The man behind ‘climate nuremberg’ explains why he thinks ‘sensationalizing’ climate claims is justified

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

About these ads

145 thoughts on “The man behind ‘climate nuremberg’ explains why he thinks ‘sensationalizing’ climate claims is justified

  1. 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

  2. “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

  3. 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.

  4. “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.

  5. 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.”

  6. “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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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”

  9. 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.

  10. “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.

  11. “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…

  12. 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)

  13. 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..

  14. 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*

  15. 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?

  16. Brad,

    You wouldn’t have to “defend” the science if there was enough actual evidence to support it.

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. “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.

  20. “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…”

    Global temperatures are simply not going up like a hockey stick as Dr. Mann predicted. So it wasn’t a skeptic who betrayed Dr. Mann with a kiss, it was Jack Frost.

  21. Chill out folks, this guy’s a satirist and a pretty good one at that.
    Take a look at his web page. It’s quite clever in a subversive way.
    I’m totally with Mike Mellor at 11:53 pm.

  22. I read the whole thing by Brad Keyes and I have no idea whether he is a skeptic or a catastrophic global warming kook from the thing I just read. Which is it? What the hell is he trying to say??

  23. I am waiting for these nutters to attempt to officially retire the known and accepted scientific method of discovery as being insufficient, old fashioned and in need of updating and replace it with something much flakier which supports the falsified CAGW hypothesis. Whatever that becomes, they should not call it science.

  24. “climate consensualists”???
    Even if it is consensual it has to be enthusiastic and continuous consent or it is rape. Or is he referring to something else? These feminists are so confusing.
    Maybe he is talking about data rape..???? Tree ring rape??

  25. Gareth Phillips says:
    January 21, 2014 at 11:51 pm
    “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?”

    Not angry. We just have to fight him to the end. He proposes a “Climate Nuremberg”. The confessions at the original Nuremberg were partly arrived at by torture, and part of the evidence got forged by the Allied. Todays warmists would apply the same method; they want to save the world after all.

  26. Mike Mellor says:
    January 21, 2014 at 11:53 pm
    ————————————-
    Having checked the website I would now have to agree. Dangerously well done ;-)

  27. The problem with hyping climate change is that it focuses the fears of many who tend to believe in authority.
    When a news program, lets say the ABC in Australia, wants to fill in something we usually get a drunk killing someone, a car plane or rail crash or a heatwave and bushfire or a bit of war footage and a funeral.
    Last week when the heatwave here stopped, they were driven to showing bushfires and death and destruction from about ten years ago as they ran out of ‘heat’ stories.
    Well meaning people of gentle persuasion just bump up their anxiety.
    Even if they look at a BBC/National Geographic nature story the dark music comes on and we are told that some furry creature will be destroyed by climate change.
    SBS usually shows these.
    There is no balance, there is no care for the general public who are told that it’s all their own fault.
    The public is driven into activities that make no difference to climate, and at the same time impoverish them, with greatest effect on the poor.
    My soon to be a hundred agnostic father always told me
    “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.
    It is an injustice to burden people with untruth.

  28. This is obviously a satire.
    It is a spoof of the type of alarmism found at SkS.
    Critique it for its failure to use phony graphs and misuse of Christianity – real alarmists offer no such succour to the old faith.

  29. I’ve just been to this crackpot’s site and he’s clearly going for maximum damage to his own arguments, for example:

    Brad Keyes says:
    January 13, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    I second Veliko. Don’t feel lonely. There are millions with you.

    Very true.

    We are many.

    And the deniers are few.

    We know where they live. We know where they work. We know where their children go to school. And we will win, because knowledge is power.

  30. Ease up – I’m with M Courtney, LevelGaze etc. this is satire. I simple read of his site shows that. Actually some of his stuff is very clever. I like this quote:
    “I’m not a climate scientist. So I don’t pretend to be competent to interpret the evidence. All I can do is interpret the interpretation given to it by the world’s leading policy, government, political, economic and scientific minds, who’ve painstakingly filtered and vetted every sentence in what is probably the thickest, densest collaboration in modern science.”

    The phrase ‘the thickest, densest collaboration in modern science’ is the giveaway. Not sure about the US, but in the UK that is not being complementary. ‘Thick’, and ‘Dense’ mean ‘Stupid’

  31. “Action on climate” is another “People’s Revolution” that the people don’t want, but which the self-styled elites are determined to impose, with the collaboration of low-level functionaries like this individual.

    One thing is certain — it has nothing to do with climate or the planet.

  32. It i frightening how self-isolated these people are. ‘ I”m a poor scientist and human being who spends his time advocating policies that kill many thousand of people per year. Why do you keep tormenting liars and cheats like the lovely Dr Mann? Just because his hockey stick has long been shown to be nothing but a fraud, and , just because he promoted it around the world to force policy makers to imposed massive tax and energy price increases. It’s not our fault. Please be nice to us ‘

  33. Oh my… The guy makes clearly fun of the whole debate (and pretty good one, in my oppinion) and you fall for it! Just look at his web site. He’s quite sharp and funny I think.

  34. Well I’m happy, a new word, soi-disant, self-styled, pretended from the French ‘oneself saying’. I can’t wait to use it but it will have to be typed because I don’t know how to pronounce it yet.

  35. Leaving aside his mauling of the real science, which has been comprehensively answered by:

    Konrad says:
    January 21, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    the mangling of the English language by this individual is absolutely appalling and contributes nothing to his religious belief in AGW, it fact it is a complete turn off!

