Trump has turned the corner

It wasn’t much of a corner, he was already pretty much there, but yesterday, Donald J. Trump, pretender to the Presidency of the United States, threw in his lot with the “good people” of the fascist, white-supremacist, KKK-loving movement.

There is a lot of commentary out there about this. None of it surprises me, I and others have been pointing at this train wreck all along. But there is one new thing I’ll mention now. Listen to Trump’s tirade about the protestors. When he speaks of the past notables, including Jefferson and Washington, and the statues, he is plain and articulate, non-hesitant, and clear. He sounds like someone with an IQ. He even sounds thoughtful. That is Trump speaking articulately about that which he has often on his mind.

Donald Trump is not a clown who has served as a stooge for Steve Bannon. He is Steve Bannon’s mentor. Trump is not the accidental friend of the Klan and the Nazis. He is, following in his father’s footsteps, the Klan and the Nazis.

Of all the great segments ever done by Rachel Maddow, the following is one of the best; Watch every second of it, and you learn things and you will be afraid:

May I also recommend this also historical piece from a day earlier:

You can tell when Rachel Maddow is about to land a roundhouse punch, when she’s about to put the ball a few blocks down the street from the park, when she starts a segment with something like “Back in 1924.” She appreciates, almost exclusively among commenters and anchors, the importance of the historic context on one hand and the granularity and nuance on the other. Almost wants to make me pay for cable, that’s how good she is.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn

381 thoughts on “Trump has turned the corner

  1. When he speaks of the past notables, including Jefferson and Washington, and the statues, he is plain and articulate, non-hesitant, and clear. He sounds like someone with an IQ.

    That didn’t come through to me. He essentially equated Washington, Jefferson, and the Confederate generals solely on the fact that they owned slaves, ignoring the fact that the Confederates were traitors who fought for men who tried to leave the country to protect the right to own slaves.

    He also, when asked what should be done with the monuments, said that states and local governments should decide, then defended the Nazis and supremacists who were violently protesting a decision made by local government to remove monuments.

    Other than that – I agree with you that a man, especially one who claims to be the president of the people in this country, could stand up and say that there were “decent people” among the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists, and then state that the people opposing those groups are just as evil, sacrificed any claim to having the moral high ground on any topic.

    1. You are criticizing, correctly, what he said, and its logic. I am referring to his fluency, his lack of grammatical wandering, the presence of a concept of sentence structure. I’m saying that for those few moments he was comfortable with what he was saying, because that is what is really in his head.

  2. His authoritarian father was in the KKK, and was arrested at a KKK rally. The shaping of his psyche was undoubtedly greatly influenced by his father, including his constant need for adoration and approval .

    So, it seem to not be inconsistent, in my mind’s eye, to expect that Trump would honor his dead father’s memory by saying that people in KKK rallies are not all bad , that some of them could be good people.

    I think that we can surmise that in Trump’s value system, loyalty to a father is probably higher than loyalty to God, party or country. For obvious reasons. He models himself as the country’s father figure, (although he acts more like an embarrassing casino operator.) He wants and demands loyalty from all citizens, from his staff, from his wife, and his offspring, but he has a limited capacity to show loyalty to anyone else.

    Trump enjoys hurting people. In fact, many of his choices for his administration seem to be aimed at hurting the maximum amount of people. Consciously or subconsciously he likes to hurt people by his actions. By reversing his position every day, he can hurt left and right groups with a kind of alternating current of sadism. He is sadistic. He is also narcissistic and very insecure. He is a master of manipulation, what I call a kind of crowd hypnosis. He gives two okay signs with his somewhat out of proportion hands, and opens his palms, and spreads his hands again, and repeats this ritual again and again. Repetitive visuals. Ambiguous syntax keeps him from antagonizing his base. Novel erratic behaviors and impulsive outbursts continually entertain.

    Well, we need to stay angry, stay focused, and get this Nazi out of office. If we do not depose him soon, he is capable of creating a true, Nazi, police state.

    While writing this, a call came in for some Police Union asking for donations, something about uniting the nation……… creepy……. Over and out.

  3. My question: Why is it bad to denounce both antifa and the neo nazis? To be honest, I agree with the president that both sides are committing acts of violence worth of denouncement. I’m not happy at his unwillingness to refer to white nationalism, which is ironic because he railed against Obama and Hilary Clinton for refusing to acknowledge foreign terrorism being tied to radical Islam. I’m pissed that he spent so much time saying “I don’t support racists.” I also watched the Baltimore protests become riots in part because police were instructed to give them space to act as if destruction of property was acceptable because members and tangential elements of BLM were upset. I watched a community college professor put on a ski mask, go to the Berkeley riots, and swing a bike lock at a kids head for wearing a red hat.

    It’s all wrong. It’s all bad. I want people who commit acts of violence to be prosecuted. I want police to get involved before something like Charlottesville escalates to that levels. My question is, why is it bad to point out radical Marxists on the left?

  4. “both the antifa…”

    It’s really offensive to repeatedly hear clowns assert that the people opposing nazis, the kkk, and white supremacists, are just as bad as those folks.

  5. “My question: Why is it bad to denounce both antifa and the neo nazis?”

    My question is in which drug-addled psychosis did you see antifa?

    Clearly you have manufactured some figment of your stupidity to fit as a balance.

    However, my question is when did antifa run over and kill people?

    I know when some muslims did it and the USA and trump spent NO TIME AT ALL to blame it on islam and call it terror.And not one asshole came out to say “Why is it bad to denounce redneck white supremacist racists and ISIS?”.

  6. “That is Trump speaking articulately about that which he has often on his mind.”
    That is spot on. I read the transcript before I saw the conference though; and I have to say, it made for some weird reading…

    “…not a clown…”
    IMO, not just a clown. There is so much wrong with this guy that you could write a book cataloging and characterizing what is going on with him and what is going on around him.

    Check this (OK, so I mostly like the title, but this article states it simply, clearly, and calmly):
    Cuckoo D’État
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/08/16/cuckoo-detat

    To which I’d reiterate, it’s not enough to sImply scrape the top layer of mold off the pile of stite that is now the Republican party, and who and what it represents. It needs to be broken down, composted, and relegated to history. IMO.

  7. Re Zach: please post statistics to back up your equivalence . “Since 2001, the number of violent attacks on U.S. soil inspired by far-right ideology has spiked to an average of more than 300 a year, according to a study by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.” Where were all those leftist assaults?

    And please note there is a difference between communities who feel that their members are killed to a much larger degree by police and therefore give vent to that frustration and people who bring overt displays of weaponry, carrying and shouting anti semitic and, racist and misogynist slogans into a neighborhood that tries to stand for none of these…

    Make no mistake- we WILL see a further radicalizing of the Left, And it is not all to be laid at Trump’s feet . But any POTUS who has publicly stated that protesters should be “roughed up” or “carried out on stretchers” has NOTHING in common with the values of decency and bears much of the blame for implying that rightwing violence is fine because the other side is doing it…..

  8. “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. ” Mitt Romney

    The Vice interview showed how heavily armed the Nazis and Nationalists were. What a bunch of cowards! Can’t walk outside without a gun! If Trump tries to stay in power by pulling the trigger and inciting these over-armed psychopaths, we will all be in a life and death struggle for our nation and our lives.

    Regarding the distraction of the so called Marxists and: Maoists; that is just scapegoating that is used to justify violence. The actual number of Marxists or Maoists is miniscule. They are used as a Nazi straw dog. The Nazis have a long and bloody history. In this case, they came to a quiet University town shouting racist and anti-semitic slogans, and tried to re-ignite their stupid civil war. The Klan leaders have said that the death of the protester does not bother them a bit.

    It is time to end the Civil War. It is time to stop turning a blind eye towards the treachery and psychopathy which the confederacy represents. It is time to call out the infection of white nationalism for what it is; a disease. A social and behavioral disease.

    Germany has banned public display of the swastika. Perhaps it is time that we do the same for both the swastika and the confederate battle flag ( the stars and bars, not the white one).
    Just as I cannot write “FUCK YOU” in capital letters on the side of my house, you shouldn’t be allowed to violate certain social norms by crapping in the gutter or waving the stars and bars.
    Susceptible minds are ensnared by crazed causes of all sorts.
    And there are a lot of susceptible minds out there, and a lot of crazed causes.

    Trump needs to be removed before he turns the nation into one giant garbage dump.

  9. Once again, this site is bulging with venomous rhetoric and misinformation. Evidently most of you making comments are getting your news from CNN.

    Antifa and BLM gets a pass on being violent and the neonazis supposedly started it all. Evidently those protesting the removal of a statue had their permit and the Antifas and BLMs who showed up did not. They were only there to start more trouble and try to pin this on the President and Republicans.

    Regardless, neither represent the Republican Party, and Donald Trump called out all of the trouble makers. By the way, where were the police? They evidently knew this would be a problem and they did little to nothing to prevent it.

    There is no room for bigotry or violence in America. The blame falls on the local government for not preventing this. Removal of a historic statue on public property is a violation of law. Last time I looked, about 10 minutes ago, there is also free speech, and those demonstrating against removal had their permits. Those protesting against racism the last few days have no permits and are breaking the law, yet they want their right to demonstrate and have free speech.

    The number of “marxists” are more than you think and they are just as bad as the nazis. They go under the banner of “progressives” and call themselves antifascists, yet do what fascists do. Read the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals. Many were also paid to show up and demonstrate.

    Wait, wait… here it comes! You will call me a racist and idiot because I disagrees with you. Well, look in the mirror when you do it because you hate Trump so much you are blinded to realty.

    Also, Steve P, Trump’s father was never in the KKK. The Democratic Party created the KKK and deny it to this day.

    I listened to the full text of Trump’s address. He called all out about violence, and specifically racists, nazis, and white supremacists. Try getting your news from legitimate news instead of from CNN and fake news!

    1. Ripsaw, no, this was the Republican Party that showed up and drove into that crowd. You don’t get 40 years of racist dogwhistles and the Southern Strategy and then get to walk away from all the blame.

      I hate to say it but you are kind of a racist and idiot.

      And yes, Trump’s father was part of the KKK

      And yes, the Democratic party of many years ago was about half in with the KKK. Not any more, though. The KKK still lives on as part of the Republican Base.

  10. I read an article that one of my right wing friends “liked” on FB saying how the Antifa were facists themselves since they used all kinds of facist tactics. They listed them as using violence, rioting, and speaking out against the right. I looked at this, baffled, as the article continued to complain how “awful” these people are. Yet nowhere does it actually point out what really makes a facist: Implementing a controlling government that supresses free speech, religion and non-members of a particular race.
    I won’t condone any violence that the antifa protesters perform, but they are no Nazis, nationalists or racists, nor calling for any sort of ethnic cleansing.

  11. Here is the conclusion to the accusation:

    “To be clear, this is not proof that Trump senior — who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer — was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it’s conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event.”

    “A person answering calls at the N.Y.C. Police Department’s Records Section said that arrest reports dating that far back were not available in any form.”

    The march or memorial was going through the neighborhood where Trump the senior lived and it is possible that an altercation broke out between him and Klansmen. There is no proof that is father was in the KKK ever, nor that he supported them. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton called well-known KKK, Bird, her mentor.

    ‘In a video uploaded to the State Department’s official YouTube page on June 28, 2010, Clinton commemorated late Sen. Byrd by saying, “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd.’

    So if you want to argue about Trump’s father, argue about Hillary’s friend and mentor.

  12. Trump was arrested at the event.

    Subsequently, in the tradition of birherism and other lies, the Trump family has tried to cover that up.

    Of course, now that Donald has come out as a full on White Supremacist, that is no longer necessary.

    Oh, and you are done. This blog is not your Nazi playground.

  13. Ripsaw- again I pose an empirical challenge: post the data that support the notion that the ACTIONS of all these marxists are “just as bad as the Nazis” ….cause I don’t see it. What I DO see is the ol’ “both sides do it” that reminds me of the “separate but equal” BS rationalization of the Jim Crow era.

    And I cannot fathom why RWers keep trotting out the Dem party KKK support. So what? Look a bit deeper into the history of the divisive race baiting that [many but not all] Southern [and not only Southern] politicians used to divide a short lived coalition of poor blacks and white- party affiliation is unimportant. The tactics that once again are being trotted out are the same – and that’s what is important, That’s what we need to uncover in our own hidden selves….

  14. Ripsaw, you seem to be amazing ignorant and proud of it, so facts probably won’t matter. You do realize that Byrd apologized for being in the KKK, right? Largest mistake of his life?

    Your stupid comments and assertions about people who oppose the Nazis and KKK pretty much tell us where your sympathies are.

  15. No, Greg, you just proved you are a racist, bigoted idiot promoting more racial division in America. You don’t know me and you are calling me the idiot? Then censoring me for telling the truth. Stick idiot!

  16. Everybody show know who the Antifa is, they are a bunch of communists. At UC Berkeley they a message for all liberals, they wrote “Liberals get the bullet too”. That are communists, that arent resistance fighers.

  17. I just don’t get it. Trump condemned all the bad guys. If he cured cancer the HRC people would say he created cancer to cure it. HRC lost and should be in prison. Get over it.

  18. Alex,, your final comment might be the most stupid one of all those this rush of tea baggers have made. Calling for someone to be in prison when no crimes have been found seems like something a dictator would want.

  19. @Alex:
    “I just don’t get it.”
    That’s for sure.
    “Trump condemned all the bad guys.”
    Yep, he basically said that being racist is as bad as being anti-racist. That’s the problem most people have with his attitude.
    “If he cured cancer the HRC people would say he created cancer to cure it. HRC lost and should be in prison.”
    And your argument is what? Besides such random rantings?

  20. “No, Greg, you just proved you are a racist, bigoted idiot”

    Oh dear. “Nuh uh, YOU are!” really went out after most people passed their sixth year.

    Sorry snowflake, you’re a moron and a racist. Your words are what we know. And that’s what they say.

  21. “Trump condemned all the bad guys.”

    And non bad guys.

    False equivalence. What do you think it means, cupcake? Why is it a bad thing? Get that neuron working!

  22. “Everybody show know who the Antifa is,”

    But just protesting against facists or protesting against trump is not antifa.

    Otherwise you’re claiming that antifa is anyone against facists. Which apparently now, belatedly, includes trump. Trump is antifa?

    ” they are a bunch of communists.”

    Wrong, moron. They’re anti facists. And apparently trump too.

  23. “And I cannot fathom why RWers keep trotting out the Dem party KKK support. ”

    About 100 years ago. Then the R’s entered their “Southern Strategy” and have gone completely batshit following the toxic retards that eventually the Dems decided to dump sa being not worth the trouble.

    Which does make the Rs worse.

  24. @Einstein: I’m sorry, but as English is not my first language, may I ask you to you’d ask someone to translate/transcribe your comment to English so I can understand what had you meant by your comment and how it’s related to the topic of this blog?

  25. George, so they think that the facists speak out against… um… the facists?!?!?

    Damn.

    They REALLY ARE hate filled. Even hate themselves…

  26. I did not come on here to defend nazis and white supremacists. I just pointed out the erroneous accusations that Donald Trump is a nazi and white supremacist. They don’t care for his son in law and they don’t care for him. Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism. All people are created equal and, offensive material, no matter what it is, should be removed through legal process if that is the morality of the state. Not abiding by laws is anarchy. Fomenting racial division is a form of racism. You can challenge that all you want, but it is the truth.

  27. Sorry Rip but “Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism.” is precisely the language of my Jim Crow southern roots whenever any person of color dared to get “uppity” …. and had they not demonstrated and protested [unlawfully mind you] and finally convinced legislative leaders of the morality of their cause, that same evil would have persisted to this day.
    What we have now is the very antithesis of that high moral ground, I know. I was there.

  28. RIpsaw:

    “Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism.”

    And MLK and the other Civil Rights leaders in the 1950s and 1960s were accused of exactly the same thing. Because the way to keep race relations non-divisive is for blacks to bow down, accept their fate, and STFU … even while being lynched.

    I’m sorry, but this replay of the complaints against people who sought basic civil rights in the past is just disgusting. It can be best translated as “black folks, bend down and lick my boots”.

    Yes, you are racist.

  29. “Above all else, we must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We’re proud of our country. We’re proud of who we are. So we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country, where things like this can happen. ”
    “our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other, and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other.”

    LOCK HIM UP!

  30. You can claim the Democrats were about half in with the KKK, but now it’s all Republicans. But then as now, the Democrats were about identity politics, and it was the Democrats’ identity politics of the day that turned the speaker of

    Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject [slavery] whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters, who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife—the infant from the bosom of the mother: and this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content myself with saying he had a right to say this? That there is no law to punish him? So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily, or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly looks for the means, by which this necessary object may be best attained. And until it shall be accomplished: until the time shall come when we can point without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.

    Such was Mr. Gruber’s object in that part of his sermon, of which I am now speaking. Those who have complained of him, and reproached him, will not find it easy to answer him: unless complaints, reproaches and persecution shall be considered an answer.

    into the author of Dred Scott.

