-retroviral therapy [HAART] and the once-a-day HIV pill that can slow down and even arrest progression to AIDS, entire families of antidepressants and noötropics…”

    In the last 25 years,

    climate science has given us climate scientists.

    “I don’t lose any sleep over climate.”

    Good to hear! I think I interpreted this…

    “for me, there just isn’t enough evidence to dismiss CAGW but there isn’t enough to say it’s true either…. I would claim to be an agnostic.”

    …as suggesting you view it as in a more serious category of possibility than ET invasions or Terminator-style robogenous anthropocide.

    NB: you can ‘dismiss’ CAGW the same way you can ‘dismiss’ (i.e. relegate to the land of speculative fiction) any of other scenarios, like an asteroid will extinguish life on earth 8 years from now.

    That for which there is no evidence can be ‘dismissed’ without evidence.

    So forget about “losing sleep.” My question is just:

    From 1986 to 2016, has your perception changed w.r.t. the likelihood of CAGW “coming true”?

    If so, on what basis?

    Like

  80. Medical science papers do damage – remember MMR and Ex Dr Wakefield? And all those people who got bacteria related ulcers? And the increasing theory that it’s sugar that does the most damage, not fat? Medicine may be brilliant by comparison, but it’s not perfect.

    1986 never heard of AGW
    2000 vaguely noticed it and believed because I trusted science
    2004 began to hear more but the claims were too sure to be credible (like psychometric testing where they throw out a trick question like – do you always tell the truth) and some were blately untrue.
    2005 after a series of hot UK years I wondered if I’d have to flee northward but decided a decade of summers lasting longer than the traditional week of sunshine hardly justified any rash decisions
    2006 started reading about the issues and quickly became aware of the poor state of the science and aware that all the ‘signs’ were inconclusive
    2009 realised that nothing would jolt UK politicians out of their love fest with green hysteria and stopped caring one way or the other
    2016 waiting for the temperatures to give more clues about any CO2 effect. Every year that temperatures don’t return to the 80s, 90s rise is evidence that AGW is unlikely to be large.

    However, I’ve always considered it more than possible to reduce temperatures if we wanted to. Either through engineering or rapid reduction in CO2. The global disinterest in the issue is evidence that most people don’t worry about CO2 either.

    Liked by 3 people

  81. My timeline is much the same as Tiny’s.
    As it ramped up post-2000, became gradually more concerned.
    2007: Thought this is important, better read up about it. Started reading wiki (ie Connolley) and Realclimate. WTF?

    PCM climate concern

    Liked by 1 person

  82. Tiny,

    Thanks for that history of your climate thinking (ditto Paul). I’ll get back to that.

    “Medical science papers do damage – remember MMR and Ex Dr Wakefield?”

    And wasn’t it good of them to revoke his medical honorific?

    I can’t help think of Michael Mann, who used to be Dr Mann until he published his famously fraudulent schtick…. whereupon he became Professor Mann.

    To their credit, someone eventually did something about this perversion of intellectual justice, and ex-Prof, ex-Dr Mann is now accorded the status he deserves: Dist. Prof. Mann.

    But the delay, I’m sure you’ll agree, was tantamount to criminal.

    Smart-alecry aside: if Doctor Wakefield were a quack climate scientist instead of a quack medical doctor, his most fraudulent paper would still be in circulation to this day and we’d probably be calling him Distinguished Professor Wakefield.

    There are bad apples in all fields of science, but the structures in place in medical research are basically healthy and doing their job, whereas climate research is systematically purulent.

    Tragically, many parents chose to waive vaccination/immunization for their kids on the basis of Wakefield’s “very shoddy” (h/t Tom Wigley on Mann) med sci.

    But the rest of the immunized world continued to say yes to vaccines. And where did vaccines come from? Med sci.

    My point being that one of the most notorious examples of the “harm” done by pathological med sci (Wakefield) merely caused some members of the public to forgo one of the countless benefits of good med sci (Pasteur).

    Even at the peak of the MMR->autism meme, then, med sci was still a force of almost incalculable good for the world’s children.

    Your answer to my other question (what changed between 1986 and 2016) seems to be: I heard more and more and more about the global warming issue.

    Which, if I’ve summarized it fairly, is a perfectly reasonable explanation for changing your mind on global warming.

    But it raises a question of its own:

    If AGW really were a non-negligible threat to humanity, why didn’t The Scientists tell us about it five million years ago, when Svante Arrhenius discovered All You Need to Know About Carbon Dioxide but were afraid to ask?

    Why did they wait a hundred years for the hottest day in 1988, and the sabotage of a Senate hearing room’s air conditioner by activist scientist James Hansen, to all of a sudden tell us: “Hey by they way, people of Earth, I meant to say this in 1888 but I forgot: the radiative properties of carbon dioxide are going to turn your cities to Atlantides in your lifetime—just thought you might want to know.”

    Or to put it another way: forget being a lay person. Imagine you’re an earth scientist of some kind, and therefore Should Know Better, because you’ve heard all about Arrhenius et al.

    From 1986 to 2016, did you change your story about the seriousness of the possibility of CAGW? Did you go from not even thinking it was worth mentioning to telling the lay public it was worse than Hitler?

    And if so, on what basis? What exponential ramp-up of evidence for alarm justified this exponential ramp-up of alarmism?

    Like

  83. But they didn’t deal with the quack for 10 years. They didn’t give him the boot for the bad science but for bad ethics. The 20ish other doctors who added their names to research they clearly knew nothing about were doing science the way climate is done. The Lancet did the peer review thing and published a paper without the data that would have demonstrated it was rubbish. The Lancet didn’t do it’s own investigation into a bad and dangerous paper even when it was exposed as flawed. It finally withdrew the paper after the Dr was given the boot. The only voice demanding something be done about Wakefield from the start was a journalist.

    I read about this before I looked into climate and it opened my eyes to how bad science could be. I was already primed to ask questions when climate hysteria came along. The problem with Wakefield wasn’t a glitch, it was a systemic flaw. While I’m sure that individually many climate scientists are excellent, their whole system is unsuitable for purpose. If medicine can get it wrong with loads of checks and balances, what hope has climate science got with practically nothing?

    Liked by 1 person

  84. Brad Keyes writes, in response to Michael 2: “Without rancor? With a dogmatic domini canis like Big Boring Dominic? I don’t believe you.”

    It is a bit of a challenge.

    BBD writes “GFY.”

    But my response:

    I love you, too. My world would be less without a BBD in it.

    And I mean that sincerely. I *like* a certain amount of opposition; it compels me to think through my response, look up citations, sharpen my mind and increase my knowledge. He has opinions on many things and imagines himself expert at many. His opposition is the most reliable I have seen; I doubt he has agreed with any point I have ever made on any topic. It helps me explore the Great Attractor, the hidden thing that orients his (and his herd’s) moral compass.

    “Not only do I wonder how you could have such saintlike patience, I also wonder why you’d bother.”

    I will repost a thing I wrote to BBD in October:

    I am fascinated by the hive mind, a thing I see exists and wonder sometimes what it would be like to be enveloped by it. … The hive mind is not designed for creativity; it is designed for conformity.

    BBD’s usefulness in this exploration is his rigidity. It is easier to measure a thing that does not change shape while you are measuring it.

    “Except maybe as an exercise whose sole virtue is its difficulty.”

    That is part of its attraction. The worthy mountain climb is difficult.

    “Unlike Willard, BBD has never said anything (to me) suggestive of original mentation.”

    I have noticed that as well. He is a chameleon, instinctively adopting the behavior, beliefs and mannerisms of someone else but in an amplified way that makes it easier to explore.

    “Strictly speaking, aren’t many if not most denier blogs run by people who accept AGW, in both senses of the verb accept?”

    Yes. I have not encountered any blog that outright denies climate change or global warming. In my writing about the echo chamber I refer more specifically to the Anthony Watts Obsession Cluster, a subset of the I-hate-deniers cluster. Science blogs are few and necessarily do not introduce emotion or politics.

    Last, I have a bit of fun with absurdities:

    Rowena writes “Or, maybe with global warming, the seas will rise enough to cover the west coast and spill over the dam of the Sierras into Nevada. Anything is possible without the intervention of a god.”

    Agreed. Using Jim Hansen’s parameters of 3.2 millimeters per year sea level rise, exponentially rising, and a ten year doubling I calculated it will take about 170 years to overtop Mount Everest.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/readers-beefs-6/#comment-1314792

    Like

  85. brandonrgates writes “He doesn’t have the banhammer over at Judy’s which is one place where I think Willard shines.”

    Well then I’ll go have a look. I’d like to see something more complex than mystifying one-liners invoking ClimateBall; but I have to admit some of Willard’s memes are pretty clever: “The only way to lose is not to play” being my favorite (hoping I remembered it right).

    Liked by 1 person

  86. benpile wrote “There is nothing more to learn from Consensus Enforcers.”

    A subtle nuance but there may be nothing more to teach but I have one big thing to learn, and that is WHY they do what they do. Plenty of novelizations of the idea; the best (IMO) being George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984”. He succeeds because he was himself a socialist upset with the failure of the Soviet Union in particular to implement “good” socialism, and his story “Animal Farm” explains why it is probably impossible to have “good” socialism anywhere on Earth except maybe Iceland.

    So it boils down basically to which animal does each regular participant at a left wing blog represent? Who is the idealistic socialist that wants the best for all; who are the pigs that simply use socialism to their own advantage? Who are the sheep, who are the horses?

    It is probably significant that the best, and the worst, in that story are pigs. To me it says the worst results emanate from the best intentions.

    Like

  87. M2,

    > Well then I’ll go have a look. I’d like to see something more complex than mystifying one-liners invoking ClimateBall […]

    So would, I, and I do. I can’t point to any one particular post to tell you why I think so. It’s also subjective; so we’re bound to not see the same things, or even agree on things we mutually recognize as being.

    The “enforcer” meme is apt in this case, as Willard is a hockey fan in addition to being a chess player and well-versed in philosophy and logics. When he’s skating on home ice at AT’s, I would say he’s playing much more as an enforcer — if only by virtue of the fact that he has a moderator’s role and privileges there.

    On away ice (like at Judy’s, but also at the various other contrarian blogs he frequents) his style is more that of a finesse player. He’s still on offence, but as I imagine it he has to think harder about how he handles the puck to get the shot on the goal he wants. Not being able to blow the moderator’s whistle, he has to prevail solely on the basis of his arguments.

    Which I think makes him a better player on away ice than at home.

    ***

    This applies to wherever he’s playing: One way in which I think Willard gets unwarranted static is simply by virtue of him playing his own game; one in which other ostensible players often don’t natively understand, don’t want to understand — or perhaps do understand but simply don’t wish to acknowledge. But who really knows … mind-reading is *hard*.

    My view is that he routinely shoots at goals which otters (very often including me) didn’t realize were even there … and it’s much easier to put the puck into a wide-open goal. I can’t help but laugh when Denizens then loudly complain to him that, no, he’s chasing squirrels, the goal is over *here* [because we’ve already set up our defense around it].

    ***

    One of my favourite activities is to go out of my way to find something upon which he and I disagree, and argue it with him. I almost always “lose” … which to me is winning.

    Like

  88. > You flatter yourself. Which is what Consensus Enforcement is all about though, isn’t it.

    I see it as an inherent human attribute, Mr Pile. It varies by individual, of course, but something about Innerwebz conversations — if not also the personality types of people who argue on the Innern00bs — tends to enhance narcissistic behaviour.

    Partisan mud-slogs for the moral high ground where both sides refuse to openly recognize the stench of their own crap are a perfect example.

    Like

  89. In reply to brandonrgates: With regard to Willard’s performance at Judy’s (by which I presume you mean judithcurry.com) I am searching for the argument that “they’re associated with him having just kicked someone’s non-argument to the curb and set it on fire.”

    So far I see rather a lot of brief, sometimes witty, comments that invoke various themes and memes in a clever way so maybe that’s what you mean by his victims not realizing what game he is playing but what’s the point in it? I can recite pi to 13 places but what has that ever gotten me? A wee bit of admiration from a few people that were already my friends, that’s what.

