Susan Crockford writes
…commenter Brad Keyes at The Conversation defends the use of the “Ursus bogus” image with this astonishing statement:
“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.”
More at her Polar Bear Blog
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Pompous Git — I’m very much hoping that my using “Sunny Side of the Street” (here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/quote-of-the-week-sensationalizing-for-the-greater-good/#comment-1544466) to honor your dear friend, Tony, was not offensive to you… . You never said anything and I don’t want to assume you simply didn’t take the time to reply. If I offended you, PLEASE forgive me.
Janice
@ur momisugly Janice Moore
There’s a saying in Australia “Don’t take offence, the farmer needs it to keep the cattle in.” No offence intended, so why would I be offended? I wouldn’t call Tony a “dear” friend; we weren’t all that close. He was though one of the most extraordinarily kind-hearted person I ever met. Only a handful of people turned up to his retirement party a few years back, so I almost felt obliged to attend his funeral. I need not have worried; there was a surprisingly large turnout. Attending funerals, and there are quite a few to attend when you reach your 60s I have discovered, becomes a little wearying at times.
I have asked SWMBO to have the whole of Brahms’ Ein Deutsches Requiem played at my own funeral and my brother-in-law to be the celebrant. He insists he needs at least ten years’ notice 😉
Thank you, so much, Pompous Git, for responding. Don’t take a fence, lol. Glad to know you were not offended. And, good for you to plan your own service (and what lovely music you have chosen). That is one of the kindest things you can do for your loved ones (that and having your estate planning up to date).
Janice: I want to thank you for your helpful research in helping me better find sources of information. You’re gem!
[Snip. You wasted a long comment, calling others “denialists”. Read the site Policy. ~ mod.]
@ur momisugly milodonharlani,
“[Olivia Newton-John] was born in Cambridge, so might also be related to Sir Isaac”
Of course. I thought everyone knew they were related—what else would have moved a bimbonic ditz like ON-J to compose that stirring paean, ‘Physical,’ for the titan of mechanics and optics?
Brad Keyes said @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 1:49 am
More [trimmed] from Brad! Physical was written by Steve Kipner and and Terry Shaddick, not Newton-John.
[Snip. Read the site Policy. ~ mod.]
Brad Keyes:
Thankyou for your rant at January 23, 2014 at 3:25 am. Brilliant!
I had to stop when I reached the reference to Oreskes because I was laughing so much that it hurt.
When I recovered I read the other half of your rant including your list of daft questions. Superb!
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.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
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.
The more I read Brad’s responses here, the more I tend to agree. What’s troublesome, though, is how difficult it has become to tell the difference between satire & serious writing. Two years ago, I would have considered “Global warming will cause another Ice Age” to be satire, but they’re seriously saying it now…
John Tillman,
It’s surprising that you cite the authority of noted science expert Richard Feynman, the physical giant and scientific polymath who more-or-less started *and* completed the field of quantum electrodynamics:
“Another prominent physicist, Feynman, said, ¨Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”. ”
What would he know?
John, I’m afraid this transparently invalid, indeed self-invalidating, manoeuvre on your part was credibility seppuku. Such Jedi mind tricks may be considered kosher among a coterie of soi-disant skeptics, but I’ve read my quota of all-Cretans-are-liars rhetoric. Children could read it. Did that occur to you? Children—who lack the critical faculties to resist assenting to its fallacious charms—could read it and believe it. Which means another satisfied customer for the Merchants of Doubt. The experts are telling us we’re sleepwalking towards a planetary cliff—and I used to wonder why people didn’t believe them! Well, if Oreskes’ book hadn’t told me the answer, the present mala-fide exchange would.
@ur momisugly Brad Keyes
You say:
and then are dismissive of experts including Einstein, Planck, Wein and Feynman, all Nobel prize-winners. Genuine Nobel prizewinners, not bogus as in Mann’s claim to possess such.
So, which is it? Do we pay close attention to what experts tell us, or not? Thus far you contradict yourself.
Dear Moderator,
In my outreach on behalf of the science, it has always been my deeply-held personal tactic to show the maximum possible respect for, and interest in, those who say the science fails to move them. Nonetheless, you noticed in my comments a certain credal designation, a variant spelling of denihilist, with which I referred to the demographic to which the word does, indeed, apply according to just about any academic who studies public climate perceptions. This appears to have been cause for suppressing the entire comment.
I could easily have used different language, but I started using the technical term in question because The Pompous Git had already used it, lulling me into the delusion that such terminology was permitted here.
If you could kindly forward me my unacceptable comments I would gladly amend the language so as to respect the house style rules and repost them.
As I’m sure you’ll agree, the debate already has enough toxic factors without adding climate deletionism!
Thank you
Brad Keyes
[Reply: Read the site Policy, which clarifies what is acceptable here. There is also a big difference between the way the PG used the term, and the insulting way that you used it. Labeling others as “denialists” is not just insulting, it takes the place of thinking. That term, and its variants, is used constantly in other forums, and whenever you see those terms, you are seeing an admission that the labeler has no real facts in support of his argument. ~ mod.]
Well, I guess commentators have given Brad Keyes a painful enough spanking that he’s finally gone away.
I would have like to hear his defense of the plagiarism charge, though, and his explanation of ‘global warming is causing another ice age’…
Oh, well. The alarmist crowd never has been able to make a credible argument.
@ur momisugly dbstealey
We’ve been had! See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/the-man-behind-climate-nuremberg-explains-why-he-thinks-sensationalizing-climate-claims-is-justified/#more-101924
Let me see the deleted comments from Brad Keyes. I missed this the first time round. Just saw my father refer to them on the later thread…
(To attract the mods I’ll quote some of his d-words):
He’s hilarious. What other gold lies hidden underneath the SNIP?
Unlock the Keyes!