  31. > Byrd apologized for being in the KKK, right?

    Political necessity. to bring money to his state as Senator He later ends up portraying a Confederate general in a movie. While serving from a state that was created to stay out of there. He declared back then that he would rather the American flag be taken down and never rise again than to have the Negro be treated as equal.
    It’s only after all these states started voting Republican that honoring Confederates became a no-no for liberals.

  32. Mike- in a word: no. The 2 spikes that occurred in raising confederate memorials were1900: implementation of Jim Crow laws and again in 1960- civil rights movement [and backlash] . “Honoring confederates” has ALWAYS been about racism.

  33. Curtis, does that in any way contradict what I wrote. I said nothing about the meaning of ‘honoring confederates’, but about liberal reaction to it.

  34. I’m confused then, Mike. Are you saying that the reason there is a movement to have racist symbols removed is because there are now Republican majorities in the South?

  35. “I did not come on here to defend nazis ”

    You came to insult those who attack them? Even if all you “think” you did was that, how the fuck does it work out as a good idea, moron?

  36. “, but about liberal reaction to it.”

    Rednecks, (definitely not your liberal) are reacting the same way to this retarded white supremacist bullshit because even white people living among that crap don’t agree with these college boys’ violent ways.

    What YOU came here to do is attack the left because they wont accept your ideology.

  37. “Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism.”

    Yes, so why are you so angry about those doing it when they aren’t white but so angry when those doing it who are white are being called out on their bollocks?

    Fuck, where were you when this entire thing came down, retard? Fapping off to your Hitler photo?

  38. “is precisely the language of my Jim Crow southern roots whenever any person of color dared to get “uppity””

    Such as winning a presidential election.

    This is why the racist twats are infesting the USA now.They’re currently in power and desperate to expunge the black stain from ‘murika before they lose it.

  39. #36: a prepared speech. Worthless. And you prattle it out for the same reason the political hacks that manipulate low information voters like yourself do it: it hides reality from open view.

    “a no-no for liberals.”

    Only to rightwing nujobs like yourself. Where you only have your own hatred of a different “other” to guide you to how others think.

    It’s called “projection”.

  40. And compare #36 from the moron to his #38.

    When those who he sees as different from him do it, he knows it’s just a political fluff piece. But when HIS dear leader ™ does it, no, it’s all proof that liberals are evil monsters….

    What a fucking retard.

  41. Yeah about those other links, not giving air to these retards. They’re psychotic assholes who have no care about reality only their ideology.

  42. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

    WND (WorldNetDaily) is a politically conservative American news and opinion website and online news aggregator.[2][3] WND has drawn controversy for its promotion of conspiracy theories, including ones about Barack Obama’s citizenship,[4][5][6][7] and is considered to be a far right fringe website.[8]

    It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intent of “exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power”.[9] The website publishes news, editorials, and opinion columns, while also aggregating content from other publications. WND is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with Joseph Farah serving as its editor-in-chief and CEO.

  43. RIpsaw:

    offensive material, no matter what it is, should be removed through legal process if that is the morality of the state.

    Ah, here goes your problem. “if” that is the morality of the state. Trump’s critics – including a few (too few) Republicans, are precisely questioning if the state has any morality left.

    Also, as it happens, the good people in Charlottesville – through their duly elected representatives – did agree to the removal of the offending statue. Here, the law was followed.

    I will grant you that the protest of the Alt-Right was legal, or legal enough, or at least started legally (cannot judge if carrying tiky torches and loaded semi-auto rifles is legal at a US protest – in most of Old Europe, authorities may not be cool with the idea).

    But last time I checked, ramming a car into a crowd is illegal. I should know, it happened not long ago in my country.
    And the guy who did it was not from the “antifa” side.

    There may not even have been any real antifa member in the crowd the idiot targeted. Unless you go by Fox News definition – anyone left of you is antifa.

    So, what give? Why is it so hard to condemn the murderous act of this dude and the support he got – and is still getting – from his Alt-Right pals?

    Evidently most of you making comments are getting your news from CNN.

    The murdering car rush was recorded by a flying drone and the video is available a bit everywhere on social channels.

    Speaking of the various videos of the event, be sure to watch the full versions, not the cropped versions starting after the first impact of the car (thus pretending that the driver was just defending himself against a mob of “monkeys”, to use the charming expression of an Alt-right commentator).

  44. I’m staggered at the amount of the “I”m not racist but…” pustulence that festers in society. To remind us all that many humans are actually capable of goodness have a look at this:

  45. Bernard, brilliant, recognised Beethoven straight off. Been practising on a piano arrangement of that Choral Symphony ‘Ode to Joy’. Good to see some very young, like the little chap in the red shirt getting ‘with it’.

  46. Earth, Alex, surrounded by an appreciation for reality. The fact that you think WND is anything other than a go to site for racists, liars, bigots, and the lowest forms of conspiracy mongers speaks volumes about you and your (lack of a functioning) thinking ability

  47. Byrd had a cameo role in Gods and Generals, not the major part mikeN implies. I haven’t been able to find any reference to the flag quote MikeN attributes to Byrd, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t left character and told the truth about something (it would be the first time though).

    t’s only after all these states started voting Republican that honoring Confederates became a no-no for liberals.

    The shift that caused the Democratic folks to oppose the monuments came when the racists found their home in the Republican party in the 60s (where, as we see today, it isn’t only racists but neo nazis and white supremacists are welcomed with open arms).

    I still find it amazing that anyone would oppose removing from public land monuments that honor traitors and slavery supporters.

  48. President Trump became president of the USA under a false banner. That of the GOP, the party of Abraham Lincoln, which ended slavery. Look who Trump really is. The Republican Party has every right and reason to fire Trump immediately. President Trump is risking a new civil war. Laren NH, Thursday 17 August 2017, 15.08 PM DT.

  49. @ ~ #60

    That’s quite an article, coming as it does, from right-wing The Federalist!

    Word of the day:
    ‘Citronellanacht’

  50. Oh of course, if we are talking historically the Nazis are waaaaaaaaay worse. And they’re marching isn’t a good thing. It isn’t something to hang our hats on. But Antifa is a violent group, and I am not okay with their brand of vigilante justice. I’m not convinced that they are stopping at white supremacists.

  51. That’s quite an article, coming as it does, from right-wing The Federalist!

    Yes it is. I didn’t find it on my own, one of my colleagues sent it to me with the message “I can’t believe this.”

  52. I’m not OK with Antifa either. In the old days when the Michigan Nazi’s rallied, we’d wear arm bands with Star-of-David or pink or red triangles, regardless of whether we were Jewish or gay. It felt fantastic. Getting spit on and punched in the old day was no fun, but to be expected sometimes, and it’s better to carry no weapons of any kind to be convincing. Though growing up white and male, Martin King, my hero, taught me this practice.
    I in no way mean to defend the oh-so-victimized white-trash by false balance.

  53. “Oh of course, if we are talking historically the Nazis are waaaaaaaaay worse. ”

    Not in 1932. And the people though that though hitler was an odious little oik, they didn’t think he was powerful enough to be a problem and it was better to have him on the inside pissing out than outside pissing in.

    By 1936 it looked like a bad idea.

  54. I keep hearing antifa, but there have only been two “attempts” to define who they actually are:

    1) They are the people who are violent on the left, proving that antifa are the violence of the left. Somehow this is not seen as circular reasoning.

    2) They are anti facist. But if trump said they were bad, he’s antifa too…. Yet these antifa are supposed to be leftwingers. Even if nobody can actually say who they are.

    Someone once linked to a store where you could get merch but this was a german site. So maybe these are germans in germany being the “cause” of rightwing killers.

    PS when the shooting of scalise is claimed as “the left started it”, how come Gifford’s shooting is not the right started it?

  55. “Oh of course, if we are talking historically the Nazis are waaaaaaaaay worse”

    Well that wasn’t always the case. Vincent Price (as one example) was put on a version of the black list (it was informally known as the brown list) before WWII because he actively raised money to aid the fight against Nazism in Spain before the United States decided the Nazis were bad. The accusations equated being anti-Nazi with being pro-communist — the sort of asinine black/white “with us or agin us” distinction the modern right has been favoring.

  56. Well, it’s a long standing debate about what tactics are most effective in what situations, violent or nonviolent (nonviolent is best).

    Yet if you stomp around puffing and snorting about how great it feels to punch “hippies”, especially with the tacit approval of government, you shouldn’t be too surprised if eventually some ‘hippies’ turn around and decide it’s ok to punch back.

    And I guess no one should be surprised that fascists would then turn around and whine about the conflict that they intentionally provoked in the first place. It’s what bullies do.

  57. thank you Dean- I keep asking the same question: where is the evidence to support that the “antifa” is ‘just a bad? Its like declaring that ‘blacklivesmatter’ is just as bad and ignoring ,say ,the FBI data that 2% of all homicides are found ‘justified’ but when a white man kills a black man it jumps to 17%….

    and Rork- I agree. I desperately want the marches to be ‘silent witness’ protests- I think they are more powerful . BUT A] A lot of innocent blood was shed in the 60’s – it is hard to ask anyone to do that – especially when all this BS was supposedly settled back then – I understand the frustration and impatience B] the charismatic leader [and when he stands for social justice he gets killed BTW] has not really risen to the fore for the left. MLK could plead for non violence and most would listen. No one has that gravitas [yet] and C] I don’t remember – even marching in S Carolina in early 70s,- being confronted by this level of armament – it really does strike me as Brown Shirt tactics. And I confess, I do not know my German history well enough to know if those early scapegoated leftists would have been better off fighting …..

  58. I don’t know who to attribute this quote but I think applies to where we are in US at this time: Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. The only thing trump lacks are the very loyal toadies.

  59. Curtis, yes that’s what I am saying.

    >FBI data that 2% of all homicides are found ‘justified’ but when a white man kills a black man it jumps to 17%….

    It is more likely to be a justified homicide if the killing is done by the one being attacked.

  60. #54, Helianthus, by the time the car rammed the crowd, the protest had been canceled by the police with a state of emergency declared. The fighting had already started by then.
    Looking at the drone video referenced above, the Nazi did not ram the crowd of protesters. He was driving a car, and it looks like a minivan is what hits the protesters. So he is either the 2nd or 3rd car in a line. If it’s the third, I have to assume the other drivers were just tapping the brakes, because it’s hard to believe a car could produce that much force over that small a distance to move a car and then a van into a crowd.
    Besides the drone video which doesn’t show the driver’s car, there is another video showing the driver being attacked before he hits the gas, then he backs up when the attacks continue. The reporter filming this got beat up by antifa for his troubles, with one arrested for doing so. By your Fred Trump logic, that makes this guy who was attacking the Nazi’s car a Nazi.

  61. dean ~ What’s with the obsession with WND? HRC’s history can be found anywhere. Who destroys evidence under suponea other than her? 30,000+ classified emails on a private server deleted and the hard drive bleached, Sim cards removed, phones destroyed with hammers, etc., etc., etc. Too many examples to list of her criminal corruption. For people like you, her reaction about Bengazi is good enough…..”What difference does it make?”

  62. Our resident fascism apologist MikeN, without providing a scintilla of evidence, makes this outrageous remark: “it is more likely to be a justified homicide if the killing is done by the one being attacked”.

    Can you be any more racist Mike? Go for it. I have no idea why you write into a progressive site given that you are a right wing, racist ignoramus. The remark that you made @74 is beyond the pale. Nothing else to say, really.

  63. “It is more likely to be a justified homicide if the killing is done by the one being attacked.”

    It’s also more likely to be a justified homicide if the judge making the claim can identify with the defendant.

    Note: whites and blacks smoke pot at the same rate of incidence. Blacks get arrested at four times the rate. They also get longer jail sentences and more likely to get jail time too.

    And if you’re the sort of knuckle-dragging moron who wants to use crime stats for your white supremacy, please remember that you are supporting the supremacy of women: they are even more under-represented than men in the jails and have lower severity of crime, lower sentencing (so CLEARLY they have extenuating circumstances!), aren’t rapists or paedos, do not commit spousal violence anywhere near as much, do not cause sexual harrassment, and it’s the men who lose custody, therefore proving men are unable and incapable of looking after people.

    All this despite living longer therefore having more time to commit those criminal acts!

  64. ” the Nazi did not ram the crowd of protesters.”

    Ah, the road was racing in the other direction, and all those people running backward into the car. The bastards!

    But, hey, you fuckers started it with the shooting of the democrat at her town hall meeting. Suck it up, cupcake, you’re not immune to bullets just because it’s a leftist holding a gun.

  65. “What’s with the obsession with WND?”

    Uh, the completely fact free content? Their racism and lying? Their Holocaust denial? What kind of sane person defends WND? (Hint: they don’t.)

    “What difference does it make?”

    Given your asinine defense of WND it’s a sure thing that you know you’re lying by implication with that quote. Sadly for you, the transcripts of the hearing where that was waid are widely available. Ron Johnson (R-WI) was interviewing her about the moments after the news from Benghazi came in. It was not, as you and other right wing liars try to say, her saying that the deaths were not important. In the exchange between Johnson and Clinton he was asking questions about the comments made at the time things were happening and had been ignoring the details put forward about timing and confusion. Late in the exchange:

    Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

    The response.

    Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

    Notice that the part you and others so dishonestly leave out, “at this point”, is in bold. Her comment was not that the deaths were unimportant, it was that bickering about that was not important during the investigations.

    Your level of dishonesty on this extends to your “criminal” references too.

    There are good reasons to dislike her, but you need to exercise a little thought and research to provide support for them. That explains why the right prefers lies – they don’t like doing the hard work.

  66. “I did not come on here to defend nazis and white supremacists.”
    Just to praise The Donald, I get it. 🙂

    “They don’t care for his son in law and they don’t care for him.”
    Who for whom? I’m somehow lost on this one. Or perhaps you are?

    “Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism.”
    Actually I always kind of thought that being united over race with the racists is much more dangerous form of racism. And ultimately, the racists are those who chose to be the divisive ones, so unless they give-up their beliefs, the humanity would be sort of divided on racists and not-racists.

    And suggesting that racists and not-racists are morally equal would be probably also a form of racism…

    “All people are created equal and, offensive material, no matter what it is, should be removed through legal process if that is the morality of the state.”

    Meaning, please?

    “Fomenting racial division is a form of racism.”
    Yes – but which side does it – the racist or not-racists? Think twice. Or are you attempting to suggest that best way to achieve harmony on racial issues would be by quietly acquiescing to the racists’s stance? This would be obviously quite difficult for the minorities.

  67. Choosing to be divisive over race is a form of racism.

    Shorter ripsaw — “Come on guys, neo nazis, kkk, and white supremacists have feelings too.”

  68. dean ~ wow. You really need to get a life. Nobody defended WND, only said the truth about HRC and the likes of her is available everywhere, even in the mainstream media. Your disingenuous insults and nonsense is mildly amusing and slightly entertaining, but that’s about it. You remind me of that lady on the news who was crying when HRC lost. Oh, one last thing…..HRC LOST…..GET OVER IT. Better yet, move to a different Country…..I hear a lot of European Countries are happily accepting immigrants.

    “Given your asinine defense of WND”

  69. > mikeN was also convinced Trump’s claims about the size of his inaugural crowd were correct.

    Lie from dean. I said that the media was lying in showing their picture of Trump’s crowd. CNN’s Gigapixel and PBS showed the mall was not as sparse as the picture that everyone(including CNN!) was showing.

  70. Here is the drone video. That looks to me like a minivan, but I could be wrong. The media stories say the driver backed up and sped away. Looks like it is just sitting there.

    Here is a video of a car under attack and backing away.

    However, it is not clear if these are videos of the same incident as there is no overlap. There is a car in the back of the first one that looks like this that is parked, but I doubt it.

  71. “I said that the media was lying in showing their picture of Trump’s crowd. ”

    And that was a lie, as was pointed out in that long thread.

  72. dean ~ Unlike you, I don’t have the time, nor I feel the need to show you all of the examples, there are far too many. I would love to show you the video of HRC smashing cellphones with a hammer, but why bother? If Trump cured cancer delusional people like you would say he created it to take credit for the cure. Thank God for millions of people smart enough to defeat a monster like HRC. Oh, BTW, did I mention that HRC LOST…..AND YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT? The good news is that somebody like her will NEVER get elected. Seems your career of defending people like her is over, although you might be able to get a job as a professional protester.

  73. @ Bill #93: “I would love to show you the video of HRC smashing cellphones with a hammer, but why bother?”

    Perhaps if you’d were interested in presenting some kind of a a real evidence for your claims? Not everyone is a 70-something addled elitist bilionaire who lives in a realm of “alternative facts” of his own and his comrade Vlad. No offence. 🙂

  74. Bill, #93: The good news is that somebody like her will NEVER get elected.
    The decidedly bad news is that she actually got about 2 million more votes in the popular vote than teh Orange Trumpenmonster. Kind of said, if you’d actually think about it, isnt’ it?

