Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
A QUOTE.
Quote me saying it.
-
That comment you keep linking to is mine, and does NOT substantiate the accusation.
Yes it does. Read it again. Twelfth:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
-
an extraordinary generalization like this…
We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.
…requires extraordinary evidence.
Except it isn’t an extraordinary claim.
Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
-
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
Thirteenth (lucky 13?):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
-
This SkS topic could have been written for Brat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient-evidence.html
-
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
A QUOTE.
Quote me saying what you’ve accused me of saying.
-
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
Fourteen:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient-evidence.html
-
#88 Wow
February 12, 2013If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
-
-
Bored readers will notice that Wow keeps linking to the same long comment instead of simply telling us where it is that I make the claim he and chek have accused me of making. Readers will correctly guess that this is because Wow cannot locate any such claim by me. (Why? Because the accusation is false.)
-
Wow keeps linking to the same long comment instead of simply telling us where it is that I make the claim
Yes, that link points to where you made the claim.
That is what a link does.
-
Wow,
you could end this right now just by QUOTING ME saying what you’ve accused me of saying.
Or you can keep playing sillybuggers with your irrelevant links.
-
Why? Because the accusation is false.
Yes your accusation is false.
-
you could end this right now just by QUOTING ME saying what you’ve accused me of saying.
Evidence predicts otherwise.
Here is precisely what you said, unedited:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
-
Here is precisely what you said, unedited:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
And it does NOT contain the claim you’ve attributed to me.
Otherwise you would quote me.
-
And it does NOT contain the claim you’ve attributed to me.
Yes it does.
-
“And it does NOT contain the claim you’ve attributed to me.
Yes it does.”
Then quote me, you craven little liar.
-
-
Are you somehow unable to read?
-
Wow!
For fox ache!
Go to comment #20 on page 8 and discover that BradK was quoting someone else!
Didn’t you pick up that quote was separated and in italics?
Even after linking it 12 times?
Who is he quoting Wow?
You are looking incredibly foolish at the moment! -
good grief!
16 times? -
Go to comment #20 on page 8 and discover that BradK was quoting someone else!
And he denied saying it.
Now he claims he never denied saying it.
I didn’t expect you to nail Brat’s lies, but well done.
-
16 times?
I know, it’s ridiculous! It’s like Brat can’t read if he doesn’t like what he reads!
Eventually one will penetrate.
-
no Wow!
He was quoting Lotharsson.
Brad DID NOT assert it.
LOTHARSSON DID!
You are obviously the one who is unable to read correctly.
You are indeed looking very, very foolish at the moment.
Do you understand now Wow?
Your 16 links prove that you were mistaken. -
Brad DID NOT assert it.
Yes, he denied saying it.
And now he denies denying saying it.
Thanks for your help, though you do seem confused over it.
-
See him here denying he denied saying it and wanting proof he denies saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-148398
-
And again for the proof he denies saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
-
You’re welcome Wow
chuckle
It was quite easy to expose your ridiculous behaviour.
BTW
I think you have just topped the deny/alist/ing/alism chart.
Chuckle -
It was quite easy to expose your ridiculous behaviour.
See what I mean about your confusion.
You’ve just claimed that Brat never said something.
He claims he’s said it and claims that asserting he denies saying it is a lie.
Here is him denying saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
And here him denying denying saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-148398
And YOU come along and say he never said it, in contravention of his claim.
-
chameleon,
near as I can tell, this is the part that Wow thinks constitutes my denial:
“Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Questions are denials, according to believalists.
-
Wow,
Just a little hint for your very confused mind.
BradK didn’t say it, Lotharsson said he did.
Find the actual quote where BradK actually said it like that himself.
If you can’t find it you seriously need to stop!
Hint : It’s not in that link you keep putting up. -
“Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Yup, you claim “Where did I say those exact words” to deny you said them.
The point of asking “did I use those exact words” is to deny saying anything like it.
At least now the nearly twenty times you’ve been given the link has FINALLY broken through that crust of ignorance of yours.
-
Yes BradK,
Especially in Wow’s world! -
Hint : It’s not in that link you keep putting up.
Hint: the proof Brat kept demanding “or admit you’re a liar” is in that link.
Here again is the link:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148250
-
Especially in Wow’s world!
Yes, it’s called “reality” by people residing in it.
-
chubbie, you don’t seem to know what Brat was demanding:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-148398
-
Time to stop Wow,
You’re busted!
Brad did not say it.
Lotharsson and now you (ad nauseum) claimed he did.
But by all means keep pretending otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I would prefer to move on if you could manage that.
