Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    Chek?
    I have read them.
    Have you?
    I’m starting to suspect that you may have only read the RC analysis of them which would be just as questionable as someone else only reading a Jonova or Watts analysis of them.
    Compare them?
    If I compare them, what is it that you think I will find?

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    Did the graph you recall appear in the paper where von Storch and Zorita et al. added an extra step to Mann’s algorithm which changed the resulting graph – as subsequently pointed out by Wahl, Ritson and Ammann – and which failed to report in the main paper that its supplementary material included results that were inconsistent with its published conclusions as pointed out by Rahmstorf, or do you think you saw it somewhere else?

    *Sigh.* You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead. But no, that’s not how climate proselytisation works, is it?

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    …you can only really know what a program is doing by reading the code.

    Disregarding the context where this claim is proffered to support a position, this claim even shorn of context is not strictly correct.

    You can get closer to understanding what a program will do by reading the machine code – but hardly anyone has those skills these days, and even then that may not be sufficient.

    I have debugged cases where the code says one thing but the compiler had done something else. Reading the code did not tell me what the program was doing.

    I have written self-modifying code that is rather difficult for someone else to understand. Reading it is no guarantee of understanding it. Some people have a talent for writing code that is very difficult for others to understand, even without using self-modification.

    There was a famous case of the Pentium floating point bug, where reading code – even machine code – that tripped the bug was not sufficient to understand what the program was doing. There have been other similar problems in hardware in the past – caching issues, timing issues, coherency issues, transcription errors…

    I experienced a demonstration of a software development tool that applied machine reasoning to certain propositions about programs. Right there in the demo it produced a claim about one of our programs that was very surprising. I was pretty sure was wrong – and so was everyone else, and we had a bunch of very smart people in the room. I read the code, and was even more convinced it was wrong. I read it again stepping through it on paper and about the third time through finally twigged as to how it could occur. The tool was correct – and this was merely analysing a fairly simple program. This illustrates that what one thinks a program that one reads will do is not 100% reliable either.

    Taken together these examples illustrate why it’s far more powerful to separately implement a published algorithm and compare the implementations than it is to try and assess the correctness of the code by reading it. Separate implementations do not rely on the accuracy of what humans think the program will do, and because they are independent implementations of the specification they are far more likely to catch errors in the specification.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

    You represented yourself as knowing this stuff – knowing it well enough to accuse Mann of criminal acts! My bad for taking your knowledge claims at face value. Noted for future reference.

    Mann says that this paper (PDF) uses his methodology, and the authors of that paper claim it too. You’ll note that it does not attempt to reproduce MBH98 or MBH99.

    The paper I know of with Zorita as a co-author that does attempt to analyse MBH’s methodology is the one I mentioned above (“Reconstructing past climate from noisy data”, von Storch et al. 2004) which did not fare so well in post-publication peer review – but by then it had been widely touted in certain circles and the peer responses, well, not so much.

    The official version is behind a free registration wall, but (I believe) is this one (PDF).

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    I’m not going to do that.

    How.

    Very.

    Amusing!

    You and Latimer and Chameleon, all operating from the same playbook and all apparently for the same reasons. Whodathunkit?!

    …you burst in and demand: “Prove to us that we’re wrong!”

    Teh Projection and Teh Self-Flattery is strong in this one.

    You were the one who “burst in” here – and loudly proclaimed we were wrong about any number of things. And you’re still doing it!

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

    You represented yourself as knowing this stuff – knowing it well enough to accuse Mann of criminal acts! My bad for taking your knowledge claims at face value. Noted for future reference.

    I believe it was you, not me, who mentioned Zorita. You said, IIRC, that Zorita had successfully implemented Mann’s algorithm. This fact was proffered as disproof of my claim (that McIntyre was the first person on earth to work out how Mann’s statistical steps actually worked), IIRC. But the only Zorita paper I’m familiar with fails to support your argument, for the reasons I’ve discussed. Surely it’s incumbent on you to name the paper you meant, if you meant a different one.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You were the one who “burst in” here –

    Huh? This is my thread, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    and loudly proclaimed we were wrong about any number of things

    Not about ECS though. BBD repeatedly asked me what my estimate was. So I told him, at a normal conversational volume.

