Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 David B. Benson
    February 13, 2013

    chameleon — Evidence for what?

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    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.

    Brad Keyes, you are twisting the import of my post. I differentiated between the nature of the consensus around matters such as gastric ulcers and continental drift by employing quotation marks around the word, and by explicitly noting that the ‘consensus’ in these matters was “substantively different” to that pertaining to global climate change/warming.

    You sought to confabulate the acceptance of the thinking on gastric ulcers and on continental drift with the acceptance of climatological science. I pointed out that there is a difference.

    I do not “agree with [you]“.

    Nice try to erect the appearance of concurrence though, when none exists.

    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…

    I’d say the reason that you “can’t help” is that there is nothing which reasonably contradicts the enormous body of evidence that supports mainstream climatology.

    And you wonder why there’s discussion of a so-called scientific consensus….

    Is that why I invited BBD to convince me the ECS was higher?

    Why do you require that anyone should “convince”you of it? Should you not employ your own intellectual capacities, humble as they may be, to address the available science itself? You made a pronouncement on what you believed climate sensitivity to be – from where did that figure emerge, if not from the distal end of your alimentary canal? And if you can find one value, why can you not check its veracity, especially when I and others have left a trail of questioning that would rapidly resolve the uncertainty about the matter that you are demonstrating? Are you refractory to self-directed learning?

    All you’re doing is saying, subtextually:

    “I don’t hold to or care about the best data that professional scientists have determined. I prefer a value of climate sensitivity that suits my own ideology*, and I will not lift a finger to corroborate its veracity, or even to defend it – it’s up to others to convince† me that my non-scientific value is less reliable than is the central value determined by science.

    There are words for this sort of behaviour, and they’re antonymous with “scientific”, “logical”, and “rational”.

    [*Substitute with "psychopathology" if preferred...

    †I use the termed "convince" in a very loose context - there is no real chance that you actually desire to be convinced of your errors of logic or scientific understanding.]

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    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.

    Brad Keyes, you are twisting the import of my post. I differentiated between the nature of the consensus around matters such as gastric ulcers and continental drift by employing quotation marks around the word, and by explicitly noting that the ‘consensus’ in these matters was “substantively different” to that pertaining to global climate change/warming.

    You sought to confabulate the acceptance of the thinking on gastric ulcers and on continental drift with the acceptance of climatological science. I pointed out that there is a difference.

    I do not “agree with [you]“.

    Nice try to erect the appearance of concurrence though, when none exists.

    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…

    I’d say the reason that you “can’t help” is that there is nothing which reasonably contradicts the enormous body of evidence that supports mainstream climatology.

    And you wonder why there’s discussion of a so-called scientific consensus….

    Is that why I invited BBD to convince me the ECS was higher?

    Why do you require that anyone should “convince”you of it? Should you not employ your own intellectual capacities, humble as they may be, to address the available science itself? You made a pronouncement on what you believed climate sensitivity to be – from where did that figure emerge, if not from the distal end of your alimentary canal? And if you can find one value, why can you not check its veracity, especially when I and others have left a trail of questioning that would rapidly resolve the uncertainty about the matter that you are demonstrating? Are you refractory to self-directed learning?

    All you’re doing is saying, subtextually:

    “I don’t hold to or care about the best data that professional scientists have determined. I prefer a value of climate sensitivity that suits my own ideology*, and I will not lift a finger to corroborate its veracity, or even to defend it – it’s up to others to convince† me that my non-scientific value is less reliable than is the central value determined by science.

    There are words for this sort of behaviour, and they’re antonymous with “scientific”, “logical”, and “rational”.

    [*Substitute with "psychopathology" if preferred...

    †I use the termed "convince" in a very loose context - there is no real chance that you actually desire to be convinced of your errors of logic or scientific understanding.]

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2013

    It was originally conceived as an asylum of reason in a world of idiocy.

    Read the OP at the top of this page.