  36. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

    Just read an article discussing probity and climate science. A precis.
    The issue is that neither ‘skeptic’ nor ‘warmist’ can ‘prove’ incontrovertibly the amount of global
    warming.

    Now that the leading scientific institutions have embraced global warming, individual skeptics
    have little role to play.
    Yet the past predictions of temperature are no longer supportable.
    By making alarmist predictions supporting the IPPC, the confidence of ordinary people in science and scientists is eroded.
    The scientists have managed to appear at arms length from the funding needed to run their research.This funding could dry up if the research does not give the right outcomes or the scientist is seen to disagree with the consensus.
    The models have always been known to poorly model clouds and the ocean temperature.
    This is not addressed yet.
    The conclusion

    ‘In short, there is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted. Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky. They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong.’

    Garth Paltridge is an emeritus professor at the University of Tasmania and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. He is the author of The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming. He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.

  37. Brad Keyes hit all the hot buttons, but one. I’ll leave it as an exercise for Mr. Keyes to determine which hackle-raiser he missed.

  38. Have the Consensualists ever even acknowledged the existence of untoward consequences of any of their suggested/demanded mitigations, much less made any quantitative analysis of the balance of desired and undesired outcomes? Not even once, casually, in passing, AFAIK.

  39. Brad says: …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….

    Out of context? Well no, not really. The topic of this thread is whether there is an ethical obligation to be honest, and the writer of the ‘soundbite’ is right on topic. He had just written, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”

    The writer, by the way was Paul, who was quite proud of his Jewish heritage. There was a time in his life when he would have been greatly insulted if anyone referred to him as “Greek.”

    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….

    I’m not sure how Christ and the apostles got in here, but if they have any relevance to this thread, Brad, you might consider that those apostles presented Jesus as someone who might indeed have understood Arrhenius:

    “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!”

  40. H.R. He misses the “sceptics are delusional conspiracy nuts” line.
    But I think he may have chosen that line in order to over-egg the “sceptics are deliberately malevolent” line.

    It is quite clever and well-thought through.

  41. M Courtney says:
    January 22, 2014 at 1:07 am
    —-l
    He might even be a 5th columnist. One can but hope :)

  42. Let’s ban stage impersonators for Plagiarizing the characteristics of others. Or let’s insist that satires should include citations. Perhaps Brad should have added a footnote to Schneiders ‘famous’ quote.
    I’m warming to Simon Hopkinsons hypothesis.

  43. Another quote from Brad on his site may give people some clues as to his interesting pint of view.

    “Climate change is real.

    Now.

    Climate change is happening.

    Now.

    It may even be happening near you. Someone you know may already have experienced it.

    It could be anyone. A fellow faculty member. That loner who sits in the back row at your Greenpeace chapter meetings. A member of a completely different faculty.

    Talk to them. More importantly: listen to them, and be a shoulder to cry on. They may seem irrational, or be in denial, or take their anger out on you. Don’t take it personally! These are just normal stages in the process of healing from climate trauma. Above all, resist the natural desire to suggest cheap, easy solutions—there are none, and it can be very offensive to propose them—and never, for god’s sake, tell the victim they should “try to adapt.”

    Just be there. That’s what climate-change survivors need.”

  44. And this goes to the heart of it all probably

    “How bad does the science have to get before we do something to stop it?”

  45. Simon Hopkinson says:
    January 22, 2014 at 2:41 am

    “You know the urban myth about Americans being generally incapable of recognising sarcasm when they see it?

    Not so much a myth.”

    Apparently!

  46. RichardLH says at January 22, 2014 at 2:54 am… quite.
    However, there is an important issue here.

    The lack of ability to spot the tone of a text is quite debilitating in the internet age. Moving pictures and talking heads are just too slow for the coveyance of complex ideas.

    Perhaps more poetry reading from an early age would help?

  47. Neo-Keynesian : In the long run, the Swabian Housewife will destroy the economy with her thrift and industry!
    Neo-Scientist : In the long run, the observations will conform to the model output!
    Neo-Climatologist : Not your average anomaly!
    Neo-Pothead : The grass is greener on the other side!
    Neo-Guardian : All the people on the Left, are right!

    Neo-Me: I may be older in the morning, but Oreskes will be fuglierer!

    Neo-Classicist : Defend the pennies and the pennies defend the Dollar.
    Defend the Scientific method and the method defends the scientist!

  48. Courtney, et. al, – those who undertook to read the man’s site recognize the parody for what it is. He certainly has mastered the style.
    Some of us have grown weary enough of the type not to have bothered.

  49. I like the title of his home page: “Musings from Germany on climate, science and climate science.”

    I interpret that as there’s climate, and there’s science. And then there’s climate science – which has nothing to do with either climate or science.

  50. Where do you live Brad? North East USA – lucky guess? Take a stroll outside over the next week or two and take time to enjoy the global warming!

  51. Brad on Prof Lewandowsky: (quoted at Geoff’s blog)

    http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/lews-crews-loose-screws-by-brad-keyes/

    Brad:
    “To call Lewandowsky a quack smears ducks.

    He’s a joke on the behavioral and mental sciences, an enemy to the hard-working army of mental health professionals whose driving motivation is to help other human beings, a disgrace to the Australian Psychological Society and a herpes sore on the reputation of any other body promiscuous enough to accredit him.