  8. #8 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    No Lotharsson,
    That is once again utter tosh!
    No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.
    Rather, you are being asked why you are so certain you are right.
    Those questions are being asked in the light of emerging real time data and new research.
    Despite what you seem to think, they’re not being asked to prove you wrong.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    This is my thread, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    Teh Conceit is strong in this one.

    It’s Tim’s blog. The thread doesn’t belong to you; it’s your thread prison.

    The interesting thing is that despite Brad’s characterisation to the contrary, BBD’s ECS request wasn’t asking Brad to prove BBD wrong:

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    What motivates your retreat into illogicality? It’s the most interesting thing about it, and the most deserving of discussion.

    I guess we’ll never know ;-)

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.

    Chameleon, meet Brad Keyes. You might want to check out some of the claims he has made in the past here at Deltoid.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    But BBD’s request was accompanied by demands to see the evidence “compellingly rebutting” the high ECS estimate you believe in, weren’t they?

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2013

    Brad Keyes says:

    I’ve explained to you, over and over again, the reasons for my policy of ignoring your “questions.”

    This is another exhibition of logical fallacy.

    Leaving aside the “over and over again… reasons” (I’d like to see the links, as that implies at least three separate occasions), this thinking is at best a form of the fallacy referred to as “poisoning the well”. Even if I’d previously asked a spurious question (which Keyes has in no way demonstrated), it has no bearing on the pertinence of my questions regarding climate sensitivity.

    I posit that Keyes is avoiding answering the questions because to do so would expose the poor excuse of a limp rag that he is attempting to pass off as science. In this avoidance he is demonstrating his intellectual cowardice.

    Given this, together with his blatant narcissism and what appears to me to be a hinting at psychopathy, it’s a good thing that he has been corralled in this single thread.

  13. #13 Stu
    February 12, 2013

    By the way, Brad, please stop talking about software engineering. There are at least three people on this thread alone that have forgotten more about software modeling, forecasting and engineering in general than you can ever hope to comprehend in your futile existence.

    You’re embarrassing yourself enough as it is. Please limit your public display of ignorance to as few fields as possible.

  14. #14 Stu
    February 12, 2013

    Bernard: if you push a denier hard enough and long enough, it always boils down to a long, embarrassing list of “what do you know” questions that he/she will do anything to dodge. Look at the Jonas thread.

    So far we have established that Brad is a failed sophist in love with his thesaurus. He has demonstrated incompetence and ignorance in every single subject he has touched. All he has left is bluster, whining and galloping.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    But BBD’s request was accompanied by demands to see the evidence “compellingly rebutting” the high ECS estimate you believe in, weren’t they?

    I’m pretty sure that was adelady who called the bluff you made in your facetious and fallacious “FTFY”. In response you abjectly folded.

    BBD is “…doing you the intellectual courtesy of being straight with you.” He’s straightforwardly asking why you assert the positions you do when there is such strong evidence against them. Despite your earlier claim at Deltoid that you were looking for a discussion of viewpoints you are clearly unwilling to return the intellectual courtesy – most likely for one or more of the reasons Bernard J. posits. And unless you significantly improve your game Stu’s most recent paragraph looks pretty spot-on as well.

  16. #16 mike
    February 12, 2013

    bll,

    n rspns t yr: “mk s mmm’s nmbr n by, fr sr…”

    Yr knw bll, y rmnd m f “bll” wh ws n grd schl wth m. mn, lk, my schlmt bll ws n bnxs-pn, nsty, lttl, prt-grnshrt, gk rtrd wh ws rlly nt hs whny-crybby, sck-p-snk, tchr’s pt, tttl-tl, mmmy-drd, brt-ct “thng”. Ndlss t sy, r yth-mstr, tlnt-sct tchrs f th lft jst lvd l’l bll. vryn ls–nd mn VRYN LS–thgh h ws th ltmt crp-t.

    Wll, nywy, wht rmmbr mst bt th bll wnt t grd schl wth ws th dy h cm t schl wth bgr, nbknwnst t hm, cnspcsly hngng ff th nd f n f hs ns hrs. mn, lk, ll f s thr kds jst lghd t ld t hm whn w sw hm thr wth hs dnglng gbr-dl nd ll nd l’ cllss bz-bll ddn’t vn knw wht w wr ll lghng t. Fnny tht smthng lk tht wld stck n my mmry ftr ll ths yrs.

    t ny rt, lk sd, bll, y rmnd m f tht thr bll—hmm…wndr whtvr hppnd t tht bll sd t knw n grd-schl, nywy?