You’re just starting to look petty as well as a bit silly. -
You’re busted!
Strange definition of “busted” you have there.
But I guess when you’ve just skewered your mate, you have to pretend it’s something completely different:
-
Behold, the logic of a climate alarmist!
I’m asked to justify an assertion, and my response is:
“Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Wow reads this and thinks I’m denying the assertion:
Yup, you claim “Where did I say those exact words” to deny you said them.
The point of asking “did I use those exact words” is to deny saying anything like it.
And this is just English. We’re supposed to believe that idiots who can’t follow English understand climate science better than us.
-
Behold, the logic of a climate alarmist!
So where do I claim climate alarmism, Brat? Oh, you’re making things up again!
Wow reads this and thinks I’m denying the assertion:
you’re denying having said it.
Duh.
Here, once again is your whining petulant demand:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-148398
and now even you agree that you claim you never said it.
-
“You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed”
Now you say you agree that you never said it.
-
#8 Wow
February 12, 2013#88 Wow
February 12, 2013If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
+++
And still nothing.
-
#3 Wow
February 12, 2013an extraordinary generalization like this…
We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.
…requires extraordinary evidence.
Except it isn’t an extraordinary claim.
Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
-
and now even you agree that you claim you never said it.
What the what? Is this self-parody?
It is self-parody.
You’ve broken the bonds of Full Retard and gone Double Retard.
Well done, “Wow”, you had us thinking you were just a much dumber-than-average alarmist footsoldier. It took—how long? a couple of weeks?—to figure out that, no, not even the most brainwashed climate cultist could be as decerebrate as you’re acting.
-
Wow,
it’s seriously getting boring.
You’re hogging the thread and looking increasingly petulant.
Can we pleeaaase move on to something more interesting than you having a silly hissy fit over an obvious misquote?
Pleeeeaaaasse Wow?
Pretty please? -
This is bullshit, Wow:
You [Brad] claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed
Your farcical failure to track down any justification for this bullshit has provided much merriment.
Thank you.
-
This is bullshit, Wow:
So you now claim that what you wanted is bullshit.
This has been known about before.
Your farcical failure to track down any justification
Stop changing what you demanded.
You demanded this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-10/#comment-148398
Now, having caught yourself agreeing with that statement you demanded proof of, you suddenly demand something different.
What a shock. Denier gish gallops off.
-
you having a silly hissy fit over an obvious misquote?
‘sfunny, brat spend ages and ages having a hissy fit over just that.
-
What the what? Is this self-parody?
Could be: who knows what the hell you’re galloping off to now.
-
Can we pleeaaase move on to something more interesting
You mean like answering the questions:
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
?
-
Now, having caught yourself agreeing with that statement you demanded proof of, you suddenly demand something different.
LOL! Stop! Stop!
It’s too much! ROFL
-
LOL! Stop! Stop!
OK, so you cry “uncle”.
You now admit you’ve been demanding proof of something even you admit was true.
-
Now that you’ve dropped the farcical “Prove it or admit you’re lying” bollocks, care to answer this:
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
-
Asking the troll pool, are we?
-
You now admit you’ve been demanding proof of something even you admit was true.
I don’t know where you’re getting this, but it is COMEDY GOLD, Wow.
-
Oh, it does riddles too!
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
I know!… to get to the other side?
Do you do birthday parties?
-
I don’t know where you’re getting this
Your statements, Brat.
-
I know!… to get to the other side?
So apparently you don’t know.
Or daren’t answer.
At the very least do not WISH to answer.
-
Go on, try something INTELLIGENT, Brat.
Shock everyone here.
-
Is there ANY cognition going on in that head, Brat?
Or is the problem that you’re actually a shift-worker and who is using the account changes over time?
-
Well, what’s the answer?
-
I give up. What’s the punchline?
-
Well, what’s the answer?
Yes, that’s what we’re waiting for.
Unless you’re admitting you have no thoughts of your own, and merely parrot those you like when fed them.
-
I give up. What’s the punchline?
So you don’t know English?
Noun 1. punch line – the point of a joke or humorous story
gag line, tag line, laugh line
gag, jape, jest, joke, laugh – a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter; “he told a very funny joke”; “he knows a million gags”; “thanks for the laugh”; “he laughed unpleasantly at his own jest”; “even a schoolboy’s jape is supposed to have some ascertainable point”
line – text consisting of a row of words written across a page or computer screen; “the letter consisted of three short lines”; “there are six lines in every stanza” -
So was that the best the troll pool could do?
-
Yes.
To get to the other side.
That’s my final answer.
-
“That’s my final answer.”
