"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Monday, August 14, 2017

Shakespeare's works not Written by Shakespeare but by Somebody Else with the Same Name


or: Does it matter if you are who you say you are?

1) wherein our hero expresses a clever observation

Today's Twitter rabbit-hole begins with a clever observation on my part.

Marshall Shepherd writes on Forbes, some not very unusual "don't be such a scientist" stuff about trying to tart up the climate story to reach a broad audience.

Which as my regular readers know, in my opinion is grossly insufficient. We have to explain, patiently, and forthrightly, at every level of sophistication we can muster, targeted to every audience that expresses an interest. That this is essentially impossible is met by the competing factor that it's absolutely necessary. The human interest angle is something, but it is not everything.

Shepherd writes:
As the report rolled out, I saw excellent articles and information sharing with charts or graphics showing warming areas or trend lines of temperature, sea level and so forth. However, a part of me wonders if such maps have become the "car alarms" of climate communication. I argue that we need more climate stories, less graphs and maps.
So I tweeted in reply:
Our failure to communicate with charts & graphs made these photos & stories possible. Can't photograph a prediction!
That is, if we had succeeded in getting our charts and graphs across to people, we would have kept climate change small enough that there really wouldn't be photographs and stories of climate change to turn into engaging human interest stories. We'd be so much better off if we never had to count on the stories and images that engage a disengaged public.

Now, it turns out that there are still people who don't believe anything is happening. This strikes me as immensely odd, since everything is happening more or less on schedule. (The global warming metric itself is a bit slow, but many impacts are nevertheless going up faster than we probably expected. And people everywhere who are connected to their surroundings are noticing.) (Also there's that stratospheric cooling as predicted in Charney et al 1979, which cannot be explained by any other warming mechanism. I find this dispositive but I guess your mileage may vary.)

2) wherein our hero gets trolled

Now in response to my cleverness, one @balinteractive replied:
Climate communicators realise that annotating their dark fairy tales w/ charts & graphs hasn't worked: will now just stick to scare stories.
Of course this ticked me off no end, partly because I am utterly opposed to "sticking to scare stories" and in response I dug up an old favourite Gahan Wilson cartoon:


See, my point was y'all should have paid attention to the charts and graphs in the first place, hear?

And what did I get back?

That's good. Much better than a chart or graph as a text accompaniment.
3) wherein our hero wonders if all is as it seems

OK, this belligerent obtuseness has me mad. Whom am I talking to? @balinteratcive describes itself as

Man-made global warming sceptic.  Detest animal cruelty. Despise politicians. Absolutely adore my rescue German Shepherds..
This brief bio is accompanied by a charming picture of a young woman, and a banner picture of two dogs on a beach. Do I believe this is a true biography? Well, if this is a troll account, it would be useful to attach it to such attributes as being an attractive young woman who loves animals and is politically neutral. Looking at the linked blog shows exclusively climate skeptic articles, mostly with elaborate charts and graphs like this one. It's mostly in the usual vein of finding some inconclusive data and thereby somehow concluding there's nothing to conclude. There's quite a lot of it, and I wonder why someone whom I'd not encountered in the blog wars at all would go to all that trouble.

Now, you could ask whether it matters whether the biography is contrived. It's the old joke.

Did you know that what we know of as Shakespeare's works weren't written by Shakespeare? In fact they were written by somebody else with the same name. 


As with Shakespeare, it's clear that somebody wrote this stuff, and it stands or falls on its own merits.

Who cares whether it is a young female dog fancier or somebody else, a paid troll or a fanatic, putting out extra articles in the usual vein?

On the other hand, it is an interesting profile. If it's a real person, you have to wonder how she developed this level of obsession to write, apparently exclusively, in the blog-science anti-climate vein, as if there were a shortage of that stuff.

If it's not a real person, that calls into question the legitimacy of the motivation for this writing. Who would misrepresent themselves for these purposes? Obviously, somebody out to discredit science. There are plenty of motivated parties out there!

So (perhaps foolishly( I expressed my doubts
I have trouble believing you're real. Animal activist & climate naysayer, or troll? You know climate disruption already damages ecosystems?
We had a version of The Usual Argument which I thought the end of it:


but then...




4) wherein our hero suffers untoward consequences for his suspicions:

There followed numerous attacks on my character from various other people, and that of "climate scientists" in general, as if suspecting people of being trolls is a standard technique and my own treading into this territory. e.g.



Jim Bouldin, as is his wont, was singularly unhelpful (these are in reverse order for technical reasons I'm too lazy to work around), to my eye expressing exactly the arrogance he accuses others of:



and a bit more from a few of the Usual Suspects.

5) wherein our hero searches for the meaning of this escapade

So, is this person really a young dog-loving Brexiter from Lancs. Lincs.? Does it matter? Was it stupid of me to express my doubts?

As for biographical information, she provided
I don't have any mad blog science skills. I got a first degree in Phys/Astronomy at UCL and did a masters in Env Acoustics at Southbank.
That explains my passion for science I believe.
Which really didn't convince me of much. "Environmental Acoustics" (which is a branch of architecture that tries to keep noise down in buildings) seems like something somebody doing a quick Google for obscure postgraduate environmental majors for physicists might come up with. We don't have any idea what she does when she isn't writing blog science or romping on the beach with her dogs. And "that explains my passion for science" in no way follows, nor does a "passion for science" really justify the usual tiresome nitpicking about specific trends, preferably noisy and local ones.

On the other hand, in defense of her reality, she does express what appears a genuine revulsion for a local windfarm, one which may indeed be insensitively and crudely sited, for all I know. And on review, her Twitter feed does seem a bit more fleshed out than that of the typical paid troll.

6) wherein a paradoxical solution to the quandary is proposed

Is it any of my business? If she is real, of course it isn't. If she isn't real, of course it is!

Quite a weird quandary.

Anyway, Ms Jaime Jessop, if you are really a dogloving acoustician with an astronomy degree hanging out with your dogs in Lancashire Lincolnshire who likes to spend many hours snarking at climate scientists because you abhor wind turbines, I do apologise for all this. But if you aren't, I don't.

It's not your obligation to convince me, of course. But it's not my obligation to be convinced by your brief protestations either. As for who has been rude and condescending to whom here, and in what order, I guess opinions vary.

Anyway, Jaime Jessop, I remain open to a Skype conversation beginning with a sincere apology from me, if you are a real person. On the record or off, as you choose.

UPDATE: While Facebook and Google were no help, to my surprise Ms Jessop turned up on LinkedIn, so she gets a sort-of-apology.

At least I think it is her; I am poor at facial recognition but there is the striking feature of a broad face and a pointy chin on both images, and the lady on the LinkedIn page lives, or at least works, not in Lincolnshire but in neighbouring Nottinghamshire, which is close enough I suppose. And the eccentric spelling of the Christian name matches as well.

However, my sense that the biography she presents is incoherent holds up. Ms Jessop apparently has a single degree in graphic arts and works in a personnel office at Tesco, which I believe is a supermarket chain. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but her claim of an advanced degree in science now looks more than ever to be a pretense.

While the person running the climate naysayer stuff could actually not be this woman is conceivable, I suppose the benefit of the doubt is in order on that score.

So, Ms. Jessop, my intuition that your story doesn't hold water is confirmed. Why you're so engaged on the climate matter and why you felt compelled to claim credentials you don't have (or to hide them on your linked-in page) are matters which remain mysterious from my persepctive.

But my intuition that you don't exist is wrong, and despite your indifference to straightening that matter out, I withdraw my suspicions on that score and apologise for any inconvenience.

SECOND UPDATE:

Our JJ denies being the Tesco lady, is sticking with the improbable (math/physics -> architectural acoustics -> climate troll bio) without any corroboration. Consequently my half-hearted half-apology must be withdrawn. Doubly sorry.

https://twitter.com/Balinteractive/status/902836602153598976

which could be read as sarcasm, but also a "like" for

https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods/status/902921058315116545

125 comments:

Jaime Jessop said...

You've rather whipped up a storm in a teacup here over what is basically just one sarcastic tweet for which I must apologise for not making it sufficiently clear that you were not numbered among those climate scientists who were for giving up on the charts and statistics and going for the story narrative.