  17. #17 bill
    February 12, 2013

    Yeah yeah, mike, very creative. I sure hope you do refer the prison shrink to your efforts on these pages.

  18. #18 David B. Benson
    February 12, 2013

    Make that at least four. My first program ran on an IBM 704.

  19. #19 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    I’m interested in your answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.
    It is not being asked for any of the reasons you have so far postulated here.
    I have read the papers and I cannot find a confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST nor can I find a confirmation by Muller et al (the authors of BEST) in any of the reports and articles about BEST.
    Also Lotharsson you claim this here:
    “You and Latimer and Chameleon, all operating from the same playbook and all apparently for the same reasons.”
    and then when I question that you reply with this:
    “Chameleon, meet Brad Keyes. You might want to check out some of the claims he has made in the past here at Deltoid.”
    What are the claims, what are the reasons and what is the playbook?
    If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

  20. #20 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 12, 2013

    I’m bored now with all the Mann stuff …. how many yeeears has this been dragging on.

    But I’m fascinated by the ECS side-step. I really thought that I’d be treated to a rehash of Lindzen or, more likely, a few misinterpreted quotemines of other papers /reports where the uncertainty/ error bar discussion is pretzelled into contradicting the authors’ own conclusions. I really didn’t expect this wholesale abandonment. But it’s not getting CPR. It’s just been neglected, left to die alone and uncared for. Like a pet or a toy that a kid is only interested in until it needs feeding, or the game isn’t always easy to win.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Stu:

    By the way, Brad, please stop talking about software engineering. There are at least three people on this thread alone that have forgotten more about software modeling, forecasting and engineering in general than you can ever hope to comprehend in your futile existence.

    I think you’ll find I’ve made some fairly uncontroversial remarks about computer programming—I’m unaware of having broached the more sublime question of software engineering yet! Do you have any specific criticism of my statements so far? Or are you just engaged in empty braggadocio?

    Anyhow, should the conversation ever turn to software engineering, we’ll see who’s forgotten more about it. We’ll see.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2013

    Brad, let me propose an hypothesis:

    You have forgotten nothing about climate sensitivity…

    …because you knew nothing about it in the first place.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    I’m interested in your answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.

    I’m not interesting in your inability to do your homework, especially on a moot point like this.

    What are the claims, …

    Brad made any number of loud claims that various aspects of the consensus climate science are wrong. Go do your homework.

    …what are the reasons and what is the playbook?

    This was referring to something else and you’ve conflated the two.

    The playbook is to make claims that are inconsistent with well-supported science, or that are side issues or non-issues but serve as convenient distractions, and then to refuse to honestly engage by discussing the best inference from all evidence and appropriate confidence levels, refuse to modify one’s position based on the inability to support the claim or unwillingness to follow the evidence where it leads, and merrily Gish Gallop on to the next one. Any number of logical fallacies and sophistical gambits are used to adorn these tactics, including rather a lot of projection.

    The reason for not engaging is that the claimant is far more interesting in making the assertion in question than demonstrating that the assertion is supported or perhaps finding out that it is not (and perhaps is aware at some level that the weight of the evidence does not lie in their claim’s direction).

    If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

    I can’t see that being fruitful. I reckon you’ll bring out the playbook in your discussion of those things, just as you have time and time again in the past. But feel free to attempt it.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2013

    Mike.

    Nursey is still trying to find you in order to deliver that long-overdue medication. Please rush to see her – your display of your damaged childhood is embarrassing, on your behalf, most readers of this thread.

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    adelady,

    Yes, the ECS showdown was a fizzler. Hundreds of comments later, after all the bluster and trash talk, the scoreboard tells a bathetic tale:

    Citations in support of lower (<1.5C) ECS: 0
    Citations in support of higher (2–3C) ECS: 0

    My excuse, of course, is the nil interest I had in playing. What’s yours, alarmists?