    You were exiled by others who “conceived” of you as a troll and a dissembler. If you prefer to perceive it as being the opposite then that is your pathology, but don’t then be surprised when others accuse you of being quick to distort the truth.

  5. #5 Ian Forrester
    February 13, 2013

    Bernard asks:

    from where did that figure emerge, if not from the distal end of your alimentary canal?

    And there was me thinking that Keyes pulled it out of his arse.

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    February 13, 2013

    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.

    That is a *very* silly thing to type: the scientific consensus is created by the evidence.

  7. #7 Vince Whirlwind
    February 13, 2013

    How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists?

    What an idiotic question. Brad thinks it’s a popularity contest.

  8. #8 chameleon
    February 13, 2013

    I thought you were trying to contribute an example via weigner and plate tectonics David B?
    No?
    My apologies.
    I also tried to link some new research up thread.
    Maybe we need to wait for RC or SkS or Watts or Tamino or Jonova or whoever to set the rules of engagement first?
    I noticed no one was prepared to comment on the Church et al paper re SLR until the battle lines were drawn.
    :-)

  9. #9 FrankD
    February 13, 2013

    Upthread, we discussed the assertion that the hockey stick emerged from Mann’s methodology, rather than the data. About two pages back, chameleon claimed that this assertion was not made by Brad, but that Lotharsson and BernardJ had “misquoted” him reporting someone else”s assertion.

    Does chameleon still stand by that claim? Inquiring minds are keen to know.

  10. #10 chameleon
    February 13, 2013

    Frank D?
    Sorry?
    Did I miss a comment of yours in amongst all the wowisms?
    What’s the problem?
    Please, I hope you’re not wanting to go back to those over 20X links from Wow?
    He quoted BradK quoting Lotharsson who had misquoted an earlier comment of BradK’s.
    Haven’t we had enough of that one?

  11. #11 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD?

    Go read the papers referenced in this

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    (PS I hope chubby got a receipt for her bridges)

  12. #12 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    this is the ONLY place I’ve seen someone deny that Phil Jones *hid anything* in his WMO graph.

    So?

    Are you complaining that there isn’t consensus therefore non-science now?

    What was hidden?

    It wasn’t the divergence problem since that was openly displayed and NOT hidden.

  13. #13 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Did I miss a comment of yours

    Yes, deliberately.

    Because you haven’t got a brain in your whole body.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists?

    Every single national scientific body has agreed with the evidence.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    ‘sfunny how chubby concentrates on my posts and completely ignores or accepts the bratisms on this thread…

  16. #16 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    chubby, frank is asking you to stand by your statement.

    We know that honesty is not something you do, so your evasion is completely expected.

    PS what about the 20x demands for the proof that was in those 20 links that brad posted? No, he’s a denier like you, so it’s all okey-dokey, isn’t it. It’s all for the cause…

  17. #17 bill
    February 13, 2013

    mike, you are a sad, sad, sad tosser

  18. #18 chek
    February 13, 2013

    “Bernard J uses the word “dissembler” ”

    Yeah, that involves four lip movements when you’re reading doesn’t it mike? Why wouldn’t you complain? Really we could take your lead and reduce the English language to about 400 words and still have plenty of leeway for new concepts, right?

    “Gaia”

    Is that how you cope with distancing yourself from your mother fixation mike? I don’t recall anyone here ever using it, certainly not in this thread. But it’s a common enough affliction amongst ‘real men’ who are anything but, and it would be unkind to ask directly if you complete the pattern by abusing your partner. Plus I doubt anyone really wants to know anymore about you than you’ve offered already.

  19. #19 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    Oh dear, the summer ice minimum record is beaten by the winter maximum record. But…but wait…that’s not a part of the CAGW plan, is it?

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenhunter_175-feb-12-10-35.jpg

    Don’t believe it? Make a graph your self:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

  20. #20 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Stevieboy doesn’t tell you how fragile first year ice is come the summer melt, does he PantieZ? And you’re stupid enough to neither know nor care.

