Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
chameleon — Evidence for what?
-
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.]
-
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.]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists?
What an idiotic question. Brad thinks it’s a popularity contest.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? -
What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD?
Go read the papers referenced in this
(PS I hope chubby got a receipt for her bridges)
-
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.
-
Did I miss a comment of yours
Yes, deliberately.
Because you haven’t got a brain in your whole body.
-
How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists?
Every single national scientific body has agreed with the evidence.
-
‘sfunny how chubby concentrates on my posts and completely ignores or accepts the bratisms on this thread…
-
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…
-
mike, you are a sad, sad, sad tosser
-
“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.
-
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
-
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.
-
So chek, a record is only valid one way, the CAGW way? So convenient. You stupid foilhat.
-
Notice that the graph says gain. If you start from a low point, you can gain a lot.
-
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. -
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. -
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
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.
-
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. -
“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.
-
And, as chek says, you insist it is “belief”, but that is entirely a shibboleth of your denier credo.
-
Brat, how come whenever you get answers, you ignore any that you don’t think you have a “comeback” on?
-
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.
-
“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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
“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.
-
“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.
-
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”.
-
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]?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
“Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?”
A scientific consensus.
-
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/
-
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”.
-
Yet Wow repeatedly[!] linked to my non-denial
Yet the words only have meaning if they are denying the statement.
-
I say “a belief”, do I?
Another deniable denial.
-
Do I say that a consensus is a majority belief?
Yes.
-
Wow:
What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD?
Go read the papers referenced in this
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
“Guess what: it is”
Nope.
Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement.
-
“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?”
-
“Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement.”
And what does “general agreement” mean, pray tell?
-
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.
-
And what does “general agreement” mean, pray tell?
Why did they use “general” pray tell?
-
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.
-
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…
-
And “Brad” wonders how his reputation for dishonesty came about.
-
The skunk doesn’t notice their own stink…
-
Cue the reliably dull Cammy pointing out the nano-particles in everyone else’s eye while ignoring the sequioa emanating from “Brad’s” eyelid.
-
“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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
Brad rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.
What scientific consensus on ECS
Exactly.
Thanks for demonstrating BBD’s point.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
What are you, 8 years old?
No. Doofus.
-
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?
-
Poor insane “Brad” tries the same thing again, hoping for a different outcome.Yawn.
-
Wow, you’re being non-responsive.
Wow. YOU say that?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
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?
-
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?
-
What level of consensus are we talking here?
Yawn.
Kick the record player: you’re stuck on the same track.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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(??)
-
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
February 13, 2013
![http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?"<this](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?"<this){kind=link}
