Posted by: graemebird | September 11, 2008

What Is Truth? Said Jesting Pilate. And Would Not Stay For An Answer

The above is the opening sentence from a pivotal book by Sir Francis Bacon.  The climate-talk-talkers, of the alarmist persuasion, may be impressed by this nihilistic Roman wise-ass as portrayed (not necessarily akin to the historical figure). But they will not show that they have taken after him directly, because they are stooging us that they are in posession of an inconvenient TRUTH. When in reality the actual evidence is pointing directly opposite to their leftist made-up crapola.

But they have INDEED aped this attitude of Pilates with a twist to it and ramped up the volume on the use of the convenient lapse of human understanding. Their considerations and the world they live in are every bit as political and cynical as the post-modernist Pilates world. They have flipped into overdrive and their relentless lying becomes like a perverse new form of crusading and righteousness that allows them to escape the relentless cynicism and values-starved world they live in. The problem with lapses in human understanding is that they can start off convenient and willful and then later become hardwired into the system. The loss of that part of the functional culture can set up new lower standards as being now normal and according to Hoyles. And the former understanding can be all but forgotten. When the understanding is reintroduced like an old man in tramps clothes it can be the subject of great derision. Like the person talking about inductive inferences and solid convergent reasoning is some rube who hitched a ride on the back of a watermelon cart.

Well maybe they did at that. Maybe all the best guys burnt their own rubbish. Fed the chooks and made treehuts. Who knows these things. The cold dead hand of government compulsion and currency debasement kills all values and not just monetary ones. And perhaps some of these yokel mountain-boys and girls aren’t as affected quite so much or quite so quickly.

“The highways jammed with broken heroes on a last-chance power-drive” said Springsteen and we can only hope that this is a prophecy and the spinouts and crashes come sooner rather than later for these crusading hucksters. How much longer can these people like Karoly and Brooks go on without developing ulcers, nasty uncontrollable twitching, and perhaps even unsightly skin complaints. The hair of one of them has already fallen out. Karoly is still in good shape but he looks like one of these nervy characters that could not relax in a hot spa. The beginnings of serious health problems is what you would expect from them if indeed they had a forgiveable and human side to them.

Its hard to dislike Pilate too much. But its the cold-evil of the pragmatic Roman smoothy that makes all the truly nasty evil possible. Actually in holocaust-study this fact has pretty recently gained the attention of historians in that many are now thinking that the piss-weak compromisers were far more important to the what happened than what had been previously thought. This is why I’m so hard on people like JC. Who does some good work on the sly I suspect. But cannot help but make grevious compromises with these goons on his own hook. Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do.

Well while the Pilate character represents this sort of smooth cold pragmatism that is really cold-evil…. These climate talk-talkers are far more hot to trot and many of them openly welcome mass-eradication of human populations that is beginning to look pretty likely if we cannot infuse our culture with a sudden rebirth of reason.

You see while Pilate would say “What is truth” the climate talk-talkers go much further. They are beginning to say “What is evidence?” They ask you “what evidence would you accept” as if they’ve already come up with piles of it and you have looked the other way. A perfect leftist reversal. And they are like Pilate in that they say “What is evidence…” and aren’t the least bit interested in the answer to that question and are only waiting for a week or so when enough time has passed for another one of these goons to ask the same question again and ignore the answer anew.

Can someone take time out to explain to people what the flying fuck evidence is? We lose this understanding eventually we will lose everything. We will be animals again, under an elite of incredibly wicked administrators, that will make Pilate seem like the nicest of fellows. And hey. I’m not knocking Pilate too much. To do so would be to condemn too many of the homo-sapiens and I’d wind up joining the dark side.

Anyway. Since Jason has pointed out that I haven’t made a new thread in a couple of months here are a couple of posts from elsewhere attempting to explain to these hobgoblins what is meant by this tricky and elusive evidence THINGY.

Comment from Graeme Bird 
Time September 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm

“And Jennifer: this calling for “best papers” thing is getting tiresome, if you don’t make it clear where you are coming from..”

What are you on about blockhead?

They didn’t come up with a paper. Not one. Why don’t you come up with one? Just one will do? You are supporting science fraud. I’m not wrong. But suppose I was….. then it would be easy for you to simply come up with what you think is your most convincing paper.

You need detection and attribution. DETECTION-AND-ATTRIBUTION?

Got that jerk? Or am I going too fast for you?


That is to say you need at least a fair attempt to reconstruct the history of CO2-levels and pull out a CO2-warming-effect from all the noise. It doesn’t have to be decisive in my view. Just an honest attempt to make that connection empirically. That is to say through reconstruction and attribution. I say reconstruction for this narrower case since the CO2 levels have to be reconstructed. The last fellow who tried to do this was pilloried world-wide. But if you don’t do it you have no case.

Pretty bloody simple I would have thought you jerk.

And when something is actually having an effect we CAN find it. Look at volcanic eruptions? If they are large we can clearly pull an estimate of the effect from the data.

So go and find a study you dumbass. And don’t display your virulent contempt of the need for evidence again at least until such time as you drag your ass back here with a decent study of this nature or on one knee to apologize to us all for your stupidity.

The stupidity of you guys is really oppressive after awhile. Its rude. You weren’t brought up right is what it is.

Comment from Alarmists are getting more alarmed! 
Time September 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm

The temperature keeps dropping as we argue…

Comment from Graeme Bird 
Time September 11, 2008 at 7:43 pm

“Toby, that isn’t evidence of AGW. Evidence I would assume would be something we could see or measure.
Such as ice mass-balances, temperatures, movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in precipitation patterns etc.”

No no no you drop-kick. It could be all or one of those things. But its got to be specific evidence related to a specific hypothesis.

It can be evidence that would seem to verify or falsify a specific hypothesis. But either way you need the clear hypothesis.

Lets look at what you said again:

“Toby, that isn’t evidence of AGW. Evidence I would assume would be something we could see or measure
Such as ice mass-balances, temperatures, movement of species to higher latitudes and altitudes, changes in precipitation patterns etc.”

You know I know whats going on here. You are expecting to be able to in effect swamp us with mindless panic-talk in lieu of evidence.

So its:


You see all this stupid-talk you are getting away with comes from this side-stepping of the need to team up a specific hypothesis with specific evidence. I’m not saying this isn’t willful stupidity. But we have a whole section of society that has forgotten or never knew what evidence was about.

I mean they might watch and be able to follow some forensics TV show. They might even understand it all a bit. But as soon as they come to climate-talk-talk then following sound scientific methodology becomes Verbotten. And when somebody actually insists on it he/she becomes a target of fear and great anger.

It isn’t complicated NT. Define clearly the hypothesis. In your own words. Then go get the evidence. If you are wrong the evidence won’t be there. Or at least you won’t get full spectrum convergence.

But at least start with some evidence. Don’t have to prove that the potato grows only on the highest branches all in one hit.







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: