Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    So, not content with lying about a joke I told

    Well, it has to be funny for a start.

    It has to be told as a joke.

    And it wasn’t a joke.

    But now you’re being shown as the raging bigot you are not only to race but religion, you’re backpedaling like crazy.

    It wasn’t a joke.

  2. #2 Area Man
    January 26, 2013

    There’s something even more wrong here. If Ridley’s prediction is for 1 degree of warming over a century, then 0.2 degrees of warming in the first 20 years is not what we’d expect at all. The warming will be mostly back-loaded since rate of atmospheric GHG emissions keeps increasing. In the first 20 years we’d expect maybe 0.1 degrees at most, probably closer to 0.05.

  3. #3 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    libellously accusing me of calling all Christians who speak “wrong by default”

    Nope, truth is a defence against libel.

    You’d also need to show damage done in the UK to have a case and since you’re an idiot denier who hasn’t GOT any standing to lose, you’ve got nothing to do legally, so you try to bully with a SLAPP down.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I am an idiot believer, so to speak, though that’s hardly a strong enough term.

    In AGW denial, yes.

    To both counts.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I’m reading the comments of an idiot right now. You, Wow.

    Like Lionel, Stu, et al pointed out, projection.

    Frankly, you sicken every right-thinking person reading this blog.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Wow, back for more, asks:

    “How many times have you heard some racist arsehole defend themselve from the complaint by saying something like “Some of my best friends are black people!”?”

    Oh, all the time. TV, movies, cliche-ridden books, pulp comics. Everywhere.

    However, what they don’t say, if they believe that “negroes” are of “feeble intellect”, is that “some of my smartest friends are Negroes,” because that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    Now go back and read (actually read this time) what I said about Christians, Wow.

    Nah, that’s asking too much, isn’t it?

  7. #7 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    Spooner Chad,

    Let us assume it was ABOUT scientific consensus.

    Where, precisely, do you think scientific knowledge resides?

    Hold the sarcasm, please. No snarky personal insult crap about where you believe it doesn’t reside.

    Please?

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    The stopped clock @Wow finally says something veridical:

    “Nope, truth is a defence against libel.”

    Thank you. Thank you for raising this. But don’t tell bill, who keeps advising me to cease and desist from drawing attention to Oreskes’ febrile conspiracist anti-Semitic pre-scientific ugliness. ROFL.

    You guys are a riot, individually and even more so collectively.

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Hi @luminous beauty, thank you for raising the tone.

    “Hold the sarcasm, please. No snarky personal insult crap about where you believe it doesn’t reside.”

    It doesn’t reside here, agreed?

    Now I’ll address your question (which has no simple 1-minute answer, so bear with me)

  10. #10 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    “It doesn’t reside here, agreed?”

    If stipulated, “here” means in the mind of the originator of the above quotation, then agreed.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Oh, all the time. TV, movies, cliche-ridden books, pulp comics. Everywhere.

    So you realise now how badly that comes across?

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Let us assume it was ABOUT scientific consensus.”

    Scientific means (simplistically) pertaining to correctly-derived knowledge about nature.

    Consensus means majority opinion (and can implicitly mean “in a relevantly knowledgeable group”).

    Before I put those two definitions together, I hope you agree that those words are not interchangeable and that, to quote probable the only words Wow has ever accurately put in my mouth, science is therefore not consensus.

    Good.

    Now to agglutinate the meanings, “scientific consensus” means “the majority opinion about what we know about nature” (possibly implicitly restricted to some scientifically knowledgeable group, rather than the general population).

    “Where, precisely, do you think scientific knowledge resides?”

    In the central nervous system of anyone and everyone possessing justified true beliefs about nature.

  13. #13 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Now go back and read (actually read this time) what I said about Christians, Wow.

    I did.

    You were derisive about a site that you considered was religious because the bible was quoted.

    You were calling all christians by default too thick to think science through.

    (PS you don’t seem to know what “by default” means”. Rather a boo boo if you’re busy trying to pretend you’re smart. Comes across more S.M.R.T).

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @LB,

    your challenge about where it “resides” was polysemic so I can only tell you what I mean, which could probably be more clearly expressed as “snarky personal crap does not belong on a science blog.”

    Stipulated.