Oh, and it's Lincolnshire, not Lancs. As Shub points out, I've been around a while in the climate blog wars and nobody has ever questioned whether I'm real or not, certainly not accused me of being a troll or a sock puppet. Like I say, I am who I say I am and am totally uninterested in the 'cult of personality' which seems to be an obsession among certain people on both sides of the debate. The only thing that matters is if the science justifies the alarm and the damaging attempts thus far to 'mitigate' so called 'dangerous' man-made climate change. I don't think it does and nothing you have said thus far convinces me that it does.

Michael Tobis said...

If you are really engaging on substance, it doesn't matter who you are.

But you explicitly present yourself as a dog-loving young woman who cares passionately about science. To me, the story seems rather thin. The bisiness about "environmental acoustics" establishing a "passion for science" the mroe so. That matters in terms of your establishing your bona fides. If you're not who you say you are, that matters, because it would indicate that your purpose is not entirely honest.

I may have been foolish in expressing my doubts, as your counterattack appears to be working. But you haven't assuaged my doubts or expressed any interest in accepting my sincere apology.

Even a 60 second video of the woman in the Twitter photograph saying I'm real would go a long way. Or a confirmation that they have met you from a reasonably reliable source. If you don't care to do that because you take umbrage at my concern, that only tends to confirm my concern, but that is your choice.

Jaime Jessop said...

You appear to have no concern other than having developed this weird obsession that I am somehow not real and therefore you demand that I upload a video of myself to prove to you personally that I am real flesh and blood, or get a friend to vouch for me that I am real, but if I do not entertain your somewhat bizarre demands, then you will continue with your obsession!
Let me be very plain. The profile picture is me. I uploaded it when I joined Twitter in Jan 2011 and it has been there ever since. Yes, I love dogs. I find them rather less complicated to deal with than humans! Lots of people do you know. Yes, I care about science. Yes, I have a number of educational qualifications in science subjects which, if nothing else, marks me out as a person who has enough of an interest in science to pursue it to postgraduate level. I'm sorry that these facts strike you as 'a rather thin story' but, as I said yesterday, that's your problem, not mine. So I will leave you with your somewhat obsessive 'concerns' and I will promise not to quote tweet you again. If you wish to challenge my views on climate change, rather than me, you can leave comments on my blog or, more recently, find me at cliscep.com.

Michael Tobis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Tobis said...

"Let me be very plain. The profile picture is me."

This carries precisely no information, as it is exactly what a sock puppet would say.

"So I will leave you with your somewhat obsessive 'concerns' and I will promise not to quote tweet you again."

It's not an obsession. It's a hunch developed when I first encountered you yesterday. You have not convinced me that my hunch is incorrect, though it would be easy to do so. I would love to hear from someone who has met you to assuage my concerns.

Again, in the event that what you say is true, I sincerely apologise.

If it ain't, though, if you're not this one honest (if rather misguided) person but a dishonest person trying to be half a dozen or so trying to stoke the artificial anger at climate science, for whatever reason, I don't have anything to apologise for.

I don't propose to follow Jaime Jessop around trying to claim that the identity is a sock puppet. So if you're real, please rest easy; I don't intend to harass you, and I am genuinely sorry for the misunderstanding.

But *if* you're not Jaime Jessop, I make no such promise. I will pay no more mind to Jaime Jessop, specifically, in future than I have in the past, as long as Jaime Jessop also leaves me alone. However, I'm now interested to find similar accounts with other identities attached, identities which the actual you (per hypothesis) might be using to encourage an environment which unfairly distrusts climate scientists.

You could save me the trouble if you like, just by talking to me for even a minute. But apparently you don't want to do that. Yet you've already spent much more than a minute at this. I find this interesting.

[reposted due to an embarrassing typo in the original]

Ric said...

I'm with Michael. I've posted under my real name for years. Anyone truly obsessive would not find it difficult to walk up and ring my doorbell. Luckily, those folks are rare to nonexistent.

99.999% says Jaime is not real as presented in the profile. $500 to mainstream charity of her choice (could be animals) if she proves otherwise to my satisfaction.

(Signing in to post this seems to act weird, so just in case, my name is Ric Merritt.)

Jaime Jessop said...

"Anyone truly obsessive would not find it difficult to walk up and ring my doorbell."

So come and ring my doorbell then. Bring $500 with you (actually, British currency at the prevailing exchange rate, please).

Jaime Jessop said...

Actually, you can make a cheque out to German Shepherd Dog Rescue, UK, who I volunteer for. Ta.

Barry Woods said...

Ok Ric.. before you potentially make Jessie jump through hoops for charity. Please specify exactly what would satisfy you... Don't want any excuses for you to welch on charity giving.... Not that this is any commitment on Jessie's part to play along with this charade

Tom said...

First, the old joke was about Homer and the Iliad, not Shakespeare. Can't you get anything right?

Second, you've been doing this for years--questioning identity, motives, affiliations of anyone who disagrees with you. So your freaking out over a picture of an attractive female isn't as creepy as it sounds. Just don't ask her for a date.

Third, you resort to this tactic when your charts, graphs and pictures don't deliver the impact you think they deserve. If we don't get it, there's something wrong with us.

You've spent pretty much a decade blaming the audience. Or the journalists. Or vested interests.

I've told you several times that your failure to communicate has nothing to do with your tongue or typewriter. It has to do with your failure to listen or understand the people in front of you.

This case is not just typical, it is prototypical.

Michael Tobis said...

Come one, Tom. If JJ were real, wouldn't she bother to at least post a second picture by now? Or provide the slightest thread of a credible biography?

It's not paranoid to be suspicious of identities on the internet.

Sock puppets are everywhere. There's nothing so odd about this one (if it is one, which I still think is true).

Tom said...

Sock puppets exist. To say they are everywhere is not just an exaggeration--it borders on paranoia.

Tom said...

BTW, as someone who guest authors at Climate Skeptic, JJ is not a sock pupptet. If she isn't who she claims to be, she's bamboozled a dozen skeptics and lukewarmers.

Ric said...

Uh huh. About the response I expected. All sorts of red herrings and nothing to the point. Nuff said, sock puppet troll.

Anonymous said...

Four days on, and you still haven't responded to her challenge.
Yet in this very post you have written
"We have to explain, patiently, and forthrightly, at every level of sophistication we can muster, targeted to every audience that expresses an interest."

This is one of the most bizarre bits of behaviour I've ever seen from a climate scientist.

Paul M

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

Thank you for your honest admission:

"I have trouble believing [Jaime Jessop] is real."

I have trouble believing CAGW is real.

One of us is right.

Michael Tobis said...

Brad, the questions are entirely orthogonal. A priori the number of is who is right could be zero, one, or two. CAGW is a fuzzy shorthand. It's hard tp know exactly what proposition you are questioning. For some definitions (e.g. McPherson's) I would agree. How many of us would be right in that case?

I wish y'all would think more clearly.

Michael Tobis said...

Paul, leaving aside that I did respond briefly on Twitter, I don't recall making a guarantee of rapid service on these matters.

Michael Tobis said...

Tom, I have no doubt that the person behond JJ's account is actively engaged in the climate troll community. I just doubt the photo and bio. And I wonder how many identities he or she has.

Jaime Jessop said...

What can I say? I've tried to be reasonably civil. I've tried to put a humorous slant on this nonsense. I won't make the effort to indulge in either should we have occasion to cross words again. My last comment on this blog. Canceling notifications.

Michael Tobis said...

American spelling of "humourous". A tell?

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

JJ isn't a "troll," and you'd do well to cut out that puerile nomenclature (even if it means rising above whatever provocation you feel yourself the target of).

"Brad, the questions are entirely orthogonal."

Yes, but the answers aren't.

"A priori the number of is who is right could be zero, one, or two."

I know. But a posteriori, the number is one.

I was careful not to say "one of us must be right," in the hopes that my carefulness would be reciprocated by the reader.

"CAGW is a fuzzy shorthand."

My apologies. But after 25 years of the Climate Debate, the public is surely entitled to expect The Scientists to have come up with a formulation of the debated hypothesis that's a bit less fuzzy and, dare I say it, more scientific, n'est-ce pas?