If only.
-
Q: If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
A: To get to the other sideReally.
It’s not even an answer.
-
Brad
I have reviewed what I have written on this thread. It is clear. You are now engaging in the same obfuscatory games you play with others here. What I said stands.
You haven’t answered the key question:
There is no need for *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?
Answer the question, Brad. Your evasiveness and neophyte rhetorics are boring.
Answer the question.
-
Hell he point-blank REFUSES to answer questions.
-
I’ve noticed. I’ve been keeping a list. These are the questions BK refuses to answer:
- What is the scientific basis for the ‘less than 1.5C’ ECS claim?
- What does scientific consensus emerge from if not scientific evidence?
- Why do you reject the scientific consensus in favour of an unsupported position?
- Why do you refuse to answer *all* the basic questions which might enable this discussion to progress rationally?
-
Far more than just those, BBD.
– If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
- Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
-
- Where is your data for your claim pre-1960 proxy data is unusable
– Where is your data that shows Mann’s procedures produced a hockey stick
– Where is your proof that something is hidden in Jones’ graphand many many more.
-
chameleon, in her usual vague way, claims @ #37 above:
“Brad did not say it.
Lotharsson and now you (ad nauseum) claimed he did.”I infer that “it” in the above refers to the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape, which either Brad made or Lotharsson misquoted him as making. If my inference is correct, she needs to note comment 96 on page 1 of Brads House of Cards:
3. The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 statistical “methodology.”
Didn’t you pick up that quote was separated and in italics?This particular statement is not separated, is not in italics and is not a (mis-)quote. It is a flat statement of faux-fact by Brad. Which even he agrees in BS.
If my inference is wrong, and she was not referring to the assertion about Manns methodology, perhaps she would help “move the thread along” by avoiding being so vague in future.
BradWow reads [a question] and thinks I’m denying the assertion…And this is just English.
Yes, quite simple English. Like the old line “Pretentious? Moi?”
I think most here are quite capable of seeing that for what it was. Brad will deny it was denial, of course. Denying denial is his schtick. -
BBD:
- What is the scientific basis for the ‘less than 1.5C’ ECS claim?
The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
- What does scientific consensus emerge from if not scientific evidence?
This is a question for social psychologists, but my amateur conjecture would be that it emerges for the same reasons any other intellectual fad emerges.
- Why do you reject the scientific consensus in favour of an unsupported position?
I don’t. The two positions you mention are just as silly and unevidenced as each other.
- Why do you refuse to answer *all* the basic questions which might enable this discussion to progress rationally?
I don’t.
-
The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
Liar.
Yet again.
but my amateur conjecture would be that it emerges for the same reasons any other intellectual fad emerges.
Except you’re absolutely wrong. See link above.
I don’t.
You do.
You claim 1.5 is most likely. It is not.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient-evidence.html
I don’t.
You do.
I’m not going to do that.
I don’t owe you any justification or argument or bibliography.
Lies, lies some more lies, some avoidance, some lies and a few more lies is all you’ve got, you waste of sperm.
-
Apparently, Brat’s entire spiel about how there is no evidence for a scientific consensus to be based on is that they have never looked at any.
Rich, isn’t it.
-
Hell, look at all these science papers ignored after demanding some evidence from Brat:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-148234
Because if it actually looked, it wouldn’t be able to assume that there is no evidence.
-
FrankD,
an assertion was attributed to me and I was asked to justify the assertion. How can you possibly read my response as a denial?
“That assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Are you as illiterate as Wow?
-
Not unexpected though.
Blind, wilful denial is what the sheep who flock to all the sewer sites that “Brad” gets his initial stories from are taught.
A rational exchange is therefore impossible under the circumstances, the circumstances being “Brad’s” lack of capacity to think for himself but endless capacity to regurgitate populist denier memes.
-
How can you possibly read my response as a denial?
By reading it.
-
There is no other reason to ask the question if not to deny you said it.
It is your common trick
Wow, WHERE did I claim I know better than them or other “chemistry scientists” [a.k.a. chemists]?
From page 1, #23.
-
Hell, look at all these science papers ignored after demanding some evidence from Brat:
Of course I ignored them. They weren’t available to either Phil Jones or Michael Mann when deciding which periods in the dendro proxies were “valid” and which ones were “invalid.” They hadn’t been published.
-
Of course I ignored them
Hence the reason why your claims of “You have never shown me evidence” are complete bollocks.
You refuse to read any evidence.
-
They weren’t available to either Phil Jones or Michael Mann when deciding which periods in the dendro proxies were “valid”
You didn’t ask how they knew (they knew because of this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif ).You asked how reliable they were in 1500.