  75. MikeN, your crap about the crowd is getting old and is still bunk.

    Bill, you can’t show video of her destroying phones because there isn’t any video of that.
    I’ll also point out that I never denied she lost. Your childish shouts are just that — childish.

    What I said was that you have nothing but conspiracy bullshit in your comments, and you’ve simply demonstrated that.

  76. “Nobody defended WND, only said the truth about HRC”

    Good grief. 9 words, the last 6 proved the first three a lie. There’s an efficient load of bullshit if ever there was one.

    WND are liars and love it. You love their lies. You defend their lies, you defend WND.

    End of story.

  77. “I said that the media was lying in showing their picture of Trump’s crowd. ”

    HOW DARE THEY LIE WITH THE TRUTH!!!

    LOL.

    No, they showed reality. Not lies.

  78. “If you can’t see the Washington Monument you are doing it wrong.”

    And if you can see it, how does that make the pictures from CNN lies?

  79. Bill, I looked at the fake “shady foundation” story the conspiracy folks on the right keeps passing around. It’s amazing that every review of the foundation found nothing shady about it, and that it received high marks.
    It’s also remarkable how the “pay to play” accusations were shown to be false.

    It’s even mare remarkable that anyone with the ability to use the internet believes stuff like those conspiracies.

    As I said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike her. It’s just that people like you are too lazy, or too stupid, probably both, to read, find, and understand them.

  80. And wow is not referring to you wow. It’s just a figure of speech as in…..wow, I can’t believe that people still play the race card these days.

  81. This is an amusing forum indeed Bill. I see this guy dean who is obsessed with HRC and some website that exposes her, but he ignores all the other sources that do the same things. Now he is going to attack me and cast aspersions with respect to my character as he does with everybody. It must be nice to live in an alternate reality where you are right and everybody else is wrong. I can’t wait for his disingenuous remarks about me, thus proving what I just said. hehe

  82. Still waiting for anything factual from you or bill, bob. There was nothing valid in the foundation stuff. Nothing valid in the Benghazi stuff.

    Maybe you two should look up the definition of evidence. Have someone help you — that word has more than two syllables.

  83. ” The obsession about WND is odd indeed. I see other sources above. Funny how people ignore things to make their points.”

    Yeah, like the Washington Times. Are you a Moonie, or just a fellow traveler with the Reverend [sic] Moon?

  84. ?”The obsession about WND is odd indeed. ”

    Yes, why is it that such a lunatic site is the first site give as “proof” of HRC’s “crimes”? Because nobody who had a better source in their mind would use such a rag. It would only be someone to whom the conspiracy theories were moreimportant than the truth.

    Why ARE you so obsessed with WND? And why so obsessed over the facts of their dishonesty and bigotried reproting?

    If you didn’t think it important and so many other places were “just as good”, then why lead with that one?

    Because WND is where you get your “information” from and it displays your biased politics and need to make HRC an evil person.

    Because if Hillary isn’t evil, ten you were a fucking piece of trash who voted in this maniac.

    Someone who honestly thought he was better would have changed their mind by now and not be reaching for even more outlandish sources for support of their first “idea” that didn’t pan out. Because someone whose idea doesn’t pan out either is honest and admits the error or is dishonest and tries to justify it as no error at all. And if truly insane tries to justify the alternative as “just worse”.

  85. “This is an amusing forum indeed Bill. I see this guy dean who is obsessed with HRC ”

    Projection and ignorance in one.

    Dean says she was a bad choice. Just admits that Trump is far worse. So not obsessed. YOU however dredge the internet for all cases where HRC is claimed to have done something criminal and just beilieve it.

    YOU are obsessed.

    Because you’re desperate to believe your choice was not bad.

    Your dancing here has proven how psychotic your obsession is.

  86. Funny. Looks to me like Bill posted the first link he came across about crooked HRC, then a few others, and he is getting all this truly psychotic nonsense about the first link he posted, but not a single word about the other sources. Seems to me the HRC psychosis extends to the psychotic obsessive behavior exhibited about a website. Wow! Maybe the obsessed people here should start their own website, or seek the psychological help that they so desperately need. Like somebody said above, HRC LOST SO GET OVER IT or go start a riot somewhere, preferably in your own town.

  87. I forgot to mention that I said I can’t wait for the disingenuous remarks about me, thus proving what I just said…..and guess what happened? Unfrickinbelievable.

  88. ” I can’t wait for the disingenuous remarks about me”

    Which ones were they, bob?

    ” thus proving what I just said”

    Which was? And how did it?

    Oh, I get it, you’re just implying you won because you don’t want to lose.

    Got it.

  89. “Funny. Looks to me like Bill posted the first link he came across about crooked HRC”

    Funny. Nobody else works like that unless they’re caught off guard in a live conversation. Written conversations, especially when brought up in evidence at your own insistence, are much more considered. You bring your A-Game. You now “see” that it’s his F-Game at best.

    Why?

    What observational character made it look this way?

    Oh, that’s right: you want to push a narrative. This is fiction, make-believe, wish fulfillment. You WANT to say it because that’s what you need to say.

    “but not a single word about the other sources”

    Which would be not the first link he could think of.If they were so much better, why were they not first? If they were so unmemorable, why would they be better to read or any nearer reality?

    If he doesn’t think about them and didn’t remember those, they can’t do any better. And therefore any argument against his first link is apposite increasingly for the others.

  90. “HRC LOST SO GET OVER IT ”

    It’s the trumpards, like yourself, who can’t get over HRC.

    We got over it months ago, A year even.

    But trumpdards insist on bleating on about HRC as if it were in any way shape or form relevant.

  91. Washington times not to be confused with Washington Post:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

    The Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal leanings of The Washington Post. Since then, the paper has fought to prove its editorial independence, trying to demonstrate that it is neither a “Moonie paper” nor a booster of the political right but rather a fair and balanced reporter of the news.[11]

  92. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Murdoch_ownership

    The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch’s ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated “New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil.”[36]

    Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch’s business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People’s Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[37]

    Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. Former Post executive editor Steven D. Cuozzo has responded that the Post “broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda.”

    According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it “not credible” than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[38]

  93. Note that these links from bill were not direct links, but google links indicating that he googled for something like “criminal hilary clinton”, and/or that he wanted to disguise the sources here too.

    In the former case it much more looks like they were random asspulls of no actual import or utility. In the latter case, bill knows they’re dregs and wants to hide it.

  94. Huh? I don’t know about Bill, but I didn’t vote for anybody. All this nonsense about a website is boring me. I could find hundreds of sources about HRC’s past and so can Bill if we wanted to make a career out of debating with disingenuous HRC fanatics. Perhaps you should GET A JOB because your silly little diatribes are extremely boring. Better luck with the next election, maybe you will get at least one brain cell before then and not vote for another LOSER……which by the way is exactly what you are. Psychiatrists must be having a field day with psychotic HRC fanatics who can’t handle the truth.

  95. I was having trouble getting my comments through on another thread, so I was only trying to test. But glancing upthread a bit I was wondering if anyone here believes that “bill” and “bob” are actually different people?

  96. “All this nonsense about a website is boring me.”

    Nobody is making you blather on and on about it. And you ARE the one doing the blathering.

    Yet earlier you said it was intriguing and interesting. I guess you couldn’t actually given any answers as to what you blathered on about “proving” your victimhood so now you’re trying to piss about with the sour grapes tactic.
    “psychotic HRC fanatics ”

    The only psychotic HRC fanatics are you trumptards. Ripsaw first brought it up. Alex amped it up, Bill added more bullshit and you came along white knigting for them because you want to protect the rightwingnutjobs, trump and the crusade against “the left” because you’re still living with the red scare, but now trump is putin’s biatch, you need a new red.

    The only ones beating the HRC drum are you retards.

    Then whine about it being mentioned and “SHE LOST GET OVER IT!” when

    a) You are the ones not getting over it
    b) She won the most votes
    c) It’s your only “LOOK SQUIRREL” for the retard you put in to avoid looking at the loon.

    (comments munching me too zebra)

  97. I thought dean was just using bill when he meant bob.

    That’s how similar their rhetoric is.

    Note: the comments get in, since if you repost it says “Duplicate comment”, so the DB is getting the comment, but the website is editing them out for some reason.

  98. I wondered.rhat at first.too zebra, due to the similar messages and failure by either of them to provide evidence for their assertions.

    But remember that mikeN and rickA are equally dishonest and never support their arguments either. That just seems to be the method for right wingers.

  99. Hey, Wow, I figured the duplicate comment thing out for myself– how about applying your expertise to what that “some reason” problem might be? It’s really annoying!

  100. dean, zebra,

    I suspect sock puppets as well. Presumably Greg would have a filter for that sort of thing, though.

    Anyway it’s just a troll distraction. The lizard masters have instructed their little tools to barf relentlessly about HRC whenever they get into trouble. Believe it or not, “they” are even more idiotic than you give them credit for.

  101. There’s a plethora of reasons. Some just bugs. Maybe the javascript that puts the “not a spam” gets cocked up. Maybe someone running the DB at the time just flags it as to be blocked.

    It could be DDoS, where dropping the stuff without even putting it in (but using a hash to detect “duplicate comments”) is a method to stop it having quite as much an impact.

    There’s too much possible.

    And it doesn’t matter the reason, it’s happening. Can it stop is the only question worth asking.

    And that would require the bloggers using it ask the owners of scienceblogs if they know what’s going on. If they don’t, then this is a problem that can’t be fixed. If they do, then the reasons matter as to whether it can get fixed.

  102. >Written conversations, especially when brought up in evidence at your own insistence, are much more considered. You bring your A-Game.

    The comedy gets better with each episode.

  103. Jeff Harvey, blacks have committed more crimes, and more murders, relative to their share of the population. It’s why about half of people in prison are black, though lately the Hispanic number is rising and reducing that.
    I started my post with a detailed example, then realized I have no idea what the black on white crime and white on black crime numbers were, only the overall.
    So you have
    1)blacks trying to kill whites,
    2)blacks trying to kill blacks
    3)whites trying to kill whites
    4)whites trying to kill blacks
    Only 1 and 4 are relevant. 1 is bigger than 4 by a ratio of about 2-1 o 3-1(for homicides not attempts according to http://wmbriggs.com/post/7168/ ), while making up 10% of the homicides. Its not clear if justifiable homicides are included in these stats.

  104. “Only 1 and 4 are relevant.”

    Bullshit.

    And the rest of it too.

    When you make this argument you’re arguing for the supremacy of women since they get arrested less, get charged less, spend less time in jail if they do. And they can’t rape, unlike men.

    So your arguments are proving that you males are worthless criminal scum and should be under the bootheel of the feminist.

    Yet you demand it the other way round….

    Not the sharpest tool in the sock drawer, are you “mike”.

  105. ” 1 is bigger than 4 by a ratio of about 2-1 o 3-1″

    But the incidence of smoking pot is equal, yet the incidence of arrest for pot smoking puts black men in jail four times the rate of white men.

    Since this ratio is less than 4 to 1…

  106. You may need to find — no, you definitely need to find, an honest statistician mikeN. Briggs has a reputation in the statistics world, and it isn’t a good one. According to the FBI annual crime report on racial data is limited, but

    * violent crime at the end of 2016 into 2017 was essentially at a 30-year low
    * claims that blacks were responsible for 81% of the killings of whites was “absolutely untrue”
    * the numbers of blacks killing whites and whites killing blacks were both at highest levels since 2008
    (FBI bases these numbers on cases where detailed information is known for victim and assailant)
    * number of blacks killing whites was up 12% from the prior year
    * number of whites who killed blacks was up 22% from the prior year
    * these “cross race” killings accounted for roughly 12 percent of all homicides, up from 11 percent the previous year
    * The percentage of blacks killed by blacks rose by about 8 percent, but: as a percentage of blacks killed the percentage killed by blacks drop by 1% — the third straight year for this drop
    * The number of whites killed by whites rose 3.5% (while as a percentage of all whites killed it too fell)

    I know why you chose him: he’s a general science denialist, the same as you. He went on a rant a few years ago asserting that all funding agencies and all grant agencies were corrupt due to some weird conspiracy.

    He also hangs out at Watt’s den of dishonesty, which is where I’m guessing you found him.

  107. MikeN, you live in an institutionally racist society. Crimes where caucasions get a slap on the wrist – including very serious ones – end up in long prison sentences for African Americans. Don’t just throw your stupid statistics at me without any kind of empirical analysis. The country has regressed since Johnson at least tried to address the mass racial inequality and injustice rampant across all levels of US society. The US is a prison-industrial complex where slavery has re-emerged.

    You are a xenophobe and an out and out racist. Chris Hedges has some choice words for people like you and for this wretched neofasict regime in Washington.

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-return-of-american-race-laws/

  108. >Crimes where caucasions get a slap on the wrist – including very serious ones – end up in long prison sentences for African Americans.

    If that’s the case, then black neighborhoods should be safer than white ones. All the borderline criminal blacks have been tossed in prison, while the white neighborhoods have lots of criminal element allowed to walk free by a racist society.

  109. “Borderline criminal” Really.

    Speeding. Everyone does it. Everyone with a car is borderline criminal, allowed to walk free by a racist society.

    It’s not safer in the black areas because, well, cops will shoot them on sight if it looks like there’s a gun somewhere in the block.

    And if they need to fill quota to get their merit badges, they’ll go to the poor black neighbourhood.

    Lastly, poor white neighbourhoods are dangerous to be in too.

    But a racist twat like you won’t accept that this is because of racists letting them go free.

    PS Still banging the drum of the supremacy of women over the criminal males, I see.

  110. I suspect that dean and wow are one and the same. Regardless, either way he or they really need to get a life. Thousands of posts here is not a career. Don’t bother attacking me, I’m not interested in debating with complete morons.

  111. Suspect all you want. It isn’t true, but doesn’t change a goddamned thing if it weren’t.

    Nor does it make anything about needing a life anything other than your own attempt to belittle others when you’ve fuck all in your noggin than the “hating the nigger” reflex.

    “Don;t bother attacking”? Why? Do you think that sort of shit is meaningless? THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST TO DO ONLY THAT, RETARD????

    Fuck you morons are stupid.

  112. You’re wrong again WTF — but I suspect you’re used to being wrong in almost everything you believe.

    Amazing how people like you, Bill, and Bob, who aren’t capable of critical thought (lack of interest combined with lack of ability is to blame) circle jerk together.

  113. When debating with a “retard” consider the fact that he is probably doing the same thing. You need to get a job and anger management counselling.

  114. WTF, you need an education. And some clues beat into you,’cos your brain aint working worth a lick.

    Got a job (unlike yourself) and a life (again, unlike yourself). And no I don’t need anger counseling because I don’t get angry with people who clearly are incapable of coherent thought, because there’s no way to fuck up your education any more than you’ve done to yourself, so there’s no blame possible to attach to me for failing to get through.

  115. Dean and Wow exhibit considerably different behaviour. I’d be shocked if they were the same. Would mean a split personality or some linguistic genius.

  116. Okay you are a moron and a retard. Are you happy now? Let everybody know how the counselling works out for you. From the behavior you are exhibiting it could probably save your life.

  117. You missed a LOT of people on your VERY long list of people you have insulted. Since this is all you do perhaps you can review your THOUSANDS of posts to refresh your memory.

  118. There are a lot of people in the world. Even if one in a million is a fucking retard, that’s still a lot of fucking retards.

    Moreover your whinge is content free. It says nothing other than you’re a whining little bitch.

  119. Oh, and it’s only the tiny mind obsessed with whatever they can scrabble together to bring someone else down see only the insults and insist it’s all that happens.

    But you’re really only worried about deniers being reamed, aren’t you.

  120. “Okay you are a moron and a retard.”

    OK so you’re a liar, then. In which case your accusation can be discarded as just another lie.

  121. Again, you missed a LOT of people on your VERY long list of people you have insulted. Since this is all you do perhaps you can review your THOUSANDS of posts to refresh your memory. Or better yet, get the therapy that you so desperately need. The latter would be more useful and worthwhile. A little healthy debate is fine, but you very clearly are not healthy and need some very serious help. Needless to say, a psychiatrist is the type of professional that you should be looking for instead of wasting all of your time and effort here insulting people.

  122. See, I can’t be a moron because you snootily proclaim you don’t engage with retards.

    But YOU are. Because you proclaimed you didn’t engage and then engaged in your battle of half-wit with someone you insist is a moron.

    That sock drawer has many more sharper things than you in it, doesn’t it, WTF.

    Clearly this subject of trumpo’s insanity and racism brought you out to try to shut down anyone who talks against your fuhrer, no matter what happens to you. Sort of like a pasty white cuck suicide bomber.

  123. Wow, you are the one who brought up, and continue bringing up morons and retards, BTW, a term I haven’t heard since the 3rd grade, not to mention the “n” word you so intelligently used. I hope you have something worthwhile to contribute after you complete your anger management therapy sessions. Probably not, but one can always hope for miracles. I have never said a word about Trump. Perhaps you heard this in the alternate reality that you are living in. Anyway, good luck with your much needed therapy.