Since The Scientists have singularly failed to do so, we Science-Hating Climate Delusionists are under no obligation to do their job for them.

"CAGW." Take it or leave it.

"It's hard tp know exactly what proposition you are questioning."

Yep. And whose fault is that? I don't get paid for this $#!t, Michael. Not in dollars, not in Oil Dollars, not in nothing.

"I wish y'all would think more clearly."

As someone your colleagues would describe as a Climate-Confusionist Science Ostrich, I strongly....

agree.

That's odd.

I guess I must be one of those pro-clarity Climate Obfuscatrollers.

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

"American spelling of "humourous". A tell?"

I write 'humorous,' and I live about as far from the US as it's possible to live.

So no, it's not much of a 'tell' for anything (beyond respect for Websterian rationalism).

Willard said...

Your question is more interesting than JamieJ, MT, and even more interesting than BradK's false dilemma. For JamieJ would make a lousy ClimateBall bot.

(It should be obvious that CAGW exists, Brad - it's the main deliverable of the Contrarian Matrix.)

I am sure Nigel Persaud, UT, and bender share Groundskeeper Willie's concerns regarding your question.

Willard said...

Crickets?

Sigh.

We don't have the ClimateBall players we used to have.

Brad Keyes said...

Willard,

Sorry for the tumbleweeds. My attention was elsewhere.

"It should be obvious that CAGW exists, Brad"

Strange. It's not obvious to Michael. See above.

Which false dilemma (false dichotomy?) of mine did you notice?

"We don't have the ClimateBall players we used to have."

True dat. The age of the Don Bradmans is unlikely to dawn again.

I blame salary caps.

Time to name this game what it is: CricketBall.

Anonymous said...

We are still waiting for that patient and forthright explanation you said was so necessary.

Paul M

Willard said...

> It's not obvious to Michael.

I wouldn't venture into probing MT's mind states, Brad. MT did not deny the existence of "CAGW" as a fuzzy shorthand. To what it's supposed to refer is another matter.

To me, "CAGW" refers to the main deliverable of the Contrarian Matrix, e.g.:

The climate sceptic blogosphere is becoming crowded to the point that it’s difficult to keep up. Several of us (all British or UK based so far), are getting weary of the effort of grinding out several articles a month simply in order to remain visible. It’s not that we haven’t got something to say – rather that we’d like to take the time to say it as audibly and as clearly as possible.

https://cliscep.com/about/

Most if not 97% of what this outlet produces can be subsumed under CAGW.

Even MT can't deny that this outlet exists, Brad.

***

> We are still waiting for that patient and forthright explanation you said was so necessary.

That's an interesting "We" you got there, PaulM. Does it at least include all the professors of mathematics at the University of Nottingham? We know it contains at least one:

https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/about/

Instead of waiting, may I suggest that "We" read MT's post again?

To recap, here's MT's pickle:

(1) Someone S on the Internetz makes an assertion A about the same S.
(2) This A is used as a justification J for whatever concern C.
(3) This concern C looks as bogus as the J.
(4) Something's amiss about (1).

How can we know if S is really what S claims to be?

In other words, MT's pickle is about traceability. The very thing auditors such as yourself harp about over and over again.

It's not that complex.

My own policy regarding self-testimony is simple: unless I'm in a conversational context (ClimateBall not being one) I abide by the first Fight Club rule. Or if I do talk about myself, it's to say that I'm a ninja. No, I don't claim to really be a ninja.

It's just a meme.

Now, think about what Jaime (sorry for the earlier typo) said: she's interested in science because, somehow, she studied accoustics. The justification looks both bogus and fishy. It looks bogus because people usually take science courses because they already are interested in science, not the other way around. It looks fishy because it's obvious that Jaime has little scientific background.

So MT's hypothesis is (or was) that Jaime's just an online persona. He clearly shows incredulity regarding her act. But anyone who reads tweets from the Contrarian Matrix daily should realize that her modus operandi is from being an implausible.

A more economic hypothesis is that Jaime is bragging just a tad too much for her own good.

I don't think you can dispute that, PaulM.

Hope this helps,

W

Tom said...

We're wandering off the main topic here, which is political paranoia--where any dissidents that can't be medicalized must be neutralized by (lack of) identity politics.

If we're not crazy we must be masquerading--perhaps as crazies, perhaps as sane... who's to judge?

It's one step up from Anna H asking Judith Curry if her children are being held hostage.. but only a small step.

Tom said...

What willard wants to say is that Jaime is either a young girl and hence can be easily dismissed or she is not a young girl and hence can be easily dismissed.

No way a young female can be interested in science! It's absurd! I won't impute the same motive to Tobis, who generally operates from a position of obtuse and stubborn unwillingness to face reality, but who knows?

Roll, willard, roll.

Brad Keyes said...

Willard,

1.

Islamism is Islam (and Islam is Islamism, innit?), but CAGWism ≢ CAGW; CAGWism ≠ CAGW, even.

So let's not accuse mere discursive Matrices of producing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (even 97 per cent of the time), shall we?

Remember way back when, when you said I was arguing a non sequitur... but what you meant was, I was arguing that a certain argument was [invalid because it was] a non sequitur?

Metas matter.

2.

People fall in love with subjects *after* studying them ALL THE TIME. From which it follows that they (human beings) enrol in units of study for non-amatory reasons ALL THE TIME.

Please don't ask me to write that up in Propositional Calculus; something is bound to get lost in translation, and besides, my meaning is already obvious enough in English, I hope.

3.

It may be "obvious" to you that Jaime "has little scientific background," but it's far from "obvious" to me (perhaps because I mainly care about her natural-world claims, and pay less attention to her biographical ones).

Whether this says more about me, or me and Jaime, or you, or me and Jaime and you, I leave to those whose pay grade it's at or beneath.

But your use of "obvious" would benefit, methinks, from a shift towards the "understatement and politesse" end of the spectrum.

Yours,
Brad

Brad Keyes said...

Tom,

I haven't read the whole thread but in his latest comment (at least) Willard's argument doesn't support the paraphrase "No way a young female can be interested in science! It's absurd!"

Surely there is much to criticize about his argument without resorting to ventriloquism.

Willard said...

> We're wandering off the main topic here, which is political paranoia

Grounskeeper Willie conflates his own personal take with the topic raised by MT.

Perhaps "Does it matter if you are who you say you are" wasn't clear enough.

***

> What willard wants to say

Groundskeeper Willie more or less does the same, this time with some mind probing.

***

> ventriloquism

Nice one.

I prefer "shirt ripping" to "ventriloquism," Brad. Groundskeeper Willie is called "Groundskeeper Willie" because he rips off his shirt all the time. But one can do both at the same time, and your "ventriloquism" is quite good.

May I borrow it?

***

> People fall in love with subjects *after* studying them ALL THE TIME.

Why, of course there's some bootstrapping going on. But you got to admit that her story stretches the limits of justified disingenousness, besides being mostly irrelevant because it's what you show for yourself that matters first and foremost. After all, Faraday was mostly self-taught. While it is quite possible to teach yourself all the ClimateBall moves, replicating a Goddard-bot doesn't bode well, does it?

THIS is the problem. Reducing it to pure ad hominem won't work. More so that Jaime opened that door herself with her bragging.

***

> It may be "obvious" to you that Jaime "has little scientific background," but it's far from "obvious" to me (perhaps because I mainly care about her natural-world claims, and pay less attention to her biographical ones).

As I see it, it's the other way around: it's because Jaime is just saying stuff that MT questions her bona fide. If she'd speak climatesciencese the same way Harry Collins speaks gravitationalwavesphysicsese, we could expect that MT's incredulity would be lower.

***

If you find the Round Tuit, may I ask you for a favor? Please ask Jaime the following questions:

[Q1] What would it take to convince her that "IPCC attribution statement is scientifically sound and it is beyond reasonable doubt that more than half of the warming post 1950 is indeed caused by emissions";

[Q2] Why should anyone care about convincing her of anything;

[Q3] How posting a photo of her offer any warrant that it's her saying stuff.

You should know why I won't go at Mr. Pile's to ask these questions myself.

Tom said...

Oh, Brad, we've riled wee willie--his English is deteriorating quickly.