    Seconded, @luminous beauty?

  15. #15 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    But don’t tell bill, who keeps advising me to cease and desist from drawing attention to Oreskes’ febrile conspiracist anti-Semitic pre-scientific ugliness

    Yup, more racist vitriol from you, Brat.

    And draw attention to what? There is no such blather as you opine about in Oraske’s work.

    What there IS is a desperate need by the reader (you) to see some conspiracy (by one person!!! ROFLMAO!!! See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-14/#comment-145708 for why this is PURE SLAPSTICK!!!) and then project your own vile personal disorders on them so that you can look at yourself in the mirror as “no worse than them”.

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    @Wow, I’m talking to LB right now, who asks an intelligent question. You’ve had your chance.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    science is therefore not consensus

    ENTIRELY WRONG.

    Because you are conflating into “consensus” the idea that it is merely an agreement between people.

    Scientific consensus is science.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    In the central nervous system of anyone and everyone possessing justified true beliefs about nature.

    RUBBISH!

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Because you are conflating into “consensus” the idea that it is merely an agreement between people.”

    I’m “conflating into” it nothing more or less than its dictionary definition, friendo.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    your challenge about where it “resides” was polysemic

    Affected erudition is a hall mark of the flim-flam artist and con-man.

    Science resides in “justified true fact” but whether it is justified is defined by whether there is consensus on it being true fact.

    You push science in to a tiny little corner SOLELY so you can berate the IPCC for showing the science you hate to be true.

    The IPCC and all national academies of science agree that AGW and climate science it springs from is justified true fact about nature.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Consensus means majority opinion.

    If you don’t like it, take it up with Websters, Merriam, Oxford, and all the other Merchants of Meaning.

  22. #22 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I’m “conflating into” it nothing more or less than its dictionary definition, friendo.

    I have no friends as vile in their personality as you, Brad.

    And you ARE conflating “nothing more than” into it.

    That DOES NOT EXIST in the dictionary.

    You use and abuse words because you have no respect for intelligence or discourse.

  23. #23 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Consensus means majority opinion.

    Consensus means agreement.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Climate science” is “a fact about nature”?

    This is not to say that you’re childish, Wow, but that assertion sure is.

  25. #25 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    See, Brat, you make up your ideas and then twist things until you get the answer you want.

    No courage.

    No conviction.

    Just venom.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony

    from the dictionary…

  27. #27 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Climate science” is “a fact about nature”?

    This is not to say that you’re childish, Wow, but that assertion sure is.

    No, you just made that up out of whole cloth.

    This IS to say you’re childish.

    And your assertion asinine.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    And “agreement” means more than one person having some identical opinion, doesn’t it Wow?

  29. #29 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Affected erudition is a hall mark of the flim-flam artist and con-man.”

    Also the aspie, but in that case it isn’t affected.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Also the aspie, but in that case it isn’t affected.”

    Classy language about people with mental health conditions there.

  31. #31 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    And “agreement” means more than one person having some identical opinion, doesn’t it Wow?

    No, it means “agreeing with”.

    Opinion may or may not be involved, but you seem to want to INSIST it is there.

    So you can then (like the fundie denier idiot you are) to claim that all these scientists agreeing with each other that the data says “AGW is real” is “merely opinion”.

  32. #32 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Classy language about people with mental health conditions there.

    Nope, it’s a term used within the group and accepted.

    But you’re grabbing for some more feedlot to insist that your vile personality really isn’t anything unusual.

    It is.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    equivalent to consent ( īre ) to be in agreement, harmony

    What part of this, exactly, do you imagine I’m disputing, Wow?

    This is a perfectly good definition of consensus, equivalent to the equally-perfectly-good definition I gave (majority opinion).

    Now that we’re at consensus about the meaning of consensus, you reckon we might move on?

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “science is therefore not consensus”

    Entirely right.

    “ENTIRELY WRONG.”

    Entirely wrong.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    What part of this, exactly, do you imagine I’m disputing, Wow?

    You’ve not agreed yet.

    This is a perfectly good definition of consensus, equivalent to the equally-perfectly-good definition I gave (majority opinion).

    Majority opinion is NOT a perfectly good equivalent.

    Because it isn’t OPINION.