    Willard | August 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm: “nothing is predictable. Yesterday, I woke up as a chaos fan. Then I realized I needed coffee. I stopped being a chaos fan. THE END.”

    Now *there* is a non-argument!

    His instinct is “referee”. In this, he challenges an argument but does not propose one of his own. I suppose I do the same thing now and then if the logic is faulty. I don’t much care who is “right” but it ought to be presented logically.

    Willard | October 14, 2016 at 10:08 am: “No quotes contradict the abstract’s claim that photosynthetic responses to OA are relatively small for most investigated species, Jim. Your ‘CO2 makes photosynthesis less costly’ fails to be materially supported by the paper. More importantly, you omit other energy costs.”

    And so he does. Will Jim chase that squirrel or whack that mole? Tune in tomorrow for the continuation of this exciting saga!

    More refereeing:

    Willard | October 15, 2016 at 1:48 am: “Mackey’s conclusions undermine Jim’s – he claims more CO2 benefits photosynthesis while Mackey found that the positive effect of high CO2 on photosynthesis were negligible.”

    What I see is they aren’t exactly arguing the same thing. More CO2 (above 280ppm) obviously benefits photosynthesis since below about 280 (or was it 230?) ppm it stops. Stop is bad, Go is good. Willard then argues that HIGH CO2 does not produce significant benefit and is doubtless correct; but also imprecise. What is “high”? What is it compared to; slightly less “high”? I don’t know, I suppose I could dig into it and form my own opinion.

    Fallacy of the False Alternatives; but Willard gets no “pass”, he knows what he’s doing:

    Willard | August 31, 2016 at 2:46 pm: “You’re only way out is to argue that Murica’s so exceptional that every country should follow ‘shall,’ but not Murica.”

    In truth it isn’t a chess game and Willard does not specify the rules of the game; maybe I have another way out that he hasn’t considered. Murica isn’t bound to follow other nations; its citizens for the most part having fled those nations to create Murica in the first place. Exceptional is a very good word for Murica and for me.

    Willard | July 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm “I see you haven’t got the memo yet, Glenn. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough last time. If you mention me, you’ll get a response.”

    It’s nice to know that responses are assured. It’s a strange way of putting it; makes it slightly sinister.

    Liked by 1 person

  90. Tiny,

    good point—I’d forgotten how bad the Wakefield episode was and I especially like your pointed reminder that it was a journalist, not an insider, who demanded something be done about it.

    “If medicine can get it wrong with loads of checks and balances, what hope has climate science got with practically nothing?”

    No hope. And that’s one reason why medical research continues to improve human lives immeasurably, while climate science is a literally useless hecatomb of blood, sweat and treasure.

    Another reason is that climate change is irrelevant, while health matters.

    Like

  91. Anyway Tiny,

    back to my question: what changed from 1986 to 2016 to justify scientists’ change of behavior, from barely deeming AGW worth mentioning to threatening us with a catastrophe that would make Castro look like Ceaușescu, or make a Hitler with triorchidy look like a castrated Castro?

    Like

  92. Tiny, one last point:

    the medical fraternity gets rid of frauds like Wakefield so that its reputation doesn’t suffer.

    the climate fraternity protects frauds like Mann, Gleick and Lewandowsky so that its reputation doesn’t suffer.

    Some line has been crossed. A tipping point, if you will. A critical viral mass. A decompensation threshold. Climate science has regime-shifted, and is in a fundamentally worse, more pathological condition than its closest, sickest rival.

    Like

  93. M2,

    > So far I see rather a lot of brief, sometimes witty, comments that invoke various themes and memes in a clever way so maybe that’s what you mean by his victims not realizing what game he is playing but what’s the point in it?

    Have you ever tried asking him directly?

    > Will Jim chase that squirrel or whack that mole?

    When Steele gets caught misrepresenting one of his own references, he’s fond of replying with an ad hominem. “Internet sniper” is a favourite label. That’s a thread where Willard handles it like a boss as he usually does — sidesteps the personal attack and continues to bomb the position into rubble.

    > It’s nice to know that responses are assured. It’s a strange way of putting it; makes it slightly sinister.

    You’re not the only person I’ve known to express discomfort that Willard is Watching. I think it’s funny that people who post comments on public Internet fora find it uncomfortable when their words attract attention because … for me at least … that’s supposed to be the point.

    As well, one of my own rules of thumb is that when someone is feeling uncomfortable being watched … perhaps they have cause to be both watched and uncomfortable about it.

    Like

  94. M2,

    > Willard | August 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm: “nothing is predictable. Yesterday, I woke up as a chaos fan. Then I realized I needed coffee. I stopped being a chaos fan. THE END.”

    > Now *there* is a non-argument!

    Funny you would bring that up because that was an argument that went “whoosh” when he first wrote it. It makes a lot more sense once you realize just how nonsensical Turbulent Eddie’s “but … chaos” weather fallacies so often are.

    Like

  95. BRG — … something about Innerwebz conversations — if not also the personality types of people who argue on the Innern00bs — tends to enhance narcissistic behaviour.

    And what is that — a licence, a mea culpa, or an excuse? All three?

    Partisan mud-slogs for the moral high ground where both sides refuse to openly recognize the stench of their own crap are a perfect example.

    More licence? Oh, well, if everyone’s doing it, I might as well join in…”?

    The point of debate, (Lulz, giggles, gufaaw, tee-hee, etc), BRG, is to put emphasis on the crap, and to persuade a wider audience of the other merits of your own stenchless perspective. Your understanding of exchanges as only so much mud-slinging between people who fail to recognise the weaknesses of their own argument reveals only limits of your own ability to participate. But we knew this already. As is pointed out above, discussion with Consensus Enforcers is pointless for precisely that tendency. And as pointed out on this site and elsewhere, this tendency cannot be explained merely as the continuation of the tendency of internet discussions to flame wars: the quality of pro-climate argument in the wider public sphere does not improve as it moves away from the Internet, towards, for instance, the Royal Society, or IPCC chairmen. Indeed, the hostility towards criticism shown by academics championing climate change, and the inability of politicians of the same persuasion to test the democratic legitimacy of their ambitions WRT climate policy demonstrates the point that debate, democracy, and widespread participation in politics are anathema to environmentalism.