Hey willie--how come you say I am called groundskeeper willie when you're the only one who ever does? And I still don't know who groundskeeper willie is, actually, which I guess kind of spoils the apellation.

As for ventriloquism, I invite you to read wee willie's comments. I'll admit that gender is a secondary sin for him--Jaime's refusal to accept the word of the Elect is far worse.

Witness his demand that Jaime enumerate the reasons why she agrees with 34% of climate scientists, according to Bart Verheggen's survey.

Willard said...

> I still don't know who groundskeeper willie is

Once upon a time Groundskeeper Willie pulled the same trick at his own place:

[Quote]

> And I still don’t understand who Groundskeeper Willie is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_jIa2WADc

[/Quote]

https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/im-not-charlie-but-i-still-dont-like-what-michael-mann-did/comment-page-1/#comment-6390

More than two years ago. Fancy that.

Youngest ClimateBall players may note that the URL doesn't work anymore. They may wonder why. What they must wonder is how after all these years this lukewarm clown hasn't watched a Simpsons episode.

PS: I still haz the webpage and the screenshot, GW.

Tom said...

It's even worse, wee willie--I now live in Portland (just down the street from dhogaza) and I still haven't seen the simpsons. I haven't seen an episode of friends, either. or seinfield. where do i surrender my passport?

you're like lenny bruce reading his trial transcripts instead of doing comedy. 'you see--the groundskeeper willie denial is important! it's key! you can't understand the magnitude of his criminality without grasping the groundskeeper willie factor!

so why was he always ripping his shirt? why do you think i am, when it's so easy to rip yours?

keep working on that english, wee willie. practice, practice, practice.

Willard said...

> Witness his demand that Jaime enumerate the reasons why she agrees with 34% of climate scientists, according to Bart Verheggen's survey.

That's not exactly what she said, but that number rings a bell:

Update: After an exchange of comments with Bart Verheggen, he has pointed out that he did indeed reference the headline figure I said he was ignoring in his paper in EST–the 66% who said half or more of recent warming was caused by human emissions of GHGs. It did not appear in his blog post or previous writing about the survey and it is only mentioned once in his paper. I apologize for the error.

https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/verheggens-consensus-not-97-not-47-its-66/

No link to the exchange. Here it is:

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/rick-santorum-misrepresents-our-climate-survey-results-on-bill-maher-show/

This update rings another bell:

I regret the error.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/richard-tol-misrepresents-consensus-studies-in-order-to-falsely-paint-john-cooks-97-as-an-outlier/#comment-32382

As if this peddling had anything to do with MT's point.

Willard said...

> where do i surrender my passport?

And then Groundskeeper Willie wonders why I call him "Groundskeeper Willie."

Note how this drama queening evades the fact that I already showed him Groundskeeper Willie, which makes his "who?" stance moot at best.

Tom said...

But wee willie, I don't trust you. I don't know you. Why do you think I would follow your link or click on one of your innumerable YouTube videos?

And this goes to Tobis' point--he doesn't know and doesn't trust Jaime. I don't know or trust you. Of course, my lack of trust is based on long experience with your witless shenanigans and scummy behavior, but nonetheless, with all of us being dogs on the internet, lack of trust and knowledge becomes a barrier to information exchange at least, let alone communication.

Oh. I forgot. Communication is what you're out to stop. Never mind. Keep working on that English, wee willie. You'll get there.

Brad Keyes said...

Willard, I couldn't disagree less:

"...it's what you show for yourself that matters first and foremost"

Eppur questa pagina existe.

Why?! It's a doozy of a paradox.

"You should know why I won't go at Mr. Pile's to ask these questions myself."

Well yes, obviously—and I don't think anyone has ever suggested you post questions for Jaime on a blog she doesn't even blog at. :-)

Luckily, though, ClimateResistance is NOT the only blog on the Internet that's not In It For The Gold!

You could, for example, cut out the middleman completely and talk to Jaime on Jaime's blog, which she shares with 10 other reasonably personable persons who aren't Ben Pile.


Michael Tobis said...

UPDATE: While Facebook and Google were no help. to my surprise Ms Jessop turned up on LinkedIn, so she gets a sort-of-apology.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaime-revill-jessop-941214139/

At least I think it is her; I am poor at facial recognition but there is the striking feature of a broad face and a pointy chin is on both images, and the lady on the Linked In page lives , or at least works, not in Lincolnshire but in neighbouring Nottinghamshire, which is close enough I suppose. And the eccentric spelling of the Christian name matches as well.

However, my sense that the biography she presents is incoherent holds up. Ms Jessop apparently has a single degree in graphic arts and works in a personnel office at Tesco, which I believe is a supermarket chain. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but her claim of an advanced degree in science now looks more than ever to be a pretense.

While the person running the climate naysayer stuff could actually not be this woman is conceivable, I suppose the benefit of the doubt is in order.

So, Ms. Jessop, my intuition that your story doesn't hold water is confirmed. Why you're so engaged on the climate matter and why you felt compelled to claim credentials you don't have (or to hide them on your linked page) are matters which remain mysterious from my persepctive.

But my intuition that you don't exist is wrong, and despite your indifference to straightening that matter out, I withdraw my suspicions on that score and apologise for any inconvenience.

Willard said...

> Well yes, obviously—and I don't think anyone has ever suggested you post questions for Jaime on a blog she doesn't even blog at.

I was referring to the Cliscep blog, Brad. You know, the one where we co-wrote this:

https://cliscep.com/2016/11/28/hacking-our-own-emails-part-deux/

Mr. Pile edited the comment thread like a Boss.

Since he went against your own policy and edited your stuff, I presumed he was the Boss.

Isn't Cliscep Mr. Pile's gig?

Brad Keyes said...

Tom,

as someone who used to hate Willard with the heat of twice as many thousands of suns as you appear to, let me pose you a friendly koan:

If it's really true that you've riled Willard (a question I can't answer), have you improved on silence?

Brad Keyes said...

Willard,

I remember those unbeautiful times well.

"Since he went against your own policy and edited your stuff, I presumed he was the Boss."

Being Present at the Time is Nine Tenths of the Boss.

Hint hint.

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

you now [claim to] know three times as much about Jaime, qua young woman, as I do.

And you clearly care 10 times as much.

You write as though this thing is now at an end. Well and good. But did you improve on silence by starting it?

Willard said...

> Why do you think I would follow your link or click on one of your innumerable YouTube videos?

The video was embedded and you clearly could SEE him. No need to click on ANYTHING. Like in this comment:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/persistence/#comment-51931

And I already told you I have the freaking image. Also, here's a snapshot where Joshua LMGTFY'ed "Groundskeeper Willie" for you, to which you respond you actually think that I'm interested in willard's names for me?:

https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/902694640285044736

You can't make this up.

Brad Keyes said...

Willard,

no need to ask my permission: of course you can use "ventriloquism."

So long as you don't use ventriloquism!

(A jocular allusion to the principle that "Metaness matters.")

B.

PS: is the signpost not part of the sign?! A koan for Captcha.

Willard said...

> So long as you don't use ventriloquism!

Thanks, Brad.

So you're saying that Groundskeeper Willie's an idiot, right?

steven mosher said...

Just to be funny I think we all should use jamies picture for a week on our twitter profiles

MT
it's extremely sexist to doubt any womans claim about anything. she self identifies as a science type. Leave it at that.

Tom:
she's not attractive

Brad Keyes said...

Mosher,

fancy seeing you here at the last possible moment.

Your instincts are a thing of ethological awe. Having scurried ONTO the sinking ship of this topic with your scurrilous, ad-feminam irrelevantia, may you never be accused of 'rat cunning' again!

steven mosher said...

https://www.facebook.com/jaime.jessop


if you want a full on doxing that can be arranged. I'll send you the
bitcoin address and the results when finished. I'm not sure you want a
reputation as a troll harasser.

generally speaking I know people with zero science education (proveable that is)
who understand science pretty well in narrow circumstances.
Likewise, I know folks with awesome degrees who dont know fuck all about their
own field.

A degree means you were willing and able to eat the mud pies they made you eat to
get the degree.

