Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    So you’re agreeing that the evidence that the science consensus is based on is strong.

    The “science consensus” on what topic? I can’t agree with you unless you make some effort to complete your thoughts, Wow.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Next time I will take greater care to spell out literally what I’m asking.

    ROFLMAO (ref #93)

  3. #3 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    “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.

    The point is quite obvious.

    You wanted to know how valid the proxies were in 1500.

    You got the answer, but you don’t WANT answers.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    The “science consensus” on what topic?

    From an anus who continually whines about what this thread is about, you certainly don’t care to remember it when it becomes inconvenient.

  5. #5 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Keyes

    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.

  6. #6 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Instead, you are reduced to lies, misrepresentations, evasion and outright nonsense.

    Brat was nonsense to begin with. Of that there is no doubt.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    How can you allow yourself to behave like this? It is incomprehensible.

    He’s going for the insanity defence.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Brat and Joan are excellent examples for countering the Free Speech Uber Alles idiocy that is quite common in American culture.

    Really.

    The answer to these idiots is more talking?

    I dare anyone to state that with a straight face after reading the last four pages of Brat’s insanity.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    I can’t agree with you unless you make some effort to complete your thoughts, Wow.

    ROFLMAO after 11 pages of Brat going apeshit…

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD

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

    So you say. I’ve given you ample time to *substantiate* this, and if you do I’ll change my mind. (I’m neither passionately devoted to nor highly confident in my estimate, which I only told you because you insisted on knowing it.) But all you’ve said so far is that “the evidence” and “the consensus” are against me. Are you really that lazy? With outreach like that, is it any wonder your credal group is shrinking every year?

    - Yet you deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on ECS

    If it’s “evidence-based,” why do you keep invoking this non-scientific concept “consensus”? You’re not doing your viewpoint any favours—if anything, you’re making it sound like an irrational cult.

    You refuse to discuss why you do either of these [...] things

    Well now I have.

    Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same: the third leap of illogic

    I couldn’t give a toss whether you “take me seriously,” whatever that means.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So you say. I’ve given you ample time to *substantiate* this

    And it has. Several times.

    If it’s “evidence-based,” why do you keep invoking this non-scientific concept “consensus”?

    Because it is evidence that evidence for the consensus value is available.

    Well now I have.

    Tired old lie.

    I couldn’t give a toss whether you “take me seriously,” whatever that means.

    So you’re here solely to entertain us?

  12. #12 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    “you’re making it sound like an irrational cult”

    ROFLMAO!

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    The “science consensus” on what topic?

    From an anus who continually whines about what this thread is about, you certainly don’t care to remember it when it becomes inconvenient.

    So you have no idea. Thought not.

    So you don’t know then.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So you have no idea what you’re talking about and want to pretend it goes away?

    S.O.P for you.

    Why do you claim there is no science?

  15. #15 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Are you telling everyone you don’t know what you’ve been whining about for 1000+ posts?

  16. #16 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So, Brat doesn’t know that he’s been asked about the scientific evidence behind his claim for a climate sensitivity of 1.5C per doubling of CO2.

    This does rather explain why you’ve not been able to find any support for your assertion, doesn’t it, Brat.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Here is some science, Brat.

    Will you read any of it?

    No.

    But here goes anyway:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD:

    – 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.

    Saying it’s been dealt with does not make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away. This is Brad’s Place. The argumentum ad arrogantiam may work on your fellow cultists but it doesn’t cut it in here, jackass.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Saying it’s been dealt with does not make it so.

    But having dealt with it, saying it’s been dealt with means it has been dealt with.

    You DO know how to page up, don’t you?

  20. #20 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    “The argumentum ad arrogantiam ”

    FROM YOU????

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow:

    Why do you claim there is no science?

    Why do you keep saying “blacks” are mentally inferior to what you call the “higher races”?

  22. #22 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

  23. #23 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Why do you keep saying “blacks”

    I don’t.

    :D :D :D :D :P :P

  24. #24 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So, ignoring any inconvenient truths, still?

    http://www.ipcc.ch

  25. #25 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Saying it’s been dealt with does not make it so.

    Saying “does not make it so” does not make the claim false.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    :D :D :D :D :P :P :D :D :D

  27. #27 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Doesn’t Brat now sound like Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes?