  21. #21 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    So chek, a record is only valid one way, the CAGW way? So convenient. You stupid foilhat.

  22. #22 joni
    February 13, 2013

    Notice that the graph says gain. If you start from a low point, you can gain a lot.

  23. #23 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Yup PantieZ, a record ice volume has been lost over the past 30 years, as shown in <a href="http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?"<this PIOMASS graph..
    A thin skim of first year winter ice doesn’t begin to make up for it – but it fools fake skeptics and plain deniers with no discriminatory powers like you so “Goddard” has done his job.

  24. #24 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Yup PantieZ, a record ice volume has been lost over the past 30 years, as shown in this PIOMAS graph.
    A thin skim of first year winter ice doesn’t begin to make up for it – but it fools fake skeptics and plain deniers with no discriminatory powers like you so “Goddard” has done his job.

  25. #25 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    Oh dear, oh dear, chek. You just can’t deal with adversity. Poor little thing, reallity really does hurt you. Or maybe that tin foil hat of yours makes your couple of brain cells boil.

  26. #26 FrankD
    February 13, 2013

    chameleon, no we don’t need to go over Wow’s exposure of Brads disingenuousness (disingenuity?). I’m far more interested in other matters.

    He quoted BradK quoting Lotharsson who had misquoted an earlier comment of BradK’s.

    Yes – Lotharsson stated (not a quote, but anyway…) that Brad had made a claim that the hockey stick is due to Manns methodology, not the data – Brad’s response was the “did I say that?” that Wow linked to a couple(!) of times. But I was wondering about your positive statement that Lotharsson was misquoting Brad.

    So, you still assert that Brad never said that the hockeystick is due to Manns methodology. I’m wondering what your basis for making that claim is.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2013

    PentaxZ.

    Tamino is all over Goddard’s spurious nonsense:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/some-people-cant-be-reasoned-with/

    Truly, anyone who thinks that Goddard has disproved global warming is stupider than a boxful of hammers.

    Anyone who can’t understand why this is so is actually more stupid.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “Oh dear, the summer ice minimum record is beaten by the winter maximum record.”

    Hmm. Yet again, winter comes as a huge surprise to the idiots.

    Here’s a wee tip for you. During the polar winter, the poles are FAMOUS for being DARK all the time.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “So chek, a record is only valid one way, the CAGW way?”

    No your “record” is irrelevant in the quest to find out if AGW is happening or not.

  30. #30 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    Bernie dear, My links is about the ice in the Arctic, nothing else. And yet again, thinking that a alarmist site like tamino is somehow an argument for anythiong at all is just plain stupid. It ain’t, you stupid zealot.

  31. #31 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    wow, dear little thing, the variations of the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic is totally irrelevant for detecting any AGW all together. Zealots like you just can’t accept that. If ice melts in the summer, you know the period when the sun hardly goes below the horizon at all, it’s due to the horrific CAGW. But when it grows back, then it’s due to…darkness. Holy cow, your’e really stupid.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “Bernie dear, My links is about the ice in the Arctic, nothing else.”

    And that is what we’re saying you did too.

    However, your conclusions cannot be substantiated by the ice in the arctic, nothing else.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “the variations of the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic is totally irrelevant for detecting any AGW all together.”

    Incorrect.

    Sunlight and warm temperatures will melt ice.

    Since winter has no sunlight, reforming ice extent depends almost entirely on the orbital inclination of the earth and not its temperature characteristics.

    I understand that you’re too dumb to understand physics, though.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “you know the period when the sun hardly goes below the horizon at all”

    Yes, we know.

    You apparently were unaware about polar nights, however. Making your lecturing rather hypocritical. But you’ve no problem with having two faces, have you.

    Now, given that the ice is disappearing anyway, despite this current orbital inclination being the case for several thousand years, if your assertion were the be-all and end-all of it, then polar ice would never have been multi-year ice.