I prefer to judge her by her arguments.

her arguments suck. all climate skeptic arguments suck. That is what makes the identity of skeptics uninteresting and non informative


steven mosher said...

Brad who?

Willard said...

Why would MT and Jaime waste any time exchanging a few Direct Messages over teh Tweeter when we can have hours of this ClimateBall episode?

Michael Tobis said...

"generally speaking I know people with zero science education (proveable that is)
who understand science pretty well in narrow circumstances.
Likewise, I know folks with awesome degrees who dont know fuck all about their
own field."

Absolutely.

"I prefer to judge her by her arguments."

One of her arguments, viz., "I got a first degree in Phys/Astronomy at UCL and did a masters in Env Acoustics at Southbank.
That explains my passion for science I believe." is not only apparently false but apparently deliberate deception. This rather devalues hew entire contribution, I'd say. As to why she would choose to lie about this matter, I can't say.

I do intend to let the matter drop. From all appearances I was half right. I was half wrong. It's good enough for me.

She showed up on my Twitter stream with guns blazing and deep cluelessness. I responded with a sensible "wtf"? I wanted to know who was coming after me out of the blue sky. Apparently it was indeed someone who's not above some misrepresentation, though not exactly the sort I expected.

Michael Tobis said...

Yeah, I found that FB page. Anything publicly visible on that Facebook page could easliy have been thrown up in ten minutes by a troll factory. It's not dispositive in the least.

The Tesco Linked-In bio is something else, since it is not helpful to the putative troll's case.

Brad Keyes said...

Interesting....

"Brad who?"

I love these!

Oh, so wait—that's it? That's all you had, Mosh?

No punchline in the pipeline?

Tom said...

Entropy has triumphed. But we knew that would happen...

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

"Anything publicly visible on that Facebook page could easliy have been thrown up in ten minutes by a troll factory. It's not dispositive in the least."

there's a whole FACTORY's worth of Evidence Elves now?

Thank you for supplying the best-slash-only vindication to date of Lewandowsky's Theory of Conspiracies, section 5.2 [Self-Sealing Reasoning (SSR)]:

"when [the conspiracist is] confronted with evidence against a conspiracy, the circle of conspirators must expand to include ever-increasing quantities of gremlins engaged full-time in the concoction of said evidence"

You couldn't make this shit up. Well, Lewandowsky could. But mere, neuronormal mortals couldn't.

Tom said...

Steve

eye, beholder. I think she's cute. But then, I think you're cute too--head scrunched over that mobile phone, cigarette pointing straight up, evil glint in your eye...

Nah. I like Jaime.

Willard said...

> neuronormal mortals couldn't.

You'd be surprised, Brad:

https://medium.com/dfrlab/kremlin-and-alt-right-share-nazi-narrative-2df4af60c749

Even the Auditor fell for some of the bots.

But that's not MT's point.

MT's trying to falsify his hypothesis.

So he needs corroboration.

Why do you think he offered a Skype exchange?

Why would Jaime refuse that, BTW?

Tom said...

wee willie, again you fall ito error most grievous. Tobis had no point. Neither do you. Medicalizing dissent won't work here. You're incapable of engaging her on the issues. So you must disappear her.

You're the one who said your name is your honor, or your honor is your name, or some such idiocy. And yet you have no name. You have no honor either, (honour? In honour of the British subject under attack?) but to admit it so openly and then talk down to other people?

You think you're a wit. You're half right.

Michael Tobis said...

Troll factories. GIYF.

https://www.google.com/search?q=troll+factory&oq=troll+factory&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.9708j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Brandon R. Gates said...

Third hit for me on Troll Factories was from the Daily Fail, so it must be true. :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4422026/Russian-Troll-factory-worker-lifts-lid-duties.html

Brandon R. Gates said...

> Why would Jaime refuse that, BTW?

In a fair and reasonable world, that one would leave a mark.

Alas.

Willard said...

> Tobis had no point.

Of course he had, and still has:

Well, who are you? How did you develop these mad blog-science skills? I am pretty sure you're wrong, would like to know how you got there.

https://twitter.com/mtobis/status/897202357431398400

What a Pee-Wee.

***

> yet you have no name

Right after being shown the ridicule of his "I still don't know who groundskeeper willie is" Groundskeeper Willie strikes back, this time mispresenting what's a name.

There is a name under which I write my ClimateBall stuff. This name is Willard.

What is written under that name is my honor.

If Groundskeeper Willie had any, he'd have taken his marbles and went home a few hours ago. But no, he still hangs around.

May we never meet.

Tom said...

We share something, then wee willard. May we never meet. I don't like to be in the same room as men with no honour. Bad enough we live on the same planet.

Brad Keyes said...

Michael (et al.), stop justifying your ideations to me. Please.

I merely convicted you with being a classic conspiracy theorist (and then some)—not with being wrong!

A common mistake of non-experts and other incompetents is to experience umbrage, dudgeon (or in the worst cases, high dudgeon) upon being diagnosed with conspiracism over the Internet.

As if it were somehow a value-laden concept. (!)

This is because they're psychologically illiterate, says today's psychological literature. If only they'd done the many years of publishing and conference attendance necessary to read the fine print of Lewandowsky's pioneering conspiratological pioneeringness, they'd grasp that the mental condition in question strikes everyone—the correct and the incorrect—alike, and without mercy.

After all, it'd be bonkers to think Julius Caesar just ran into an unfortunate series of improperly-stored knives by accident.

Or would it. Hmmm. Note to self: grant bait?

Willard said...

> I don't like to be in the same room as men with no honour.

Then I hope Groundskeeper haz mad Heisenberg skills, for this comment thread is enough to show he has none. And this is far from being the first. There are many others.

Every village needs a fool, I suppose.

Brandon R. Gates said...

> Note to self: grant bait?

The lunatics currently are running the asylum on this side of the pond, Brad. How much do you think you can accomplish on my dime in 3.5 years or less?

Michael Tobis said...

I've found that committed naysayers will generally refuse to let me buy them a coffee to discuss these matters even if they live in the same city as I do or if I am visiting their turf. So the refusal to Skype isn't unusual.

Why this is so I can't say.

Tom said...

Examine your past behavior Dr. Tobis. Why would anyone want to give you details? So you could slime them the way you slimed Revkin, the Pielkes, Curry and Mosh?

Willard said...

Judy blundered her first tentative to formalize stuff. Senior got caught going Pielkes-all-the-way-down. Junior's the one who slimed MT. Mosh got flak for the political hit job Groundskeeper Willie himself wrote for the most part. Who's Revkin?

The majority if not all of these persons did not meet with MT. Meeting face to face may have helped. It may still help.

Linkies tomorrow.

Willard said...

> I've found that committed naysayers will generally refuse to let me buy them a coffee to discuss these matters even if they live in the same city as I do or if I am visiting their turf.

That's because you can't "engage" them on "the issues," MT.

Groundskeeper's gaslighting is a rare thing of beauty.

Brad Keyes said...

> I've found that committed naysayers will generally refuse to let me buy them a coffee to discuss these matters

Let me go on record right now as saying Neigh! to your hypothetical overtures, Michael, if only because I'm a super-taster (which is more of a curse than a gift), and the experience would just leave a bitter flavor in my mouth.

The real experiment would be to "shout" me a box of NōDōz Plus, the vigilance aid that lets anyone operate heavy machinery in complete safety while listening to climate science podcasts... all without the pesticidal taste of traditional, aqueous xanthotoxin!

Now that would be a meaningful gauge of just how non-negotiable my "commitment" to the doctrine of the untouchability of all science-believers really was.

I like to think that, when tempted by the Devil in the Akubra, I wouldn't sell my soul so cheaply... but who am I kidding?

:-)

Brad Keyes said...

Brandon,

"How much do you think you can accomplish on my dime in 3.5 years or less?"

Well, given that that's more than I've been paid for all my hateblogging to date (by a factor of ERR_DIVBY0) I'd say... top of my head.... I could probably single-handedly win the climate, culture and free-speech debates.

Throw in another nickel and I'll arrest the metastasis of Islam[ism, i.e. Islam] for ya.

Using words.

Simple—er, I mean mere—words.

Brandon R. Gates said...

> Throw in another nickel and I'll arrest the metastasis of Islam[ism, i.e. Islam] for ya.

