Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Vince Whirlwind
    February 14, 2013

    Brad doesn’t seem to understand what a consensus is:

    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?

    Why would the opinions of all its members be in any way relevant?

    Do you expect that 100% of scientists are qualified to measure sensitivity, is that your problem?

    Surely you don’t believe that, and are just indulging in yet another episode of crank-blog-inspired bullshitting?

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Why would the opinions of all its members be in any way relevant?

    Do you expect that 100% of scientists are qualified to measure sensitivity, is that your problem?

    No I don’t, but I wasn’t the one who claimed that there was a scientific consensus (a majority agreement among scientists) that ECS was 2C—3C.

  3. #3 chek
    February 14, 2013

    Where are all the papers disputing the scientific consensus, “Brad”?

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    February 14, 2013

    a scientific consensus (a majority agreement among scientists)

    Wrong.

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    February 14, 2013

    Or, to put it another way, Tim Flannery’s opinion is irrelevant to the fact there is a scientific consensus on the relative likelihoods of a range sensitivity values.

    Of course, Tim Flannery’s opinion is useful if you are unaware of what that consensus is, because it is his function to provide a meta-analysis of the facts for a target audience comprised of those unqualified to undertake either original research or analysis of said research for themselves.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    Oh, for pity’s sake.

    Brad Keyes, just look at the fracking literature. There’s a summary and reassessment here:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0620-4

    and figures two and three in particular give a neat précis of the expert opinion on climate sensitivity.

    And guess what? The weight of scientific opinion as seen in this work is that climate sensitivity is likely over 2° C.

    And for the record, I have a little bet with a colleague about this post…

  7. #7 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 14, 2013

    OK guys’n’gals. I’m now at the bottom of page 12.

    Is there any good reason why I should bother with page 13?

  8. #8 Vince Whirlwind
    February 14, 2013

    Sure, Adelady – you’ve made it this far…

  9. #9 BBD
    February 14, 2013

    Brad still believes in a wildly improbable ECS.

    Brad still rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.

    Brad still rejects the definition of ‘scientific consensus’.

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

    Brad still won’t read.

    Brad still won’t listen.

    Brad still won’t think.

    Brad is still taking the piss.

  10. #10 BBD
    February 14, 2013

    adelady

    No. See # 10

  11. #11 BBD
    February 14, 2013

    Brad

    The IPCC doesn’t conduct research into climate sensitivity. The reports are simply assessments of the state of scientific knowledge. This is what it says in AR4 WG1:

    WG1 6.9.4:

    Overall, several lines of evidence strengthen confidence in present estimates of ECS, and new results based on objective analyses make it possible to assign probabilities to ranges of climate sensitivity previously assessed from expert opinion alone. This represents a significant advance. Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS is very likely larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C. The lower bound is consistent with the view that the sum of all atmospheric feedbacks affecting climate sensitivity is positive. Although upper limits can be obtained by combining multiple lines of evidence, remaining uncertainties that are not accounted for in individual estimates (such as structural model uncertainties) and possible dependencies between individual lines of evidence make the upper 95% limit of ECS uncertain at present. Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2).

    Box 10.2:

    Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.

    Just how long are you going to keep up the evasive nit-picking before you accept that:

    - the scientific consensus is based on evidence

    - the scientific consensus effectively excludes an ECS less than 1.5C

    How long?

  12. #12 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    No I don’t, but I wasn’t the one who claimed that there was a scientific consensus

    But you DO claim there is no scientific consensus, and you DO claim that 1.5C is much more likely, and you DO claim that 2.5-3C is an outlier, and you DO claim that you have data for all your claims.

  13. #13 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    And you DO insist that “just because” every national society agrees that the evidence supports the conclusions of the IPCC, that doesn’t make it a consensus.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    - the scientific consensus effectively excludes an ECS less than 1.5C

    Hell, the data we currently have excludes an ECS of less than 1.8C.

  15. #15 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013
  16. #16 chek
    February 14, 2013

    Ah yes pantieZ, the James Taylor who is a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

    Yes that Heartland Institute, the very heart of shonky shill ‘science’ with a very particular ideological axe to grind.