    However, any inconvenient truths will be ignored by your denier faith.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind:

    “How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists?”

    What an idiotic question. Brad thinks it’s a popularity contest.

    You’re not particularly bright, are you, Vince?

    The word consensus implies a MAJORITY OPINION. So yes, a belief obviously has to be widespread enough to qualify.

  36. #36 chek
    February 13, 2013

    BK says a belief

    There’s your problem – which is the same old, same old problem for all idealogues.
    Repeat after me “Brad”: belief is not evidence.
    It may be what you deal in, but it isn’t what scientists deal in.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “The word consensus implies a MAJORITY OPINION.”

    It doesn’t MANDATE it to mean “majority opinion” though. Hence you have to use the word “implies”. Since it implies, you have to make it do that. The implication being your assertion.

    And EVERY national science body has accepted the evidence as valid and the conclusions of the IPCC as supported by the evidence.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    And, as chek says, you insist it is “belief”, but that is entirely a shibboleth of your denier credo.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Brat, how come whenever you get answers, you ignore any that you don’t think you have a “comeback” on?

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    FrankD:

    So, you still assert that Brad never said that the hockeystick is due to Manns methodology. I’m wondering what your basis for making that claim is.

    So far, the closest I’ve been shown to have come to saying that is that if you don’t use Mann’s methodology, you don’t get a HS from Mann’s data. In other words, I said his algorithm was NECESSARY for the Hockey Stick shape (given the data he was working with). This isn’t quite the same as saying it was RESPONSIBLE for the shape. Therefore when I was asked to justify the assertion that it was RESPONSIBLE, I quite sensibly said:

    “That assertion would need to be qualified. Did I say it in those words? If so, I was being sloppy.”

    You’ll notice, if you understand words, that I did NOT deny it.

    Yet Wow repeatedly[!] linked to my non-denial in the forlorn hope of defending his untrue claim that I’d denied it.

    You’ll notice that Wow was simply compounding his lie by repeatedly[!] linking to a non-proof of it.

    Yet I’m the one whose “disingenuousness (disingenuity?)” was exposed by this affair, according to FrankD!

    LOL. What a retard.

  41. #41 pentaxZ
    February 13, 2013

    “You apparently were unaware about polar nights,”

    Hahaha….says a computer zealot. A hint, I live in Sweden. Look it up on a model globe. You might actually notice a thing called the polar circle. Please, dumbass, don’t try to lecture me about the polar nights. Or physics for that matter.

    No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years. Deal with it!

  42. #42 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Wow:

    It doesn’t MANDATE it to mean “majority opinion” though. Hence you have to use the word “implies”. Since it implies, you have to make it do that. The implication being your assertion.

    If something is a consensus, then it is a majority opinion. By definition.

    This is not my “assertion”; it is an a priori truism, a matter of definition, an axiom.

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Brat, how come whenever you get answers, you ignore any that you don’t think you have a “comeback” on?

    What makes you think I’m ignoring them? The lack of a comeback? Your question is why I don’t have a comeback to questions to which I don’t have a comeback? Is that it? Have I understood you correctly?

  44. #44 chek
    February 13, 2013

    “No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years.”

    Then where did the extra heat come from after all that time to cause a record polar ice loss in the summer of 2012, PantieZ?

    It was having no answer to repeating that denier meme du jour which caused your pal Jonarse’s head to explode, remember.

  45. #45 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…”"

    I’d say the reason that you “can’t help” is that there is nothing which reasonably contradicts the enormous body of evidence that supports mainstream climatology.

    Your question was about global warming denial, not “mainstream climatology” denial. The reason I can’t help you with it is that I’m not a global warming denier myself, and I’m unfamiliar with the reasons (if any) cited by global warming deniers.

  46. #46 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Poor “Brad” is still discombobulated over the term ‘scientific consensus’ and desperately trying to spin it as a plain old common or garden consensus, despite the difference being pointed out to him multiple times.

