Elevated from a comment left on WUWT about the Quote of the Week – sensationalizing for the greater good. See note below.
Brad Keyes
climatenuremberg.com Submitted on 2014/01/21 at 9:57 pm
As the poster of the “astonishing statement,” I have been distressed, disturbed and demoralised by a tattoo of remarkably closely-synchronised assaults on my integrity launched from the direction of the flat-earthosphere. Obviously I can’t even begin to put myself in the shoes of a world-leading researcher like Dr Michael Mann, but I now know exactly how he felt in the darkest hour of his own Garden of Gethsemane*: hounded by politicians crowing over every typo, dogged by deniers baying for blood, ratted out by soi-disant “colleagues” and and mobbed by the bleating, myth-parroting mouthpieces of the Murdocracy (or should I say HERDocracy).
I’ve always gone out of my way to display patience and tolerance for folks who voice doubts, misconceptions and incomplete knowledge regarding climate change, even if their questions have been soundly debunked and/or dismissed by scientists, provided (of course) that their difference of opinion is a matter of sincere ignorance; but it seems it was naive of me to hope for your folks’ respect in return!
To those who have described my comment as “plagiarism” (a mastertrope of dog-whistling, ad hominem and Islamophobia obviously intended to liken me to Edward Wegman’s “foreign,” “non-American,” “A-rab!!!” grad student):
Paranoid much? Think “Skeptically” for a second. If I were stealing statements from climate scientists then how, pray tell, could I have obtained sentences like:
“THEY are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people THEY’D like to see the world a better place… So THEY have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts THEY might have.”
Notice how I refer to climate scientists in the 3RD PERSON? Are you seriously suggesting these are Steve Schneider’s expressions? LOL—OK, riiiight. How anybody could be familiar with the Professor’s lectures and writings on the planetary climate crisis without noticing his favoritism towards the 1st person is beyond me. Even for climate-debate standards, that would be tone-deaf.
The passage you thought you recognized was, in fact, a PARAPHRASE of the climate-scientific ethics Schneider expounded so memorably in a wide-ranging Discovery interview.
Sure, it was that article which first opened my mind—and that of a whole generation of non-climate-scientist readers—to these ideas, but I’ve met literally dozens of climate consensualists who’d confirm and agree with Schneider’s principles, so it seems both supererogatory and arbitrary to demand I attribute them to the individual researcher who just happened to articulate them first/ best to a muggle audience.
We’re having a discussion (or Conversation) about the way **climate science** works (and how it differs from the public’s idealized, black-and-white caricature of science as “just the truth, ma’am”)—which didn’t die with the late great Professor Schneider!
This is something around which many misconceptions still exist—let’s raise some awareness. Imagine how much colder the planet would be if so-called Skeptics stopped being so negative and made constructive contributions?
Instead of impugning my entire life’s work (what’s next? rats on the doorstep? a burning cross on my lawn?), you folks could do some CLIMATE COMMUNICATION with the people who read The Conversation—most of whom, in my experience, still labor under the understandable misconception that climate scientists are pure, dispassionate, asexual truth-machines, who have seen the future and describe their observations. There’s still nowhere near enough appreciation (let alone sympathy) out there for the bewildering flowchart of moral dilemmas, compromises and pitfalls scientists began to encounter (starting about 25 years ago) when determining how, what, to whom and what not to communicate.
Yours in defending the science,
Brad
* Speaking of trials, it seems someone upthread has had the audacity to take a soundbite from the Bible completely out of context and imply that it is somehow incompatible with Schneiderian/Mullerian/Kopaczian climate ethics:
“Why not say–as some slanderously claim that we say–”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!”
Pure disinformation. While technically this is an accurate statement by God (or his Greek interpreter), my critic disingenuously fails to mention that it does NOT come from a climate scientist. In fact Christ and his apostles hadn’t even heard of the work of Arrhenius, so their ethical code, while admirable for the time, was obviously unable to take into account the seriousness of the apocalypse now facing us (if one believes the IPCC’s revelations)—and it is grossly dishonest to insinuate (by omission) that two millennia of advancements and rethinks in ethics, most dramatically in the last two decades, never occurred!