  26. #26 bill
    February 12, 2013

    I really don’t know why anyone’s wasting their time with this guy – it’s quite possible to just leave him here to rot, you know…

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson, I’m still waiting for your explanation of your Zorita argument. How exactly does Zorita’s work problematize any claim I’ve made about Mann?

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    You approvingly quote BBD’s question:

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    I agree that this is an interesting question. It’s interesting that a supposedly scientifically-literate person would ask it.

    As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I’ve taken part, consensus is not evidence. It’s therefore fascinating that in a supposedly scientific conversation, one person should put a question like this to another person:

    “Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of [something that’s not evidence]?”

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of a gun barrel?

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of today’s horoscope?

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of screaming and yelling?

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the tea leaves?

  29. #29 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    Ummm Lotharsson?
    What homework?
    I have read the papers and can’t find that confirmation.
    Here are some new papers/reports re climate BTW:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3653/abstract;jsessionid=C9A5C538C22F8381A83049F014B5BE1A.d03t01
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_northsweden.php

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Bernard J,

    finally you stray into an interesting subject—psychology:

    Given this, together with his blatant narcissism and what appears to me to be a hinting at psychopathy, it’s a good thing that he has been corralled in this single thread.

    Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    chameleon:

    If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

    Don’t ask Lotharsson! He just dispenses the insults—he doesn’t understand them.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    chameleon:

    No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.

    Sure, not that we can perceive directly. But you’re not experiencing this from their POV.

    The alarmist side exhibits what’s known as rhetorical synaesthesia, in which written statements come with their own volume setting. To them, we’re a tiny but disproportionately vocal minority. Steven McIntyre doesn’t draw attention to mistakes—he screams “Mistake!” And we never correct our own errors—we quietly correct them.

  33. #33 mike
    February 12, 2013

    BJ,

    In response to yr: “…your damaged childhood…”

    My “damaged childhood”, eh, BJ? Well, BJ, whatever else might be said about my supposed, “damaged childhood”, I think it safe to say that it compares favorably with your counterpart, “damaged” larval-stage of development, right, BJ? Not to mention that creep-out, totally fracked-up spectacle you presented in your mutant, pupa-toid days–but, then, this blog’s nymph-toids were a bad influence on you, I know. Still are.

    Curious thought, isn’t it, BJ?–if your bug-breeding betters hadn’t gotten DDT banned, then you genetically-engineered, blood-sucker hive-bozos would never have achieved your current status as an arthropod plague on humanity of Biblical proportions.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson, I’m still waiting for your explanation of your Zorita argument. How exactly does Zorita’s work problematize any claim I’ve made about Mann?

    Already explained.

    As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I’ve taken part, consensus is not evidence.

    And…there we have you once more refusing to understand the connotations of the term “scientific consensus”. Worse still for someone who claims to have a philosophy degree, you left out the context which refutes your interpretation [my emphasis]:

    To recap, you are claiming ECS to be less than 1.5C. This is an unsubstantiated position. Defending it from scientific evidence and argument is essentially impossible.

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    Parsing 101 – the use of “indefensible position” in the second paragraph of the quote refers to the sentence about “Defending it…is essentially impossible” in the first paragraph of the quote. That sentence specifies defending it on the basis of “scientific evidence and argument”, not on “geez, it’s a common belief amongst climate scientists”.

    Are you using this kind of blunder to try and construct misrepresentations to fool other people, or to fool yourself?

    And you’re apparently too poor at comprehension (or too unwilling to face the implications) to recognise that BBD’s question is just as potent if you leave out the qualification that you fallaciously object to. To wit:

    Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position?

    (And Chameleon, this is a classic example of a misdirection and refusal to engage play right out of the playbook.)

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson, I realize that this is a potent question (or would be, if its premises were correct):

    “Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position?”

    The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it:

    “Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position in the face of something that isn’t evidence?”

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    And…there we have you once more refusing to understand the connotations of the term “scientific consensus”.

    The phrase has no connotations that aren’t obvious from its component words. (It’s not like “heavy metal”, which apparently means something quite different from “metallic element which is heavy.”) It means nothing more or less than “consensus among scientists.”

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it…

    You are asserting (oh, the irony!) facts not in evidence.

    And that has been previously pointed out.

    Repeatedly!