    “I know nothing!”.

    :D :D :P :P :D :D

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    So, Brat doesn’t know that he’s been asked about the scientific evidence behind his claim for a climate sensitivity of 1.5C per doubling of CO2.

    This does rather explain why you’ve not been able to find any support for your assertion, doesn’t it, Brat.

    What ASSERTION, imbecile? I barely care what the ECS is; BBD had to drag my opinion out of me; all I’ve heard from you lunatics since then is how my idle estimate flies in the face of all the evidence (which you never specify) and the consensus (which you never demonstrate). If your intention was to convince me I’m wrong, you’ve achieved the exact opposite. I really wasn’t sure whether my estimate was too high or too low, but your collective failure to mount anything close to a valid argument against it instils confidence in an even lower ECS. You people really are the most absurdly bad advertisement for your creed. Hence my suspicion that some of you—especially you, Wow—are on the Heartland payroll.

  29. #29 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Brad

    I’m not here to rehearse the literature with you. This ‘debate’ has moved far beyond that now. ‘Sceptics’ unfamiliar with the reasons why their arguments are horse-shit need to do their own homework. You are back to your specious rhetorics again.

    Your rubbish about scientific consensus has been dealt with upthread. Dishonestly claiming otherwise doesn’t change a thing.

    Saying it’s been dealt with does not make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away. This is Brad’s Place. The argumentum ad arrogantiam may work on your fellow cultists but it doesn’t cut it in here, jackass.

    This is not your blog, Brad. Commenting here is a privilege. You seem not to understand that in your case that privilege has been substantially revoked by the blog owner.

    I imagine that calling me of all people names edges you ever-closer to a total ban.

  30. #30 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    What ASSERTION

    What HAS MTV done to the kids of today!

    :D

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148033

    Seems even YOU can’t be bothered to listen to yourself!

    :P

    I barely care what the ECS is

    Is this why you spent five pages insisting on it being 1.5?

    since then is how my idle estimate flies in the face of all the evidence (which you never specify)

    Page 8, #40, #51 and http://www.ipcc.ch and ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/ (brought to your attention five times now).

    My goodness, you’re not even ATTEMPTING to be coherent or appearing sane!!!!

    :D :P :D :P

  31. #31 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Making it clicky so even your imbecillic capabilities can manage to find it:

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

  32. #32 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    since then is how my idle estimate flies in the face of all the evidence (which you never specify)

    Do you believe that if you pretend you have never been given evidence that this will make it true?

    Do you know what psychological disorder that indicates?

  33. #33 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    PS You now admit you have no reason to believe your assertion on page 7.

  34. #34 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Aside from the fact that you are supposed to know the reasons behind your beliefs (eg ECS less than 1.5C), the main reason why nobody wants to get into the discussion with you is weariness.

    We’ve all been down this road before, many times. Nothing anyone can say to a fake sceptic makes any difference. I can’t stop you being a libertarian/conservative ideologue by referencing Ramanathan or Hansen or Annan. Nor am I going to try.

    The only thing I can do is demonstrate that you have no *logical* grounds for your arguments. And I have. Repeatedly. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. You have no choice: either admit that you are being wildly illogical or retreat into denial, lies and evasion.

    As you chose to do.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD,

    is this how you imagine you “dealt with” the issues I raised about scientific consensus:

    Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

    ?

    If so, you need to be aware that you’ve asserted the existence of a law of social psychology / group behaviour and are therefore in the position of owing us a spectacularly convincing proof that the law is actually operant in the present universe. I’ve searched “upthread” in vain for any references to research in the behavioural sciences. Have you provided some evidence for this proposed law that I’ve overlooked? If so, I apologise—could I ask you to restate the evidence?

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD,

    I can’t stop you being a libertarian/conservative ideologue by referencing Ramanathan or Hansen or Annan. Nor am I going to try.

    Actually, perhaps you could—but I would have to start being a libertarian/conservative ideologue first. :-)

  37. #37 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    If so, you need to be aware that you’ve asserted the existence of a law of social psychology

    Nope, asserted a truth.

    Fact, if you will.