    But if you want to call it so, then go with the one we seem to agree with:

    Agreement.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Nope, it’s a term used within the group and accepted.”

    Fair enough, I didn’t know that (and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it’s not a term that’s only acceptable within the group, like the n-word).

  37. #37 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “science is therefore not consensus”

    Entirely right.

    “ENTIRELY WRONG.”

    Entirely wrong.

    This is entirely what I meant by childish and asinine.

    Your assertions are INCORRECT.

    Going “Nya nyah nyah, are too!” was not even universal at play school.

  38. #38 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it’s not a term that’s only acceptable within the group

    Fuck off you condescending twat.

    Go fucking look it up, knobhead.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Sweet Jesu. Yes. Whatever. “Majority agreement”, if that’s fine by you.

    Please, I’m just about ready to consent to your defining it “consensus” a kind of arboreal insect if that will convince you that the time is overripe for us to move on to an actual question.

  40. #40 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    Brad,

    “I hope you agree that those words are not interchangeable and that … science is therefore not consensus.”

    Brad and foolish are not interchangeable words, either, but is that sufficient reason to conclude that Brad is not foolish?

    Good?

    What is it that justifies true beliefs about nature in any individual’s nervous system?

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Go fucking look it up, knobhead.”

    Why, knobhead? It’s not remotely important, now that we’ve agreed it’s legitimate for you to bandy it around pop-psychologically the way you did. You have my blessing. Can we move on, for the love of Krsna?

  42. #42 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Please, I’m just about ready to consent to your defining it “consensus” a kind of arboreal insect

    Which is yet more proof that you don’t know what words mean, care what they mean and will abuse them and say ANYTHING if you feel like it.

    For rational people, words are a method of communication.

    For sociopathic nutbars like you, it’s all about getting what you want.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Brad and foolish are not interchangeable words, either, but is that sufficient reason to conclude that Brad is not foolish?

    Good?”

    No, fallacious. One example was a false definition (science is consensus), the other was just a false description (Brad is foolish). One is abortive conceptually because the words aren’t synonymous, the other is just wrong empirically because the predicate isn’t true.

    Can we move on?

  44. #44 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Why, knobhead?”

    Why not, knobhead?

    It’s not remotely important, now that we’ve agreed it’s legitimate for you to bandy it around pop-psychologically the way you did.

    So where did we AGREE to that, you arrogant cunt?

    Can we move on, for the love of Krsna?

    The impediment is your insistence on abusing the language because you want to control the conversation to engineer a “Oh, you’re sooo right”.

    You wanted to bring “opinion” in to it, just like that other nincompoop duffer did with “are carbon emissions important” then segue into “this years annual emissions are higher than 15 years ago”. Because context of carbon emissions is “the total emission”, but he’d engineered a word that also meant “how much came out”.

    And you, being cut from the same denier cloth as he, were busy engineering the same thing with “opinion”.

    You also wanted to make out that it was me being a problem, with your “Oh, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt” because you CANNOT admit mistake without splashing it around widely.

    Just like you’ve done twice more.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    Ah, you actually asked something relevant. (I missed it in all the fibre.)

    “What is it that justifies true beliefs about nature in any individual’s nervous system?”

    What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “You wanted to bring “opinion” in to it, just like that other nincompoop duffer did with “are carbon emissions important””

    …no, I BROUGHT “opinion” into it because shared opinion is inseparably intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement”. That’s what majority agreement is. It’s simply more than half of a set of people having an identical opinion. They may very well be RIGHT, of course.

  47. #47 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    One example was a false definition (science is consensus)

    WHICH NOBODY HAS MADE except as a strawman.

    the other was just a false description (Brad is foolish)

    Nope, was a little under-reporting if anything.

    But, as is your wont, you misconstrued.

    “Foolish is not Brad, but Brad is foolish”

    Get it, nimrod?

    Now how about

    “Consensus is not science but science is consensus”.

    “Fruit is not Apple but Apple is Fruit”.

    Beginning to filter through that willful ignorance?

  48. #48 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    …no, I BROUGHT “opinion” into it because shared opinion is inseparably intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement”

    No it isn’t.

    We have an example earlier.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-15/#comment-145779

    We still have a different OPINION, but we AGREED to use “Agree”.

