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
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.
“Pulling your leg” comes to mind.
Matt Schilling:
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.
Thanks Anthony for this posting and thanks to all of the commenters. This was a great read in many different ways.
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?
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:
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
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?)
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?”
🙂
Brad
For an excellent article providing a rational ethical perspective see:
John Stossel: Chill Out Over Global Warming
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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. 😉
It’s a send-up, may it keep ascending.
==========
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.
=======================
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.
Foxgoose is really Henry James.
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.
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.
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.
Golly, Mr Keyes. I sympathise with your unhappiness and hope you feel better soon.
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.
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.
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 !
Brad: Raving loon or brilliant satirist?
His disparaging of Einstein inclines me toward the latter.