    Scientific consensus comes from accepting the veracity of the proofs and evidence given when those proofs and evidence are overwhelming.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    I’ve searched “upthread” in vain for any references to research in the behavioural sciences.

    ROFL!

    THIS is why Brat keeps claiming there is no evidence against him! HE LOOKS FOR BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE!!!

    :D :P :P

  39. #39 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Tell us, Brat,

    If you saw the evidence and accepted that it was valid and the conclusions scientifically sound, would you agree with its conclusions?

  40. #40 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    but I would have to start being a libertarian/conservative ideologue first.

    So you’re just paid to have this opinion.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Is this why you spent five pages insisting on it being 1.5?

    Stop passing off your hallucinations as history. I didn’t and I don’t “insist” on that. It could be more, it could be less. Nobody here seems to be able to name any reasons either way. (Is a link to the IPCC supposed to be your “argument” for a higher ECS, Wow? Lazy, lazy, lazy.)

  42. #42 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Brad

    I asked you a question about this which you have repeatedly dodged. I asked you what is scientific consensus based on if not scientific evidence?

    Of course you are some sort of free market proponent. Everyone who behaves like you is. Why not just admit it instead of retreating further into denial and falsehood?

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    If you saw the evidence and accepted that it was valid and the conclusions scientifically sound, would you agree with its conclusions?

    I always do.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    Is this why you spent five pages insisting on it being 1.5?

    Stop passing off your hallucinations as history.

    HALLUCINATE THIS!

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148033

    Booyah! :P

    Yes, boys and girls, reality is only an illusion if you believe hard enough!

  45. #45 Wow
    February 12, 2013
  46. #46 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Brad

    This is a non sequitur (or just bollocks, if you prefer):

    you need to be aware that you’ve asserted the existence of a law of social psychology / group behaviour

    Why? Demonstrate it. Go on.

    The statement that scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence asserts no such thing. You are saying stuff. Don’t.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    If you saw the evidence and accepted that it was valid and the conclusions scientifically sound, would you agree with its conclusions?

    I always do.

    So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?

  48. #48 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    What is scientific consensus based on if not scientific evidence Brad?

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    I asked you a question about this which you have repeatedly dodged. I asked you what is scientific consensus based on if not scientific evidence?

    What was the medical consensus as to the etiology of gastric ulcers, prior to Warren and Marshall’s work, based on?

    What was the geological consensus opposing the continental drift theory based on?

    What was the chemical consensus on the impossibility of quasi-crystals based on?

  50. #50 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Since BK ploughs on regardless, I am going to start repeating myself endlessly.

    Aside from the fact that you are supposed to know the reasons behind your beliefs (eg ECS less than 1.5C), the main reason why nobody wants to get into the discussion with you is weariness.

    We’ve all been down this road before, many times. Nothing anyone can say to a fake sceptic makes any difference. I can’t stop you being a libertarian/conservative ideologue by referencing Ramanathan or Hansen or Annan. Nor am I going to try.

    The only thing I can do is demonstrate that you have no *logical* grounds for your arguments. And I have. Repeatedly. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. You have no choice: either admit that you are being wildly illogical or retreat into denial, lies and evasion.

    As you chose to do.

  51. #51 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C – ~3C?

    No evidence exists. Indications that the range *may* be way too high? None whatsoever (see ‘paleoclimate constraints’).

    It’s not going to go away because you don’t believe in it Brad.

  52. #52 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    “What was the medical consensus as to the etiology of gastric ulcers, prior to Warren and Marshall’s work, based on?”

    Evidence.

    “What was the geological consensus opposing the continental drift theory based on?”

    Evidence.

    “What was the chemical consensus on the impossibility of quasi-crystals based on?”

    Evidence.

    What’s your 1.5C per doubling CO2 climate sensitivity based on?

    Dogma. Faith. Belief.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?

  54. #54 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD: you said that scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

    you need to be aware that you’ve asserted the existence of a law of social psychology / group behaviour

    Why? Demonstrate it. Go on.

    Easy. Scientific consensus is a state of majority agreement (common belief) among a group of people (scientists). It is therefore a group-psychological phenomenon. You postulate that it is determined by a single factor (“evidence”). If so, this would be an extraordinarily powerful law of social psychology. Quite a conceptual breakthrough, all the more stunning for its almost unbelievable simplicity.