How might that work, Brad? Our current junta's idea was to create "safe zones" -- or speaking of simple words, concentration camps -- which might tend to contain the malignancy more in your neck of the woods if not agitate it somewhat.

Whoops, sorry, I forgot -- y'all have exited the building, so it's not a problem.

My town (Berkeley) is a sanctuary city, and the only vermin we get are native-born free-speech exercisers who cross the borders of our People's Republic to get their butts kicked by equally disaffected and imported black-clad ninjas (sorry, W.) on live Tee Vee.

Kinda seems to me that furriners really aren't our biggest problem. It's the damndest thing.

Brad Keyes said...

Brandon,

on containing Islamism, you ask:

"How might that work, Brad?"

I'll tell you how it WON'T work: by continuing to pretend there's nothing wrong.

I'm hard pressed to think of a problem h. sapiens sapiens ever solved while rabiately denializing its problematicity.

As long as our leaders keep pandering to the tradition of staging a feelgood photo-op at a mosque the day after every major terror attack, they perpetuate the fiction of compatibility and make Doing Something About It impossible.

You seem cynical about the efficacy (and morality) of concentrating, quarantining and otherwise abridging the freedom of Muslims.

I share your cynicism. That whole approach is not only ugly but futile, and it utterly ceased to work within decades of the birth of Johannes Gutenberg.

The enemy isn't Muslims. It's Islam[ism], and you can't keep an idea at bay by keeping ideators at bay. That's bad strategy, bad medicine, bad ethics, bad epidemiology, bad propaganda, bad everything.

So what's the right approach?

For that you'll have to INSERT COIN, I'm afraid.

Think of me a bit like a climate scientist. I desperately want to save my children's planet, but I won't do it for FREE. (It's not THAT important to me.)

Anonymous said...

Just when you thought this couldn't get any funnier, it does! See the UPDATE.

Tobis finds a linked in page to a different Jaime Jessop, well in fact a Jaime Revill-Jessop, who works at Tesco in Nottingham, and went to the University of Derby.

And because this is different from the other Jaime Jessop, who went to UCL, he thinks this is a contradiction that supports his imposter conspiracy theory!!!

ROTFLMAO.

This whole episode is a great insight into the thinking, or lack of, of a climate scientist.

Paul M

Barry Woods said...

Barry Woods is a former Mayor of Henley on Thames

Barry Woods is a renewable energy person..

as are many, many others..

these are different Barry Woods' than me... but as I work in Henley, it was quite fun to be confused with the guy, and we have met, and hate each other.

oh dear...

different Jessie's..

someone made the mistake once with Prof Richard Betts... there are two different ones

Barry Woods said...

Prof Betts is a fake!! who knew..

this guy,
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/?web_id=Richard_Betts

must be this guy, because i used google to search for the name (tobisian logic)

https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/richard-betts

shub said...

Michael's original tweet, which Jaime poked fun of, and his subsequent defense (American spelling) by bot discovery, are *both* bollocks (British spelling).

Sometimes, you have a deeply-held pet theory in your head that doesn't hold up well under cursory examination. It's just the way it is. There is a fuzzy story I remember, about how Homer who wrote the Iliad was stumped by a simple joke by some fisherman because he couldn't help overthink it.

'Impacts are on schedule' may be Michael's deeply held pet theory but it is indistinguishable from post-hoc reasoning and a continual desire of climate alarmists to ride the news cycle. He didn't credit Jaime with the intelligence to catch onto this in one tweet, and tried to cover it up with an elaborate theory about troll factories.

If your theories can be overturned by trolls from a factory, maybe the problem is the theory.

Brad Keyes said...

Ah, The Dangers of a Little Googling.

Sounds like Michael has fallen into the self-same self-laid trap that so recently claimed the face of someone many* times dumber than himself: National Geographic's ineradicable tapeworm, "Wow."

Our indromic pal has now convinced himself, with praeter-Michaelesque conviction, that I'm the same "Brad Keyes" as

"an ex-convectionary store owner from Glasgow."


(Don't click here to see for yourself. You'll regret it.)

Never mind that such a scenario would overturn the last 200 years of convectionary, conductionary and radiative candy-shop administration, plus large chunks of geography!


Michael, with the respect due you, may I suggest you make these words your research philosophy from now on:

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring!

*Where "many" = ERR_DIVBY0

Brad Keyes said...

Anyone notice the way ALL of Jaime's headshots conveniently focus on her head, to the exclusion of her right hand?

If your surname were actually Lannister, I bet you'd do the same.

Think about it! No, I mean don't do that.

Michael Tobis said...

Did I slime Revkin? Like most journalists, I like him but find his work inadequate to the task. I have even come around to accepting what he does and how he does it, but other things need doing as well to get the public to understand our quandary, and journalism appears incapable of them.

I actually have met Andy. It was entirely cordial. I'm sure he'd take a coffee if occasion presented itself.

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

"I actually have met Andy. It was entirely cordial."

They said that about Jonestown. ;-)

Brad Keyes said...

PS unless you're a journalist, Michael, and are speaking for the majority of your colleagues, I'm pretty sure you don't mean this:

"Like most journalists, I like [Revkin] but find his work inadequate to the task."

Willard said...

> If your theories can be overturned by trolls from a factory

Not sure I'd conclude anything about overturning when your first sentence contains "which Jaime poked fun of," Shub.

Arguing by assertion only overturns something when you're someone like teh Donald, whose words create reality.

***

> Barry Woods is a former Mayor of Henley on Thames

Someone predicted a higher entropy earlier. I would bet under.

Lulzing may be suboptimal here.

***

> I'm pretty sure you don't mean this

Of course MT does, Brad. You must be new here:



All blog posts are the same:

1. Here, look at A.
2. See how it's stupid
3. Maybe we should ponder on that.
4. Instead of a conclusion, look at that link I just fished in a ten second search.

- Willard, schematically



https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/06/willard-explains-blogging.html

In the comments, MT admits that his favorite A is Andy.

Probly a coincidence.

Who's yours, Naomi or Lew?

Anonymous said...

Michael, in case you have forgotten your sliming of Revkin, it's described here:

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/character_assassination_in_climate_science_the_michael_tobis_story

and some of the actual sliming is here:

https://initforthegold.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/revkin-beyond-pale.html

Willard said...

> it's described here:

Depends on what "it" means, e.g.:

Reread the exchange excerpted above from Tobis' blog. How many things did Pielke get wrong here? Does he have a reading comprehension problem, or is this wilful, deliberate, character assassination? Tobis didn't mind that Pielke spotted some problem with Gore's presentation and helped him fix it. Tobis was wondering why Pielke devoted that much time to the issue. But more importantly, Tobis was criticizing Revkin (and Pielke if he had any hand in it) for treating this minor exaggeration, if any, in Gore's presentation as if it was at all similar to the major wrong-picture distortions of George Will's. And doing so in print, in the New York Times. Where policy-makers and the general public will be widely exposed to the comparison, and where it will surely at least slightly alter some minds in the direction of thinking there is still some real debate here on the basic science, when there is none. And where those minds might well decide that we can wait a bit longer, before acting.

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/character_assassination_in_climate_science_the_michael_tobis_story

Looks more connected to Junior's sliming of MT to me.

Willard said...

Readers might appreciate Jaime's response to AT's "Just to be clear, are you accusing @stevenmosher of being a climate alarmist?":

> No, he's just a hired doxer for climate alarmists and a Keeper of the Sacred Data.

https://twitter.com/Balinteractive/status/902885761858535424

Taunting Mosh over these things may not be the best idea. So I tweeted back:

You must be new here, Jaime:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/tag/fakegate/ …

How may MT convince you of anything if not over Skype?

Equations don't seem to work.


https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/902889815909294082

I predict crickets.

Willard said...

Well, Skype may be off the table:

> Can't easily follow thread because blocked by Ms J.

https://twitter.com/mtobis/status/902891563847737345

INTEGRITY (tm) - First Block, Then Lulz

Michael Tobis said...

Brad, your grammar flame is correct, it should be "I like Revkin, as I do most journalists, and find his work inadequate to the task, as I do that of most journalists." A hideous sentence. Wonder how to phrase it both correctly and succinctly.

shub said...