    You think far too much of yourself. It’s not merely a statement about your MO in seeking to achieve some moral high ground in petty battles; nor even the immediate consequences of partisanship, lowering the quality of exchanges in a broader war. It’s about the entire ideology of climate-centricism: ithe contempt for other people, for debate, democracy, that climate seems to foster in its adherents. It’s hard to know which came first: the personality or the climate change. Does environmentalism create narcissists, or does it just appeal to them?

    Though I’ve no doubt seen some shit arguments from climate sceptics, some of whom are clearly narcissistic, the narcissism isn’t in the political “ideology”. That is to say that the self-regard doesn’t manifest in sceptics designs for a political order; their emphasis in broadly on democratic control of public life and its institutions. And it doesn’t preclude debate.

    Like

  96. Ben Pile,

    > And what is that — a licence, a mea culpa, or an excuse? All three?

    A statement of my understanding based on personal observation and reading literature.

    > More licence? Oh, well, if everyone’s doing it, I might as well join in…”?

    No, an example … just as I said. Own it or not … but I’d suggest owning it.

    > You think far too much of yourself.

    Wait for it ….. lulz.

    Like

  97. Brandon, this paragraph is solid work:

    As well, one of my own rules of thumb is that when someone is feeling uncomfortable being watched … perhaps they have cause to be both watched and uncomfortable about it.

    That’s why, the more scientists protest against auditing, the more important it is for auditors to audit their work.

    One can’t help but be reminded of the climate scientist and rat abiologist Ben Santer, who anxiously wrote to his peers-in-fear:

    “I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behaviour of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. … He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. …

    We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. …

    “In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science…. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.”

    Gosh, this McIntyre bloke sounds like an utter bastard, doesn’t he? Trying to make scientists show their working! How anti-science can you get?

    If I ever see him, I’ll be very tempted to beat the crap out of him. That’s the only language bullies understand: a conversation in a dark alley. They’re not interested in rational scientific discourse.

    Fortunately Santer’s bosses at LLNL took a rather dim view of data secretion—as we know from a subsequent Santer whinge-binge:

    “…After reading Steven McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an official at Department Of Energy headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at LLNL, claiming that my behaviour is bringing LLNL’s good name into disrepute. …

    “I am sick of taking this on the chin…”

    Apparently Chet Murray and others then called Santer in for more than one session of counselling about his obscurantist behavior.

    Finally, after months of this…

    “I have decided to “publish” all of the climate model data that we used in our [International Journal of Climatology] paper.”

    Moral of the story: if you’ve got no WMDs to hide, don’t give UN weapons inspectors the runaround, or you might get Desert Stormed back to the Stone Age—and nobody wants that.

    Like

  98. Brandon,

    good question:

    > Is it just me, or are some of your mates here really not understanding the spirit of your head post?

    I’m pretty sure they understand the spirit in which I posted it, since I was pretty explicit in the intro. But as with any text, the receiver is free to take it in whatever spirit he or she likes, often teasing out meanings that even the original publisher may not have been aware of. What we’re seeing, I think, is critical (disapproving) engagement with the content of our Twitter DMs. And Willard and I have no right to be surprised by, or resent, that kind of analysis.

    Even those who take exception to the arguments within the dialogue, however, seem to be aware that the post itself is not making those arguments, but rather a “meta” point about the possibility of making frenemies out of enefriends.

    But critics like Ben don’t seem to particularly care about that, especially if they were already aware of it. Yawn.

    And I haven’t got any right to tell Ben (etc.) that they’re missing The Point of the post, because the point (within reason) is in the eye of the beholder.

    I’ve come to accept, as I think anyone should accept if they want to write a blog, that “the spirit” of what I write is only one of the many, equally valid, ways to read it. Audiences have the right to interrogate my work on levels I never intended, and they never fail to exercise that right. C’est la guerre climatique.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. I should add a caveat [lector]:

    A reader’s right to “read” something new “into” a text stops at accusing the author of having meant it. The distinction between what the author meant, and what the text means, if there is one, must be respected.

    In other words, as a reader, you’re allowed (and encouraged) to tease out new and unexpected ideas from a text, you just have to avoid attributing them to the author once the author tells you that he meant something different.

    Like

  100. > From time to time I mention it (MBTI) as a smoke signal to engage possibly interesting conversation with other people who have similar, or better yet different, ideas on such topics.

    You rather went on a tengent about creativity and knowledge, an interpretation far remote from the N and the S of the MTBI classification, M2. Both letters refer to two cognitive styles: abstract or concrete. You could replace “concrete” with “observation-based” and you’d look less like a sophist than when Nic Lewis oversells his own stoopid modulz.

    Which means that, like a good ISTP, I can cut the crap out of your abstractions of me.

    ***

    > You are therefore the “seed” of this raindrop or hailstone around which we can discuss various topics.

    Sounds like a self-serving way to say that you threw ad hominems my way to chase squirrels.

    Wait. Wasn’t I the guy who was supposed to be good at that, and wasn’t it something that was kinda bad? Let’s see:

    I discuss various topics.
    You chase squirrels.
    He’s a distracturbator.

    I bet you could convince Mr. Pile that I’m a concrete guy. No hailstones, please. He needs all his faculties to bash at windmills for UKIP.

    Liked by 1 person

  101. BRG: A statement of my understanding based on personal observation and reading literature.

    But also a licence, a mea culpa, or an excuse. I mean, based on my own understanding, observation and reading, ‘Only calling it as you see it’, forgets that your “understanding” (Lulz) and “observation”(Lulz) and “reading”(Lulz) are limited by the same filter that switches out other perspectives in the “debate” (Lulz).

    > Is it just me, or are some of your mates here really not understanding the spirit of your head post?