    Poor, stupid “Brad” still thinking anyone here is ever going to buy it. But insane enough to plug on in the hope of getting a different answer next time. Poor insane, stupid “Brad”.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    chek:

    BK says a belief

    There’s your problem – which is the same old, same old problem for all idealogues.

    I say “a belief”, do I? Do I also put some words around that—like a predicate, for example—to form, you know, a sentence?

    Do I say that a consensus is a majority belief?

    Guess what: it is. If you don’t like it, take it up with a lexicographer.

    Or do I just say “a belief”… like some kind of “ideologue”[sic]?

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Chek:

    Poor “Brad” is still discombobulated over the term ‘scientific consensus’ and desperately trying to spin it as a plain old common or garden consensus, despite the difference being pointed out to him multiple times.

    Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?

  49. #49 chek
    February 13, 2013

    You’re chock full of beliefs you can’t substantiate “Brad”. Who can forget your avoidance of explaining the evidence underlying your ECS “belief” just as one example. Or about how Mann’s hockey stick was derived for another. You get the picture, not only in hi-res, full-colour but repeatedly refreshed.

    So yes, the fact that you frame things in that fashion highlights that ‘belief’ is the correct key word to emphasise.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    If something is a consensus, then it is a majority opinion. By definition.

    Incorrect.

    “General agreement.”

    Doesn’t define that it must be majority agreement.

    PS 100% of national science academies agree with the evidence.

  51. #51 chek
    February 13, 2013

    “Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?”

    A scientific consensus.

  52. #52 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    the closest I’ve been shown to have come to saying that is that if you don’t use Mann’s methodology, you don’t get a HS from Mann’s data.

    This, however, is a complete lie.

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

  53. #53 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    You’ll notice, if you understand words, that I did NOT deny it.

    We notice that you refrain from any meaning by your definition of “understand words”.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Yet Wow repeatedly[!] linked to my non-denial

    Yet the words only have meaning if they are denying the statement.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    I say “a belief”, do I?

    Another deniable denial.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Do I say that a consensus is a majority belief?

    Yes.

  57. #57 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Wow:

    What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD?

    Go read the papers referenced in this

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    And out of those 10,000+ papers, is there a paper that demonstrates (using valid survey methods) that 51% or more of scientists think ECS is 2C—3C?

    Because if not, then you can’t possibly say there’s a scientific consensus that it’s 2C—3C. That would be an assertion of pure imagination.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    chek:

    “Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?”

    A scientific consensus.

    Great!

    (Technically, the correct answer is “a climate-scientific consensus” or “a climatological consensus”—but you were close enough.)

    So we agree that a majority belief is a consensus.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Do I say that a consensus is a majority belief?

    Yes.

    Guess what: it is. If you don’t like it, take it up with a lexicographer.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years.”

    Bare faced lie.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html

    To be expected from The Faithful.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “Guess what: it is”

    Nope.

    Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    “So we agree that a majority belief is a consensus.”

    Nope, Chek did not agree that a majority belief is a consensus. They said:”A scientific consensus”

    in answer to the question:

    “Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?”

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    “Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement.”

    And what does “general agreement” mean, pray tell?

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Nope, Chek did not agree that a majority belief is a consensus. They said:”A scientific consensus”

    Even better—so Chek agrees that a majority view among scientists is “a scientific consensus.”

    Excellent. Making progress here.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    And what does “general agreement” mean, pray tell?

    Why did they use “general” pray tell?

  66. #66 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    so Chek agrees that a majority view among scientists is “a scientific consensus.

    Ah, the idiot’s guide to set theory.

    Because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs.

    What a fucking retard you are, Brat.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 13, 2013
    Nope, Chek did not agree that a majority belief is a consensus. They said:”A scientific consensus”

    Even better—so Chek agrees that a majority view among scientists is “a scientific consensus.”