    Shame they didn’t bother to survey any climate scientists but the usual mish-mash of engineers and assorted geologists from Alberta, home of the Canadian oil sands.

    The only thing weep-worthy PantieZ, is that idiots like you once again demonstrate you’ll believe anything.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    So, a management journal surveys ideologically- and/or professionally-biased non-experts and from this infers that most scientists are sceptical of climate change.

    I need a new, non-bloody wall.

    And there goes Organization Studies‘ impact factor, and quite possibly another editor or two – if they have any moral scruples.

    PentaxZ, when rebuttal after rebuttal piles up in response to this nonsense. will you post an apology. You have many others that are long overdue.

    And if you think that there no “global warming crisis”, perhaps you’d care to enter into a high-stakes wager with me…

    Please say yes, and I’ll lay down the terms.

  18. #18 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    So so, little chek. For your information, I don’t dislike Heartland as you do, so tha’t not an counterargument. Just your usual whining about something you don’t like. And as you pretty much know, the definition “climate scientist” isn’t a oficial recognized occupation. There is no specific education for “climate scientist”. And I surley think geoscientists and meterologists know a hell more about the climate than you or anybody in the Team. Tough luck, your stupid zealot, but reality is catching up with your blind faith in the CAGW religion.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    For your information, I don’t dislike Heartland as you do, so tha’t not an counterargument.

    For your information, HI is entirely funded to produce PR for the paying companies.

    Therefore their statements are entirely unreliable.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “And as you pretty much know, the definition “climate scientist” isn’t a oficial recognized occupation.”

    It’s a recognised occupation in the same way as veterinary doctor is.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    Journals likle Organization Studies seriously need to be careful about their editorial processes.

    In today’s social media-connected world, and with the capacity to instigate rapid online protests, such shonky journals could very quickly find that their higher-quality contributors are easily pursuaded to take their papers elsewhere.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Brad Keyes, just look at the fracking literature.

    I know it’s a stereotype, but I assumed you people would be against fracking.

    There’s a summary and reassessment here:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0620-4

    What the? This is just another climate psychology article! Nary a mention of what fracking experts think. The fracking industry isn’t even allowed a say.

    and figures two and three in particular give a neat précis of the expert opinion on climate sensitivity.

    And guess what? The weight of scientific opinion as seen in this work is that climate sensitivity is likely over 2° C.

    I can’t access Figg 2 and 3—can someone please let me know what percentage of scientists are of the opinion that climate sensitivity is over 2° C?

  23. #23 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    From the paper:

    “Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists,”

    None of whom have standing to answer this question.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    Journals like Organization Studies seriously need to be careful about their editorial processes.

    In today’s social media-connected world, and with the capacity to instigate rapid online protests, such shonky journals could very quickly find that their higher-quality contributors are easily pursuaded to take their papers elsewhere.

  25. #25 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    Hey, stupid bernie. Do you really mean that the infamous “98%” survey, which turned out to be about 95 out of 98 scientists wasn’t biased? If so, you really must have a whole lot of screws loose in that tin can you call your head.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ml74-tOxU

  26. #26 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Weird. Bray here is becoming irrelevant on the thread he’s been banned to…

  27. #27 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Do you really mean that the infamous “98%” survey, which turned out to be about 95 out of 98 scientists wasn’t biased

    Do you really mean that you think there was a 98% survey which was 95 out of 98 scientists?

  28. #28 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    wow, 1077 is a whole lot more than 98.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    “And as you pretty much know, the definition “climate scientist” isn’t a oficial recognized occupation.”

    It’s a recognised occupation in the same way as veterinary doctor is.

    Really, Wow? Someone has to complete a Climate Science degree and a formal, nationwide exam certifying their right to hang out their shingle as a climate scientist?

  30. #30 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “Someone has to complete a Climate Science degree”

    No.

    That, however, is not necessary for it to be an official recognised occupation.