    Never mind the spirit; I asked what the point was, what light it shone, and why any of us Clisceps should take an interest in the exchange. The analogy was with masturbation. The fact of it being a DM session makes it no less masturbation than it is when the ‘exchange’ occurs in public fora. If the DM exchange is more candid, it only confirms what we already knew: that Consensus Enforcers — albeit cleverly obtuse consensus enforcers — have not developed an understanding of the climate debate, its context, its antecedents; they have only succeeded in covering it in their own muck.

    Like

  102. I bet you could convince Mr. Pile that I’m a concrete guy. No hailstones, please. He needs all his faculties to bash at windmills for UKIP.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Which is nothing new.

    Like

  103. the possibility of making frenemies out of enefriends.

    Why?

    The would-be ‘frenemy’ seems bent on preventing actually productive conversations between people of a green bent and sceptics. Write something above or below the line anywhere where there is a danger that, by virtue of the forum’s authority, the ideas might be taken seriously, you can expect a torrent of posts pointing out that the author once did something about windfarms for UKIP! Shock Horror! How dare he?. QED.

    If the ‘frenemy’ wants to ‘engage’ on friendlier terms, he should up his own “game” — what’s it called… Climate Ball. Why should anyone waste any time on him?

    Like

  104. Ben,

    it’s a lifestyle choice. It works for me. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it, I always say; but if you’ve tried it and it doesn’t feel like “you,” then all you can do is be true to yourself.

    As mentioned before, I’m not one of them militant-type ones. I’d never dream of imposing my orientation on the cis-lateral (homosocial) climate community; I’m merely trying to fight ignorance and prejudice about trans- relationships.

    I think that’s how we can honor Fidel. I think that’s how he’d want us to keep him alive. Not with respirators and modern medicine, but by embracing the words Live and Let Live. Not for nothing is this the unofficial motto of Castro St, S.F., where people have more reason than anyone to appreciate el Comandante’s greatest greatness: his tolerance.

    Like

  105. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it,

    I’ve tried it, as is explained above. The conclusion of the nearly 20 year long experiment is that, notwithstanding the point Michael makes (one can learn something about such intransigent weirdos’ perspectives) and that street fighting can help hone one’s own arguments, such sports are limited as means, and utterly futile as ends. Fortunately, I only lost a week or two to CiF (plenty more elsewhere), but there I discovered I was ‘debating’ with founder members of Earth First!, whose minds I had about as much chance of changing as I had of knitting the Taj Mahal. It wasn’t even that it is possible to lay a perspective out, and explain how this produces an opposite understanding to theirs.

    That *is* possible with other contingents within the climate debate, where it is not dominated by the aforementioned tendency. And more broadly, it is not the climate evangelist we need to convince. Consensus Enforcers only need to exist as heat and noise to preclude ‘joint ideas under construction’, be those between climate sceptics, or Clisceps and Lukewarmers, or Clisceps and consensus cli-scis.

    Like

  106. Brad, the differences you observe between medicine and climate are not science, they’re business. There is a saying “everyone makes mistakes, doctors bury theirs”. Medicine has had a long time, a lot of deaths and quite a few malpractice suits to do things the right way. Climate scientists will tell you that they learn almost as much from mistakes as they do by getting it right. Do you think Glaxosmithkline or Pfizer think that way?

    Medicine would progress faster without the safeguards, it would just kill more people on the way. Science doesn’t care about the costs, it is purely about moving forward.

    Liked by 1 person

  107. the part after the semicolon was for you.

    It would be a mistake for me not to explain to you that I think you could be doing much better things with your time.

    I said the same to Geoff about his exchanges with CiFers, Almost a decade ago.

    Like

  108. Tiny,

    we might be getting somewhere BUT your latest comment doesn’t work as is; you need to be careful to draw some (fine, very commonly misunderstood, yet crucial) distinctions here.

    There is a saying “everyone makes mistakes, doctors bury theirs”. Medicine has had a long time, a lot of deaths and quite a few malpractice suits to do things the right way.

    Doctors aren’t scientists; medical scientists, a.k.a. medical researchers, are scientists.

    Medicine isn’t a science; medical science, a.k.a. medical research, is a science.

    Medicine is a practice, techne, skill or art—not fundamentally different from piano-tuning, auto mechanics or safe-cracking.

    Doctors are practicioners, not scientists.

    We can’t compare or contrast climate science to medicine, because one is a necrotic, maggot-ridden ex-apple and the other is a delicious, nutritious, scurvy-preventing (but not cancer-curing) orange.

    Didn’t your momma teach you not to compare apples with oranges? : – )

    We can (and should!) compare and contrast climate science to medical science, a.k.a. cli sci to med sci.

    Medicine would progress faster without the safeguards, it would just kill more people on the way. Science doesn’t care about the costs, it is purely about moving forward.

    Medical science, if that’s what you mean, cares deeply—almost obsessively—about “the costs,” because the costs (highest among which are human deaths) are key DATA.

    When GlaxoSmithKline’s drug kills someone, that’s a very, very interesting data point for drug researchers. A little-known fact is that once a drug goes onto shelves, the research on that drug is just beginning. Pharmacologists take a very keen interest indeed in how the drug performs “in the wild,” on the market—so much so that they have a name (Phase 4) for what happens next, and the process of monitoring it.

    The horror stories in pharmacology arise when the harm done by a drug is not detected during Phases 1-3, it’s approved for human use prematurely or without the necessary caveats to prescribers, and ordinary people start dying, sleep-walking off bridges, giving birth to children without arms and legs, etc. What those unlucky people may or may not have realized is that the minute they filled their prescription and took their FDA-approved drug they became subjects in a massive epidemiological study, a so-called Phase 4.

    Like

  109. > It would be a mistake for me not to explain to you that I think you could be doing much better things with your time.

    And I appreciate your advice. I never disregard it, even when I ultimately choose to go another way.

    Like

  110. Oh, and it’s nor merely that *I* don’t think it’s productive; I’ve never seen it produce anything.

    Again, if it’s mere sport — like some kind of Fight Club or pissing contest — so be it. Knock yourself out. Get dragged in, and away from family/friends/GF/fantastic career — few of which seem to be things that Consensus Enforcers seem to have.

    But why reproduce it here of all places? Show me where it has been productive! I’m still waiting for an answer that isn’t ‘well, it’s a matter of taste’. i want to see the Braddard-Widdley joint idea.