And then you ignored the evidence and now have made up a “reason” to have done so that was nonexistent and currently nonsensical.
Much like all your replies.
-
Wow, only someone as stupid as you could fail to see the difference between this, which IS a denial:
Wow, WHERE did I claim I know better than them or other “chemistry scientists” [a.k.a. chemists]?
and this, which is NOT a denial:
That assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.
-
You asked, remember:
“How “accurate” are the dendro proxies for the year 1500, Wow?”Not “how do they know the dendro records are accurate”.
-
and this, which is NOT a denial:
Yes it is.
-
Even Chubby was saying you never said it.
-
Or are you saying Chubby was lying?
-
BK @ 75
More specious nonsense:
– What is the scientific basis for the ‘less than 1.5C’ ECS claim?
[BK:] The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
It’s not up to me to support your claims. You must do that yourself. However, I’ve pointed out that there *is no evidence* supporting your claim, and you have ignored me. Trying to pass this off as ‘evidence’ in support of your claim is, frankly, insane.
– What does scientific consensus emerge from if not scientific evidence?
[BK:]
This is a question for social psychologists, but my amateur conjecture would be that it emerges for the same reasons any other intellectual fad emerges.This rubbish has been dealt with at length above. Further iterations will be ignored.
– Why do you reject the scientific consensus in favour of an unsupported position?
[BK:] I don’t. The two positions you mention are just as silly and unevidenced as each other.
But they are not, which reveals this to be childishly contrived and empty.
– Why do you refuse to answer *all* the basic questions which might enable this discussion to progress rationally?
[BK:] I don’t.
A blatant lie.
This is going nowhere and your clumsy attempts at misrepresentation are tedious. I have been straight with you and you respond in bad faith. That’s piss-poor.
-
[BK:] The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
Hell, refuted several times on this thread, ever single time ignored, even when others have pointed out the evidence:
Brad, since we’ve already had over 0.9C of warming for a half-a-doubling of CO2, how can you get anything less than 1.8C per doubling for climate sensitivity to CO2?
page 8 #42
-
– If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
WHAT evidence is weak? What are you talking about, Wow? Does anyone else on this thread know what Wow’s question means, let alone what the answer is?
- Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
How the hell would I know? This is a question for corporate psychologists. If this is your *evidence* for AGW, it’s pathetic—I can supply you with actual reasons for believing in it if you want, because what you’ve got here is *not* evidence.
- Where is your data for your claim pre-1960 proxy data is unusable
Which proxy data? What do you mean, unusable? I’m not going to comment on such a childishly vague paraphrase—if you want me to justify something I said, then go to the effort of saying what I said.
– Where is your data that shows Mann’s procedures produced a hockey stick
Mann’s paper claims this.
– Where is your proof that something is hidden in Jones’ graph
LOL. Really, Wow? Uh, the fact that Jones admits it. The fact that RC goes to great lengths to excuse it. The fact that you’re the only person in the climate debate who doesn’t believe it. The list goes on.
-
page 8 #40 and #51
And the links you’ve been pointed to, such as this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
-
WHAT evidence is weak?
So you’re agreeing that the evidence that the science consensus is based on is strong.
-
LOL. Really, Wow? Uh, the fact that Jones admits it
What’s hidden?
-
Once again:
So far, we’ve established that:
- You embrace a value for ECS effectively ruled out by the evidence
- Yet you deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on ECS
- You refuse to discuss why you do either of these profoundly illogical things
- Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same: the third leap of illogic
It’s three leaps too far. As I have said, and you have just demonstrated with you # 75, you are incapable of reasoning on this topic. So you are incapable of understanding it or discussing it reasonably.
Instead, you are reduced to lies, misrepresentations, evasion and outright nonsense. Where is your sense of intellectual pride? How can you allow yourself to behave like this? It is incomprehensible.
-
You asked, remember:
“How “accurate” are the dendro proxies for the year 1500, Wow?”Not “how do they know the dendro records are accurate”.
I know. i should have anticipated that you’d miss the point. Next time I will take greater care to spell out literally what I’m
asking. -
– Where is your data that shows Mann’s procedures produced a hockey stick
Mann’s paper claims this.
Really? Where does Mann’s paper claim that the hockey stick is an artefact of their manipulation?
-
– Where is your data for your claim pre-1960 proxy data is unusable
Which proxy data? What do you mean, unusable?
What do YOU mean?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-8/#comment-148233
February 12, 2013
February 12, 2013
February 12, 2013
February 12, 2013
February 12, 2013
February 12, 2013