    Remember when you were bemused when BBD said you misunderstood “scientific consensus”? This is you misunderstanding (or denying) it. The concept of strong scientific consensus connotes the evidence and argument that leads the consensus to form, a connotation which was made fairly explicit in the context in which BBD used the term in his question.

    It beggars belief that you are so poor at English that you cannot understand this, but who knows. Maybe that explains a lot of your incoherent “thinking”, although there are other plausible explanations.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    Ah, so in our crossed-over comments I see that we’ve reached the bedrock of plain denial in the service of not answering the question. (Another one from the playbook, Chameleon.)

    Enjoy your prison thread. I’m off to do other things.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    The concept of strong scientific consensus connotes the evidence and argument that leads the consensus to form

    No it doesn’t.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2013

    Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

    Heh heh, now how did I know that you’d ask?

    However, given that you have, apparently, a brain the size of a planet, I’d be interested to see if you can shrink yourself and detect what in this and other threads would lead one to conclude what I did…

    Meanwhile, I’m still curious about your avoidance of my questions on climate sensitivity.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Ah, so in our crossed-over comments I see that we’ve reached the bedrock of plain denial in the service of not answering the question.

    Huh? How can the point I’m making be in service of avoiding BBD’s question, when I’ve already EXPRESSLY STATED I have no intention of answering it?

    I wouldn’t answer it whether or not he’d added the fascinating words “in the face of the scientific consensus.”

    But he did.

    Which is fascinating.

    I’m off to do other things.

    No! Not now! You were so close to making me change my mind about Mann’s algorithm! All you had left was to do was provide some evidence.

    (Your non-answer about Zorita is noted. Clearly you realize his work doesn’t support your point.)

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Meanwhile, I’m still curious about your avoidance of my questions on climate sensitivity.

    But I’ve explained it. How can you remain curious when I’ve explained it? What’s wrong with you?

    Remember why I refused to answer your quiz about pH?You’re not my governess.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

    Heh heh, now how did I know that you’d ask?

    You knew I was a skeptic, maybe?

  44. #44 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    has centred around PHIL JONES’ concealment of the decline in his WMO GRAPH.

    Liar again.

    Oh, and there’s nothing hidden.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    Brad has a history of claiming to have read things he hasn’t,

    Fuck you.

    No, fuck you sir, sideways and with a porcupine.

    This is an entirely correct and supported characterization of your tiresome time here.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    But a scientific consensus (an idea believed by a majority of scientists) is, by definition, a question of popularity.

    And another example of how you don’t understand what the science consensus is.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    what exactly is your objection to:

    I wasn’t objecting to it, I was pointing out as yet another example of how you don’t understand what the science consensus is proven with just about every statement you make on it.

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow, you’re back!

    Have you finally found a quote to substantiate the following accusation, or are you now willing to admit it’s a lie?

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed

  49. #49 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed

    Where?

    Here, you moron:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

    Do you think by pretending you didn’t it won’t have happened? That’s a trick for three-year-olds.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    What was “concealed”?

    “The decline.” That’s what was concealed.

    Except the decline you talk about is not hidden:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    There it is.

    Completely not hidden.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    And another example of how you don’t understand what the science consensus is.

    Oh, goody, a new piece of jargon: “science consensus.”

    As with “scientific consensus,” I assume you’ve prepared a fake definition to go with it?

    (Where do I buy one of these dictionaries of Climate English, by the way?)

  52. #52 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    2.
    general agreement or concord; harmony.

    Yup, so the general agreement is that the evidence is that AGW is real and the sensitivity far higher than your assertion puts it.

    So why is everyone else wrong MERELY because they agree with reality?

  53. #53 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    A majority opinion is BY DEFINITION a popular opinion.

    And that doesn’t make reality false, just because reality is something everyone agrees on.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Just like the email says.

    Just like I’ve explained. Time and time again.

    So your entire argument hinges on “the words hide the decline are in an email taken out of context, therefore there must be something hidden!”?

    Because it isn’t the divergence problem, since that was out in the open and completely not hidden.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow,

    at the comment you link to, THERE IS NO STATEMENT that substantiates your lie. Do you think that if you provide a link, people will assume there must be something there? They’re not stupid. They’ll notice that you’ve failed to actually quote the statement you allege I made. They’ll reach the obvious conclusion: I never made the claim you say I made.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Yet I just have.