    Like

  111. TinyCO2,

    Climate scientists will tell you that they learn almost as much from mistakes as they do by getting it right.

    Will they? I look forward to one of them trying that line on me.

    To a good approximation, climate science has gotten everything wrong but learned nothing.

    Remember how, in the pre-LOLcatz, pre-demotivational poster era, there used to be those posters with a chimpanzee or orangutan saying:

    “If we learned from our mistakes, I’d be a genius!”

    Scientists learn from their mistakes.

    Climate scientists, chimpanzees and orangutans apparently do not.

    Like

  112. Brad medicine is a very old science and didn’t start the way you portray it. It was just as flakey as climate science is now… no more. What you see with climate is something that has had to be built into medical science.

    Like

  113. Tiny,

    medicine is a very old science

    Well, sure, medical science is a very old science. Tragically, most of its long history predated the scientific method, and thus wasn’t properly scientific in any way we’d recognize now, and thus produced very little progress for thousands of years. And then exploded.

    and didn’t start the way you portray it.

    Do you mean I’ve mis-portrayed its start, or do you mean that the way I’ve portrayed it now is different from what it was like when it first started?

    It was just as flakey as climate science is now… no more.

    OK, so how many centuries do we have to wait for climate science to grow out of its Trepanning and Leeches For All! phase and start working? : – )

    I’m reminded of the Islam Problem, viz.: if “Islam is six hundred years behind Christianity,” as the cliché goes, does that mean we tell the victims of clitoridectomy and stoning to be patient and put up with it for another few centuries?

    What you see with climate is something that has had to be built into medical science.

    Only in the sense that it had to be built into the mechanisms of science itself. When climate science came into the world, it was supposed to inherit all the safeguards and checks and balances and feedback loops that were built into science—not start from Neolithic scratch! Every other novel branch of science manages to do the right thing… why is it too much to ask cli sci to do the same?

    Like

  114. Tiny,

    I’ve left the trickiest, most esoteric point til last, so here goes.

    Medicine would progress faster without the safeguards, it would just kill more people on the way. Science doesn’t care about the costs, it is purely about moving forward.

    Most people would agree; even I’ve said similar things in careless moments; but that’s not right.

    Science is NOT only concerned with maximizing human knowledge. It is ALSO concerned with minimizing human delusion.

    In other words, its purpose is to produce great discoveries while AVOIDING great mis-discoveries (cold fusion, MMR->autism, the Hockey Stick, etc).

    This is not a minor point; it is the difference between science and self-deception.

    Remember what Feynman says is the first rule of doing science?

    You must try not to fool yourself.

    There’s a good reason why—in Feynman’s rulebook—Not Fooling Yourself wasn’t an afterthought, a note bene, a caveat, an asterisk or a Pro Tip; it was the very first thing.

    Science is NOT concerned solely with taking as many steps forward as possible; it’s also concerned with taking as few steps in the wrong direction as possible.

    It’s easy to forget this, because (from the outside) we never see the unceasing work scientists do to stop themselves getting false answers.

    After all, nobody won a Nobel Prize for not getting the wrong answer; otherwise there wouldn’t be enough gold in the Earth to mint all the medals. They’re only awarded for getting the right answer.

    (‘Right’ being provisional and subject to reconsideration or debunking at any moment in the light of new evidence, of course.)

    So Not Fooling Yourself is a thankless, unsung, uncelebrated and unpaid labor. But when you do science nothing takes precedence over Not Fooling Yourself.

    B.

    Like

  115. Finally, a fun game.

    Consider Feynman’s injunction again:

    The first rule is that you must try not to fool yourself.

    What is a four-syllable word for this rule?

    Like

  116. … and you are the easiest person to fool.

    Hmm. I’m skeptical about that. I know it’s true of most people, but you have to wake up pretty early in the morning to fool me. I’m more of a night person, so that ain’t going to happen. Plus I’m a terrible liar—even I’d see right through me, and I’m not exactly known for having a suspicious mind. That’s why I could never go into the family profession: the law. My parents were angry, until I told them a man who fools himself has a fool for a client… and I think they actually bought it! People in my family are so gullible.

    Like

  117. Brad Keyes: “The first rule is that you must try not to fool yourself. Can you think of a four-syllable word for that rule?”

    What comes to my mind is “humility”.

    Liked by 1 person

  118. benpile wrote “such sports are limited as means, and utterly futile as ends.”

    Reportedly 7 billion people exist on Earth; many have internet. Those that do, Google (verb). Google (noun) favorably indexes good writing, topical, rich; having key words related to each other.

    No one can fool me better than me, I’ve known that long before Feynman’s quote. I rely on ruthlessly stubborn intractable arguers to discover what they think are my errors and occasionally it is so. I refine my beliefs and at the same time populate the Great Cybernetic Encyclopedia. I see it as the equivalent of college-level critique and review of my beliefs and all that is required of me is a few minutes of time to write them.

    None of that is possible with sycophants. Articulate different-believers are rare so I take advantage of that situation when it arises.

    Liked by 1 person

  119. None of that is possible with sycophants. Articulate different-believers are rare so I take advantage of that situation when it arises.

    Look, nobody has said “don’t talk to these guys”. I’m saying it’s of such limited value it means nothing. And it means less merely written up verbatim. It may sharpen your skills. Fine. But that doesn’t pass as interesting copy, in dispatches from the climate front line. It’s not even the front line. It’s sub-sub-sub disposable comment under the line of sub-sub-sub above-the-line comment. Nobody cares! It’s a total waste of life. And bandwidth.

    Aim higher! Move up the food chain. The arguments of Lord Climate Warrior and the SoS for the Department of Making Energy Too Expensive are no better, yet responses to them are *far* more important than swinging dicks at your sparring partners. Which is all you seem to be aiming for.

    Like

  120. Ben Pile,

    > But also a licence, a mea culpa, or an excuse. I mean, based on my own understanding, observation and reading, ‘Only calling it as you see it’, forgets that your “understanding” (Lulz) and “observation”(Lulz) and “reading”(Lulz) are limited by the same filter that switches out other perspectives in the “debate” (Lulz).