    The ONLY place “majority” appears in there is when you claim it. Chek doesn’t say it at all and it isn’t in the question he was asked either.

    For someone who whines about “anyone who understands words”, you certainly do a lot of not understanding words…

  68. #68 chek
    February 13, 2013

    And “Brad” wonders how his reputation for dishonesty came about.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    The skunk doesn’t notice their own stink…

  70. #70 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Cue the reliably dull Cammy pointing out the nano-particles in everyone else’s eye while ignoring the sequioa emanating from “Brad’s” eyelid.

  71. #71 chek
    February 13, 2013

    “And yet again, thinking that a alarmist site like tamino is somehow an argument for anythiong (sic) at all ”

    Yeh cos like Tamino uses proper maffs and ting that I don understand to make a point which is so unfair, the mean alarmist.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Do you know what’s weird when the idiot does that?

    There’s nothing there BUT ad hominem. Absolutely nothing else.

    Not even looking at the evidence or argument there, just “tamino’s site? nah”.

    If there had ever been evidence that tamino had gotten some maths or stats wrong, there may be some tiny reason to go “why should I trust he has it right?”. But that’s not happened.

  73. #73 BBD
    February 13, 2013

    Brad believes in a wildly improbable ECS.

    Brad rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.

    Brad even rejects the definition of ‘scientific consensus’.

    Brad won’t say why he does all these illogical things.

    Brad won’t read.

    Brad won’t listen.

    Brad won’t think.

    Brad is taking the piss.

  74. #74 Stu
    February 13, 2013

    And out of those 10,000+ papers, is there a paper that demonstrates (using valid survey methods) that 51% or more of scientists think ECS is 2C—3C?

    Yes Brad, this is an entirely original idea of yours. We’ve never heard that one before.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Weirdly, his demand there is PRECISELY what Bray has complained about not being science.

    And it is PRECISELY NOT what BBD was talking about.

    And it is precisely not what the science shows, if the donkey ever bothered to read the science he’s demanded, been supplied with, but then apparently entirely ignored.

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    BBD:

    Brad rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.

    What scientific consensus on ECS? Do you have any evidence at all that more than 50% of scientists agree with your estimate of ECS?

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Stu:

    And out of those 10,000+ papers, is there a paper that demonstrates (using valid survey methods) that 51% or more of scientists think ECS is 2C—3C?

    Yes Brad, this is an entirely original idea of yours. We’ve never heard that one before.

    And what was your comeback last time, Stu?

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Brad even rejects the definition of ‘scientific consensus’.

    Well, I know what “scientific” means; I know what “consensus” means; and since no reputable dictionary has an entry for the alleged term of art “scientific consensus,” what else is there to know?

  79. #79 Wow
    February 13, 2013
    Brad rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.

    What scientific consensus on ECS

    Exactly.

    Thanks for demonstrating BBD’s point.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    know what “consensus” means; and since no reputable dictionary has an entry for the alleged term of art “scientific consensus,” what else is there to know?

    That you know what the dictionary says about things, but don’t have a fucking clue what it means.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    so Chek agrees that a majority view among scientists is “a scientific consensus.

    Ah, the idiot’s guide to set theory.

    Because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs.

    Except that I didn’t reverse the order of the sets, did I? I simply obtained confirmation from chek that if 97 percent of scientists have the same view, that’s a “scientific consensus.”

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Wow, you’re being non-responsive.

    know what “consensus” means; and since no reputable dictionary has an entry for the alleged term of art “scientific consensus,” what else is there to know?

    That you know what the dictionary says about things, but don’t have a fucking clue what it means.

    What are you, 8 years old? Either answer the question or leave it to those who are intellectually capable of doing so.

  83. #83 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    What are you, 8 years old?

    No. Doofus.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Except that I didn’t reverse the order of the sets, did I?

    Except I never said you had, did I?

    Tell me, do you actually read words, or do you just think what you’d like it to say and argue that?