  49. #49 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    And who the fuck said “majority agreement”????

  50. #50 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.

    Why did you bring in (another) extraneous loaded word “belief” into the equation?

    Just like “opinion” it is so you can discard anyone else’s facts with “that’s just your belief”.

    Fundie denialist claptrap.

    Drop the loaded words.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    just like that other nincompoop duffer did with “are carbon emissions important””

    You have my sympathy. That duffer (unless he was dumbing down his vocabulary for the sake of the audience, which is quite a common phenomenon) sounds scientificly illiterate, because the object of contention was presumably carbon dioxide emissions, right? Or were you actually debating about diamond geysers or the spewing-forth of manmade nanotubes?

  52. #52 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “That’s what majority agreement is. It’s simply more than half of a set of people having an identical opinion.”

    NO.

    It is a majority agreeing on something.

    Opinion has fuck all to do with it.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    I’ll give you an entire internet’s WHOOSH Brad.

    Way to miss the point.

    Your metier.

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    And who the fuck said “majority agreement”????

    I did, remember—it’s on this exact page, so I don’t see why you’re struggling to identify the author.

    Remember, you said consensus meant agreement, I said that was close enough for government work, and I added “majority” just to make it clear that we don’t just mean an opinion shared between two or three outliers. I thought I was doing you a favor, because without stipulating “majority” it would leave me free in my Satanic deviousness to declare a “consensus” among contrarians!

  55. #55 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    “your challenge about where it “resides” was polysemic so I can only tell you what I mean, which could probably be more clearly expressed as “snarky personal crap does not belong on a science blog.”

    Nothing polysemic about it. “It”, in the context of my ‘challenge’ could only be construed to mean scientific knowledge. Construing it to mean snarky personal insults is not logically justified.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.

    Why did you bring in (another) extraneous loaded word “belief” into the equation?”

    Er, YOU asked the question:

    “What justifies a true belief about nature?”

    Extraneous much?

  57. #57 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “I did, remember—it’s on this exact page,”

    Except you said *I* said it:

    “intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement””

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “It is a majority agreeing on something.

    Opinion has fuck all to do with it.”

    So you agree with my introduction of the concept of “majority” into the issue.

    Thank Christ for small miracles.

    Now, explain to me the intriguing assertion that opinion has “fuck all” to do with agreement, if you’d be so kind.

  59. #59 luminous beauty
    January 26, 2013

    “What justifies a true belief about nature is scientific evidence in favor of the believed-in hypothesis.”

    So, where does this ‘scientific evidence’ come from?

  60. #60 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Er, YOU asked the question:

    “What justifies a true belief about nature?””

    I was quoting you from memory:

    “In the central nervous system of anyone and everyone possessing justified true beliefs about nature.”

    at

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-15/#comment-145755

    So yet again, you pretend it was someone else doing it.

    There’s nothing equivalent to the fuckwittery of you, is there.

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “Except you said *I* said it:

    “intrinsic to your precious “majority agreement”””

    Well, youse did.

    (If you think I’m juggling the difference between Wow and lb at this point, you give my attentional faculties way too much credit.)

    Youse blokes said:

    ““It is a majority agreeing on something.”

    Now in the name of Mithras on a cross, can we please MOVE THE FUCK ON?

  62. #62 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “So you agree with my introduction of the concept of “majority” into the issue.”

    It’s redundant.

  63. #63 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    “Now, explain to me the intriguing assertion that opinion has “fuck all” to do with agreement, if you’d be so kind.”

    Already did so, but you’re too fucking retarded to notice.

    We have an example earlier.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/comment-page-15/#comment-145779

    We still have a different OPINION, but we AGREED to use “Agree”.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    January 26, 2013

    “There’s nothing equivalent to the fuckwittery of you, is there?”

    Nup. Mind you, youse guys are severely testing my social graces, and they do have a limit.

  65. #65 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Well, youse did.

    Failing to find a point, you fall back on childish.

  66. #66 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Mind you, youse guys are severely testing my social graces, and they do have a limit.”

    You have no social graces.

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “So you agree with my introduction of the concept of “majority” into the issue.”

    It’s redundant.”

    Fine, let’s omit it. When people agree (never mind if it’s a majority or not), that’s Consensus(tm), Your Gold Standard Guarantee of Truth.