    Exactly. You may impose any subjective opinion or POV on my words that you wish, to the exclusion of other *possibilities* inconvenient to one’s opening position. I can do it too:

    Most of the time I see complaints that [Willard] adds little to “The Debate” (lulz, whatever), they’re associated with him having just kicked someone’s non-argument to the curb and set it on fire.

    Or:

    Partisan mud-slogs for the moral high ground where both sides refuse to openly recognize the stench of their own crap are a perfect example [of online narcissism exhibitions].

    In my (most humble) *opinion*, Teh Pythons understood what does NOT constitute a debate (note the lack of “scare quotes”). YMMV:

    [lulz]

    Like

  121. Brad Keyes,

    > I’m pretty sure they understand the spirit in which I posted it, since I was pretty explicit in the intro. But as with any text, the receiver is free to take it in whatever spirit he or she likes, often teasing out meanings that even the original publisher may not have been aware of. What we’re seeing, I think, is critical (disapproving) engagement with the content of our Twitter DMs. And Willard and I have no right to be surprised by, or resent, that kind of analysis.

    I cannot refute that argument. Therefore, you must be a c*nt …

    … either that, or in the running for my public frenemy number one.

    Like

  122. BG,

    You say:

    The “enforcer” meme is apt in this case […]

    For those who do not have the grace of knowing ice hockey, here’s what an enforcer looks like:

    Source: http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/97418900869

    I think this suits Don Don, BDD (British Bull Dog, BTW, Brad), Dhogaza, or the Cat Weazle.

    Mr. Pile’s own well poisoning could look like enforcement, but his underhanded ways are more akin to a Ken Linseman. In contrast, I try to mould my play style in the spirit of a Bob Gainey.

    Enforcers in the National Hockey League are on the way out. Players need to skate fast nowadays, otherwise they become a liability for their teams.

    Liked by 1 person

  123. Brad Keyes,

    > That’s why, the more scientists protest against auditing, the more important it is for auditors to audit their work.

    I set ’em up …

    > Gosh, this McIntyre bloke sounds like an utter bastard, doesn’t he?

    To my eyes, yes. Frequently.

    > Moral of the story: if you’ve got no WMDs to hide, don’t give UN weapons inspectors the runaround, or you might get Desert Stormed back to the Stone Age—and nobody wants that.

    Imagine if I judged all climate contrarian *arguments* by my *opinion* of McI’s *tone*. Or more on-pointedly, the randomly-sorted list of synthetic Hokey Schticks he contributed to the Wegman Report.

    Ooh, and here’s a good one: Since McI has nothing to hide, I look forward to him publishing all his un-deleted e-mails in the spirit of integrity, honesty and transparency.

    A meta-audit for a meta-discussion about a not-debate, if you will.

    Liked by 1 person

  124. Brandon:

    I set ’em up …

    Yeah, that was nine-tenths your petard your argument got hoisted up. But ’tis all in fun. Everyone steps on rakes occasionally, and I’m not one to rub it in unless they’re a jerk.

    > Gosh, this McIntyre bloke sounds like an utter bastard, doesn’t he?

    To my eyes, yes. Frequently.

    That’s some serious synaesthesia you’ve got going there, Brandon! Does your ophthaudiologist know about this?

    Imagine if I judged all climate contrarian *arguments* by my *opinion* of McI’s *tone*.

    Imagine you were irrational? OK…

    give me a sec.

    Got it. Imagining it. What now?

    Or more on-pointedly, the randomly-sorted list of synthetic Hokey Schticks he contributed to the Wegman Report.

    So I should change what I’m picturing, and imagine this more “on-point” thing instead? OK, hang on.

    OK, a fairly good image is before my mind’s eye.

    Awaiting next instruction.

    Ooh, and here’s a good one: Since McI has nothing to hide, I look forward to him publishing all his un-deleted e-mails in the spirit of integrity, honesty and transparency.

    Well, hope springs eternal. Having said that, McIntyre doesn’t write from a government-employee, publicly-funded university account (at least not when he writes to me), so I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

    Remember, it’s perfectly ethical (if technologically naïve, perhaps) to expect confidentiality in personal emails among non-public-employees.

    Like

  125. BRG — You may impose any subjective opinion or POV …

    Yes, you said all this before. But that’s just self-justification, not how dialogue, even across differences, usually develops. The point being that Enforcement is opposed to dialogue, at any scale. It’s more sure that it’s against dialogue than it is for Doing Something about climate change. I think this has always been the point of climate change. The fierce urgency of it seemingly compelling us to transcend ‘subjective opinion’ by merely suspending it, rather than letting it play out through contest, test, experiment, and weight of numbers. Blackmail in other words.

    I wish I knew enough about hockey to understand what Willard means about poisoning the well. But I wouldn’t want to hit the dice with one of those bats, as it looks like it makes some people very angry.

    Like

  126. Oh I get it now!

    otherwise they become a liability for their teams.

    Willard thinks my having done research for a political party makes me a liability?

    Why didn’t he say so?

    He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Neither did Leo Hickman.

    Like

  127. benpile wrote “I’m saying it’s of such limited value it means nothing.”

    Things do not have value of themselves; people assign value to things but the value you assign will probably not be the value I assign. Implicit in these declarations is “to me”: I’m saying it’s of such limited value to me it means nothing to me.

    But over time people forget “to me” and start to think of things as having values that are there for everyone to see and ought to be seen the same, as if the number “7” was stamped on a potato as its value rather than you assigning a value of “7” to a potato and me assigning a “5” to a potato, or a zero if I really don’t like potatoes and think you shouldn’t be talking about potatoes even though it’s not my blog or place to say you cannot talk about potatoes.

    Its relevance to discussions of climate, or almost anything else, is that it implies you are blind or an idiot if you don’t see its value the same as I see it. This leads to poor outcomes as you judge others to be idiots and they do likewise with you.

    More fruitful outcomes (IMO) exist when you acknowledge the validity of other people’s value systems. It takes longer and there’s no assurance they will reciprocate; usually they do but not immediately.