  85. #85 chek
    February 13, 2013

    Poor insane “Brad” tries the same thing again, hoping for a different outcome.Yawn.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    Wow, you’re being non-responsive.

    Wow. YOU say that?!?!?!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    :D :D :D

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    Wow, you have no idea how to define “scientific consensus” in such a way as to win this argument, do you?

    I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS, and that it’s higher than my estimate.

  88. #88 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    you have no idea how to define “scientific consensus” in such a way as to win this argument, do you?

    Rather in the same way as someone running against a dictator doesn’t know how to win the rigged elections, because you insist that it can ONLY be you who decides what a definition that is correct can be.

    And then you just define any correct definition as wrong and complain that no definition has been made.

    It is entirely the argument of the six year old.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS

    And Saddam simply wanted to own Kuwaiti oilfields.

    Neither he nor you get to demand what you want because you want it and expect everyone to just play along.

  90. #90 chek
    February 13, 2013

    I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS

    Once again, every single National Academy of Science accepts the IPCC reports.
    Where’s your denier equivalent, “Brad”. Oh wait – there isn’t one. Just a few pop-brains like you and your source blogs.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS

    Once again, every single National Academy of Science accepts the IPCC reports.
    Where’s your denier equivalent, “Brad”. Oh wait – there isn’t one. Just a few pop-brains like you and your source blogs.

    And which of these National Academies of Science has measured the opinions of its members? And what was the result: did 51% of scientists estimate ECS to be 2C—3C?

    68% ?

    95% ?

    99% ?

    What level of consensus are we talking here?

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 13, 2013

    I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS

    And Saddam simply wanted to own Kuwaiti oilfields.

    Neither he nor you get to demand what you want because you want it and expect everyone to just play along.

    Yes, but if I don’t get what I want (evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS) then you don’t get what you want (the right to say I’m rejecting the value or range which 50%+ of scientists assign to ECS), do you?

  93. #93 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    What level of consensus are we talking here?

    Yawn.

    Kick the record player: you’re stuck on the same track.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 13, 2013

    then you don’t get what you want (the right to say I’m rejecting the value or range which 50%+ of scientists assign to ECS), do you?

    No, we totally get to do that.

  95. #95 chek
    February 13, 2013

    You don’t have a clue how science works do you “Brad”.

    What *you* now have to do to support your hypothesis is find how many papers reject that value for ECS. Then you’ll have somthing to say beyond your customary 4th grade piffle more fitting to a nine year old who’s just discovered logical thought. You won’t of course, because you’re insane and to compound it ideologically, your a denier.

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

    chameleon — Somewhere earlier a commenter brought up Wegener and the wide, but not unanimous, rejection that his ideas received. I thought I should set the story straight.

  97. #97 David B. Benson
    February 13, 2013

    There is at least one paper in which a collection of climatologists were asked for their estimates of ECS; the results were then subjected to a Bayesian analysis to conclude the most likely range was about 2–4 K. The most recent thorough analysis of a wide variety of source of evidence for ECS is a paper by Annan & Hargreaves; the Bayesian analysis of that data gives the same range. The most recent papers of ECS suggest the the value is about 2.4 K. But as just more grist for the Bayesian mill, I’ll say that indicates a range of about 2.2–3 K as most likely.

    No time now to dig out the references; apologies.

  98. #98 peterd
    February 13, 2013

    Wow (February 13, 2013
    And Saddam simply wanted to own Kuwaiti oilfields.

    Wow, I thought that one of the issues leading to GW1 was that Saddam wanted the Kuwaitis to stop angle-drilling into Iraqi oilfields? I.e., he wanted them to stop stealing IRAQI oil(??)

  99. #99 chek
    February 14, 2013

    peterd, that was an allegation, which even if true accounts for a record distance of just over six miles across the then border, and in actuality probably much less, given 1980′s technology.

    In other words an excuse.

  100. #100 chek
    February 14, 2013