  124. What’s that WTF? You have to defend a fellow nazi whiteshirt? The only way you know how is to scream and shout like a manic monkey with the shits?

    Sad.

    1. Huh? The “n” word you used wow is nigger you fucking retarded bigoted racist moron.

  125. What’s that WTF? Insane screaming at others is what works when you’re on the streets? Well the internet isn’t like panhandling on the street corners.

  126. I hope the administrator kicks us both off of this forum. Forum Administrator, please remove “wow” for his disingenuous racist bigoted remarks, and please remove me for my response below. Thank You.
    Huh? The “n” word you used wow is nigger you fucking retarded bigoted racist moron.

  127. Uh huh, WTF, so you really can’t handle the truth about trump and your affiliations with white supremacist nazis being aired in public, so the best you can come up with in that pin sized brain of yours is this current verbal dribble?

    Sad.

  128. Since you can’t distinguish the difference between what you call Nazis and niggers, perhaps you consider them to be the same thing wow, i don’t know and I don’t care, and now you are accusing me of some bizarre affiliations in a public forum, called libel when I attended the UCLA School of Law, I have asked Greg to remove both of us from this forum. No big deal for me, I couldn’t care less, but since your life seems to depend on insulting others here, could be devastating for you, and force you into the therapy you so desperately need. Of course you are thinking of a new name to use already, but for legal reasons I would expect Greg to ban your IP address so you don’t continue insulting his other readers. Good luck….you are going to need it.

  129. What’s that WTF? You’re trying to make trump less insanely angry at reality by fluffing his ego like you want to fluff his tiny diddler?

    Or is this crusade you’re doing in the orange tithead’s defence some sort of nazi merit badge so you can get the cool uniform?

    1. As I said wow, I have asked Greg to ban both of us from this forum due to your continuous libelous remarks about several people here.

  130. Come on WFT,

    You can’t libel someone who is anonymous. Don’t be silly. People libel me all the time and I live with it. I have been called everything under the sun by climate change deniers. And how many people has the current POTUS libeled? He’s a complete idiot. Yet he gets away with it.

    1. More than happy to send you my CV and you can confirm with UCLA. Perhaps you can reciprocate?

  131. I’ve got no problem with posting anonymously online, do it all the time myself, but if you’re going to insist on arguing fom authority; then just as a point of netiquette, you should give your real name here and point too your credentials, bar number etc. so that you can at least be verified, if still disputed.

    For instance, say what you will about Dan “The Lawyer” who has posted here often on the Steyn case; When challenged, he stepped up and put his info out there… Which is more than I can say for a certain other lawyer we all know and (ahem)…

    Also all you defenders of so called “southern heritage” and other idiocies, check Greg’s latest post on Dred Scott:
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/08/21/dred-scott-slept-here/

  132. WTF, I have a suspicion that Greg Laden is a deep cover agent of the right, and writes Wow’s posts, or lets them stay, to help his side.

  133. Is Wow’s embarrassing incompetence the first example of a factual common ground on which everybody in the climate wars can finally agree? It almost restores one’s hope in our shared humanity. I suppose we should thank you, Wow.

  134. I see you are using one or two of your other aliases wow. Regardless, Greg said he does not allow the comments area to be a hub of racism, so your IP address should put an end to your useless nonsense…..until you figure out how to continue.

  135. What’s that, WTF? You love dressing up in Nazi uniforms and putting jewish dolls in your mom’s oven? Even more than dressing up as a princess for your daddy?

  136. “but if you’re going to insist on arguing fom authority; then just as a point of netiquette,”

    Oh, no, to even have a case for authority you have to show that authority exists. WTF goes on the internet chatrooms and pretends to be a 14 year old girl, but this doesn’t make them a 14 year old girl.

    Speaking of claiming authority, where is Great Boogers now with his evidence of dirigible plants beyond earthbound science’s ken since the eclipse in the USA earlier?

  137. “Wtf claimed to go to a law school?”

    So did dick, remember. But all he does is some patent stuff, for which you may be in a lawyer job but you don’t need qualifications.

    And dick really doesn’t appear to know ANY law. Admittedly there’s no much scope here for patent law to come up, but every single bit of law that HAS come up shows that dick fails even what a normal person can manage with a quick google search.

  138. “Wtf claimed to go to a law school?”

    Ha! Wow is not impressed. He went to a law school once. He’s been to med school, the White House, and all sorts of buildings the rest of us can only dream of seeing the inside of. Apparently it’s just one of the perks of being an itinerant Medieval fool (or, to use the preferred term, retard sales professional).

    By the way, WTF, I congratulate you on pre-Wowing your own Internet handle. I wish I’d thought of that. His brain must be cursing you for having an unsmuttable name, depriving him of the only “rebuttal” in his arsenal. (With me, Wow’s killer comeback is Yes But Brat, or Bra, or something like that.)

  139. “Ha! Wow is not impressed. ”

    Indeed not.

    I also didn’t claim to have gone to law school myself, so the rest of that paragraph is clearly a figment of your insanity dribbling out onto the keyboard.

    But your inane dribbling corroding conversation is known widely, bray.

  140. Nope, never called you brat, bray. But you bray like a donkey.

    Need I also reaffirm the insanity you bleat on is a figment of your own diseased cognition?

  141. Ah, so you were making that shit up for ENTERTAINMENT. Got it. Any future claims are also going to be for entertainment (by your miserable yardstick of definition) and not actual thoughts from you.

  142. Which proves what? That the list of retards and deniers that infest this area is huge.

    Your feels are not evidence, cupcake.

  143. MikeN,

    “The list of people who comment here that Wow has not called a denier is pretty small.”

    Haha. Well put. But it’s not quite as small as the list of people foolish enough to rush to Wow’s assistance when he gets caught making his trademark Argument From Lying.

    All the worse for Wow, since, like a porcupine, he only knows One Big Thing, and it rhymes with “how to die.”

  144. @Brad Keyes: Are you somewhat insinuating that Wow now somewhat sides with Trump and and his alt-reality alt-right fellows? Please explain. Preferably without threats, if you’re able to do so.

  145. “His”?

    And no, Bray will not stop insinuating. As long as he says nothing he can’t be proven wrong, since he will just claim you’ve not comprehended his meaning. And if this goes on long enough to cover all bases, he’ll then insist that you say it all over again. Then again. Then again.

    Because bray is the quintessentially NPD troll:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

    Trump probably suffered from it when his brain was still whole and healthy enough to operate.

  146. @ Brad Keyes: “Klimanürnberg, Germany” (which you gave in your profile as your location) is not (AFAIK) even a real place. It (roughly) means “weather in Nuremberg”. Perhaps you should be really careful with your explanation, if you’d attempt to give any. Anyway – kudos for you, as you’re certainly more brave than “Dean” and “MikeN” who are so cowardly that they’re hiding their locations completely.

    Perhaps you are not quite clever enough, but you’ve got guts, and that’s for sure.

  147. Hiring, it takes a special type of idiot to point out some lied about his/her location and then equate giving any location statement with bravery. You are a prime example of that type of idiot.
    If you had ever paid attention you would know I’ve stated where I live several times. As I tell my students: if you don’t pay attention too bad.

  148. Re: 184:
    Maybe they are U. S. Americans. Now that we have a President who has encouraged white supremacists — who hate everyone except white Protestant Aryans and not even all of those — to come out and cavort freely in public, I don’t really blame anyone for not wanting to advertise their citizenship – especially if they have to interact with people from elsewhere. I’m beginning to wish I hadn’t give my location.

  149. Jiri (Hiring??) et co.,

    No, I don’t live in the US, but if I did I’d be the first to mention it, in an effort (however small) to restore the tarnished image of my people.

    If my “location” is too cryptic, think of it as a URL. And remember the death threat made by David Roberts of Grist against all those who fail to think and speak the same as David Roberts of Grist. (It began with the words, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble…”)

    Secondly, no, I have never threatened Wow, except with ridicule—and I always keep my word.

    I’m perfectly aware he can’t die (to use the offending verb). It is futile to pretend Pure Stupidity has an expiry date. Wow is immortal. He will always be with you.

    Not us, mind. Just you guys.

    You do ask a good, and polite, question:

    “Are you somewhat insinuating that Wow now somewhat sides with Trump and and his alt-reality alt-right fellows?”

    One of my Competing Working Hypotheses about the rabidly counter-truth Wow has been that he’s in the pay of Heartland. You must admit he’s doing a good job of making believalists look anaphylactically averse to reality. But then I remember the cretinous Unabomber billboard, which is pretty good evidence that Heartland doesn’t possess the necessary genius to put such an asset on the payroll.

    Finally, talking about others is getting rather boring. Let’s get back to me and why on earth anyone would suspect me of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Even if I were a tad narcissistic, why on earth would that be a disorder or even a departure from strict rationality? Details, please. Curious people everywhere (or at least I) demand to know.

  150. It’s a bit rich of you, of all people, Brad, to criticize those defending science of making death threats. It’s the trailer trash mentality on the denier side that are the masters of the art of making threats against scientists. I should know, being a scientist, something that you most clearly aren’t.

  151. Jeff,

    in the interests of accuracy, you’re a soft, systems sort of scientist. Something I most clearly aren’t.

    However, unlike you, I don’t think that’s relevant to the (or any) argument. Your lack of hard-science credentials doesn’t make you wrong about this, or any other, topic.

    The fact that you’re wrong makes you wrong.

  152. Brad, please define ‘hard science’ for us all here. Given that ecology is defined by an array of non-linear processes, it may indeed be one of the most complex of the sciences. Don’t take my word for it, this is just the opinions of many colleagues who work in molecular biology who are intimidated by the vast complexity inherent in unravelling the function of ecological systems. Our understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is still very incomplete because of this incredible complexity. Yet you suggest it is soft science. I think that this says more about you than about me.

    It is just a symptom of the times that people like you and Dave Burton can stick a finger to the wind and proclaim instant expertise – no formal training required. The good news is that for the most part you are stuck on blogs and social media, where the scientific community completely ignores you. The bad point is that the general population, in their naivete, often use these blogs to gain their worldviews, unaware that they contain nonsense which actually distorts the science.

    The main point is that, with respect to climate change, the scientific community takes for complete granted that it is occurring, that it is almost entirely down to us, and that we need to do something about it. You and other laymen are stuck ten laps back on process and causation. Every new scientific theory goes through the same scientist-public opinion lag phase. The crux of the matter is that we don’t have the time to procrastinate. This is where the army of deniers, through their influence on public policy, are likely to leave the most serious legacy.

  153. Jeff,

    I never said ecology was easy—if anything, my impression is that it’s so complex as to be futile—I said it was soft. If you demand a one-sentence definition, I mean: ecologists never get anywhere, and nobody seriously expects them to.

    It is just a symptom of the times that people like you and Dave Burton can stick a finger to the wind and proclaim instant expertise

    I can?

    Assuming I ever wanted to proclaim expertise (instant or delayed), what else would I need to do—click my heels three times? Or is the finger thing enough?

    No need for detailed instructions. If some bizarre exigency ever calls for such a claim (though I can’t quite imagine why), I’ll google the steps required.

    The main point is that, with respect to climate change, the scientific community takes for complete granted that it is occurring,

    You don’t say. And here I was assuming the climate had always been and would forever be a fixed value made of 9 concentric crystal spheres, as immutable as Allah who so ordained it 6443 years ago next Tuesday.

    that it is almost entirely down to us

    Ah, because the climate was so transcendently inviolate until we came along. Gotcha. Sorry, but I’m not religious. So we’ll have to disagree on that.

    and that we need to do something about it

    Whoa. Let me stop you there.

    Do you believe everything you read on Twitter, Jeff? I hate to break it to you, but with all due respect to the former President, ninety-seven percent of [insert expert cohort here] do NOT think “it’s dangerous,” or if they do, they’re keeping that particular consensus very quiet indeed because nobody has ever come up with evidence it exists—and they’d love to, given the priceless political utility of finding such evidence.

    But you don’t need evidence, do you, Jeff? You just KNOW.

    Cos you’re a (soft, systemsy) scientist!

  154. Good god Brad, you are an amazing example of the intersection of stupidity and dishonesty. What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?

  155. And at the risk of boring those of you who obstinately refuse to accept this axiom of science:

    EVEN IF Jeff had evidence that “the scientific community” en masse believed we had to do something about climate change, that would NOT be evidence that we actually DO have to do something about climate change.

    Consensus is NOT a form of evidence in science.

    Even a soft, systemsy scientists like Jeff should have been taught this at some point.

  156. Good god Brad, you are an amazing example of the intersection of stupidity and dishonesty.

    Good god Dean, with that bizarre libel you just demonstrated the UNION of stupidity and dishonesty, not to mention a questionable grasp of set theory.

    What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?

    You name it. Pick pretty much any area of science, and I can almost guarantee I’ve never managed to understand and deny it simultaneously.

    Frankly, that kind of juggling act sounds like a superhuman challenge to me, so don’t expect me to beat myself up for failing to pull it off.

  157. Brad Keyes

    EVEN IF Jeff had evidence that “the scientific community” en masse believed we had to do something about climate change, that would NOT be evidence that we actually DO have to do something about climate change.

    What would be? Serious question.

    Consensus is NOT a form of evidence in science.

    Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence and is useful to non-specialists as an indicator that the scientific understanding of a phenomenon is relatively strong. As such, it is useful in guiding policy. This is widely understood. Why it should be a problem for you is puzzling.

  158. “What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?”

    Language, logic and even observational skills, all will be abandoned by bray to ensure that he wins an argument.

  159. “Why it should be a problem for you is puzzling.”

    It’s his hobby horse he’s been riding since the brangelina days and years before. It’s been a decade now, near enough, and the fuckwit still doesn’t want to understand it.

  160. BBD wonders why anybody would fail to buy the amateurish illogic he uses to try to pass off consensus as evidence.

    It’s “puzzling” to BBD that anyone would ridicule his ham-fisted, weasel-worded attempts to say consensus = evidence without having the gonads to actually say it.

    “Indicator,” he says! Not “evidence,” of course—just “indicator that the scientific understanding of a phenomenon is relatively strong.”

    Laughable.

    Scientists get the joke, BBD. You don’t (because you’re scientifically illiterate), but we, the Two Percent, do.

    Please… keep the laughs coming.

  161. Please… keep the laughs coming.

    This isn’t funny. When someone insists that a reasonably qualified statement is insufficiently masculine to be their strawman, I yawn.

  162. ” EVEN IF Jeff had evidence ”

    He does.

    “that “the scientific community” en masse believed we had to do something about climate change, that would NOT be evidence that we actually DO have to do something about climate change.”

    The temperature graph is evidence we have to do something about it.

  163. “I can almost guarantee I’ve never managed to understand and deny it simultaneously.”

    See what I mean about observational fallacies?

    When this was in response to a quoted claim:

    “What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?”

    What this DOES mean is that there are manifold areas of science, logic, maths, language, reading, and every other human intellectual endeavour that bray here will fail to understand AND deny at the same time.

    All he’s denied is that there is nothing (he claims) he UNDERSTANDS and denies at the same time. Not understanding and denying it anyway? Easy peasy for this retarded fartknocker.

  164. Brad Keyes

    I’m genuinely curious about this:

    EVEN IF Jeff had evidence that “the scientific community” en masse believed we had to do something about climate change, that would NOT be evidence that we actually DO have to do something about climate change.</blockquote.

    What would be? Serious question.

    It might move the conversation forward.

  165. >Language, logic and even observational skills, all will be abandoned by bray to ensure that he wins an argument.

    Yup.

  166. You are an amazing liar Brad. You clearly don’t understand the science, you deny that the scientists are correct, and you lie amd claim to do neither.

    Typical for someone with no education.

  167. (In the spirit of what BBD admirably calls ‘moving the conversation forward,’ I’m ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Wow’s obligate wrongness. I’m sure the rest of you have grown equally bored of correcting him; barrel-fishing does tend to get old.)

    BBD:

    This isn’t funny.

    I know you can’t see the humor, BBD; I even told you why.

    Moving on…

    When someone insists that a reasonably qualified statement is insufficiently masculine to be their strawman, I yawn.

    Who said anything about masculinity? Even Jeff is a hard enough scientist to tell you that “gonad” is genderless.

    Nevertheless, since I’m not the sociopath you unwittingly-humorously used to be adamant I was, I’m more than happy to accept your assurances that your vagueness arose from a genuine attempt at nuance (dare I say scientific-ish reticence?), not greasiness.

    In which case, derision withdrawn.

    However,

    1. your paragraph-long comeback to my sentence (“Consensus is NOT a form of evidence in science.”) was wrong from the git-go.

    The only valid comeback available to you was, “Agreed.” The fact that you felt compelled to quibble, or qualify, or clarify, or express misgivings of any kind, even after YEARS of epistemological education by myself and others, is—to borrow your adjective—puzzling.