    You are a liar.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    That would be quite compelling if, by doing so, Zorita arrived at the same graph Mann had arrived at. But my recollection is that Zorita’s result looked quite different from Mann’s.

    Since he did, that should be quite compelling for you.

    For how little the detail of analysis changes the result, see:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

  58. #58 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    What I meant was that in real life, wherein programmers are fallible and code is incorrect, you can only really know what a program is doing by reading the code.

    And that only tells you what the program will do.

    NOT WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO DO.

    To find out what it is supposed to do, you READ THE SPECIFICATION. For code implementing an algorithm, that would mean reading the algorithm.

    NEVER EVER become a programmer you retarded streak of bumgravy.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Yet I just have.

    No you haven’t.

    Produce the quote or admit you’re lying.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    I don’t owe you any justification or argument or bibliography.

    Yes you do.

    You claim to follow data only.

    But here you have a conclusion you are now agreeing has NOTHING to do with the data and is refuted specifically by the actual real measured data today.

    Therefore, you either need to drop the pretense that you only rely on data, or give us the data (and support it against contradicting data) that makes you assert less than 1.5C warming is more likely.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    *Sigh.* You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

    You asserted you remembered details about that paper.

    Are you now admitting lying?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    I believe it was you, not me, who mentioned Zorita.

    And we KNOW you claimed to have read and remembered details about it:

    “But my recollection is that Zorita’s result looked quite different from Mann’s.”

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Yet I just have.

    No you haven’t.

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

  64. #64 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Huh? This is my thread, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    No, it’s your cage.

    Tweet little birdie!

    And you burst in here, this blog.

    But I guess your entire spiel is one of “misreading” someone and pretending that they are wrong because you wilfuly lied about what is happening.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    I think you’ll find I’ve made some fairly uncontroversial remarks about computer programming

    If by “uncontroversial” you mean “accepted”, you are entirely 200% wrong.

    You’ve made several complete bollocks statements about computer programming.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Citations in support of lower (<1.5C) ECS: 0
    Citations in support of higher (2–3C) ECS: 0

    Make that a little over 300:

    http:/www.ipcc.ch

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I’ve taken part, consensus is not evidence.

    And when the consensus is because so many have seen the evidence and agree with the conclusions?

    What is that evidence of?

    The solidity of the evidence that leads to that conclusion.

    Data, dear boy, data is evidence. And the consensus is a lot of datapoints of how the evidence for AGW stands up to scrutiny.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it:

    Because you fail to answer the question: why is it you are right and everyone else wrong?

    Especially now you’ve admitted you haven’t read very much information on the subject.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

    I’m not lying.

    Third time for the same demand:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    No you haven’t.

    Produce the quote or admit you’re lying.

    Yes I have.

    Four times, proving I’m not lying, you are;

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  73. #73 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    at the comment you link to, THERE IS NO STATEMENT that substantiates your lie.

    True: I’m not lying therefore there’s nothing to substantiate it as a lie.

    Fifth time:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  74. #74 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

    Sixth:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

    Note: I’ve not bothered demanding you admit lying; it isn’t something you do at all.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    That is a link.

    That is not a quote.

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

  76. #76 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Have you finally found a quote to substantiate the following accusation

    Yup.

    Seven times so far.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    That is a link.

    That is not a quote.

    Correct, it is a link not a quote.

    It is a link to you saying as you are accused.

    Here’s some help on what a link does:

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

  78. #78 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    You knew I was a skeptic, maybe?

    No, idiot.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Stop wasting readers’ time with that link.

    Quote me saying what you accuse me of saying.

    Oh, that’s right.

    You can’t.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Huh? How can the point I’m making be in service of avoiding BBD’s question, when I’ve already EXPRESSLY STATED I have no intention of answering it?

    Because your intention of not answering BBD’s question indicates

    1) your lack of argument
    2) your lack of manners
    3) your lack of any reasoning for your screed
    4) your lack of evidence

  81. #81 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Stop wasting readers’ time with that link.

    I’m not.

    It is a link to what you claim.

    Here it is again, eighth time:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  82. #82 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Oh, that’s right.

    You can’t.

    I have.

    By linking I give it without cutting out of context precisely what you claim.

    This is called “supporting evidence that what you said is precisely what you said”.