    Is this where you were hoping you’d be able to steer the discussion eventually?

    Just saving you the time.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Now in the name of Mithras on a cross, can we please MOVE THE FUCK ON?”

    Fuck off.

    You don’t WANT to move on.

    You could have, but rather than move on, you prattle and whine and whinge and try yet again to find another loaded term before you can “spring a trap”.

    Get the fuck on with it if you’re so bloody tired of it.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “Well, youse did.

    Failing to find a point, you fall back on childish.”

    Yes, failing to find any discernible point in your oppositionalism to every fucking thing I say, even when I’m agreeing with you, I fell back on the childhood habit of removing confusion by differentiating vos from tu, you from thou and you from youse.

    If that offends you guys, screw youse.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Your Gold Standard Guarantee of Truth.”

    Fuck off.

    YOU introduced that.

    Yet again, trying to ensure that even if you have to fail, you splatter enough shit about to get everyone dirty.

    Fuck.
    Right.
    Off.
    You.
    Twat.

    Same with the arrogant and wastful “(tm)”.

    You whine about your social graces but they constitute vile insinuations about anyone who DARES disagree with you.

    “When people agree (never mind if it’s a majority or not), that’s Consensus”

  71. #71 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “even when I’m agreeing with you”

    Even when you’re agreeing with people, you have to snark at them. See “(tm) and “Gold Standard” bullshit.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “You don’t WANT to move on.”

    Oh but I do. You’re wrong as usual.

    Allow me to prove it.

  73. #73 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    You could have then.

    But you didn’t.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Yes but here’s me moving on.

    What is now the point of contention?

    It’s about wherein scientific knowledge consists, right?

    Please tell me wherein you think it consists so that we can move even further onwards.

  75. #76 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Actually luminous beauty, with the luxury of revision I note that your comments are of an entirely different calibre from Wow’s and I apologise if you were offended by my conflation of you two.

    I’d be far more interested to hear your thoughts on the above issues, to be honest, than Wow’s.

  76. #77 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes @ 74

    @BBD, thanks for asking—I mentioned that it would be good to find more deltoids like Jeff H with the ability and disposition to actually exchange views.

    We could start with the nature of scientific consensus. You say (P14; #78):

    Are you high? I didn’t write anything like that. I merely disabused Sou of the false belief that “consensus” was some kind of unit of evidence, as in her abortive concept of “a consensus of evidence that points to…”, and that it actually measures opinion.

    What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?

  77. #78 chameleon
    January 27, 2013

    Hmmm?
    Wow?
    You need to take some lessons from Lotharsson if you want to play semantics.
    Brad is happy to play with you but you’re being absolutely plastered.
    Either take some lessons or move on.
    It is funny to read BTW so if you want to continue, it will still be amusing but I’m actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you.

  78. #79 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    It was STILL you who was asked.

  79. #80 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Again, chubby, if you had any sort of reputation for accuracy, your post would have been of a very minor issue.

    However, your RDF is strong and your ability to separate your internal universe from reality renders your opinion moot.

  80. #81 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Well Wow, if you weren’t spamming me with coprolalia I might have noticed that good question from your better (on every level) half.

    @luminous beauty posed this:

    “So, where does this ‘scientific evidence’ come from?”

    It comes from immersing hypotheses in the acid of reality.

    In other words, from experiment (guided, obviously, unavoidably, by existing knowledge and theory, and analysed in light of and with relation to existing knowledge and theory).

  81. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?”

    A whole matrix of psychological cogs and wheels, both rational and irrational, well-oiled and dysfunctional, smooth and toothless, one of which (indisputably) is evidence.

    I’m not sure I accept the premises behind talk of “preponderance of.” That seems an invitation to selectivity. But if I’m wrong, feel free to clarify how preponderance should be assigned to one direction or another. Bear in mind, though, that a single observation can in principle disprove a theory previously thought to have been justified by a whole DVD-ROM worth of observational data.

  82. #83 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow reveals more of himself than we really needed to see:

    “Again, chubby, if you had any sort of reputation for accuracy, your post would have been of a very minor issue.”

    Fascinating, isn’t it, how people of a certain character literally cannot evaluate the merits of a proposition independently from their own bilious grudges against the proponent.