    2. You say, “Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence,” which is either false (if intended as a general axiom) or meaningless (if intended as a feelgood affirmation of what you *usually,* or *ideally,* or *often* expect to happen).

    In the former case, the disproof is as simple as knowing Science History 101. Majority opinions in science do NOT, as a matter of contingent fact, need a good evidentiary justification to exist. Quasicrystals gastropyloric ulcers puerperal fever plate tectonics ad tedium ad tedium.

    In the latter case, whether you’re *usually*, *ideally* or *often* right, how could you possibly know? Nobody knows.

    Sure, we’ve all been told (even if you’ve forgotten) about the more notorious failures of conventional wisdom among scientists to correspond to physical reality—see “the former case” above—but on the vast majority of less famous questions, nobody has the slightest clue how scientific consensuses perform as indices of “the truth.”

    Why not? Because nobody has ever quantified, measured or tracked the natural history of majority opinions in science.

    Climate science, sure. Proper science, not on your life. Doesn’t happen. Real scientists don’t submit to opinion surveys. It’s offensive to the scientific mode of thought. It’s infra dignitatem.

    As a result, even social psychologists (of which you’re not one) are powerless to guess how often consensuses in science are “right” or even “right as far as the available evidence can tell us.”

    Where did you get the bizarre idea that you can meaningfully opine, one way or the other, on this?

    3. You go on to say majority agreement among scientists “is useful to non-specialists as an indicator that…. [blah blah blah].”

    But if it were useful to non-specialists, it would be useful to specialists too.

    Either it tells human beings something about nature, or it doesn’t. And if it tells YOU something, then it tells SCIENTISTS something.

    And if it tells people—any people—something about a “scientific” (natural-world) question, then it’s EVIDENCE, by definition.

    But wait… didn’t we agree (ex hypothesi) that it’s NOT evidence?

    (Well, okay, you didn’t agree—but you would have if you’d had a scientific education.)

    Are you beginning to grasp the absurdity to which science reduces if we grant majority views among scientists the magical power to “indicate” something about the natural world?

    For starters, it would mean that scientists would be scientifically justified in assenting to a consensus view on the sole basis that most of their colleagues do. After all, that would be “an indicator” that their colleagues are right, right?

    Consensus becomes turtles all the way down.

    And you want to base POLICY on a recursively bottomless totem-pole of turtles??

    3. Instead of “blah blah blah,” what you actually said was “that the scientific understanding of a phenomenon is relatively strong.”

    In other words, blah blah blah. This is too vague nuanced to even require a critique.

    4. “As such, it is useful in guiding policy.”

    No, only evidence is useful in guiding policy, and as every scientist on the planet knows—even if you don’t—A CONSENSUS IS NOT A FORM OF EVIDENCE.

    5. “This is widely understood.”

    I think you’ll find most fallacies, superstitions, religious certitudes, urban myths and old wives’ tales are “widely understood.”

    They’re still bullshit.

    6. “Why it should be a problem for you is…”

    Because it’s bullshit.

    Why it’s NOT a problem for you is the only “puzzling” thing.

  168. dean,

    You are an amazing liar Brad.

    I guess I must be, seeing as nobody on scienceblogs dot com has ever managed to identify one of my lies.

    Go on—make history: be the first person here to quote a lie I’ve told.

    Oh, and to save you the embarrassment, NO, I am not defying you to quote SkepticalScience [mis]quoting me in their desperation to justify blocking my IP—a task so trivial even the resident palindrome could probably google it. Be warned that such, er, “evidence” won’t be deemed even to rise to the level of hearsay. Read the challenge before attempting it.

  169. BBD:

    What would be [evidence for the need for action]? Serious question.

    And an intelligent question. One that millions of climate-concerned individuals should probably have asked themselves TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

    And I’ll be happy to address it.

    Once you indicate a comprehension of the fact that consensus among scientists is NOT a form of evidence.

    Unfortunately, until and unless you (BBD) can agree to the First Rule of Science Club, “moving the conversation forward” would be forlorn and futile.

  170. Christ, it’s Brad Keyes !
    Nothing’s changed, he’s just as witless and oblivious as ever.
    I never said ecology was easy—if anything, my impression is that it’s so complex as to be futile—I said it was soft
    and
    ecologists never get anywhere, and nobody seriously expects them to.

    Appeals to sweeping statements and the mythical ‘everyone, everybody, nobody knows/thinks’…you are tedious, ignorant and self-obsessed, Brad.
    And it irritates you no end.

  171. Nick,

    you misunderstand me.

    By commenting on my “appeals to sweeping statements and the mythical ‘everyone, everybody, nobody knows/thinks’” as if that were a bad thing, you merely betray your own unfamiliarity with the virtue of so-called exquisite falsifiability.

    Long explanation short: in science, it’s a GOOD thing to put absurdly strong statements out there.

    In the time it took you to whinge about the things I said, you could have falsified them.

    If they were false.

  172. Brad Keyes: Jiri (Hiring??)
    You appears to be somewhat deluded, I hadn’t written a word about “hiring”.
    Brad Keyes: No, I don’t live in the US
    Yes you states that you live in a location “Klimanürnberg, Germany” not-appering on even the most detailed map. 🙂 Why you supoose that anyone would take your rantings seriously?

    I am not an American, neither I do live in the USA, but I’d take more seriously actuall killings by Trump’s supporters and other alt-rightists, such as in Charlottesville than alleged threats by David Roberts of Grist, whoever it is – morever if the only source is someone who’s clearly not very firmly connected to reality,which is your case.

    Brad Keyes: “One of my Competing Working Hypotheses about the rabidly counter-truth Wow has been that he’s in the pay of Heartland.”

    My working hypothesis is that you are petulant egocentric who attempts to arch the gap between the facts as they are and facts you perceive with unsubstantianted accusations, verging on complex conspiracy theories, in a completely vain attempt to persuade others that you are not so completely mistaken as you are.

    Greetings to you and your fellow inhabitants of “Klimanürnberg”. 🙂

  173. I don’t misunderstand you at all Brad. You’re an attention seeking fool. Have a little more.
    In the time it took you to whinge about the things I said, you could have falsified them

    Any more ‘impressions’ of fields you have no knowledge or experience in? No doubt plenty. The only thing that isn’t an impression is your presentation as an idiot blowhard. It’s absolutely genuine.

  174. Not forgetting those things were false without anyone falsifying them. And Bray (he owned a sweet shop in Glasgow) and is here because he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

    Basically a medically diagnosed troll who is doing this purely to garner attention and piss people off. He’s been doing it for 15-20 years on scienceblogs.

  175. Wow

    Not forgetting those things were false without anyone falsifying them. And Bray (he owned a sweet shop in Glasgow) and is here because he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

    Sincere question, Wow: in your imagination, is either of those sentences English?

    Because that would be a delusion. On some dim level of consciousness you do realize that you’re just churning out word salad, don’t you?

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

  176. Brad Keyes

    And I’ll be happy to address it.

    Once you indicate a comprehension of the fact that consensus among scientists is NOT a form of evidence.

    I have already indicated that very clearly above. Read harder. You appear to be dodging the question. Why? What are you afraid of revealing?

    Just answer. Be honest.

  177. Jiri,

    chill out man.

    dean appeared to address you as “Hiring.” I was just checking if that was indeed you.

    I tried to explain to you where Klimanürnberg is. You did need to read David Roberts’ notorious comment to get it, though. Apparently that was asking too much of you.

    By the way, pretending that I’m “the only source” for Roberts’ quote is not going to work out well for you. The quote is authentic, like it or not. Sorry.

    Taking the criminal attacks in Charlottesville seriously doesn’t preclude taking other threats seriously as well—even a schoolchild would know enough logic to grasp this. So your whole “I am not an American” paragraph is pointless.

    My working hypothesis is that you are petulant egocentric who attempts to arch the gap between the facts as they are and facts you perceive with unsubstantianted accusations

    I’d normally excuse you for completely missing the point of my joke on the basis that non-native speakers like you are at a disadvantage—but in the present context (a climate thread) everyone on your “side” is every bit as humorless as you. So I suspect it’s your belief system, not your English As A Second Language, that makes you tone-deaf.

  178. And Brad, if it makes you happy to pretend that their isn’t a scientific consensus about AGW or that it exists but is somehow meaningless, then fine. Believe that if you want.

    Nobody else really cares. Here in reality, the evidence is in. It’s over and done with. The debate now is energy policy, not climate science. You’ve been crapping on about the consensus for several years now and your arguments were are irrelevant and pointless then as now.

    Move on. You are being extremely boring.

  179. BBD

    “I have already indicated that very clearly above.”

    Where? You mean, the bit where I stated the total non-overlap of consensus and evidence, to which you reacted by wibbling on about how consensus is actually a useful indicator of blah blah blah?

    Forgive me and the rest of the English-reading world, BBD, but that was hardly a clear expression of your agreement.

    You should have just said “I agree.”

    Now that I know you consent to Rule One of Science Club, how on earth is one to reconcile that with your persistence in imagining that,

    “Scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence and is useful to non-specialists as an indicator that the scientific understanding of a phenomenon is relatively strong. As such, it is useful in guiding policy.”

    You’re contradicting yourself, as ought to be clear from my patient explanation above.

    If scientific consensuses aren’t evidence (and they aren’t!) then they can’t possibly be “useful” “indicators” for “guiding policy,” can they?

    Either you accept the evidentiary worthlessness of consensuses in science (as required by Rule One of Science Club) or you don’t.

    Make up your mind and get back to me.

    “You appear to be dodging the question. Why?”

    I’m not dodging it, I’m ignoring it. Because I know from tedious experience with many interlocutors (including you) that it’s a complete waste of carbon to even discuss evidence with someone who refuses to accept what does, and doesn’t, constitute it.

    “What are you afraid of revealing?”

    Er, the fact that I’ve already “revealed” my answer to your question several years ago should be a clue here.

    I’m afraid of wasting my time.

    Or rather, of having my time wasted.

    The ball is in your court.

  180. “You appear to be dodging the question. Why?”

    Because that is the debating tactic he used in school as part of the debating team and he “won” every argument there with it.

    And the ones he lost didn’t count.

  181. “Just answer. Be honest.”

    Both of those fail to work to “win” arguments by sophistry and deliberate misrepresentation

    Remember:

    “I can almost guarantee I’ve never managedto understand and deny it simultaneously.” when asked “What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?”

  182. “If scientific consensuses aren’t evidence (and they aren’t!) then they can’t possibly be “useful” “indicators” for “guiding policy,” can they?”

    I’m amazed at Brad’s triple down on his dishonesty and ignorance combined with his unfounded belief in his understanding. By his asinine reasoning the consensus about relativity’s validity over its area of applicability, or vaccine safety, etc., are worthless.

  183. BBD

    And Brad, if it makes you happy to pretend that their isn’t a scientific consensus about AGW
    Why would that make me happy? There’s OBVIOUSLY a consensus (a majority view) about it, as there must be about any binary question, in any given subset of scientists (unless they happen to be split precisely down the middle, which is presumably rare).
    or that it exists but is somehow meaningless,
    That’s true, where “somehow” = “scientifically,” “absolutely” or “axiomatically.”

    Just a moment ago you agreed with me:

    Consensus is not evidence.

    Don’t tell me you’re now backpedalling, BBD…?

    Have some dignity.

    Nobody else really cares.

    Oh, you mean nobody except the entire membership of SkS, Barack Obama and the millions of Americans who retweeted his Presidential tweet about it?

    Stop saying such ridiculous things.

  184. You should have just said “I agree.”

    No, I should have said what I said.

    Okay, we’ve established that you are a bit nuts when it comes to consensus messaging and that’s fine by me. But you are being boring , which is not.

    I’m not going to discuss consensus with you any longer because it’s all been said and you are boring me.

    So let’s hear what would be sufficient to convince you that we need to take action on climate change.

    Why are you afraid of answering this question?

    (This reminds me of previous occasions when you found it… difficult to provide straightforward answers).

  185. Wow,

    You’re cluttering the page with irrelevantia, juvenilia and imbecilia again.

    Go away. The high-school graduates are talking.

  186. Nobody else really cares.

    Obtuse or deliberately misconstruing? We’ll never know. So I’ll pick and treat you like an idiot rather than a devious little shit:

    Nobody really cares about your boring obsession with consensus.

    There, even you can understand that sentence, although the meaning was clear enough the first time round.

    Is your mind going, Brad?

  187. BBD,

    “Why are you afraid of answering this question?”

    How many times do I have to explain this??

    I won’t answer your question [about “evidence that we need to act on climate”] again—though I have answered it before—because I don’t want to waste any more hours of my life trying to communicate about science with someone who refuses to speak the language.

    “(This reminds me of previous occasions when you found it… difficult to provide straightforward answers).”

    Does it? The human memory is a funny thing, isn’t it? If only you could NAME those occasions! Then you wouldn’t just be whining like a non-specific bitch.

  188. “By his asinine reasoning the consensus about relativity’s validity over its area of applicability, or vaccine safety, etc., are worthless.”

    Therefore his reasoning is worthless, since it is only a consensus of one.

  189. “Is your mind going, Brad?”

    It left long ago. Has a condo in the Costa Del Sol and a tax break for damages done by Bray.

  190. “The high-school graduates are talking.”

    Yes, but the ones who failed primary education such as yourself keep shitting all over the place.

  191. You’re cluttering the page with irrelevantia, juvenilia and imbecilia again.

    And projecting that onto others in the hope that accusing it of others first will stop it being pointed out as your problem.

    Not happening, cupcake.

  192. ““Why are you afraid of answering this question?”

    How many times do I have to explain this?? ”

    Once would do.

    Try it.

  193. “” You should have just said “I agree.””

    No, I should have said what I said. ”

    What he WANTS you to do, however, is agree. you didn’t do that, though. So he wont let you get away with that.

  194. “Consensus is not evidence.”

    Yes it is. Evidence that the science has been looked into many times and all come to the same conclusion.

  195. “”Nobody else really cares.”

    Oh, you mean nobody except ”

    No, he means nobody.

    We’re just ensuring that your Goebels tactic doesn’t work, snowflake.

  196. Remember:

    “I can almost guarantee I’ve never managed to understand and deny it simultaneously.” when asked “What other areas of science do you fail to understand and deny at the same time?”

  197. dean,

    “By [Brad’s] asinine reasoning the consensus about relativity’s validity over its area of applicability, or vaccine safety, etc., are worthless.”

    Sigh.

    Consensuses about relativity’s validity over its area of applicability, or vaccine safety, etc., are worthless, you beefwit.

    You’d know this if you were a scientist, or had ever had direct dermal contact with a scientist in your life.

    (You might not *like* the way science works, but, well, tough shit. Pretending it works any other way is futile. Science denial is futile. This will end badly for you.)

    Friendly advice: it’s better to silently lurk and be thought a scientifically-illiterate Transylvanian peasant than to comment and remove all doubt.

    By the way, everyone can see you slinking quietly away from my challenge to pony up an EXAMPLE of the lies you accuse me of telling.

    Continued failure to substantiate that insult will be taken for what it is: an admission that you’re the only liar in the set [Brad, dean], liar.

  198. Nick @ ~ 210

    “Christ, it’s Brad Keyes !”

    Yes, and trolling like he never left.

    ——–

    BK @ ~ 229

    “I don’t want to waste any more hours of my life”

    HAHAHA! That’s all you do, troll. It’s all you’ve ever done.

  199. “Brad Kesey”
    dean appeared to address you as “Hiring.”

    I can’t surely be responsible for someone who is not even able to spell my name without mistakes, while spouting abuses in “your” defence. 🙂 As far as the URL thing is concerned, you’d make yourself a bit clearer if you’d just link the URL, anyway.

    “Brad Keyes”: Secondly, no, I have never threatened Wow, except with ridicule—and I always keep my word.
    You are making yourself ridiculous. Too sad if you believe otherwise.

    “Brad Keyes”: . So your whole “I am not an American” paragraph is pointless.

    Perhaps for someone like you who is unable to distinguish between the real killings and threats hyped up or outright imagined by yourself.

    “Brad Keyes”: I’d normally excuse you for completely missing the point of my joke….So I suspect it’s your belief system, not your English As A Second Language, that makes you tone-deaf.

    So you were “just joking” now, hadn’t you? Such a lame excuse is really befitting both “you” and “dean”. I’d suspect that your “Klimanürnberg” is located much closer to the centre of Clou cuckoo land than you’re able to perceive. :-))

  200. Brad, every time you post your “view” of what climate science says you’re repeating a lie. You’ve been informed several times why what you’re saying isn’t valid but you continue to say it. But that’s standard procedure for the right.
    It isn’t clear why you have such a bug up your butt about science — are you one of the clowns who thinks people are making massive amounts of money from it? The one thing you do consistently is give answers that are so nebulous that you really can’t be pinned down — no backbone demonstrated, in other words.