  55. #55 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    BK

    Agreement based on evidence is the essence of robust reasoning. You are just saying stuff.

    Scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence. This is indeed straightforward. Your resistance to the facts is rather less so, but since you won’t explain why you constantly retreat into illogicality we are forced to speculate.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C – ~3C?

    No evidence exists. Indications that the range *may* be way too high? None whatsoever (see ‘paleoclimate constraints’).

    Assertion assertion assertion.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Scientific consensus is a state of majority agreement (common belief) among a group of people (scientists).

    Saying it is isn’t proof it is.

    Simple way to demonstrate. Answer my question:

    If you saw the evidence and accepted that it was valid and the conclusions scientifically sound, would you agree with its conclusions?

    I always do.

    So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?

    The answer is “yes”. Isn’t it.

    Now does that mean that the evidence has stood up to the scrutiny of many people?

    The answer to that one is “yes” too.

    Ever heard “Many eyes make bugs shallow”? You profess to know things about programming, but even if you don’t, this means that any errors in what many people are looking at are found more easily.

    Now, because you are in agreement with lots of other people that the evidence is sound and the conclusion scientifically valid, does that mean that the agreement is based on unscientific principles?

    The answer to that is “No”.

    Please note I’ve answered them for you because you are too much a lying sack of shit to answer them.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence.

    …assertion.

  59. #59 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Now, again:

    Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C – ~3C?

    None exists. See ‘paleoclimate constraints’.

    It’s not going to go away because you don’t believe in it Brad.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Assertion assertion assertion.

    Yes, you assert that the scientific consensus has not arisen because of agreement on the evidence.

    Mere assertion.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence.

    …assertion.

    And asserting the truth is called “telling the truth”.

    This, we all know, is a big problem for you.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 12, 2013
    Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C – ~3C?

    No evidence exists. Indications that the range *may* be way too high? None whatsoever (see ‘paleoclimate constraints’).

    Assertion assertion assertion.

    There has been no evidence provided. This is both assertion and fact.

  63. #63 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Assertion etc

    Where’s your evidence for your *assertion* that ECS is less than 1.5C? You don’t get to play that little game from both ends.

    Paleoclimate constraints. Start with breaking science: look at the draft paper posted on arxiv by Hansen et al. Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric CO2.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf

    This study builds on the analysis in Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate change which makes an empirical estimate of S to 2 x CO2 of ~3C from LGM/Holocene comparison. The latest paper extends the analysis across the entire Cenozoic (65Ma) and confirms the published result in HS12.

    The new Hansen study grew out of the PALAEOSENS project, which has just published its own results in Nature (Rohling et al. 2013). This is an intercomparison of published paleoclimate sensitivity estimates. It finds a range for S to 2 x CO2 of 2.2 – 4.8C, which is in agreement with the IPCC AR4 estimated range of 2 – 4.5C with a most probable value of ~3C.

    It is this kind of perspective that makes me sceptical of low estimates for S to 2 x CO2. Not to mention the difficulty of explaining how deglaciation under orbital forcing actually works if sensitivity to CO2 forcing is very low.

  64. #65 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    BK

    It’s not assertion. It’s a statement of fact.

    I keep asking you the obvious question: *what else* does scientific consensus derive from *if not* scientific evidence?

    Screwing up your face and shouting ‘assertion’ isn’t the answer.

    Answer the question, Brad. If I’m wrong, there must be an alternative basis for scientific consensus. What is it?

  65. #66 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    BK has already “admitted” they agree with conclusions if the data supports it.

    Therefore if he’s among lots of other people who come to the same conclusion, there is a consensus.

    And that doesn’t make the conclusion that the evidence is sound unscientific.

  66. #67 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    “There has been no evidence provided. This is both assertion and fact.”

    Unless Brat has hidden the evidence!

  67. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD #64

    Thank fucking Christ. Some scientific evidence. Was it that difficult? Couldn’t you have told me this, like, 500 comments ago?

  68. #69 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Thank fucking Christ. Some scientific evidence.Was it that difficult?

    Yes, it was horrendously difficult to get you to see any evidence.

    YOU WERE TOLD 500 comments ago, but no, you refused to read it.

