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
Brad Keyes,
Still, your bizarre parody of a CAGW activist aside, you are not being honest.
John
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
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.
Me, I was really only satirizing myself!
@polarbearscience
Keep up the good work…
Absolutely hilarious! A parental basement of pajama-sporting, Soros-funded bloggers could not have said it better!
Susan Crockford says about Keyes:
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.
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
Brad Keyes says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:44 am
Excellent satire! A wonderful parody of intelligent thought, thank you!
A truly dangerous mind.
How to thin the herd, by joining.
“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
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.
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 🙂
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
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
>> 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!”
@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.
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
“the balance between them”!
It still brings tears of laughter to my eyes each time I read it.
Thankyou, Brad Keyes, thankyou.
Richard
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.