    “It’s sub-sub-sub disposable comment under the line of sub-sub-sub above-the-line comment. Nobody cares! It’s a total waste of life. And bandwidth.”

    The proper response for not caring is also not responding; however, being mindful of Willard’s “the only losing move is not to play.” It is very easy to portray your “will not” to “can not”.

    “Aim higher! Move up the food chain.”

    This entire page is about Willard’s style of argumentation. I comprehend your intentions and if I were an activist I would aim where it makes a difference: Legislatures. But look at the power of one slightly arrogant and rude man; the inventor of the 97 percent meme, and his blog and blogbuddies. SkS is the fuel that keeps that fire going, and like a wood or oil fire you cannot always remove the fuel, but you might reduce the heat (less vitriole in argumentation) and oxygen (deprive some readers by having more attractive and informative online destinations than SkS).

    For human beings, the fire happens at the base of Maslow’s Hierarchy. The most permanent solution is to reduce fear. In my religion is a saying, if you are prepared you shall not fear. So I work with the Boy Scouts to help them be prepared whether it be global warming, global cooling, or a flat tire in the mountains in the winter. Instead of trying to stop sea level rise, you make plans to move to higher ground in the unlikely event that SLR is significant in your lifetime.

    BBD fears “delegitimization” perhaps most of all. It may be fun to battle his legitimacy but what do you get? More BBD.

    By acknowledge his legitimacy you starve the fear and you *might* peel back an onion layer to reveal the next obstacle to meaningful dialog. Of course there’s always the possibility that not much is there, but that’s your opportunity to provide something.

    Chameleons change color to match what they are with or on; be that person that the chameleon becomes.

    Now about Willard. I have a doubt I am up to the task of figuring him out. He’s smart, he’s clever, he’s a chess player and intellectual. That means he will have been laying the foundation for his avatar personality for *years*, it might even be instinctive. He seldom if ever writes about himself; instead he pits author against reader, reader against reader; then sits back to enjoy the show.

    So in his case I acknowledge his cleverness but I gain little by arguing with an avatar.

    Like

  128. Michael: This entire page is about Willard’s style of argumentation. I comprehend your intentions and if I were an activist I would aim where it makes a difference: Legislatures. But look at the power of one slightly arrogant and rude man; the inventor of the 97 percent meme, and his blog and blogbuddies.

    Indeed. Their main achievement was to drag a global debate completely down to the level of an internet flame war. Not even with original research. It’s hard to say whether or not it reached new otherwise uninterested audiences, but it certainly drew a lot of attention from those already engaged and desperate enough to need it. My analysis of it is here.

    Like

  129. He’s smart, he’s clever, he’s a chess player and intellectual.

    He might play chess.

    His understanding is exactly as cartoonish as his avatar.

    Like

  130. “He’s smart, he’s clever, he’s a chess player and intellectual.”

    No, not really.

    He is what we at this side of the Pond refer to as a “pseud”.

    Like

  131. Let’s lighten the tone a bit, fellas.


    Abbot: What do you get when you call Distinguished Professor Michael Mann a pseud?

    Costello: “Pseud”…?

    Abbot: Correct. I see you’ve played Steyn-Paper-Scissors before.

    Like

  132. Willard writes “You rather went on a tengent about creativity and knowledge, an interpretation far remote from the N and the S of the MTBI classification, M2. Both letters refer to two cognitive styles: abstract or concrete. You could replace “concrete” with “observation-based” and you’d look less like a sophist than when Nic Lewis oversells his own stoopid modulz.”

    How I look to others is not in my control, consequently I give it little weight. I probably ought to give it more weight but there you go.

    I agree with your choice of descriptive words for the MBTI “s” and “n” axis. The actual meaning, at least how I learned it, was “S” was for “Sensor”, meaning you learn about the world through your senses, rather than “N” for iNtuition.

    “I bet you could convince Mr. Pile that I’m a concrete guy.”

    Let’s find out.

    For Ben Pile: What that means is Willard prefers to think (T) about the world, and obtains his information about the world through his senses, a trait that can reasonably be called “concrete”.

    That means his argumentation will lean heavily on that which can be measured (sensed), and he will use and respect logic (the T axis). It also means his distracting techniques will oppose these strengths; assume you also are sensory and logical, so when he is in playful mode his distractors will be imaginative and illogical to see if you will chase that squirrel.

    “Which means that, like a good ISTP, I can cut the crap out of your abstractions of me.”

    Indeed you can 😉

    “Sounds like a self-serving way to say that you threw ad hominems my way to chase squirrels.”

    I toss nuts your way. The squirrels will chase the nuts and behind them come the squirrel chasers.

    Like

  133. Brad Keyes,

    > Yeah, that was nine-tenths your petard your argument got hoisted up. Bet ’tis all in fun.

    Hokey Schticks and Climategate being favoured climate contrarian trump cards, I almost always expect them to be played … quite unlike the Spanish Inquisition in that respect.

    You wager correctly, I do occasionally enjoy hoisting my own petard for spot of fun. This may also explain why I prefer solitaire to minesweeper when I’m pretending to work.

    > That’s some serious synaesthesia!

    I have a friend who listens to sunsets, which can be a more awe-inspiring sight than the thing itself. And she knows better than I do when I say that a particular word is “tasty”.

    > Imagine you were irrational?

    Exactly.

    > What now?

    Fallacy of hasty generalizations ring a bell?

    Oh look, the dog just started drooling on my leg.

    > Hope springs eternal. But McIntyre doesn’t write from a government-employee, publicly-funded university account (at least not when he writes to me), so don’t hold your breath.

    I just love it when morality and ethics run across laws and legally-defined categories. It creates a tremendous number of opportunities for special bleatings.

    For the record, just because The Auditor *once* used a glaringly non-random “random” sampling technique once doesn’t mean that the balance of his analyses are equally shonky. Nor even that he’s always wrong.

    Like

  134. Ben Pile,

    > I wish I knew enough about hockey to understand what Willard means about poisoning the well.

    It’s akin to the question-begging you do when you talk about self-justifying enforcement behaviour — just more direct and therefore a lot easier to whistle. Neither technique plays the puck.

    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