    SOURCE—Lewandowsky’s intellectually suicidal outburst can be seen here:

    http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428#comment_14042
    – Brad Keyes

  52. Satire, true believer, cautionary tale or just perennial second rater- like everyone else supported by my tax dollars stolen by a succession of cancerous governments- The Conversation, The Drum, and all the sinecures and handouts should be stopped immediately and these people can talk amongst themselves without my sponsorship through the legalised theft of excessive taxation.

    To the government- cut your spending, IT ISN’T YOURS TO GIVE.

    As for the original plagiarised post- it’s a troll attempt whether he is sincere or not.

  53. Problem with him is he’s indistinguishable from the ordinary warmist, think Franny Armstrong or Keith Farnish or Linkola, sounds like one of them with only one Ritalin more. Eli Rabbett has written like a crazy person for ages now; they are all so beyond the pale that his schtick is indistinguishable from their writing, plus, “The Conversation” sounds like one big Sokal hoax anyway, so how tell the genuine crackpots from the imitators.

  54. I want to know if someone left a burning bag of dog poop on Brad’s front step and rang his doorbell. He can blame skeptics for ruining his loafers, too.

    Just so much there that I have to believe he’s putting us on.

  55. Simon Hopkinson’s tsk tsking at Americans at 2:41am would have been so much more effective if he had submitted it, say, three hours earlier. You know, before Mike Mellor’s comment at 11:53PM. That was the first time anyone in this thread used the words satire or sarcasm in regards to Brad’s rant.

  56. When I first read that comment I thought it was satire.

    Now I find it is not. You can read his thoughts here:

    A question for deniers
    Dear denialatus / denialata,

    Have you read the latest IPCC report?

    I have. I’ve seen the science. And it’s not good.

    Species stress. Ocean neutralization. Deep-ocean warming as rapid as ever since measurements began.

    Increased risk of drought and/or precipitation. Human-caused wildfires in Australia. Glaciers continuing to melt, causing major river systems. Weather predicted to become less and less predictable. Armed conflict in Africa. A century of gender equality at risk in the Middle East. Diseases once safely confined to Africa now threatening developed populations to the North.

    I’m not a climate scientist. So I don’t pretend to be competent to interpret the evidence. All I can do is interpret the interpretation given to it by the world’s leading policy, government, political, economic and scientific minds, who’ve painstakingly filtered and vetted every sentence in what is probably the thickest, densest collaboration in modern science.

    You might prefer to latch on to isolated mistakes in a thousand-page-plus document—as if false predictions somehow, magically, falsify an entire theory. I’m pretty sure that’s not how science works, but hey, you clearly know better….

  57. Steven Hales says: “His earnestness reminds me of a sophomore co-ed.”

    High school sophomores protest!

  58. Between NOAA’s claims that we are actually warming up, and Trenberth’s admission we are not, and this interesting post from Keyes, and Lewandowsky’s on going sad meltdown, something is moving in the force.

  59. Mike Mellor says: @ January 21, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I too thought it was a fine piece of sarcasm. Unfortunately it wasn’t! INCREDIBLE
    (See my other comment with his quotes if it ever gets out of moderation)

  60. “Obviously I can’t even begin to put myself in the shoes of a world-leading researcher like Dr Michael Mann,”

    The first of many laugh out loud moments.

  61. OK, I think I just answered the question.

    He is a very fine satirist as I first thought.

    Wotts Up With That Blog
    Brad Keyes says: @ October 29, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    ” And anyone putting forward alarmism is an alarmist. But the threshold for this alarm is fiercely disputed, as is the action we should take.”

    So you agree—you are alarmed. And presumably you want to raise the alarm. So that others will be alarmed. So that they then can take action. All perfectly rational—which is why I don’t hear anything derogatory in the word “alarmist.” It’s purely descriptive, the way I say it. Putting myself in your shoes as much as humanly possible, I think I’d rather own the word “alarmist” than pretend it doesn’t apply.

    This is not to rule out the possibility or probability that others use “alarmist” to pejorate—but I don’t. And if you “owned” it, surely it would disempower those who misuse it in that way.

    In case you’re wondering, yes, I feel exactly the same about “denier.” Provided you’re willing to say what I deny—without infantilising me as a “climate”, “climate change,” “climate science” or “science” denier—feel free to use that term. It may have been introduced maliciously, in an allusion to the Holocaust, but it doesn’t have to be used maliciously forever. I think we “deniers” made a mistake by not “getting over it” as Richard Lindzen (a Holocaust descendant) has done.

  62. Obviously I can’t even begin to put myself in the shoes of a world-leading researcher like Dr Michael Mann

    Obviously I can’t even begin to put myself in the shoes of such an ignoramus.

  63. Having gone back and read the original piece at http://climatenuremberg.com/

    Dear me, liberally larded with the usual conflation of AGW scepticism with Holocaust denial, as fine a baseless, anti-scientific rant as I’ve seen from a bedwetter in a long while.

    What a nasty, abusive rant, it demonstrates perfectly why I have taken to referring to Brad and his deluded ilk as McScientists.

    And as for his incoherent whine above, has anyone offered him a tissue?

  64. A reason for the confusion as to whether the author was serious or not:

    Recall Poe’s law and it’s variants: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody Warmist beliefs in such a way that someone won’t mistake it for the genuine article.”

    or, in a variation of Arthur C. Clarke’s old law of technology, “Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.”