  83. #84 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?”

    Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on?

    Let’s cut out the middle man (opinion) and see the evidence.

    (Sorry to be so scientific about the whole thing. ;p)

  84. #85 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    Fascinating how evaluating a source based on evidence of the reliability of that source is, in some idiots, considered wrong.

  85. #86 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on”

    So all that screaming and when it comes to the money shot, nothing?

  86. #87 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Well Wow, if you weren’t spamming me with coprolalia I might have noticed that good question”

    Well, that’s wrong for a start.

    You had answered some before.

    You just want someone else to blame because YOU are never wrong.

    Always someone else’s fault.

    But it appears that the answer LB has been waiting for was “I don’t know, does anyone care????”.

    It seems spamming you with crapola was the only thing keeping you from admitting you had nothing…

  87. #88 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on”

    So all that screaming and when it comes to the money shot, nothing?”

    Wow, only a True Believer in Post Normal Science could possibly think the purely sociological trivia of “what is scientific majority opinion based on?” is analogous to the ejaculation scene in a porno.

    It’s not, Wow.

    Evidence is the cum shot.

    Opinion isn’t even the cheesy music.

  88. #89 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    @Wow:

    “Always someone else’s fault.”

    No, sometimes I’m at fault. I actually drew attention to a mistake I made earlier—did you notice, or were you too engrossed in your Dictionary of Slang for Kidz?

  89. #90 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “I actually drew attention to a mistake I made earlier—did you notice”

    No, I noticed.

    I also noticed you had to snark at others then too.

    cf “give you courtesy of the doubt”.

  90. #91 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    ” is analogous to the ejaculation scene in a porno. ”

    Nope, that’s not how analogies work, dumbass.

    And its provenance is not that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot

    co-opted.

  91. #92 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    “It seems spamming you with crapola was the only thing keeping you from admitting you had nothing…”

    I thought we agreed that what you’ve been chundering forth to distract me was coprolalia, but “crapola” would also capture it.

  92. #93 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    It is ALSO a non-sequitur.

    Nothing to do with post-normal-science to draw an analogy to the noisy culmination of a sexual act being a non-event.

    But then you don’t do this thinking lark, do you.

  93. #94 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Anyway, I’ve answered all your questions so the ball is in your court. Better hope somebody who knows what to do with it is around, Wow, cos otherwise the debate is over.

  94. #95 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “I thought ”

    You keep using that word.

    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    And, yet again, you are incorrect. Point out where we agreed.

  95. #96 Wow
    January 27, 2013

    “Anyway, I’ve answered all your questions so the ball is in your court.”

    What ball?

    Hell, what answer?

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Hey Chameleon, that Pantera song is in my head again for some reason!

  97. #98 luminous beauty
    January 27, 2013

    “In other words, from experiment (guided, obviously, unavoidably, by existing knowledge and theory, and analysed in light of and with relation to existing knowledge and theory).”

    Only experiment? You’re going to give all the astronomers a sad.

    It is encouraging to see you have conditioned the burden of justification for testing an hypothesis on the guidance of existing consensual scientific knowledge and theory, which, I’m sure you will agree, rests on the collective expert acceptance or refinement of prior evidence and theory. And so on.

    O, I’m sorry. I’m putting words in your mouth.

  98. #99 BBD
    January 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    “What is opinion based on in scientific discourse if not the preponderance of evidence?”

    Ultimately, who knows or cares what it’s based on?

    The scientific consensus is based on the evidence. If you don’t know or care about the evidence, you have no argument against the scientific consensus.

    Let’s cut out the middle man (opinion) and see the evidence.

    But you just said you don’t care about the evidence. Scientific consensus emerges from the evidence, so it is apparently the better informed position. Why dismiss it?

    (Sorry to be so scientific about the whole thing. ;p)

    You aren’t being scientific.

  99. #100 Brad Keyes
    January 27, 2013

    Thanks luminous, I was afraid you’d left me alone with that screaming child.

    “Only experiment? You’re going to give all the astronomers a sad.”

    How so, luminous? Perhaps you’ll be happier if I explicitly broaden the word “experiment” to “the entire Empirical approach”, which obviously includes what you observe in a telescope.

Current ye@r *