    Ninth time, your statement:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

    NOT a link to a comment in which you allege I say it.

    A QUOTE.

    Quote me saying it.

    Or admit you’re lying.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Is your claim that that comment is not yours?

    Or do you claim that only quotes taken out of context with no proof that these words were said constitute, for your denier mind, proof?

  85. #85 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    NOT a link to a comment in which you allege I say it.

    A QUOTE.

    A link IS a quote. Read up on what the hyperlink description says.

    Tenth time:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

  86. #86 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    A consensus is a majority opinion. Period. Use a dictionary.

    And:

    consensus is not evidence

    We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence. *Only* from what has not, so far, been falsified. It emerges by default, not by artifice and construction. I’m past caring now whether you are failing to understand this because you are a fool or a liar. It doesn’t matter. As always in circumstances like this, further nonsense argument based on this false premise will be ignored.

    So far, we’ve established that:

    – You embrace a value for ECS effectively ruled out by the evidence

    – You deny the scientific consensus (evidence-based) in the same breath

    – You refuse to discuss why you do either of these profoundly illogical things

    – Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same. This is the third leap of illogic

    For me, it’s three leaps too far. Whatever the reasons (you won’t say), you are incapable of reasoning on this topic. So you are incapable of understanding it or discussing it reasonably.

  87. #87 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    - You deny the scientific consensus (evidence-based) in the same breath

    More basically, he denies the evidence with the SOLE REASON being that “lots of other people think it’s good”.

    Talk about hipster ego…

  88. #88 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?

  89. #89 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    All

    If you find discussion with BK frustrating, the simplest thing to do would be to walk away. BK clearly enjoys the attention, so deprive him of it entirely. Think tactically. It works.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Actually, just as with Joan, the entire reason why DK here gets attention on this blog is because Tim lets him on here.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Is your claim that that comment is not yours?

    That comment you keep linking to is mine, and does NOT substantiate the accusation.

    Which is why you can’t tell us what words of mine constitute the claim you’ve accused me of making.

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

    You’ve never provided evidence for that massive generalisation (which, if it were true, would revolutionize science because it would mean scientific consensus WAS scientific evidence).

  93. #93 chek
    February 12, 2013

    which, if it were true, would revolutionize science because it would mean scientific consensus WAS scientific evidence

    Your attempts at logical steps are quite laughable “Brad”.
    But nevertheless, that’s exactly how scientific consensus is used by laymen and non-scientists who have neither the time nor expertise to research for themselves.

    Scientific consensus separates the supported from the unsupported, which is why the cranks, kooks and paid liars hate it so much and attack it at every opportunity.

  94. #94 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Brad

    If you were capable of reasoning on this topic, you would see straight away that I don’t need *additional* evidence. Either the scientific consensus emerges from the evidence (as repeatedly stated) or we have to account for its existence some other way.

    How might we do that?

    The scientific consensus can be used as an indication of the state of scientific knowledge. It cannot be *substituted* for scientific evidence, but that doesn’t mean it is stripped of all value, as you insinuate.

    It’s all just a mess of juvenile rhetorics and I’m bored with it now.

  95. #95 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    chek expresses it pithily:

    Scientific consensus separates the supported from the unsupported, which is why the cranks, kooks and paid liars hate it so much and attack it at every opportunity.

    Thank you, chek.

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    chek

    You and Wow have both accused me of denying ever having made “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

    A QUOTE.

    Quote me saying it.

    Or admit you’re lying.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD,

    an extraordinary generalization like this…

    We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

    …requires extraordinary evidence. You are asserting nothing less than a law of organisational psychology. (Are you a psychologist, by the way?)

  98. #98 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    You’ve never provided evidence for that massive generalisation

    Yes we have. Plenty of times. Here is one again:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Having asserted that …

    Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

    … I’m curious as to why you concede that …

    It cannot be *substituted* for scientific evidence,

    Why not? Consider a hypothesis, N, about the natural world. If a consensus in favor of N can *only* emerge from evidence that N is true, surely such a consensus would *prove* that the evidence for N exists, which in turn would be evidence for N, would it not?

  100. #100 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

    A QUOTE.

    Quote me saying it.

    Eleven:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250

1 8 9 10 11 12 48

Current ye@r *