  65. It can’t be satire as he holds Stephen Schneider is high regard. Plus I read The Conversation every day precisely to see what higher ed in Australia wants people to believe are the currently important issues. They all skew to implanting the need for transformative change.

    This post yesterday from the UK shows just what we are dealing with under the heading of climate change. http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2014/socialbrain/creative-response-climate-change/ “It’s not just environmental.”

    No kidding.

  66. Dear Mr. Keyes,
    If this is your idea of ‘science’, please ask yourself: would you accept this same viewpoint from a virologist or oncologist? They should just tweak the numbers if it was politically advantageous for them to get noticed or grants?

  67. Satire layered upon satire and done so well it is like an Onion article that has suckered everyone in to believing the author, in his matter of fact rewording, or in some cases /sarc on/-OMG! actually plagiarizing- /sarc off/ of some of the warmest of warmists, actually believes the crap he is sarcastically respewing for us to laugh at!!! LMAO! Well done, Brad.

  68. To all who think its not satire: read it carefully. Its absolutely brilliant.
    Brad’s blog is also very much worth a read.

  69. To be honest, I’ve had so many crackpot emails directed at me that sound a lot like this that I find it hard to distinguish this from them. If this is indeed satire, then it is as some commenters say, quite brilliant.

    OTOH, he should make that known, on his about page (which is why I checked, because I thought at first maybe that was the case) so that people like Dr. Susan Crockford and others don’t take him seriously, but simply smile and chuckle.

  70. It tickled me, somewhat.
    His words are almost identical to certain regulars at the Gerauniad but he doesn’t pause between the inconsistencies and so highlights them.
    Quite briliant.

  71. Oh quite the admirable concept of setting aside one’s own doubts and concerns. Via Brad’s words and I quote: “So THEY have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts THEY might have.”

    If he had just added: “We are making the world a better place.”

    Then I would’ve really thought he was a follower of Adolf Hitler. How much better the world would be if everyone lived their lives that way. Jump onto a cause and ignore your doubts. When you’re making the world a better place, doubts get in the way of progress. (Am I supposed to put a sarc thingy in here?)

    I’m not going to comment on his stupid aggrandizing statements comparing Christ’s trials to the trials of climate scientists. Apocalypse indeed. Okay, I did, sort of, after all.

    What a scary look into a dark mind. The worst of it is so many people are ready and willing to blindly follow in the AGW and many other things. I hear the readership is up on mein kampf.

  72. The guy is good at it, I’ll give him that (From Gail’s example “proving” that he’s serious):

    Deep-ocean warming as rapid as ever since measurements began. (not measured at all yet?)
    Increased risk of drought and/or precipitation. (yes, one or the other, maybe even both?)
    Glaciers continuing to melt, causing major river systems. (guess it’s got to go somewhere on its way to causing rising seas…)
    Weather predicted to become less and less predictable. (predictions are so challenging, why even try?)
    Armed conflict in Africa. (for the first time ever?)
    A century of gender equality at risk in the Middle East. (ah yes, those golden years for Middle Eastern women…)
    Diseases once safely confined to Africa … (yes, “safely” confined)

    By declaring himself an non-scientist he puts himself in the shoes of the average citizen alarmist, and then succeeds in sounding a lot like them. Who hasn’t read hundreds of idiotic rants much like his satirical ones above, seriously submitted by people who are sure the world is about to bake, or otherwise end at our hands? Even some “scientists” manage to skate near the edge, for that matter.

    And starting the ball rolling by getting an exact copy of someone else’s work run as the Quote of the Week has to be considered quite an accomplishment in itself.

  73. Foxgoose says:
    Is it really not obvious to some here that old Brad is “taking the piss”.

    What’s the US equivalent?

    (Perhaps there isn’t one – could that be the problem?)

    There are often wide cultural differences between how humor is perceived, when it becomes subtle, the problem of detecting it is exacerbated. Mr Keyes writes from Australia, so I assume his pedigree has some British humor in it.

    Also, managing WUWT, I have little time to spend on comments elsewhere, so many commenters noting his exploits elsewhere as proof of his satirical intent have an advantage of familiarity with Mr. Keyes that I don’t have.

  74. Climate Nuremberg is fantastic. I especially enjoyed the comments and replies under A question for deniers (“if anything, the vast majority of legitimate climate physicians would say I’m hypoventilating”). Funny.

  75. Foxgoose (@Foxgoose) says:
    January 22, 2014 at 7:30 am

    Oh dear!
    Is it really not obvious to some here that old Brad is “taking the piss”.
    What’s the US equivalent?

    “Pulling your leg” comes to mind.

  76. Matt Schilling:

    Simon Hopkinson’s tsk tsking at Americans at 2:41am would have been so much more effective if he had submitted it, say, three hours earlier. You know, before Mike Mellor’s comment at 11:53PM. That was the first time anyone in this thread used the words satire or sarcasm in regards to Brad’s rant.

    With the utmost respect, consider my comment relative to Anthony’s blog post rather than anyone’s subsequent comment. Brad and I follow each other on Twitter and I’ve been very much a fan of his sardonic style for some time. Brad’s site is like a honey trap for alarmists. He draws them in and then drowns them with their own idiocy, vitriol and anti-scientific hyperbole. It’s clever stuff because it doesn’t tell anyone their view is wrong, rather it lovingly bludgeons them senseless with the stark reality of their error.

    A few minutes absorbing the content of Brad’s site should be all that is needed for anyone to understand the mechanism employed. And if that doesn’t happen, there has to be a reason.