    I had to laugh at “Consensuses about relativity’s validity over its area of applicability, or vaccine safety, etc., are worthless,” and the foolish comment about meeting scientists. You’ve been saying that the consensus drives the position of the scientists, so what they say is bogus. If that were in any way true you would have a chance of being correct, but it isn’t.

    I do have to give you one thing — you’re pretty damn good at playing the ignorant troll.

    “Such a lame excuse is really befitting both “you” and “dean”. ?

  201. The one thing you do consistently is give answers that are so nebulous that you really can’t be pinned down — no backbone demonstrated, in other words.

    Or refuse to answer at all, as in the fascinating case of this recently – and repeatedly – posed question:

    What would it take to convince you that we need to do something about AGW?

    Brad will not say.

    Why?

  202. I’m really enjoying reading the “dialogue” between “dean” and “Brad Keyes”. Perhaps that’s something what’s otherwise quite ordinary for the inmate(s) of “Klimanürnberg, Germany”?

    Not that I’m offended in the least, as far as “they” cause no harm to others. 🙂 Brad Keyes’ deluded conviction that he was actually “only joking” may even be somewhat beneficial for his self-esteem, perhaps, even though he generally seems to be one of those individuals who brought the stupid people into disrepute.

  203. BBD,

    Still too frightened to answer the question Brad?

    You mean the one I’ve wasted umpteen hours of my life answering on the Internet (passim), and which you could google for yourself if only you had the googlenads?

    Still too much of a pussy to agree to the clearly-stated preconditions for revisiting this time-consuming conversation with me for the umpteenth time plus one, Dominic? (Which, by happy coincidence, has also been a precondition for all scientific reasoning for the last three centuries?)

    Why?

  204. Jiri,

    As far as the URL thing is concerned, you’d make yourself a bit clearer if you’d just link the URL, anyway.

    THAT’S WHAT I DID, troll.

    Read #217. Read it again. Read harder.

    It may be time to face the fact that English just isn’t your thing.

    That’s OK. Go “argue” with Vaclav Klaus. (To the extent possible, I mean—given that argumentation apparently isn’t your thing either.)

  205. dean,

    “You’ve been informed several times why what you’re saying isn’t valid but you continue to say it.”

    Wait, so you’re suggesting that people have disagreed with me, and that IN SPITE OF THEIR NOT AGREEING WITH ME, I remained consistent in my opinions?

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of that.

    Thank you, anonytroll, for drawing my crimes to my attention.

    I’m going to have to take a long hard look at myself in the mirror I carry with me at all times.

    “But that’s standard procedure for the right.”

    I wouldn’t know. Most of my friends, family and colleagues are even further to the left than me.

    Anyway, this “right” you speak of sounds despicable.

    Having the courage of their convictions, DESPITE THE FACT THAT OTHER PEOPLE REPEATEDLY DISAGREE WITH THEM?

    For shame!

    “You’ve been saying that the consensus drives the position of the scientists, so what they say is bogus.”

    Close, but no.

    The voices impersonating me inside your unmedicated brain have been saying that.

    Doesn’t your psychiatric Webster pack include some sort of reminder to take your Haloperidol every morning, at a regular time?

    Because that’s really quite key.

  206. dean,

    lastly, some non-medical advice. Try to avoid posting things like this:

    “Brad, every time you post your “view” of what climate science says you’re repeating a lie.”

    Every time you do, you remind this whole thread of what is probably your most embarrassing disability: your cowardly, self-incriminating failure to quote even a single lie I’ve told.

    Far better, strategically, to simply avoid that whole theme forever and pray to God that your opponents don’t bring it up in order to humiliate you all over again.

    In time, and with luck, everyone here will forget that you were ever stupid enough to make the accusation.

  207. Since you insist consensus doesn’t matter, your dribbling doesn’t matter, being a consensus of one, bray.

    You have no space to make claims of ridicule, your entire spiel being ridiculous, and always has been. Your assertions have no merit. The words you spout are merely a screaming of “LOOK AT ME!” from a mentally retarded three year old demanding special treatment from their betters.

    All you have manged is to prove to everyone here who and what you are and that means nobody is buying your bullshit.

  208. Since you insist consensus doesn’t matter, your dribbling doesn’t matter, being a consensus of one, bray.

    You have no space to make claims of ridicule, your entire spiel being ridiculous, and always has been. Your assertions have no merit. The words you spout are merely a screaming of “LOOK AT ME!” from a mentally retarded three year old demanding special treatment from their betters.

    All you have manged is to prove to everyone here who and what you are and that means nobody is buying your bullshit.

  209. “It isn’t clear why you have such a bug up your butt about science”

    It’s to argue. To win. To make someone lose, even more.

    Bray was in debating society at school and spent many glorious hours beating people up with nonsense and ignorance that listened not to other people and it was the happiest days of his life.

    And he’s done the same thing many many times before. See the copy of Ian Foresters’ comment on Bray’s psyche and occurrence in the dregs of society given elsewhere.

    He argues for the sake of the argument.

  210. Wow,

    I read your last few comments so nobody else would have to. (I’m a nice guy like that.)

    You probably fancy yourself a top pop psychologist for guessing that my aim in arguing with the Forest Troll And Friends was…

    To win. To make someone lose, even more.

    …and, to your credit, that explanation does make some prima facie sense (unlike most of the word-like grunts you emit)—at least as preliminary hypotheses go.

    But don’t get carried away with self-congratulation just yet. Correlation ? causation, and likewise outcome ? motive.

    I might win (and make someone else lose) whenever I debate you people, but it doesn’t follow that that’s my incentive for doing it.

    Keep speculating.

  211. Ww,

    Since you insist consensus doesn’t matter, your dribbling doesn’t matter, being a consensus of one, bray.

    It burns.

    Listen, idiot: a consensus about nature doesn’t matter as evidence ABOUT NATURE, or (in common parlance) it doesn’t matter IN SCIENCE.

    Which is why, unlike most climatologists, I know better than to demean myself by asking anyone to take my word on a question ABOUT NATURE, or in common parlance, a “SCIENTIFIC” question.

    And it’s why, unlike most Netherlands-based eco-entomologists, I know better than to disqualify myself from the scientific profession by openly admitting that I “go with the consensus [IN A DISPUTE ABOUT NATURE, OR IN COMMON PARLANCE, A “SCIENTIFIC” MATTER] every time”…i.e., that I can’t tell the elementary fucking difference between evidence and majority opinion.

    On a positive note, congratulations on almost stringing together a complete English sentence.

    Sure, you fucked up at the last word by using a verb in place of a name, but don’t beat yourself up about it. You’re clearly much more literate than your fellow palindrome, “Wow,” the resident laughing-stock whose idea of a paragraph is:

    Not forgetting those things were false without anyone falsifying them. And Bray (he owned a sweet shop in Glasgow) and is here because he has Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

    And no, in case you were wondering, I didn’t make that quote up. “Wow” actually wrote that, Ww.

    You’re probably thinking what the rest of us are thinking: Jiri speaks better English than that (and Jiri doesn’t even speak English)!

    So whenever you feel stupid, Ww, just remember there are even stupider people than you. In this very thread.

  212. You mean the one I’ve wasted umpteen hours of my life answering on the Internet (passim), and which you could google for yourself if only you had the googlenads?

    So just spit it out then. WTF’s the problem? What are you so scared of?

    Not only are you acting like a nutter, you are being tedious with it and that will not do.

  213. “It burns.”

    I know reality hurts your feels.

    Don’t care.

    “Listen, idiot: a consensus about nature doesn’t matter as evidence”

    It is evidence, you blithering buffoonish blowhard.

    “ABOUT NATURE”

    WHY THE SCREAMING??!?!?!?

    Are you saying that scientists are unnatural?? They’re not. Perfectly natural.

    “And no, in case you were wondering, I didn’t make that quote up”

    And in case anyone is wondering, bray’s backward blockheadedness never understood the language, unlike even Dutch entomologists who have a different first language.

    Again, nobody was shocked.

    “just remember there are even stupider people than you. ”

    Yourself.

    By a country mile.

    And a few continents.

    Plus a galaxy or three.

    And possibly one universe.

  214. “So just spit it out then. WTF’s the problem? What are you so scared of?”

    As with other denieriot trolls, being tied down to a specific claim. As long as he has no spine, he can wriggle away from any comment he makes.

  215. I suspect that if Brad admits the truth – ie that nothing would convince him (because he’s a lunatic-grade denier) – then he knows he will be written off once and for all as just another beyond-help nutter.

    Mind you, that’s what’s happened anyway, so he shouldn’t fear to speak up.

  216. BBD,

    evidence about the climate (also known as scientific evidence) would “convince me.”

    But since you appear to think—or at best, are strangely unwilling to deny—that such “evidence” includes opinion polls of scientists, I’m not going to waste my time going into any more detail or depth.

    It’s not like I haven’t already made that mistake, umpteen times, with you and others, on the fucking Internet. I used to be an incurable optimist, after all, who held onto faith in the fundamental human desire to comprehend new things.

    Now I’m cured.

  217. “such “evidence” includes opinion polls of scientists”

    Consensus isn’t an opinion poll of scientists. Seems like you do not understand what consensus is as well as what evidence is.

    A consensus is evidence. Sorry, child, throwing a tantrum and trying to change the wording to nudge it over to some strawman that you want to yell “GOTCHA!!!!” over to “win” isn’t working. You’ve been doing this shit for 15-20 years now and there are many many people who already have seen this play out a tiresome number of times.

    Try reddit.

    “It’s not like I haven’t already made that mistake”

    Aaaawwww.

    However, given you understand neither evidence nor consensus, the mistake you’ve made in the past many many times are unlikely to be anything relevant here.

    “evidence about the climate (also known as scientific evidence) would “convince me.”

    It hasn’t for 20-30 years so far. It’s not like there hasn’t been anything said on the subject nor science done.

    However as you don’t know what evidence is, nor consensus, it is hardly unexpected you wouldn’t know what science is either, and thereby missed the IPCC’s reports and the entire Deltoid blog you posted on.

    You are just in denial.

    Pure and simple. The latter being you to a “T”.

  218. Brad Keyes

    But since you appear to think—or at best, are strangely unwilling to deny—that such “evidence” includes opinion polls of scientists, I’m not going to waste my time going into any more detail or depth.

    Nope. I’ve already said that your nuttery about consensus messaging is irrelevant so we can set it aside. We know that you don’t accept the validity of consensus messaging. You bore on about it interminably. So just ignore it and answer the question:

    What would convince you that we need to act on climate change.

    Or I’m going to answer it for you and we will use whatever I decide to say from here on since you refuse to speak up on your own behalf.

  219. BBD,

    By the way, yes, I do realize you’d have to understand what scientific evidence is in order to get anything out of the answer I just provided.

    But they don’t pay me enough to teach you that.

  220. Scientific evidence that we need to act on climate change.

    There’s an embarrassment of it, from palaeoclimate onwards.

    If you don’t accept all that then in effect, you are actually unpersuadable (ie, nuts).

  221. By the way, yes, I do realize you’d have to understand what scientific evidence is in order to get anything out of the answer I just provided.

    I noticed your careful silence during technical discussion with Dave-the-not-very-bright on the other thread. Just as I have always noticed that you never engage on detailed discussions of the scientific evidence.

    You know fuck-all about the scientific evidence.

  222. BBD,

    As amusing as it is to watch you flail around I’m an incorrigible softie at heart, and compassion always trumps Schadenfreude.

    So here’s a friendly tip between non-friends:

    If you aspire to pass as sort-of-scientifically-literate one day, you’re really going to need to stop talking about “the scientific evidence” simpliciter.

    Once or twice is acceptable, as an abbreviation. More than than that and it begins to look as if you honest-to-god mistake the phrase for a complete thought.

    How can I put this nicely? It isn’t.

    It’s not a complete thought.

    You have to get in the habit of talking (and thinking) about “the scientific evidence THAT X IS THE CASE,” or “…FOR Y,” or “…AGAINST Z.”

    Failure to do so is a dead giveaway that you picked up everything you know about scientific epistemology from half-hour courtroom dramas.

    I’m perfectly aware that the following humor is going to soar over your head without even ruffling a hair in its wake, but I paste it here (from the Devil’s History of the Climate Debate) to cheer up the next scientist who gets lost on the Interwebz and finds herself in the wasteland that is scienceblogs dot com:

    2001

    First reports emerge of a new, ahypothetical form of evidence. Scientists believe this substance—dubbed simply ‘the evidence’—may be capable of ‘piling up,’ gaining ‘weight’ and ‘pointing to’ various scientific and political conclusions.

    As I said, you won’t get the joke.

    Here’s the premise you fail to grasp:

    In science, “evidence” means nothing except in relation to specified hypotheses.

  223. Brad Keyes:

    Scientific evidence that we need to act on climate change.

    This one comment on its own is enough to convince me that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

  224. Richard,

    on the rare occasion that I see a comment as superhumanly subhuman in its enthrallment to the cult of the Unmind as your stupidity above, the only word is:

    Wow.

    Just….

    Wow.

    (Do you come here often? In case you missed the reference, I just called you the only thing worse than “turd-burgling pederast cunt” in the English lexicon. Twice. Smile 🙂 )

  225. BBD,

    accept my apologies for the sneering tone of my last few posts to you.

    On reflection (and research), it’s apparently quite possible (and common) for people to repeatedly speak of “the scientific evidence” without the required hypothetical specification, despite understanding full well that it’s technically meaningless to do so… for the simple reason that in English we’re allowed to leave many or most of our premises unspoken much or most of the time.

    So if (IF!) you were AWARE that “the scientific evidence” is technically unmitigated word-salad in the absence of a specified hypothesis, but were using the idiom anyway (because you figured the hypothesis in question could be taken as read by all concerned), THEN it was premature and wrong of me to impugn your rudimentary scientific literacy.

    However, EVEN IF you were every bit as ignorant of the rules of science as I initially thought, I probably STILL shouldn’t have torn you a new cloaca, since (in stark contrast to just about every other believalist on the scienceblogs web domain) you’ve kind-of more-or-less demonstrated the virtue of educability.

    In case you really are educable, then (notwithstanding your many cognitive and interpersonal defects) that alone is enough to warrant some hope for your redemption yet.

    Some slim, but non-zero, hope.

    So I shouldn’t squander that possibility without first exhausting all methods of getting through to you.

  226. ...I know better than to disqualify myself from the scientific profession by openly admitting that I “go with the consensus [IN A DISPUTE ABOUT NATURE, OR IN COMMON PARLANCE, A “SCIENTIFIC” MATTER] every time”…i.e., that I can’t tell the elementary fucking difference between evidence and majority opinion.
    You’re not a scientist, but you feel compelled to speak for them.
    And no on here has ‘admitted’ that they go with, or defer or submit, to domain consensus ‘every time’. And when they do, it does not ‘disqualify them from the scientific profession’…haven’t you noticed?
    And no one has confused evidence with majority opinion…except yourself for the purpose of ‘supporting’ your tedious decrees about the ‘rules of science’ as dictated by yourself the self-appointed gatekeeper.
    You’re a bit like Monckton on steroids, pretentious, obsessive, blustering, ultimately talking to yourself. After all, who else has your authority?

  227. Nick,

    “And no on here has ‘admitted’ that they go with, or defer or submit, to domain consensus ‘every time’.”

    This will not end well for you, Nick.

    You’re in fulminant, psychotic denial of the English words Jeff wrote, and I quoted back at him.

    (No need to answer—that’s not a question.)

  228. Oooooh it ‘will not end well’. I don’t give a shit about any puerile gotch-ism that motivates you, mate.
    So Jeff states he trusts domain knowledge in climate science? Do you think that renders him helpless in all other fields? Do you think he’d be unable to change his positions with the appearance of new argument and evidence? I don’t get that feeling….on the other hand , from you, I see an inflexibility that cripples you. Turns you into a shrill fool.
    You can’t see that.
    Meanwhile, consensi about bits of science shape bits of policy the world over, and are seen to be effective…as much of an insult to science as you apparently insist they are.
    This is an idea that animates you, something that people apparently have trouble with:
    Consensus is NOT a form of evidence in science
    Who knew? Where’d you get the idea that it was…is it a misconception you labored under for a while?
    Consensus on knowledge in any domain you want to consider is used to shape policy.
    Pretty ordinary stuff.

  229. “Scientific evidence that we need to act on climate change.”

    So you accept that AGW is real, you just don’t want to do anything about it.

  230. “Oooooh it ‘will not end well’.”

    Indeed no, because on the other thread you said this:

    Are you seeing something for your crushing lack of self-esteem, Brad?

    And that put you on his shitlist. He hates you now. This time it’s personal. You hit his ego.

  231. “…I know better ”

    You don’t.

    Without accepting consensus you have to do personally, yourself, every single bit of maths proof, derivation and test and every single test, proof, derivation and exhaustive refutation of any and all science now and in the past.

    You have to re-prove the nonexistence of the Aether. You have to re-prove the methods of calculus. Because if you accept any of those without proving it yourself, you’re accepting the consensus.