===========================================================
NOTE: for somebody who espouses “patience and tolerance” in one paragraph, while using the “flat earth” and other less savory labels in the next certainly suggests your claim isn’t rooted in sincerity, something also indicated by your About Page. However, in fairness to you, since we covered your statement (via Susan Crockford’s polar bear blog) in Quote of the Week – sensationalizing for the greater good. I’m giving your rebuttal full visibility. – Anthony
I don’t know the author. So I wasn’t sure at points in the article whether this was real or parody.
REPLY: I checked out the email and source IP of the comment, it appears legit and from Keyes – Anthony
I fear very much that he is completely serious. What a sad individual.
His earnestness reminds me of a sophomore co-ed.
“THEY are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people THEY’D like to see the world a better place… So THEY have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts THEY might have.”
As scientists, THEY have an obligation to highlight any doubts THEY might have about the scientific theories, hypotheses and ideas THEY are injecting into the public discourse. And if THEY don’t do this, THEY fail as scientists.
Richard Feynman, as usual, said it best:
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
Sad individual is not the descriptor I would use, that attitude has killed millions down through history, they think the end justifies the means after all.
“Yours in defending the science, Brad”
“Exaggerating” the validity of hypotheses which have compiled a 100% prediction failure rate, and thus have no scientific validity, is hardly scientific. It’s not even exaggerating.Therefore, I don’t think it’s what Schneider was advocating.
We appear to have a “True Believer” here. This, from Wikipedia, is interesting;
An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apocálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω meaning ‘un-covering’), translated literally from Greek, is a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation, although this sense did not enter English until the 14th century.[1] In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden. In the Revelation of John (Greek Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apocalypsis Ioannou), the last book of the New Testament, the revelation which John receives is that of the ultimate victory of good over evil and the end of the present age, and that is the primary meaning of the term, one that dates to 1175.[1] Today, it is commonly used in reference to any prophetic revelation or so-called End Time scenario, or to the end of the world in general.”
“THEY are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people THEY’D like to see the world a better place… So THEY have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts THEY might have.”
In a democracy the elected have to be given best possible information so the can make up their mind knowing what is known and what’s reality.
Here is something undemocratic based on them being feed with narrow leftist propaganda only?
Whoever defends the “science”, doesn’t know a thing about science.
Why? Because one might as well defend the sun…oh wait, there is evidence that the sun does exist. There is no need to defend it.
So when Brad defends the “science”, he is telling us he is himself convinced there is not enough evidence to defend his “science”. IOW he is undermining the very “science” that he claims to be defending. What a fail.
I thought he was kidding, this was serious? What an odd and rambling rant, punctuated with what appears to be a complete and utter lack of self awareness. How about these gems:
“Imagine how much colder the planet would be if so-called Skeptics stopped being so negative and made constructive contributions?”
“..even if their questions have been soundly debunked and/or dismissed by scientists..”
“Yours in defending science”
Imagine how much colder the planet would be if so-called Skeptics stopped being so negative and made constructive contributions?
And so we are into magical thinking. BTW isn’t the Conversation where Lew is well accepted? They can continue their mutual conversating masturbations without me, thank you very much.
“In fact Christ and his apostles hadn’t even heard of the work of Arrhenius, so their ethical code, while admirable for all time, was obviously unable to take into account the seriousness of the apocalypse now allegedly facing us (if one believes the IPCC’s fabrications)”
Progressives: greater than God and determined to correct His mistakes, by deceit, whenever possible; by force, whenever necessary.
“closely-synchronised assaults”?
No, there is no “denialist machine” funded by “dark money”. It’s all in you head. Herding sceptics would be like herding cats.
“flat-earthosphere”?
Taking notes from Obarmaclese the Messiah?
“world-leading researcher like Dr Michael Mann”?
Short centred data prior to PCA then lied about it. Do that to red noise and you get hockey sticks. The whole world is laughing at you Brad.
“deniers”?
Ah, the old holocaust thing again. You’re not up to speed. Their ALPBC in Australia has upgraded this to “equivalent to those that endorse paedophilia”, do try to keep up 😉
“Murdocracy” ?
Thank you for revealing your political bias.
“HERDocracy”?
What was that about consensus again?
“climate consensualists”
Oh right..
“muggle audience”?
Climate “scientists” calling engineers “muggles”? Get over yourself. Your climate “magic” won’t work after Cimategate, and your wand will be forever limp.