  77. Thanks Anthony for this posting and thanks to all of the commenters. This was a great read in many different ways.

  78. Why is it that a great many now invoke “science” and “reason” and cite fallacies like “ad-hominem” while indulging in name calling, flimsy arguments, naked assertions, self righteousness and ad-hominems?

    Any capacity for self reflection? Or does citing bromides about self reflection cover that base too?

  79. Brad Keyes
    Re: “Taking bible out of context” “pure disinformation”
    You stated: “only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’”
    Presuming your statement was to be taken at face value and not satire, that is a classic example of “Noble Cause Corruption”. Such Noble Cause Corruption was extensively evidenced in the Climategate emails Accordingly,
    I gave extracts of a leading document describing Noble Cause Corruption. Accordingly I explicitly cited Paul Romans 3:8 as the best biblical description of “Noble Cause Corruption”.

    Re: “disingenuously fails to mention that it does NOT come from a climate scientist.”
    Explicit quotations of foundational ethics are not “disingenous” – except to those apparently ignorant of of the Judeo-Christian / Western worldview. Even a student of ethics should immediately recognize that as a quote from Romans 3:8 by Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, a major writer of ethical statements in the New Testament.

    Re: “Christ and his apostles . . .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)”
    On ethics, you appear unfamiliar with who Christ understood himself to be. e.g.,
    The Son of Man is the ultimate authority on justice who will judge all people. Matthew 25:31-46.
    The Apostles affirmed that. e.g. Peter (Acts 17:31) stated:

    because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

    The Founders of the USA similarly declared him to be “the Supreme Judge of the world, before whose standards they “appeal[ed] . . .for the rectitude of [their] intentions”.
    On what basis do you claim that the work of Arrhenius (CO2 absorption), superseded the ethics of Christ? The ethical issues are:
    1) How are we to best care for the widow, orphan and the poor? James 1:27
    2) How are we to wisely steward our resources? Matthew 25:14-30
    Your writing presumes that a) anthropogenic CO2 b) causes major global warming, with c) harmful consequences and d) must be stopped by mitigation. Each of those have major scientific and economic uncertainties, with major moral issues on the alternatives. Challenging, objecting to, and providing alternatives to each of these presuppositions is neither anti-scientific nor unethical. For an alternative perspective, see publications by the Cornwall Alliance, where caring for the poor is given priority over keeping earth at its current climate.

    On what authority to you hold that “two millennia of advancements and rethinks in ethics, most dramatically in the last two decades” supersede the ethics and judicial standards of Christ and his apostles? You have given no evidence to justify that.
    It appears that you hold to requiring that we spend all our resources on keep earth at its current climate – with negligible benefit. Contrast the ethics of Christ who commanded us first to Love God above all, and secondly to love our neighbor as ourself

    By your assertion of a coming IPCC “apocalypse”, it appears sadly “obvious” that you have not read the “Apocalypse” (Revelation) of “Jesus Christ”. Nor do you appear aware of Jesus Christ’s predictions of people cursing God over plagues of solar caused heatwaves (if interpreted literally). See Revelation 16:8-9

    8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed[a] the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.

    I challenge you to fully explore the massive scientific uncertainties and major alternative actions, rather than presuming “Schneiderian/Mullerian/Kopaczian climate ethics” and castigating others with ad hominem logical fallacies.

    Regards

    David

    (PS If you understand who Christ and his apostles claimed him to be, why would one by whom all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, . . . —all things were created through him and for him. >he who “created all things” would not be familiar with CO2 absorption/radiation – let alone the detailed impacts of clouds?)

  80. I have concluded that Brad Keyes is a brilliant writer of sarcasm. Here is another gem from his website-

    Posted by Brad Keyes on October 30, 2013

    “Ode to a Bristlecone Pine

    What good is that wood?
    That wood is no good.
    Would you graph that wood?
    I don’t think I would.

    B.K.
    Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill, Utah Territory, Oct. 1813″

    And another Brad Keyes post on Nov 1, 2013 concerning the IPCC reports-

    “Dear denialatus / denialata,
    Have you read the latest IPCC report?
    I have. I’ve seen the science. And it’s not good.
    As the science gets worse and worse, my question to everyone who’s in denial is:
    How bad does the science have to get before we do something to stop it?
    At what point do you finally join the rest of us in demanding urgent, significant cuts?”

    :-)

  81. Brad
    For an excellent article providing a rational ethical perspective see:
    John Stossel: Chill Out Over Global Warming

    The world has real problems, though: malaria, malnutrition, desperate poverty. Our own country, while relatively rich, is deep in debt. Obsessing about greenhouse gases makes it harder to address these more serious problems.

    Environmentalists assume that as people get richer and use more energy, they pollute more. The opposite is true. As nations industrialize, they pay more attention to pollution. Around the world, it’s the most prosperous nations that now have the cleanest air and water.

    Industrialization allows people to use fewer resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas. We figure out how to get more food from smaller pieces of land.

    And one day we’ll probably even invent energy sources more efficient than oil and gas. We’ll use them because they’re cost-effective, not because government forces us to.

  82. Brad,
    That was a fine piece of spewing forth of messages. Whether satire or serious counsel I take it as another dose of miscalculation by the usual lofty and wayward defenders of the climate con.

    Your implications take “missing the point” to new levels as you demonstrate how thoroughly
    sideways one can go to avoid being show to be thoroughly wrong.