  69. #70 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Isn’t it funny how Brad’s comprehension problems are EVERYONE ELSE’S fault?

    :P

  70. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    BBD

    I suggest, in future, that you be quicker with the evidence and slower with the speculative pop-psychology like this:

    Of course you are some sort of free market proponent. Everyone who behaves like you is.

    There’s nothing more damaging to your credibility than telling someone to their face something that they know is false, and that they know you’re just guessing.

  71. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Answer the question, Brad. If I’m wrong, there must be an alternative basis for scientific consensus. What is it?

    I’d be amazed if it were unifactorial. So, no, I don’t accept that there must be “a basis” for it. We’re talking about the dynamics of belief across a group of people—something even more multiplex and harder to compute than the Earth’s atmosphere—so there is simply no sensible answer to the question “what is it based on?”

  72. #73 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Now, if only Brat can find any evidence for his claim 500 comments ago…

    But it seems that jesuz fucking christ, getting some scientific evidence for his claims from Brad is absolutely impossible!

  73. #74 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    No Brad. We aren’t going to pretend that the fault here lies with me. More little games.

    Answer the question, Brad. If I’m wrong, there must be an alternative basis to scientific evidence for scientific consensus. What is it?

  74. #75 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    So, no, I don’t accept that there must be “a basis” for it

    And this is why you get labelled “denier”.

    so there is simply no sensible answer to the question “what is it based on?”

    There is.

    Evidence.

    The scientific conclusion is based on the evidence.

    You can find the evidence they looked at here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

  75. #76 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    Your disingenuous and evasive schtick is irritating Brad.

    Answer the question straight. It was asked straight. Let’s see some fucking integrity out of you.

  76. #77 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Your disingenuous and evasive schtick is irritating Brad.

    That’s why he does it.

    That and he doesn’t know anything.

  77. #78 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    And while we’re at it, show some moral courage and explain why you deny the scientific consensus on ECS.

    I think you’re just another free marketeer. As long as you refuse to give your reasons, I will continue to think this.

    Evasiveness breeds suspicion, you see. And you are extremely evasive indeed.

  78. #79 BBD
    February 12, 2013

    BK

    Here is a history of the scientific investigation into AGW. It includes a very extensive bibliography and reference.

    This is the index page for AR4 WG1 – the physical science basis for AGW. It contains extensive references to the scientific literature.

    Any further requests for ‘evidence’ will be directed to these links.

  79. #80 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    BBD,
    Nice to see you here and asking somewhat better questions than Wow.
    What you’re both missing here is that BradK did NOT insist or assert the 1.5 figure.
    He quite clearly stated that he was open to ‘being upsold’ or to change his mind.
    Instead of attempting to ask questions to trap BradK why not discuss the evidence?
    That way you could facilitate a civil debate.
    You do sometimes ask very decent questions BBD.
    Such a pity that you don’t pay attention to the answers.
    You instead go straight into RIH mode ( ritual intellectual humiliation).
    That does not do anything to help a sensible discussion.

  80. #81 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    And also BBD,
    no one is ‘denying’ evidence and/or that there are claims about consensus.
    BradK is correct that evidence and consensus are far from synonymous.

  81. #82 chek
    February 12, 2013

    “He quite clearly stated that he was open to ‘being upsold’ or to change his mind.” & “That way you could facilitate a civil debate.”

    You probably have quite the collection of title deeds to some of the world’s most famous bridges, right Cammy?

  82. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    February 12, 2013

    Brad says,

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

    Just like the email says.

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

    So…Phil Jones doesn’t show tree-ring width on a graph displaying temperature/time.

    That’s what you call, “concealed”?

    I guess he also “concealed” the price of eggs and any number of other things for which his Y axis was not labelled.

    You really are a duufus, aren’t you Brad.

    It was a graph showing temperature, not tree ring width, and it accurately showed temperature, not tree ring width, hence nothing was “concealed”.

    Perhaps you are being led astray by the wilful misinterpretation of words by the politically-motivated crank-blogs which are the source of these odd opinions of yours?

  83. #84 Vince Whirlwind
    February 12, 2013

    Oh, and we *know* Jones’ temperature graph accurately showed temperature due to its successful replication by various independent scientists including the BEST temperature reconstruction which confirmed Jones’ graph as being correct.