    And when you’ve done all that, it is meaningless. There is nobody who can accept your conclusions without accepting a consensus unless they do all that work again themselves.

    Tell me, did you prove the effectiveness of asprin? Do you have the tests and data to prove its’ efficacy?

    If not, you just accepted consensus.

  232. “Wow.

    Just….

    Wow.”

    Yup, You didn’t consider that bullshit to be such a clear and complete indicator of your worthlessness, did you.

  233. He has to make you recant that, though, Nick. The barb stuck in and he can’t remove it. And until you recant or are made to suffer, he can’t feel better about himself knowing you still are alive after that shot.

  234. Something to remember Nick is that NPD doesn’t have feelings, they have ego. You can’t hurt their *feelings*. That is impossible. You have to realise there is no feelings.

    But you hit their ego, that shit is real.

  235. Is anyone still here?

    Not including Wow and his classmate Nick, obviously (occupying as they do the lowest, so-called Auto-Skip, bracket of human intelligence).

    Methinks das Thread ist Dead.

  236. “Wow and Nick, the kids, are dumb, and I’m real smart and grown-up” dribbles Brad Keyes. Methinks your self-worship killed it.
    On and on with your self-oblivious ranting…despite you doing this everywhere you go, you never catch on.
    Do you think you could hold your own in a conversation with adults, Brad?
    Certainly what you offer puts the lie to that.
    You got Dave B and his boilerplate rejectionism, and yourself with your boilerplate auto-fellation….I don’t think you were having the time you think you were.
    Anyway, nearly 300 comments, what do you want?
    Greg has moved on, indifferent to your tired routine, and my interest in your pathology is now over.

  237. “Do you think you could hold your own in a conversation with adults, Brad?”

    Of course he THINKS that he can. However he has to deny reality and rewrite it to continue to do so, because reality says “No, no way Jose, he loon!”.

  238. Of course part of his attempt to bury in bullshit is to hide that his assertion he only needs “scientific evidence” that something should be done about AGW proves he KNOWS AGW is real and exists, but doesn’t want to do it.

    He loathes being pinned down to a solid claim. No way to wriggle out of his words if they keep blocking the way.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Which look like his normal measures to sane people.

  239. Brad Keyes

    You don’t accept that a scientific consensus conveys information about the strength of scientific evidence to non-specialists. You don’t investigate the scientific evidence yourself and evince no interest in it whatsoever. Yet when cornered, you claim that ‘scientific evidence’ would be required to convince you to change your position.

    You have, deliberately or inadvertently, created a self-sealing bubble of denialism. Hence the impossibility of progress, something which I suspect suits you perfectly.

  240. Boring Boring Domini Canis:

    “You don’t accept that a scientific consensus conveys information about the strength of scientific evidence to non-specialists.”

    Well fuck me dead and bury me pregnant. It not only speaks, it understands English! Oh frabjous day!

    Yes. Well struck, dog [source: King Joffrey, PhD].

    That has indeed been my clearly, unambiguously, unweaselingly stated position, as mankind has known for almost a decade now.

    And it took you a month of Domingos to honestly paraphrase a point I’ve made.

    (But will it take you another month to figure out the fact that “the strength of scientific evidence” is a far-from-literate way of putting it, or putting anything for that matter? It’s not as if I’ve kept this fact secret from you either. But I can only lead a whore to culture—I can’t make her think.)

    I don’t “accept” the counterfactual delusion premise in question for exactly the same reason that Professor James Lovelock, PhD, knows better than to “accept” it. (Source: the other thread. At the URL concerning “Michael Man” [sic].)

    To wit:

    We both took Science 101.

    You should try it.

    “You don’t investigate the scientific evidence [sic] yourself and evince no interest in it whatsoever.”

    That’s not quite fair. I do evince a remote, passing interest in it.

    But if you’re accusing me of finding any topic of the form “Climate Abstractnoun” a bit boring… guilty as charged.

    Even climate scientists, in their occasional lapses into candor, have acknowledged that, dude.

    It’s not considered one of the Soporific Sciences for nothing.

  241. Domini Canis,

    you might want to be more specific when you whinge…

    You have, deliberately or inadvertently, created a self-sealing bubble of denialism. Hence the impossibility of progress, something which I suspect suits you perfectly.

    …lest passersby get the impression that you attribute me with the power to single-handedly obstruct the world’s somnambulistic progress towards the cliff of Doing Something.

    If you merely credit me with single-handedly neutering this thread, or every other thread I’ve turned my therapeutic attention to, fair enough.

    But say so, lest you be misunderstood as crediting me with the kind of history-controlling superpower with which even Naomi Oreskes would blush to endow one of her Four Magical Jews Elders of Doubt Merchants of Venice.

    Grow up. Get real[istic]. You’re not as fatuous as Orekses (to damn you with faint praise), are you, BBD?

    A single skeptic couldn’t possibly manipulate the levers of history from behind the curtains such as to wake up the whole international community in time to avoid Acting on Climate.

    It takes at least 3.

  242. He does appear to be far far more unhinged than at any time he’s blithered on incoherently in the past.

    Maybe Nick broke his brain. At least what was left.

  243. Barking Bonkers Domini Canis:

    You are totally fucking nuts, Brad.

    Impotence to respond to anything I wrote noted.

    By the way, I apologize for apologizing to you earlier and extending you the presumption of educability.

    It seems I’m a slow learner. Still, delayed late than never (sorry, Dom).

  244. Barking Bonkers Domini Canis:

    “You are totally fucking nuts, Brad.”

    Impotence to respond to anything explained to you (#291) noted.

    By the way, I apologize for apologizing to you earlier and extending you the presumption of educability.

    It seems I’m a slow learner. Still, better delayed than never (sorry, Dom).

  245. BTW BBD,

    Either you accept the evidentiary worthlessness of consensuses in science (as required by Rule One of Science Club) or you don’t.

    Even Prof. James Lovelock, who’s hardly a climate denialist, parts ways with Jeff by accepting how science works:

    What inspired me to write this book was hearing in the autumn of 2007 that the IPCC had reached a consensus on future climate.

    I know that such a word has no place in the lexicon of science; it is a good and useful word but it belongs to the world of politics and the courtroom, where reaching a consensus is a way of solving human differences. Scientists are concerned with probabilities, never with certainties or consensual agreement.

    When Educating The Ineducable continues, after the break:

    Can Wows be taught to use human-like language?

    No.

  246. Scientists are concerned with probabilities, never with certainties or consensual agreement.
    This point, as a point of purism, is not in dispute.
    However, scientists are also human beings with rights. Inquiry is collegial, humans are like that….
    They are permitted, Brad, to hold consensual views of what the evidence permits. They are permitted to partake in the political acts of using agreed knowledge to direct policy.
    They do not stop being scientists while they are being citizens. The science does not just evaporate when it’s used in the service of society…the evidence is overwhelming for the efficacy of consensual views arising from the scientific endeavour.

    Assuming you hold down a job, Brad, how do you get away with it?
    Does Jim Lovelock trust you dusting down his desk?

  247. Nick,

    your comment is wrong.

    On the plus side it managed to maintain the illusion of politeness until the very last paragraph, so thank God (and thank you) for small, but not negligible, mercies (and bad, but not atrocious, manners).

    Scientists are concerned with probabilities, never with certainties or consensual agreement.

    This point, as a point of purism, is not in dispute.

    If it’s not in dispute that scientists don’t care about consensuses, then it can’t possibly be in dispute that Jeff Harvey (who openly admits he goes with the consensus every time on questions about the natural world) is a non-scientist, can it, Nick?

    No. It can’t be in dispute, because it’s a syllogism.

    Then again, never say never. On a blog like this, anything can be denialized, even the Law of the Excluded Middle, as I’ve learned to my great amusement. (Did you see that idiot who recently insisted overweeningly-high self-esteem was a symptom of crushingly-low self-esteem? I wish s/h/it would drop the pseudonym so I could do a psychiatry long-case on him/her/it.) The denialism is strong in this place.

    They are permitted, Brad, to hold consensual views of what the evidence permits.

    This platitude, as a bromide of banality, is not in dispute.

    NOBODY DOUBTS THAT CONSENSUSES AMONG SCIENTISTS CAN AND DO—AND, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF PROBABILITY, MUST—EXIST.

    the evidence is overwhelming for the efficacy of consensual views arising from the scientific endeavour

    Only in a forum like this would I need to thank someone for acknowledging the obvious. Thank you for acknowledging the obvious.

    You’re obviously right. Despite the inherent fraudulence of trying to pass a majority opinion (consensus) among scientists off as an argument (evidence) in favor of believing something about the natural world, inherent frauds like John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes have so often let the mask slip that it’s now an open secret that they perpetrate this fraud deliberately—not because it’s non-fraudulent, but because it works.

    And they’re depressingly right. It’s very, very effective on a population which lacks herd immunity against such Jedi mind frauds (thanks to the appalling state of scientific education these days).

    Please don’t tell me you’ve joined those anti-science criminals in their Faustian/Schneiderian deal with Satan by trading honesty for effectiveness.

    I know.

  248. [I f/mucked up the HTML. Also, I was over-combative. Double apologies.]

    Nick,

    your comment manages to remain polite until the very last paragraph, so thank God (and thank you) for small, but not negligible, mercies (and bad, but not terrible, manners).

    Scientists are concerned with probabilities, never with certainties or consensual agreement.

    This point, as a point of purism, is not in dispute.

    If it’s not in dispute that scientists don’t care about consensuses, then it can’t possibly be in dispute that Jeff Harvey (who openly admits he goes with the consensus every time on questions about the natural world) is a non-scientist, can it, Nick?

    No.

    It can’t be in dispute, because it’s a syllogism.

    Then again, never say never. On a blog like this, anything can be denialized, even the Law of the Excluded Middle, as I’ve discovered to my amusement.

    (Did you see that idiot who recently insisted overweeningly-high self-esteem was a symptom of crushingly-low self-esteem? I wish s/h/it would drop the pseudonym so I could do a psychiatry long-case on her/him/it.)

    The denialism is strong in this place.

    They are permitted, Brad, to hold consensual views of what the evidence permits.

    This platitude, as a bromide of banality, is not in dispute.

    NOBODY DOUBTS THAT CONSENSUSES AMONG SCIENTISTS CAN AND DO—AND, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF PROBABILITY, MUST—EXIST.

    What is denied (because it’s false) is the false claim that consensus matters to scientists. It doesn’t. So little shit do they give about majority opinions, they don’t even have a word for them.

    Let me repeat: such a word is not even in the lexicon of science.

    I’ve been explaining this for years, and it’s good to hear my fellow scientific literate, James Lovelock, finally catching up. Better late than never.

    the evidence is overwhelming for the efficacy of consensual views arising from the scientific endeavour

    Only in a forum like this would I need to thank someone for acknowledging the obvious. Thank you for acknowledging the obvious.

    You’re obviously right. Despite the inherent fraudulence of trying to pass off a majority opinion (consensus) among scientists as an argument or reason (evidence) to believe something about the natural world, inherent frauds like John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes have so often let the mask slip that it’s now an open secret:

    They perpetrate this fraud, deliberately, not because it’s non-fraudulent, but because it works.

    And they’re depressingly right.

    This pre-scientific fallacy is very, very effective on a population which lacks herd immunity against such Jedi mind frauds (thanks to the appalling state of scientific education these days).

    Please don’t tell me you’ve joined those anti-science criminals in their Faustian/Schneiderian deal with Satan by trading honesty for effectiveness.

    I know.*
    ______
    *Yay, I managed to pretend to be civil until the very last paragraph! Does that do much to mitigate my rudeness? You be the judge.

  249. It’s depressing enough when you see a human brain that can produce people like serial killers, paedophiles and religious fundamentalists.

    But when you see a caricature of a hominid that acts like bray does you get REALLY depressed at how badly a brain can go wrong.

    And not even with the limp excuse trump has, where he’s been privileged all his life and given ample proof it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s immune to consequence or reality.

    Here is bray with nothing, determined to ensure it becomes even less.

  250. Sheesh! Not had much to do with this thread but see that Veroa destructor like Keys has infested this with his usual high handed displays of overweening foppishness.

    He was paying so much close attention on that other thread that he missed my #1486 which provided the rationale confuting such as he repeats at #299 above here:

    BTW BBD,

    Either you accept the evidentiary [note the conceit of the use of that word in place of evidential which latter is a better fit anyway] worthlessness of consensuses in science (as required by Rule One of Science Club) or you don’t.

    I repeat that rational here:

    Now the nature of ‘consensus’ can be described as (Brad Keyes take note also):

    Consensus is not by itself, a scientific argument and is not part of the scientific method [and non of us who understand this topic ever tried to make it look so], however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

    Source: Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science that links to a page about the 9th edition 2016, the quote is a footnote on page 529 of my 2007 International Student Edition.

    Can Brads be taught to exercise due diligence and honesty when corrected with references? Doubtful.

    Hurl your toys out of the pram again Brad, I don’t particularly care having set the record straight here too.

  251. “This point, as a point of purism, is not in dispute.”

    However, this isn’t taken as a point of purism by the clinically insane, nick. It’s taken as a matter of absolute invariant fact of reality. Because, well, they’re cuckoo for cocopuffs.

    Consensus is a central part of science, without which there would be no science.

    DOING science is nothing to do with consensus.

    But the entire meaning of the scientific method is consensus. And that is what deniers will eternally refuse to get.

    And your meaning there will be ignored and the words twisted to mean anything that the insane dribbling morons can squeeze out of their mind’s ringpiece to keep their delusions alive.

    For some the only delusion they desire is that they are important.

    That sort of insanity is what drives bray’s demented life.

  252. “Can Brads be taught to exercise due diligence and honesty when corrected with references? Doubtful.”

    Impossible. That would require it allow something else to be more authority than it is.

    Ego refuses.

  253. “Either you accept the evidentiary worthlessness of consensuses in science”

    Either you accept the absolute necessity of consensus in science or you can blow it out your ass.

  254. If it’s not in dispute that scientists don’t care about consensuses,
    No one said that, Brad, that’s your risible self-deception from your compulsion to paraphrase at work. Scientists can care about consensus, and can care not for them.
    then it can’t possibly be in dispute that Jeff Harvey (who openly admits he goes with the consensus every time on questions about the natural world) is a non-scientist, can it, Nick?
    Sorry, you’ve lost yourself. You’ll never understand. Anyway, Jeff is still a scientist when he’s knocked off for the day.
    (Did you see that idiot who recently insisted overweeningly-high self-esteem was a symptom of crushingly-low self-esteem?
    No, but I’m reading the words of an idiot who still can’t figure out how that works. Possibly the first case of adult-onset autism. You.
    [wading through your coquettry, we get to…]
    Despite the inherent fraudulence of trying to pass a majority opinion (consensus) among scientists off as an argument (evidence) in favor of believing something about the natural world,
    Nothing inherently fraudulent in that at all.
    You have persuaded yourself something holds that simply doesn’t. These things can happen.
    You’ll probably never get over it, given the vanity you’ve invested in it, but it matters little.

  255. Medicine requires consensus. Relies on it. Every single medical study requires consensus as evidence of efficacy.

    Yet another massive slice of evidence that the Walter Mitty claims of being a doctor are fake.

  256. Note too that this thread was about Trump and yet has morphed into another egofest of bray. The Mann thread became entirely bray’s raucous noise about himself. When he was cordoned off in a jail thread, he demanded sole dominion and authority over someone else’s blog.

    Everything is about how bray is important.

    Because the knowledge he’s a meaningless insect terrifies and horrifies him.

  257. His own blog is abandoned and ignored, hence he does not visit there. Nor post his questions he demands only the desired person respond to there, where he can in fact require that demand be upheld.

    So he runs around other blogs trying to take them over and turn every conversation into how great bray is and how worthless everyone else is (in case the first is not taken as true).

    The pathetic squeak of the miniscule rodent is repeated everywhere people gather, because the only reason for bray to exist is for the attention and adulation of others.

    And therefore he denies AGW, for much the same reason Curry and Monckton does, for the unearned adulation accorded them for the mere fact of denying AGW. No other quality is required. None of them care about AGW to give a fig whether it is true or not. They only notice that this gets them the worship they need without actually having to work to earn it (and fail when their self esteem is too great for their capacity to assuage)

  258. Look at bray’s desperate scrabble for anything, no matter how unsupported by reality, to use to drag anyone better than him (which is pretty much everyone) down.

    His claims of partial sentences is based on a nonexistent rule that sentences must be five words or more. But it’s the best he has against me.

    His claims of consensus is all he has against Jeff’s demonstrated ability.

    His stupidity at whining about other people’s rudeness is nothing different from any other moron unable to get their own way, just another example of their fragility and snowflake personality.

    The shitheads ensure they deserve every drop of invective and if they don’t get it they will persist until they do then whine the victim card forever on that.