    Which IMO is almost certainly the central fatal flaw with the global warming pitchmen.

    They are incapable of subjecting themselves, their pitch and their science to open, public scrutiny and discussion.

    When they find themselves under scrutiny they come kicking and screaming of ill treatment.

    Yours and their misery is self inflicted. The lofting of climate claims from on high and behind
    walls of shame is deserving of the treatment it gets and would be easy to rebuke and deflate if the climate con men were honest. They are not.
    And there in lies your real enemy. The truth.

  83. “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.”

    This approach has one big flaw . What if what you are proposing or pushing on the public is completely wrong and if followed would put the public and the globe in even greater danger and wasted expense despite your well intentioned idea. And the statment ” make little mention of any doubts they might have , removes the last safety valve that the public might have to question the doubtful aspect of your idea..This approach has been used in the past by powers who have ill will intentions or someting very wrong to hide. I am amazed that the scientific field is pursuing this “dark powers” approach. As we have now seen , nothing good has become of this and the public was steered in the wrong direction with a lot of wasted dollars . The globe is cooling not warming.

  84. From what I’ve seen, AGW pushers probably rank right up at the top among other far-left true-believers when it comes to having no sense of humor. Roping them in with satire they don’t recognize may have some entertainment value for skeptics, but it’ll likely only instill vague confusion in AGWer’s minds. If you really want to live rent-free in their minds and give them sleepless nights, challenge any true-believer to prove their core tenet which would cause their beliefs to collapse in ponzi scheme-like fashion if they lost all faith in it. They REALLY can’t handle that, they change the subject as soon as they can, but your hit still resides in their minds like a cancer.

  85. I’m finally convinced it is satire. However, the confusion here arises from the fact that it could easily have been written by a warmist – the weepy whiny poor us being set upon by big bad oil and coal bullies – even the title of Mann’s book: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines has this satirical quality. Missing the satire is understandable when the real deal are also caricature-like. I couldn’t find the WUWT post on Bill McKibben – the lost soul looking for something worthwhile in life being rescued by global warming activism.

  86. Anthony Watts says:
    January 22, 2014 at 8:23 am
    Foxgoose says:
    Is it really not obvious to some here that old Brad is “taking the piss”.

    What’s the US equivalent?
    (Perhaps there isn’t one – could that be the problem?)

    There are often wide cultural differences between how humor is perceived, when it becomes subtle, the problem of detecting it is exacerbated. Mr Keyes writes from Australia, so I assume his pedigree has some British humor in it.

    Yes – I think you’re right Anthony.

    I’ve always thought it has something to to with a relatively new heterogeneous society like the US breeding clear unambiguous communication – whereas ancient, relatively monocultural, European based ones have bred more subtle hidden signals.

    It’s been a fascinating thread, anyway. ;-)

  87. The Gods in the Clouds are laughing at this one, dwelling in their ancient, monocultural, niche; no surprise for Anthony, clouds fool him daily, or at least weekly.
    =======================

  88. … 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!

    And what is this advancement on the teachings of Jesus that occurred most dramatically in the last two decades? What is this revolutionary and much improved “rethink”? According to Brad Keyes it is the advent of “Schneiderian ethics,” following that interview of Schneider in Discovery in magazine which first “opened [Keyes] mind,” the interview where Schneider opined that to save the world by drastic anti-human action, in the absence of any clear evidence of the need to do so, it was necessary to lie to the public, so they would THINK there were scientific grounds for drastic anti-human action, when in fact there are none.

    Keyes is perfectly up front about all of this, asserting triumphantly that rejection of the “just the truth, ma’am” conception of science “didn’t die with the late great Professor Schneider!”

    I prefer the model of Jesus, who when asked by Pilate to describe himself, answered: “I am here to be a witness for truth. All who are of the truth hear me.” By this measure Schneider is an anti-Christ and Keyes is his adoring acolyte.

  89. I fell for it.
    Brad Keyes, does Mighty Mann perfectly.
    As the very model of an modern alarmist lackey.
    My first take was the coolaid is amazingly good stuff.
    Brilliant satire.
    Not being familiar with this mans work, he fooled me.
    Much appreciated will follow his commentary in future.

  90. wws says (January 22, 2014 at 6:33 am): ‘or, in a variation of Arthur C. Clarke’s old law of technology, “Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.”’

    Indeed. If I wanted to read alarmist rants (I don’t), I’d read the real thing. I do like satire, but what I read of the post had a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Meh.

  91. It is easy to be taken in by writing of this nature. Some of the statements we’ve come to expect from MM(one could be thinking of a famous mouse here) defy parody and who could forget the woman and her cell phone missives.

  92. No shame john robertson . I fell for it in the quotes here at WUWT. When I went to his site (for a fight) I nearly kicked myself. In less than a minute you could see the incongruity of the different hypobolia.
    And it is funny, very funny, because all these lines can be found for real on internet discussions. But not together as they are fundamentally self-defeating.
    And hilarious.

  93. I am tending to the conclusion the guys is not serious. The rant simply contains too many lunatical assertions. It is more proof that half the population has below average intelligence.

    I will not waste more time on it. Konrad already said, “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.

    If he is real he is not able to think independently enough to extricate himself from the slough of climate crap into which he slipped. When he flips and starts causing bodily harm, the Team must be held responsible for this is the sorry outcome of promoting carefully crafted, significant lies in the public domain.