“late great Professor Schneider”
Well he had some great “scary scenarios”…
“you folks could do some CLIMATE COMMUNICATION with the people who read The Conversation”
The Conversation is a government funded socialist hive. Can you point to a single sceptic article ever published there? No. It was the preferred pulpit of Lewandowsky, the craven fool who tried to pathologise dissent.
“Instead of impugning my entire life’s work… (what’s next? rats on the doorstep?)”
That you have dedicated your life to telling people that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability is your own problem. Sceptics will not be wasting perfectly good rats on your doorstep. We will just be leaving the names of the guilty on the general public’s doorsteps, letterboxes and email accounts.
“Yours in defending the science”
Political science perhaps. Groupthink, Alinsky method…Traditional scientific method with falsifiable hypotheses? Not so much…
The irony is that Schneider denied ever having encouraged anyone to exaggerate. In a follow-up to that Discovery episode, he decried people quoting him as having encouraged exaggeration and stressed his long history of advocating blunt honesty, including a public award for communicating about science.
His explanation is somewhat dubious, in that his story was that climate scientists are placed in an ethical double-bind when confronted by (A) the need to communicate complex and often uncertain science, and (B) via a sound-bite sensation obsessed media. The problem with this idea is that climate change has had more column inches, more news time, more documentary footage, and more public commentary (not to mention more public funding), devoted to it than any other subject in the last 20 years. In the very forum in which Schneider made his claim, he was given an entire hour to make it, and communicate it as clearly as possible.
That he had to follow it up with endless clarifications is … well, perhaps I should be charitable and say “unconvincing”.
(haven’t been able to use Twitter credentials to comment for a few days. Google working. Just FYI)
My heart rate stayed nice and level reading this post, even without my beta blockers. Instead of the usual irritated disbelief, I felt rather saddened — strange stuff..
“climate consensualists” – spooky, very spooky.
No way this guy is for real. He has to be a cartoon character. He’s 100% certifiable. I mean… jeez! An own goal is one thing, but stop kicking it back in after the miscue, Mr. K!
Bradley must be an utter delight at those blue-blooded dinner parties. I can see it now: the vegan nibbles, the haughty scoffs over the provincials who dare to question their wisdom, sharing snippets from their favorite NPR show… *hurls into the nearest wastebasket at the thought*
To those [commenter Les Johnson] who have described my comment as “plagiarism”…
Brad Keyes, 21 Jan 2014:
“It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’—and readers’—attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
Link: https://theconversation.com/cold-weather-in-the-us-no-solace-for-starving-polar-bears-21942#comment_292792
Monika Kopacz, 12 Apr 2009
“It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t-THECIVILHERE_LETTERS.html?_r=0
pla·gia·rism noun: the act of using another person’s words without giving credit to that person
What else need be said?
Brad,
You wouldn’t have to “defend” the science if there was enough actual evidence to support it.
It’s difficult to keep the conversation civil when there is so much anger being expressed in inappropriate directions.. If you are really angry at this man, try and reflect why, is it due to his interpretations of science, or does he annoy somme deeply rooted view of the world that you hold dear?
I can’t believe the comments in this thread. With some people, you have to be as subtle as a train smash before they spot the sarcasm.
A very fine piece of satire, Brad Keyes.
The sensationalizing of global warming is becoming more sensational every day. The Antarctic ‘tourists’ have returned: http://pindanpost.com/2014/01/22/the-magical-mystery-tour-climax/
Popcorn is essential as the finger pointing starts.
“THEY’D like to see the world a better place… So THEY have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts THEY might have.”
—
Telling me that THEY have to invent scary scenarios, oversimplify and dramatize their public statements, and suppress any doubts they might secretly harbor is a strange way of “defending the science.” Instead, it is a condemnation of the way the scientific method is being abused by these people. It is also a confession that the facts alone are not enough to persuade people to the cause, so they have to be embellished. With such an admission, every skeptic should feel completely vindicated in their skepticism.
Brad, calm down, especially with the adjectives.
Anthony:
REPLY: I checked out the email and source IP of the comment, it appears legit and from Keyes – Anthony
You may wish to review “Brad Keyes” participation on this thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/
Or, his twitter feed …
He appears to be having fun. Let it not be at your expense.