You can't. If the thought is not succinct, and is hideous, elegant expression cannot be forced upon it. Moreover, the Revkin is not a journalist any more, having calibrated his day job to a level he can be adequate for.

Anonymous said...

Dullard's reading and comprehension skills seem to be lacking as usual. Tobis described Revkin's writing as 'lazy', 'unethical' and 'poison'.

Willard said...

> Tobis described Revkin's writing as 'lazy', 'unethical' and 'poison'.

Not "Revkin's writing," but Revkin's

"Poison" is DanK's favorite work and "unethical" is an ethical judgment. "Lazy," srsly? But since you're into sliming, you might like:

Speaking for myself, I rather like the connotation of “scum”:

[quote]Tobis is scum. You’re worse.[/quote]

https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/im-not-charlie-but-i-still-dont-like-what-michael-mann-did/comment-page-1/#comment-6484

What would be worse than scum?


https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/hostilities/

***

Brad may also like the descriptive mode underneath:

> You are talking incoherent gibberish as usual Dullard.

https://twitter.com/etzpcm/status/902902251492134912

Hmmm. Big hmmm.

Willard said...

> Not "Revkin's writing," but Revkin's

... equivalence between Al and George.

That it's lazy would be tough to dispute. Equivalencing's the oldest trick in the journalist trade.

Tom said...

The best piece of climate journalism regarding Harvey actually came from Dave Roberts in Vox. Nine things about Harvey or some such title.

I have blasted Dave Roberts for years, first for his work at HuffPo, then at Grist. I'm sure I'll blast him again.

What was special about his article on Harvey was that he actually incorporated all of the caveats that skeptics and lukewarmers had been flagging up over the years in a coherent way that incorporated uncertainty where warranted but left no doubt as to the contributions of a warmer climate to the creation and growth of this tropical storm.

Tobis, if Roberts can learn, so can you. Skeptics and lukewarmers write a lot of correct things (as well as the usual percentage of nonsense). It's putting things into perspective that has eluded consensus writers-fitting facts into a larger whole. You have not done it successfully over the past decade. Nor have most of your blogospheric comrades--the Eli Rabetts, etc.

Get better.

Willard said...

I blast.
You slime.
He's scum or worse.

Michael Tobis said...

Second update: our JJ denies being the Tesco lady, is sticking with the improbable (math/physics -> architectural acoustics -> climate troll bio) without any corroboration. Consequently my half-hearted half-apology must be withdrawn. Doubly sorry.

https://twitter.com/Balinteractive/status/902836602153598976

which could be read as sarcasm, but also a "like" for

https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods/status/902921058315116545

Tom said...

https://youtu.be/xWGAdzn5_KU

Willard said...

Groundskeeper Willie Vs Sheamus:

http://bit.ly/2wim1Bp

Brandon R. Gates said...

> I'll tell you how it WON'T work: by continuing to pretend there's nothing wrong.

Where have I heard that before, Brad?

Oh yes, in #ClimateBall when the topic is actually topical. But since it currently isn't I must parry your thrust somehow ... what would a contrarian do?

Ah. Whatabout N. Koreans lobbing missiles over northern Japan? Why don't we worry about real problems like nuclear holocaust instead of suicide bombers?

Brandon R. Gates said...

> I share your cynicism.

I don't like you for bad reasons.

> I desperately want to save my children's planet, but I won't do it for FREE.

One must also feed children in the present for them to have a future. I can see, however, how insisting inconvenient sciences be done pro bono might tend to reduce the amount of those sciences being produced, as well as the number of spawn carrying the meme into the next generation.

(Is CAGW its own meme, or just the dominant allele? No, I got it; viral infection carried by the Internets -- another of Fat Al's greatest inventions. Coincidence? I think not.)

Anyway, a worthy and I'm sure most virtuous attempt at social memetic engineering on your part. However, just like alarmist warmunistas not living in caves holding their breath to reduce carbon Bigfoots, the schtick might work better if those peddling it were actually doing at least some form of Real Science full-time for no shekels, all for the love of non-Islam[icist] humanity, their petrol and of course its plant food byproduct. Think of the children one could save from a future of soul-crushing carbon [sic] taxation and rolling power outages!

Think of the GRRRROOOWWWTH!

You don't want my dime, Brad; it would soil your pure soul. Be free and do ALL your Good Works for free. Society will be most grateful of your symbolic sacrifice even at the loss of its cut of your revenue.

Willard said...

While Jaime blocked me hours ago, it ain't finished over the Tweeter.

Richard Coeur de Lion for the win:

> Mosher the English teacher, expert on physics and meteorology

https://twitter.com/ClaudBarras/status/902950820416802817

Three strikes in nine words.

Brandon R. Gates said...

Any who routinely play Teh Mann instead of the ball should understand the difference between limelights and searchlights. No advanced degrees in language arts, psychology or even spectroscopy required to see why some types gravitate to the one and shrink from the other.

Karma can be a real b!tch sometimes, innit.

Dan Olner said...

If there's only a small chance it's a real person (I actually think it's more than that for reasons I DM'd) can we please stop with threats of doxing? And maybe just stop the whole thing and move on to something else?

Brad Keyes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Keyes said...

Mosher,

after (or preferably instead of) "doxing" Jaime, why don't you take the forensic-textual-analysis talents you used to out Peter Gleick and use them, instead, to tell us how many discrete authors write under the "Jaime Jessop" persona?

With such leet skillz (and for once, I'm not being a smart aleck—I'm complimenting you), it would surely be pretty easy for you to "cluster" a sample of "Jaime's" writings into N sets, where N = number of different trolls puppeteering her character.

That'd be of great assistance to Michael, since (if all goes well) you'll be discovering the first semi-convincing evidence to date of "JJ's" schizographia, thereby excavating MT from a hole of his own incavating.

(No offense, but none of the "smoking guns" adduced so far are likely to convince anyone who isn't already desperate to believe in "Jaime's" multiplicity.)

Brad Keyes said...

Michael

"As with most journalists, I...."

"Andy is like most journalists: I..."

Brad Keyes said...

PS Mosher,

I trust that if N=1, you'll disclose this "negative" result all the same.

After all, that's integrity.

None of this cacoethical "only publish the findings that actually Add To The Science" offal we're so used to hearing from Those of Schneiderian Virtue, thank you very much.

Whatever certain practitioners might believe, science is not 99% perspiration, 1% publication.

Willard said...

How many discrete authors write under a persona doesn't answer MT's question only if MT's hypothesis is true, Brad.

Either PaulM, BarryW, you, or Shub start to do some vouching, else I suggest we start hearing crickets again.

Groundskeeper's vouching is void, obviously.

Brad Keyes said...

Willard,

"Either PaulM, BarryW, you, or Shub start to do some vouching, else I suggest we start hearing crickets again."

I wasn't aware anyone was waiting for me to vouch for Jaime['s unity and eponymity].

Regardless, you know me: I'm more interested in maximizing the lulz than minimizing the tumbleweeds (even if those are less-than-perfectly orthogonal desiderata).

So before anybody starts vouching for things they can't unvouch for, what assurances do we have that it won't kill the laughter?

Willard said...

Mosh already killed the laughter, Brad.

For a moment, at least.

While we regain our composure, filling the vouching void would help. Your inner crowd's Omertà is all that remains.

More Omertà, Brad?

Brad Keyes said...

"Your inner crowd's Omertà is all that remains."

Did you hear the one about the guy whose inner crowd suddenly abandoned their vows of silence?

He had to be institutionalized for his multiple, unremitting auditory hallucinations and his wife left him the same day as he found out he'd contracted hepatitis from another patient, and he committed suicide two days later!

LOL. But joking aside, this is serious, Willard: I don't know what my inner crowd is.


"More Omertà, Brad?"

Is that a request? Sorry, I'm all Omertà'áed out! Maybe tomorrow?

Anyway sorry, gotta run, my inner child has a play-date at his little friend's house and I have to drive him there (my inner wife has had too many Rieslings).

Willard said...

"Inner crowd" should sound more like "inner circle" than "inner child," Brad.