    CO2 is rising fast. It is not getting warmer. There is no stored heat. The food supply is in peril from decades of continuous cooling. Deal with it.

  94. Dear Brad,

    “… Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.”
    Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, published 1958

    Never !

  95. Brad: Raving loon or brilliant satirist?

    His disparaging of Einstein inclines me toward the latter.

  96. Well, I guess it’s time for me to chime in!

    For what it’s worth, I’d never heard of Brad before all this. So while some of you had the background to know that satire is “his style,” I was in the dark. I could not discern satire from the original comment he left that I quoted (at the time or even now, frankly). Too subtle for me I guess. Without the “context” of his blog or comments elsewhere, I took it at face value.

    I haven’t heard from Brad since all this began, I think he’s enjoyed this.

    Remember, I simply pointed out that his statement was “astonishing” (which it was) – it all kind of snowballed over here. His comment was not meant to be the point of my post.

    What was that post about, anyway? Oh yeah, Amstrup and his starving polar bear sob story.

    Anyway, I’m glad to hear that people enjoyed the hash-over, including Brad.

    Thanks, Anthony, for the link; Paul Matthews for the tip, and the rest of you for your support.

    Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience

  97. This guy is truly brilliant, this is the kind of person who can persuade the alarmists(or any other misguided do-gooder) that he is a full supporter of their cause, yet leave them squirming for days, as they try to silence the disquiet he causes.
    I went to his site, very good stuff, magnificent abuse of the english language.
    If he ever runs for political office, his constituents are doomed.

  98. Susan Crockford says about Keyes:

    while some of you had the background to know that satire is “his style,” I was in the dark.

    Keyes may have been carelessly satirical, or off-the-wall, or whatever one wants to call it, in his original astonishing comment, but the ensuing comment that is the subject of this post seems to be entirely sincere, and is an extended paen to the glory of Schneiderian dishonesty as a new higher kind of morality than the truth telling espoused by Jesus and traditional science.

    The man basically strapped on a bomb and exploded it, harmlessly to all but himself, in the middle of a field. What a perverse spectacle, but good to have him gone.

  99. If you absolutely had to choose, which would you say was greater:

    Michael Mann’s contribution to science, or his contribution to science communication?

    I know, I know, that sounds like a weird question—Dr Mann is still alive, after all, and is a prolific and world-leading contributor to both spheres of human endeavour.

    But no matter how the Climate Wars end, one thing we can predict with certainty is that Mann’s admirers will be having this argument 20, 30 and 50 years from now.

    If you put a gun to my head, I’d have to say that I think of Mike as the new Feynman: yes, his science is brlliant and has already changed my life[style], but it’s his way of putting scientific concepts into words that really electrifies, and will still be quoted fondly long after his scientific ideas have been exonerated, replicated, confirmed, reinforced and accepted as textbook knowledge.

    In fact one of Mike’s sayings is particularly relevant to what I’ve gone through today and yesterday as a result of daring to stand up for scientific honesty, effectiveness and the balance between them.

    Mike once told me (in his book) that the well-known coordinated assault by the soi-disant skeptic community upon his science, his character and his being was like something on Discovery Channel. He called it the “Serengeti Strategy”—a metaphor which has come back to me many times these last 48 hours, and comforted me.

    I hardly ever watch a nature documentary. Nature has never interested me much—I’m more into climate, weather, marine chemistry, atmospheric physics, radiative physics and science in general.

    But I think even I can parse Mike’s analogy.

    Soi-disant skeptics are like lions stalking zebra (the scientists and those who support/believe them). But it isn’t easy for them. The noble herbivores are too many, and their assassins are few. And much like human vegetarians, the zebra live and move in harmony, cooperatively and altruistically. Social justice is a powerful instinct—they encircle and protect their runts, gimps and weaklings.

    Of course, this isn’t literal: what I’m saying is that my “side” thinks as one, coherently—whereas on a whole array of scientific questions the soi-disant skeptics disagree with each other, sometimes very publicly! As PatternRecognitionGate revealed, soi-disant skeptic scientists might publish, but the conclusions they publish aren’t even necessarily consistent with each other, and instead of each conclusion building incrementally on previous work, their findings might oscillate almost at random! Worse still, individual soi-disant skeptics often promote hypotheses, explanations and predictions regarding climate change which contradict those being promoted by other soi-disant skeptics AT THE SAME TIME. So the soi-disant skeptical movement in its pride (no pun intended) really is like an “army of Davids” (if Goliath, and not David, was the good guy). Soi-disant skeptical thinking is a pride of minds; we, by contrast, are a herd mind.

    So the predators need a strategy (technically, a “trick”). If you’ve seen this on TV, you know what happens next.

    The tactic is to target a single zebra. And which one do they choose?

    The fastest, healthiest, most avant-garde stallion. The one who sticks his neck out, leading the herd. By taking down the alpha stud they can demoralize, disorient and delay the whole herd.

    Perhaps, then, I should be flattered by the attacks on me in the last couple of days, as Mike was. If his zoology is right, then MBH98 wasn’t, in fact, targeted at random, as is generally thought—rather it’s something of a badge of honor to fall into the crosshairs of a certain amateur statistician.