  84. #85 David B. Benson
    February 12, 2013

    Wegener’s continental drift hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Continental_drift_theory
    required such a stupendous supply of energy that many rejected it until the discovery of sea floor spreading
    http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/HHH.html
    lead to HHH’s student
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzo_Wilson
    to complete the modern plate tectonics theory.

    Thus the source of the energy to drive plate tectonics had to be found; it was.

  85. #86 Stu
    February 13, 2013

    BradK is correct that evidence and consensus are far from synonymous.

    This is just asinine. No other word for it. To sit there and pretend that the previous 800 comments or so did not happen is nothing short of puckering up and flipping logic and civil conversation the bird.

    You’re a willfully delusional, lying toad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  86. #88 Lotharsson
    February 13, 2013

    Brad’s:
    – evasiveness and obfuscation in response to straight questions about the basis of his scientific opinions;
    – heavy reliance on textual analysis of secondary sources instead of evidence reported in primary sources
    – denial that he has been pointed at evidence (e.g. about ECS) when he clearly was (and when his inability to find any indicts him as incompetent and/or unwilling to assess the evidence);
    – denial-based claim that ECS most likely around 2.5 – 3.0 is “as silly and unevidenced as” a value below 1.5;
    – claim that the absence in this discussionof what he deigns to notice as evidence forms a “scientific basis” for his opinion;
    – similar claim that
    his opinion (e.g. about ECS) is reinforced by a small number of other people failing to do his homework in a fashion that he deigns to notice
    – denial that the scientific consensus on ECS arises from the evidence
    – denial of many of these observations of his behaviour

    …are arguably now well explained by one simple hypothesis:

    It’s always projection with these guys.

    It’s now clear to almost everyone that Brad’s scientific opinions – most stunningly illustrated by ECS – are NOT informed by the evidence but are instead selected for some other reason, and yet Brad desperately wishes to maintain his position that his current opinion is scientifically more likely than (or at least “equally ridiculous as”) the mainstream scientific position to avoid admitting that he is engaging in scientific denialism. Accordingly, Brad MUST find a way to convince himself that the mainstream scientific opinion is not based on assessing all the evidence.

    Well, that’s easy!

    Brad simply projects his evidence-free opinion formation method on to research climate scientists, and then argues to himself that any consensus that forms amongst that group simply can’t be based on competent assessment of all the evidence – because he just knows that, like him, they’re not using it to form their judgements, bolstered by the handy fact that if you leave out the “flying” part of “flying fox” the dictionary proves – proves, I tell you! – that a flying fox doesn’t have wings because it’s a four-legged ground-based mammal of the canine family!

    Yes, this hypothesis could be wrong, but after last night’s debacle I think our collective work here – special mention going to BBD – demonstrating that Brad is completely full of shit on these topics is done :-)

    Adios, Brad.

  87. #89 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2013

    Brad Keyes raises gastric ulcers, continental drift, and quasi-crystals apparently as evidence of incorrect scientific consensus. The trouble is, these examples are substantively different from the consensus on climate change.

    The example of ulcers is one where the ‘consensus’ was more an assumption than a result of rigorous testing. Once Barry Marshall and Robin Warren showed otherwise, and presented the evidence, the consensus rapidly moved to acceptance of the <scientific evidence. David B. Benson shows at #85 a similar process in the understanding of continental movement.

    The thing with the “climate change consensus” is that it is arrived at after decades of rigorous work, conducted by tens of thousands of professional scientific experts, and presented and critically reviewed in the scientific literature. No other area of science has been so minutely scrutinised, and withstood so well such scrutiny.

    Contrast this with the denial of global warming. Where’s the body of literature that has withstood scrutiny? References please. In fact, where’s the body of literature at all? It’s hardly one of pride…

    Keyes strategy in his trolling is to use long words and frequent references to complex notion, but never in the process of constructing a coherent, structured, logical, and evidenced narrative. He frequently reflects and contradicts, but he does not carry an argument from beginning to end – because his arguments do not have such structure. He sidesteps demonstration of his errors, and avoids getting involved with logical discussions that would prove wrong the gist of his denialisms.