My "more Omertà" is taken from the Auditor's very own:

> More Omerta, Nick?

https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/164902425974

The difference here is that co-writers at Clisep ought to know enough about Jaime to vouch for her. The least you could do is to say that you're quite confident she exists. While you could be wrong, I trust you enough to take your word for it. Since MT trust me, he could defer to my judgement regarding your own word.

That's own agents build network of trust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic#Subjective_trust_networks

As far as your actual knowledge base goes, there are many things you can't validate. But think of how many other things you could.

Take Jaime's diploma. If you Skype with her and she shows it to you, you could then Skype with MT to tell him what you saw. All channels remain private. No doxing required. Twenty-years old agent theory suffices to show that what MT's asking for is not such a big deal.

Of course, there's no ultimate garantee. (Good ol' skepticism got at least this right.) Confidence tricks are possible, as always. ClimateBall can be a simulation of the Contrarian Matrix, after all.

Nevertheless, commitments get issued. Contracts get signed. The world of distrusting entities can do things together.

That I need to mansplain this to y'all may always mesmerize me.



Tom said...

wee willard winkle, you seem to think we owe you something--a positive identification of Jaime, vouching, whatever. You seem to think that because Tobis has belched out yet another fantastical claim that we should respond.

We're here to laugh at you, not contend. I thought Mr. Keyes had made that clear, but apparently some people need a little extra coaching.

Tobis is perfectly free to think that Jaime is a sock puppet, that aliens walk among us, whatever. He's spent the last decade on this blog claiming any number of fantastical things and insulting any who disagree. You've spent the last decade trying to prop him up, until you both invented and destroyed the game of Climate Ball.

Nobody can stop you from being fools. But you're more like a carnival barker's sideshow than anything else at this point. We're laughing at you, not with you.

Willard said...

> you seem to think we owe you something

Groundskeeper Willie mindprobes and erects another series of strawman.

First, everybody's free to commit or not, just as everybody's free to come here slime MT, like Groundskeeper Willie did over the years.

Second, participating in an exchange while remaining non-commital carries its load of responsibility. Neutrality is easier said than done. Think about it, Groundskeeper Willie already said he liked Jaime, and (in his previous comment) expressed concerns regarding MT's contributions. Why then wouldn't he contact Jaime and act as an intermediary between her and MT if he's not merely concern trolling MT or paying lips service to Jaime?

Third, Groundskeeper does not speak for a "we." As I already said, his voutching would matter much to me, as his gaslighting and his lies voided his word a long time ago. To each his own. Perhaps MT trusts Groundskeeper more than me. Perhaps MT distrusts Brad more than me. There's a reason why trust networks belong to subjective logics.

Fourth, there's no "we" without shared intentions and commitments. The Freedom Fighters' failure to grasp how collective actions work may explain their scepticism regarding them. After all, the risks associated to AGW will require collective actions, thus collective intentions and commitments.

Fifth, this "we" misconstrues the most important point of networks of trust: its decentralization. Suppose Groundskeeper meets with Jaime over Skype and she shows him her dogs. He in turn reports this testimony to MT. That's one data point. PaulM does the same. Another data point. BarryW then turns and says he met with Jaime. The overall sum of testimonies converge toward the fact that many aspects of her story checks out. While we have no evidence of her accoustic diploma, we can believe her Twitter bio.

Wouldn't that be a more positive outcome than lulzing about MT's hunch?

***

If that's not enough to convince you that it's indeed how humans work around Mexican standoffs most of the time, witness how the Auditor let go of the thought that NASA may not have blocked his bot because it was he who was scraping their website, and that "in retrospect," he should have put a sleep instruction:

https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/86700515224

Willard said...

> As I already said, his voutching would matter much to me

I said the opposite, actually - Groundskeeper's word means nothing to me.

There's a point where gaslighting ain't funny anymore.

He's still at it, in this very thread.

Tom said...

Oh, wee willie, I'm holding out my only candle, but it's so little light to light my way. Now this story unfolds before my candle, which is shorter every hour as it reaches for the day--I feel just like the candle in a way--I guess I'll get there. But I wouldn't say for sure.

It's you who provide the gas. Large volumes of it, in fact.

Willard said...

Groundskeeper racehorses for the win.

It wasn't any kind of explosion:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/903221705702768640

It's just a cigarette anyway:

> ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Florida woman lit a cigarette, sparking an explosion of a propane barbecue grill being transported in her SUV.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/barbecue-grill-explodes-woman-lights-cigarette-suv-orlando/

Michael Tobis said...

I don't like any of this discussion and regret the posting, though my opinion has not changed about the matter.

Moderation is back on.

Anonymous said...

We have all had a good laugh, but this silliness has gone on long enough.
Jaime Jessop claims to be a dog lover.
It does not seem to have occurred to you to do a google search for
Jaime Jessop dogs.
If you do this you will find at least 3 pieces of evidence that she is
indeed what she claims. Some of these date from before she started her
climate blog. I look forward to a full apology from you, and I am sure that
the GSDR will appreciate Ric's generous donation.

Paul M

Michael Tobis said...

offs

I did my due diligence. I found a middle manager at a large supermarket in the next county with the same odd first name and the same odd last name and roughly the same age and physique, but Putative Jaime denies being Tesco Jaime.

Putative Jaime, despite an advanced degree, eschews a Linked-In presence, unlike her neighbour, the only identifiable Jaime Jessop on the internet, who has a bit of commercial graphics training.

One of these Jaimes, or possibly a third one, is on record at a couple of dog related sites.

Does this support the claim that Putative Jaime, not Tesco Jaime, is the one that loves dogs? It could be argued, I guess.

Does it support the claim that Putative Jaime has the credentials she claimed, as opposed to someone who is happy to misrepresent herself (or himself)? Not in the least.

Putative Jaime has decided to approach my incredulity with High Dudgeon. Not a soul has popped up to say they know her personally. This is exactly the behaviour one would expect of a false identity.

But I am supposed to be convinced by a few dog references that she has an advanced degree in environmental acoustics? And that this "explains her love of science"? Or even that there are two Jaimes at all? Well, no. If I were Ric, I'd hold out for more convincing documentation than that.

Are Putative Jaime and Tesco Jaime the same person? Has someone else simply assumed the identity of dog-loving Tesco Jaime? Or are there really two Jaime Jessops in the whole world, roughly the same age and physique, in adjacent counties, who know nothing of each other?

Well, maybe. It's a pretty clear case of confirmation bias that somebody might think a couple of passing mentions on dog lover sites clinches the case.

I remain willing to apologise if JJ contacts me by Skype or similar to talk environmental acoustics. And I'll try to help her contact Ric in the bargain, for her payoff. I'm not holding my breath though.

Brad Keyes said...

Michael,

"Not a soul has popped up to say they know her personally."

This is a frustrating expectation.

You're bound to be disappointed if you expect us denialati to know each other "personally." Those of us who have lives outside academia have never been offered a cent to fly to a common location and confer with each other, as I understand to be the tradition among environmental scientists.

I don't even live in the same hemisphere as the vast majority of my climate-debate friends and acquaintances, and I can't recall ever meeting one face to face. Does it follow that I don't know any of them personally?

Or would a long history of electronic correspondence with, say, JJ count as "knowing her personally," given the additional fact that in all that time "Jaime" has never betrayed any sign of being someone she's not, let alone a whole factory's worth of someones? FWIW, she's also ever been known (to me) to be disingenuous. And she's clearly (again: to me) not the kind of person who's sufficiently insecure to need to impress strangers, let alone by misrepresenting her own life.

"This is exactly the behaviour one would expect of a false identity."

OK, but an infinity of possible data would be consistent with a mala fide identity.

Needless to say, that's not the same thing as evidence or vindication of the false-ID hypothesis. To actually justify your suspicions you'd need some data that's inconsistent with a bona fide identity.

And as someone who's corresponded and blogged with JJ for years without noticing any such data, I'm not optimistic of your chances, Michael.

Michael Tobis said...

They're suspicions, not accusations. I don't have to justify them.

JJ, if she exists, has chosen not to allay them. She doesn't have to do that, either.

There it sits. Your claimed correspondence with "her" tells us at best only that there is somebody there, not who it is. But that's obvious.