    Even if it requires making up the offence, as with that rightwing nutjob who cut themselves to blame “leftists” for stabbing him for having a nazi haircut.

    And, as with every other rightwingnutjobbery, the whistle for the dogs of the rightwing pack works because this confirms what they “already knew” was the case, except the lying liberal media hides it, as said on Fox. There’s no need for reality when it is wanted to be believed.

    All whinging by deniers, and this retard in particular, are the desperate straw clutching of the terminally incompetent trying to blame their insignificance on everyone else who doesn’t agree with their “obvious greatness”.

  259. Nick,

    [Quoting BK:]If it’s not in dispute that scientists don’t care about consensuses,[end quote]

    No one said that, Brad

    Sheesh! James Lovelock is “no one” now?

    I mean, Jim’s no Richard Feynman, that’s for sure… but NO ONE?

    Even I wouldn’t go that far. You really don’t seem to like the author of The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. Fair enough, but denying his humanhood isn’t going to magically undo the fact that he penned this admirable and overdue reflection (my emphasis for your ease of comprehension):
    _______________

    What inspired me to write this book was hearing in the autumn of 2007 that the IPCC had reached a consensus on future climate.

    I know that such a word [“consensus”] has no place in the lexicon of science; it is a good and useful word but it belongs to the world of politics and the courtroom, where reaching a consensus is a way of solving human differences. SCIENTISTS ARE CONCERNED WITH PROBABILITIES, NEVER WITH CERTAINTIES OR CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT.

    —Professor James Lovelock, PhD,
    The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
    ________

    I know, Nick, I know:

    Reeding Iz Hard.

  260. Wow,

    would you shut the fuck up please? The high-school graduates are talking.

    [Greg, what is the rationale behind tolerating Wow? Are you some kind of fundamentalist Voltairean free-speech extremist terrorist radical bastard of the Enlightenment? That’s great (so am I), but I might be tempted to draw the line if my principles came at the expense of making my blog unreadable.]

  261. Bradley, your worship at the Shrine of the Word of Lovelock is already noted, and is a matter of some amusement.
    Try to move on, we live in an applied world.
    Some of us, at least.

  262. “NEVER WITH CERTAINTIES OR CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT.”

    Science demands consensus, or there is no science at all.

    As a non scientist you have no remit to ignore consensus or its meaning, nor make such brazenly incorrect claims about science.

    You are a clueless idiot who does not comprehend the smallest idea of science.

  263. James Lovelock:

    “By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin. In Britain we will escape because of our oceanic position.”

  264. James Lovelock

    “the people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain”.

  265. “The high-school graduates are talking.”

    Yes, we are, but the puling idiocies of someone who failed pre-school keeps interrupting everyone. Please can it and let your betters talk.

  266. “—Professor James Lovelock, PhD,”

    Who if we agree with, creates a consensus, which means James must be wrong. Moreover James doesn’t want anyone to agree with them (if your asinine assertions were in any way connected with reality rather than your rectum, within which your head resides as a naturalised resident), since that would be consensus.

  267. [Greg, I admire your apparent reluctance to censor one “side” of a debate, NO MATTER WHAT, but here’s the interesting twist:

    Wow doesn’t represent any side of any question about anything.

    The reason he’s ridiculed and hated in these fora bilaterally is that he never advances ANY idea. He’s apparently incapable of doing so, as everyone—on every “side” of every debate—who’s had the displeasure of trying to correct him has discovered.

    I’m genuinely not sure if Voltaire’s famous dictum would have extended to people with a proven incompetence to argue ANYTHING.

    (I suspect he’d have put Wow in the “I Don’t Even Disagree” category.)

    Something to think about, anyway.]

  268. “Greg, I admire your apparent reluctance to censor one “side” of a debate, NO MATTER WHAT”

    Because it’s the only thing bray requires to turn your blog into the bray show.

  269. So having failed with his ejumacation attempt to shut down dissent of his assertion of his own greatness, bray tries to pretend legion and censorship.

    As Voltiair once said “That Bradley character’s a fucking loon”.

  270. I criticized James Lovelock:

    Jim’s no Richard Feynman, that’s for sure…

    But in reply to Nick’s denihilistic denigration of Lovelock’s human status, which even I thought was going too far, I chided:

    Even I wouldn’t go that far.

    Nick’s response abreaction?

    Bradley, your worship at the Shrine of the Word of Lovelock is already noted, and is a matter of some amusement.

    Ooookay then.

    Who’s going to try to explain to Nick the difference between hallucinated and noted?

    And between amusement and gelastic convulsions in the cell corner?

    They don’t pay me enough for this shit.

  271. The problem for deniers is they’re almost invariably rightwingers or libertarians. The rightwingers are inherently authoritarian and all the authorities for climate say that it’s real and happening. So they have to wait for HI to manufacture fake doubt or pick out someone with a PhD and find some word they said that they can use for their own ends.

    Lacking any brain themselves, they cannot actually work out why what that authority said is correct, so it’s only and entirely an appeal to authority.

    James is wrong about consensus. Without it there is no science and we’d be stuck with whatever stick and grass fibre we could grab to make the simplest of technologies ourselves.

  272. “” Bradley, your worship at the Shrine of the Word of Lovelock is already noted, and is a matter of some amusement.”

    Ooookay then.”

    OK? What does “OK” mean?

  273. “Who’s going to try to explain to Nick the difference between hallucinated and noted? ”

    He already knows.

    Hence his terminology. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it a hallucination.

  274. What inspired me to write this book was hearing in the autumn of 2007 that the IPCC had reached a consensus on future climate.

    Perhaps, why not?

    I know that such a word [“consensus”] has no place in the lexicon of science
    But in the lexicon of an international panel on the science of climate change, tasked at the interface of observation of the natural world and human activity, it’s quite at home. And is there really no evidence for agreement among the alpha swots of science? Even the disagreement is consensually respected.

    ‘…it is a good and useful word but it belongs to the world of politics and the courtroom, where reaching a consensus is a way of solving human differences.
    Brad would call this a ‘bromide of banality’ if he weren’t so intimidated by you, Jim. And solving human differences is very important…and don’t you recall how many times scientists have been castigated for their supposed detachment?

    SCIENTISTS ARE CONCERNED WITH PROBABILITIES, NEVER WITH CERTAINTIES OR CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT.
    Are you trying to bully Brad, Jim? You know how much he adores you…don’t take advantage of his trust.
    And also…bullshit.
    Sounds like Jim is trying to justify his finding too difficult and dull the challenge of the human condition in its writhing totality. He’s a bit of a loner. That’s OK, so why not try a little bluster, the punters like that stuff…

    He did say at the time we had twenty years or so to whoop it up, be kind to one another etc before it got nasty….
    in his humble opinion as an independent scientist.
    Silly old bugger couldn’t stand it when a bunch of his peers got together and said precisely the same thing
    Hypocrite.

  275. #329
    They don’t pay you at all, and what you produce is indeed shit.

    If that Neville No-mates Jim Lovelock ever tries to pull one one you again, Bradley…remember what I taught you.

  276. Nick, I would have called Lovelock’s affirmation of science’s contemptuous disregard for consensus a “bromide of banality” thirty years ago, when every primary-school graduate was perfectly aware of it.

    These days, following a generation of dumbing-down that began with Naomi Oreskes’ rearing her #distractinglysexy head, I call it a welcome reminder (to the Ninety-Eight Percent you belong to) of an axiom the Two Percent have failed to communicate clearly enough.

    Your (sarcastic? witty, in your mind?) inner dialogue between faux-worship and faux-ridicule of Lovelock was boring, so I skipped it.

    In case you haven’t got the memo yet, I don’t regard Lovelock as the most-correct ecologist since Swiss cheese. He’s far, far, far from it (from the very little I know about his work).

    But he is a scientist.

    Which would place him in rather small company on this thread.

  277. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

    Misunderstanding

    Advocates of pseudosciences tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority (or even a conspiracy).[1] Some even assume the existence of a mysteriously ill-defined “scientific establishment” enforcing received scientific orthodoxy by diktat.[2] The twisting of science was wrong before (skeptics may intone), and then what about the Galileo gambit? Furthermore, since the notion of falsifiability exists (no theory can never be fully certain), we should then ignore the mountains of literature already available. Or the opponents of “the” consensus simply equate falsifiability with “false”.

    Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons:

    The scientific community has the inherent role of keeping a check on popularly-held (either right or wrong) opinions.[3]
    If one study proves correct despite mainstream academic thought, it will eventually become the new consensus.

  278. Li D,

    Did Wow’s knuckles really mash out this turd:

    #326 ” As Voltiair once said “That Bradley character’s a fucking loon”.”

    Holy turd.

    Classic Wow, indeed.

    Voltiair!

    Bikause Tiping Es Hard.

  279. “Did Wow’s knuckles really mash out this masterpiece:

    #326 ” As Voltiair once said “That Bradley character’s a fucking loon”.””

    Yes, I did.

  280. “These days, following a generation of education that began with Naomi Oreskes’ ”

    You are left with trying to make her wrong by having a head of hair.

  281. “I call it a welcome reminder (to the Ninety-Eight Percent you belong to”

    Hi to the less-than-one-percent from the majority!

  282. “inner dialogue between faux-worship and faux-ridicule of Lovelock was boring,”

    Yes it was really boring when you faux-ridiculed Lovelock here:

    #329: I criticized James Lovelock

    But that isn’t faux-worship, that’s idolisation.But only because you think he agrees with you.

  283. “when every primary-school graduate was perfectly aware of it.”

    Ah,that explains it.

    You failed preschool. So you never got the chance.

  284. “I don’t regard Lovelock as the most-correct ecologist”

    But you insist he’s absolutely right about what he cannot know.

  285. #341 Oh Brad , don’t be so fucking helpless all your life

    Your (sarcastic? witty, in your mind?) inner dialogue between faux-worship and faux-ridicule of Lovelock was boring, so I skipped it.
    You’re the putz who has been waving Lovelock’s got-a book-to sell glibness around as though it’s a sacred text for the last [feels like a] week!
    Now you try and wriggle away from it….
    Pffft.
    You hate scientists, you idiot. You feel compelled to worship them [poor Jim’s the latest], and they always let you down…

  286. In the course of verifying what I was sure must have been a misquote by Li D in an attempt to make Wow’s IQ sound even less than zero, I accidentally gazed upon an even classic-er Wowism:

    OK? What does “OK” mean?

    “OK” IS THE MOST INTERNATIONALLY-RECOGNIZED WORD IN ANY WORLD LANGUAGE. YOU LITERALLY JUST ASKED THE MOST BEEFWITTED QUESTION HUMANLY POSSIBLE, WOW.

    (Which reminds me: when was your last checkup for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Wow? The test is minimally invasive, involving a pneumatic cattle reducer and a tiny prick. Apparently victims patients hardly feel a thing [source: No Country for Old Men].)

    Oh, and Wow: further denials of the blindingly-obvious fact that the Heartland Institute gives you rotting fish in exchange for spending every waking hour impersonating a climate believalist will be ignored. Like everything you type.

  287. “”OK” IS THE MOST INTERNATIONALLY-RECOGNIZED WORD IN ANY WORLD LANGUAGE.”

    So is “Yes”. But it would still require an explanation of what it meant.

    You continue to fail to explain what your OK means.

    I take it you looked it up in a dictionary and thought to type it.

    Misspelt, of course.

  288. “a tiny prick.”

    Yet you’re still a huge dick.

    But then again, being a prick is a state of mind. And your mind is, well, lets just say “underwhelming”. shall we?

  289. “Wow’s IQ sound even less than zero”

    Easily explained as the result of your rectal-cranial inversion. Everything is upside-down for you.

    And strangely echoey.

  290. I mean those quotes from him I posted probably scared you shitless, since oyu have never read anyting he said, just what denier blogrolls and fellow self-fellators on them claim about him. And they would not have read any of that other stuff recently.

    Being so short on brainpower, you do not have the capacity to remember when you all called him an alarmist and entirely and utterly wrong.

    Clearly those quotes from him I posted shocked you greatly.

  291. [Wow’s] Nick[name],

    ” Now you try and wriggle away from it….”

    NO, you cunt-brained mongoloid, I know reading is new to you but try really hard to PAY ATTENTION TO THE WURDZ.

    I haven’t even read his book and I doubt I ever will. But I *wholeheartedly* continue to endorse Lovelock’s foreword—you know, the passages I quoted in the direction of your thermonuclear bunker of a skull in the vain hopes of infiltrating a payload of clue into your low-occupancy brain.

    On second thought, you might as well fuck off now, you [scientifically and otherwise] illiterate peasant. Class dismissed. You’re wilfully ineducable. And I feel like the third-stupidest person here for imagining there was any hope for you.

  292. #365
    OK, your glass-jawness…
    You just picked some Lovelock ‘wurdz’ you liked because they fit your really inexperienced world-view. Got no idea what else he ‘sez’, have you.
    And now you’re wetting yourself, having made such a fool of yourself.
    Work on that self-esteem, and take down those GIFs of Lewandowsky and Oreskes…the neighbours are starting to think you’re ranting at yourself. They’d be right of course.
    And I feel like the third-stupidest person here for imagining there was any hope for you.
    False humility and complete insincerity from you….that low self-esteem is a tough one.

  293. “And now you’re wetting yourself, having made such a fool of yourself.”

    Not so much that but having everyone see him making a fool of himself.

    It stings.

  294. #365
    cunt-brained
    …a misogynist as well Brad? Of course you are. Alt-right birthright.
    Class dismissed
    You’re wilfully ineducable
    All the cliches of false confidence come tumbling out, don’t they.

  295. Nick,

    Sexist? Uh yeah, whatever you say.

    It’s hilarious (in an ironic, at-you-not-with-you kind of way) that you pick out the epithet “cunt-brained” for confected outrage.

    Your complete lack of objection to my use of “mongoloid” reveals your casual racism for all to see.

    Fish. Barrel. Kabloom.

    You people are too easy. Easier than a fattie on prom night.

    BTW, unless ‘alt-right’ is a long-winded way of saying ‘left’ (my location on the political spectrum according to every values questionnaire I’ve ever taken, and I’ve taken a lot of them because they’re fun), then your aspersions on my ‘birthright’ missed the target by so many country-brained miles, you remind me of PanadolFactoryGate, one of Hands-on Clinton’s top ten twenty hundred self-fuck-downs IIRC.

    PPPPS, I suggest you decide whether my humility is ‘false,’ my confidence ‘false,’ my self-esteem ‘high,’ or my self-esteem ‘low’ before you further beclown yourself in the jaws of the Law of the Excluded Middle, who is a mercilessly hard task-bitchstress.

  296. “Your complete lack of objection to my use of “mongoloid””

    Means nothing.

    But that’s the best you have. A big slice of nothingburger.

  297. “You people are too easy.”

    Well if you’re insane enough, anything is easy.

    Except facing reality.

    Never had much truck with that, did you, bray.

  298. “my location on the political spectrum according to every values questionnaire I’ve ever taken”

    Ah, more delusional proclamation.

  299. “PPPPS”

    All of them are possible and none of them are exclusive to any of the others.

    Your dribbling moronic status notwithstanding.

  300. #370
    Brad,
    I know I made it quite clear upthread that you are insincere, your humility is false and your self-esteem is low. You have a big muddy internet footprint that utterly confirms this.
    But as you were waving about Jim Lovelock’s ear-worm book- promoting provocation as though it was the Gordian Knot of the science policy interface, it’s easy to see how were too busy genuflecting to notice.
    I see a bit of Jim Lovelock in you: misanthropic with age, and self-centred…but, without any of the redeeming creativity, the similarity goes no further. The self-indulgence is the worst of it, and the stalker web site is your humiliation complete. Maybe Jim Lovelock’s Gimp…that’s you.
    Do you really think you have anything else to say? Of course you do. Good night.

  301. Nick,

    But as you were waving about Jim Lovelock’s ear-worm book- promoting provocation as though it was the Gordian Knot of the science policy interface,

    Or in short:

    quoting him.

    BK was quoting him.

    If that’s what you mean.

    By the way, the Gordian Knot was the Kobayashi Maru of the ancient world; it symbolizes an insoluble problem.

    Your attempt at an erudite-sounding simile falls on its face.

    Apparently (to the extent I can put myself in the shoes of someone so fucking stupid), you think the Knot symbolizes more-or-less the opposite of its actual meaning.

    So I should congratulate you on a good point, Nick. Or rather, the exact opposite.

    it’s easy to see how were too busy genuflecting to notice.

    Yeah, that’s not English.

    The self-indulgence is the worst of it, and the stalker web site is your humiliation complete.

    I beg to differ. BK’s worst trait is his habit of indulging and encouraging ineducable ingrates like you. Feed The Trolls Poison, that’s my philosophy.

    To no great surprise, two weeks later, you still haven’t told BK or anyone else how a website might manage to “stalk” someone.

    Do you understand any field of science better than you understand How Teh Interwebs Works, by the way?

    Which is to say: at all?

    Just askin’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.