    Observe how he wriggles away from the current challenge to his claim about climate sensitivity:

    Keyes…

    1) What is transient climate sensitivity?

    2) What does the empirical evidence, including the temperature record, suggest is the minimum value for transient climate sensitivity?

    3) What is equilibrium climate sensitivity?

    4) What factors contribute to determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity?

    5) What does the empirical evidence, including the temperature record and the climatic response to the aforementioned other factors, suggest is the most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity?

  88. #90 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2013

    Lotharsson.

    We seem to have typed essentially the same thoughts at the same time.

    Snap!

  89. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    BBD appeals to moral shame:

    And while we’re at it, show some moral courage and explain why you deny the scientific consensus on ECS.

    What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD? Are you telling us that 51% or more of scientists believe ECS to be 2C–3C per doubling of CO2?

    How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists? Or is it a really overwhelming consensus (say, 95% of scientists)?

    Excuse my query, it’s just that I’ve honestly never heard of such a survey being carried out across the scientific community. If someone has carried it out, though, I’d be delighted to see the numbers they got, and to give you my thoughts on them.

    (Warning, though: my thoughts will likely be something along the lines of, “that’s all very nice, but opinion is not evidence.”)

  90. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Bernard J, I’m glad you agree with me that scientific consensus doesn’t “only emerge from evidence,” as BBD believes:

    Brad Keyes raises gastric ulcers, continental drift, and quasi-crystals apparently as evidence of incorrect scientific consensus. The trouble is, these examples are substantively different from the consensus on climate change.

    The example of ulcers is one where the ‘consensus’ was more an assumption than a result of rigorous testing.

    Perhaps if you explained this to BBD, he might be more receptive to hearing it. He doesn’t seem to like me.

  91. #93 chameleon
    February 13, 2013

    Oh!
    I think Lotharsson might have edged in front on the den/y/alist/ied/alism meter!
    Although BJ looks set to give it a crack.
    :-)
    Straight questions Lotharsson?
    That’s hilarious.
    :-)
    You are spectacularly uninterested in any answers.
    You are quite obviously only interested in what you have dubbed RIH.
    BTW?
    Do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?
    I did my homework and I can’t find a confirmation.
    The ONLY place I have seen that claim of confirmation is here.

  92. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Bernard J, I’m afraid I can’t help you with this one:

    Contrast this with the denial of global warming. Where’s the body of literature that has withstood scrutiny? References please. In fact, where’s the body of literature at all? It’s hardly one of pride…

    Perhaps if you asked a global warming denier, they might be able to tell you what (if any) scientific literature that particular view is based on?

  93. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    chameleon:

    The ONLY place I have seen that claim of confirmation is here.

    Yes, this is a pretty unique community of believers we’re witnessing. To take another example, this is the ONLY place I’ve seen someone deny that Phil Jones *hid anything* in his WMO graph. Can this denial be seen anywhere else in the climatosphere?

  94. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Lotharsson misunderstands me:

    – [Brad's] denial-based claim that ECS most likely around 2.5 – 3.0 is “as silly and unevidenced as” a value below 1.5;

    No, what I said was that “the scientific consensus” and “an unsupported position” were as silly and unevidenced as each other. Which they are, given that neither “scientific consensus” or “lack of support” constitute one iota of evidence.

  95. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Lotharsson opines that

    It’s now clear to almost everyone that Brad’s scientific opinions – most stunningly illustrated by ECS – are NOT informed by the evidence but are instead selected for some other reason, and yet Brad desperately wishes to maintain his position [...]

    Is that why I said I was open to being upsold on the estimate? Is that why I invited BBD to convince me the ECS was higher? Is that why I thanked him when he (belatedly) cited some evidence that I should change my estimate?

  96. #98 David B. Benson
    February 13, 2013

    And the purpose of this thread is?

  97. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    It was originally conceived as an asylum of reason in a world of idiocy. Unfortunately the walls seem to have been breached…

  98. #100 chameleon
    February 13, 2013

    I dunno David B,
    It appears for some at least, the purpose is to practice RIH
    :-)
    I have no idea what Wow’s purpose is!
    Maybe you could try to start an evidence based discussion?
    I note you did try with your earlier link but the RIH tribe don’t seem interested.