    (Fortunately Mike is not the kind of scientist to let that achievement go to his head. In fact, if you ask him, the Hockey Stick is a footnote, a diversion. His superb, self-effacing memoir, ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,’ devotes several chapters to this point: let’s not get hung up on the Hockey Stick, he tells us. Whether the Hockey Stick is right or the Hockey Stick is wrong, the current War isn’t a War about the Hockey Stick and nothing but the Hockey Stick—they don’t call them Hockey-Stick Wars, do they?—so let McIntyre crow about alleged Hockey-Stick flaws; let’s move on from the Hockey Stick already. Please read it—not only will it expand your understanding of the climate change issue beyond the HockeyStickHockeyStickHockeyStick caricature to a whole world of supporting, non-Hockey-Stick evidence, but you’ll be helping Mann’s legal fund. He’s currently being dragged through not one but a number of simultaneous lawsuits, which in addition to slowing down his research could also wind up being financially ruinous. The only thing worse than a world where science is interrogated not in the lab but in the courtroom is one in which scientists hesitate to publish for fear of being put through such an ordeal. If Mike loses, humanity loses.)

    The storm of abreactions I’ve provoked—apparently for the crime of raising awareness of the Faustian bargain our scientists have to negotiate in today’s world between encyclopedic transparency and saving the species—should not have shocked me, but it has. When I’m less shaken I will fully and frankly refute the claims of my critics, one by one.

    Brad

  100. RACookPE1978 says:
    January 23, 2014 at 10:10 am
    Brad Keyes says:
    January 23, 2014 at 9:44 am

    Excellent satire! A wonderful parody of intelligent thought, thank you!

    “If you put a gun to my head, I’d have to say that I think of Mike as the new Feynman. . . ”

    I don’t think that’s satire. Reads more like delusional thinking, akin to schizophrenia, especially the lead post: unintelligible, self-important babble.

    And by the way, Mr. Keyes, it’s Michael Mann who is suing people (namely Mark Steyn) for making fun of him, not the other way round.

    /Mr Lynn

  101. For certain you will need to break into catastrophic climactic song if you lose your Keyes.
    Sorry, but that’s why puns start with pu.

  102. I should have suspected on the previous thread when I found myself laughing and spraying coffee all over my screen. Now I’m laughing at myself. Some of you need to lighten up a little and do the same. Learn to laugh at the angry penguin :-)

  103. The Pompous Git:

    re your post at January 23, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    I, too, commented on the previous thread because one of the posts in that thread from Brad Keyes made me laugh so much it hurt. His list of questions was so hilarious I am now laughing out loud at the memory of them!

    And I am grateful to Anth0ny for providing this thread which enables him to fulfill my request to Brad Keyes saying

    More of the same. please. And if our American brethren cannot see the joke then that is their loss, but please provide the rest of us with more laughs.

    Cultures differ but humour can be a weapon in any culture. The brilliance of Brad Keyes is that his satire is so good it is hard for AGW-alarmists to disagree with him even when he provides so daft a rant that it makes them uncomfortable.

    Richard

  104. >> Brad Keyes said: If you put a gun to my head, I’d have to say that I think of Mike as the new Feynman. . . ”

    Mr Lynn replied: I don’t think that’s satire.
    = = = = = = =
    Incredible.
    Gail also concluded that it wasn’t satire after reading and citing Brad’s “endorsement” of the IPCC:
    …the thickest, densest collaboration in modern science
    Thick:
    6. stupid, slow, or insensitive: a thick person
    Dense:
    2. stupid; slow-witted; dull

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thick

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dense

    > “Thanks for having me.”
    >> “Thanks for being had!”

  105. @Richard Courtney 3:23
    Exactly.
    Brad would be my pick to tweet the mann, playing the perfect accolade and sycophant, he completely destroys what he appears to support.
    This mans satire is so good, that I admit some confusion, he plays the alarmed one so well.
    But I realize it does not matter.
    Wether a master satirist or an absolute drinker of the cool aid he succeeds beautifully in conveying the essence of the panic stricken planet saviour.
    Bookmarked that site, for future pleasure.

    And yes it may be, the laugh track conditioned reader of North America does not easily discern the razor tongue of the cynical.
    But also the tone of written material is cultural.

  106. john robertson:

    Thanks for your post at January 23, 2014 at 7:09 pm. It seems you and I are of the same mind on this matter.

    I write to point out my favourite in the wonderful post from Brad Keyes at January 23, 2014 at 9:44 am. Unfortunately, it was too good because the coffee explosively left my mouth when I read

    In fact one of Mike’s sayings is particularly relevant to what I’ve gone through today and yesterday as a result of daring to stand up for scientific honesty, effectiveness and the balance between them.

    “the balance between them”!

    It still brings tears of laughter to my eyes each time I read it.
    Thankyou, Brad Keyes, thankyou.

    Richard

  107. If you are one of the posters who has not yet recognized the grand send-up Brad Keyes has given us – and you possess sufficient fortitude – just scroll through the comments on the “Lawyers Bail on Mark Steyn” thread at David Appell’s blog.

    Appell’s final entry (stamped “1:11″) says:

    “Brad Keyes, you are turning into one of the most obnoxious deniers who has ever posted here.

    “Your credibility is gone. Your time is up. Your latest comments are far off-topic.

    “Future comments won’t be published.”

    A few days ago, I followed a link from SteynOnLine to Appell’s blog, where I spent a good fifteen minutes like richardscourtney mentioned, spewing coffee and laughing so hard that I needed a tissue for the tears. Entry after entry.

    Keyes is utterly hilarious and obviously intelligent. I’m very happy that his is a skeptical voice.

Comments are closed.