  31. #31 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    Brad, in wow’s pink, cuddly world it propably is so. ;-)

  32. #32 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Best you could do, panties?

    Never mind, lovver

    :P

  33. #33 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    “That, however, is not necessary for it to be an official recognised occupation.”

    Ah, that explains how a train conductor can become a climate scientist.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “wow, 1077 is a whole lot more than 98.”

    98 is higher than 4.

    And 924,579,284 is a while lot more than 1077.

    What was your intent here with your remedial maths knowledge?

  35. #35 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    In other words, you don’t need a formel education at all.

  36. #36 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “Ah, that explains how a train conductor can become a climate scientist.”

    Where did this happen?

    No, I know: in your fantasy.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “In other words, you don’t need a formel education at all.”

    Apparently you don’t.

  38. #38 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    wowie, you surley know, your’e just ignoring it. You know, the 98% argument? That turned out to be 95 scientists out of 98? And on top of that the ones making the survey didn’t know how to round of properly? Are you in denial?

  39. #39 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Weird, though.

    Panties links to a paper that says that engineers should be included as a group into deciding whether climate science is correct, implying that engineers must be allowed a say.

    Then he complains about an Engineering Doctorate being put in charge of the IPCC where he can assess the evidence and have a say in deciding whether climate science is correct, implying that engineers must NOT be allowed a say.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow:

    “No I don’t, but I wasn’t the one who claimed that there was a scientific consensus”

    But you DO claim there is no scientific consensus, and you DO claim that 1.5C is much more likely, and you DO claim that 2.5-3C is an outlier, and you DO claim that you have data for all your claims.

    No, I DID honestly report a couple of days ago that my understanding was that the evidence pointed to an ECS less than 1.5C. Then, after hundreds of comments deriding this position as counterfactual, BBD finally specified the evidence in favor of a higher ECS, as I had invited someone to do from the very beginning.

    What difference has this new (to me) evidence made to my viewpoint? You have no idea—you seem to be afraid to ask.

  41. #41 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    This is just another climate psychology article!

    It’s rather more than that, but you’d know that if you had access to the actual paper.

    It’s more than a little rich that you pronounce on material that you haven’t even read. It’s also more than a little rich that you waffle on about what the consensus of scientist think about climate sensitivity, and when directed to a paper that gives you exactly what you ask for, you dismiss it as if it wasn’t relevant.

    What do you want – for a cooking magazine to publish the work, a la the Organization Studies survey of ‘scientists’?

    Your pathetic incompetence is becoming ever more blatant Keyes. Give it up.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    No, I DID honestly report a couple of days ago that my understanding was that the evidence pointed to an ECS less than 1.5C

    a) it wasn’t honest understanding. It was a deliberate lie.
    b) you still haven’t given any data that you insist you rely on before making conclusions that led you to that “understanding”.
    c) there are still plenty of other claims in that post you partially quoted from that you have made. Ignoring them doesn’t make them nonexistent, even though that is the form of a toddler’s reasoning. Peek-a-boo!

  43. #43 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    Implying? Straw man building, wow. I’m not implying anything. Just pointing out that no proper education is required to be a “climate scientist”. Low standards indeed, within the IPCC. As long as you confess the holy CAGW church, that is.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    and when directed to a paper that gives you exactly what you ask for, you dismiss it as if it wasn’t relevant.

    This has been its M.O. for a good half-dozen or more pages. Ignore any evidence of his error and therefore he can continue to pretend that he has no evidence to change his mind.

    That he had no evidence for how his mind was made up is yet another point it pretends doesn’t have to be acknowledged.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Then he complains about an Engineering Doctorate being put in charge of the IPCC where he can assess the evidence and have a say in deciding whether climate science is correct, implying that engineers must NOT be allowed a say.

    Your desperate inferences are self-serving bollocks. Pentax merely alluded to the fact that a railway engineer has more than once been called (and never seems to have corrected those who called him) the world’s leading climate scientist.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “Implying? Straw man building, wow.”

    Yes, I suppose your implications ARE strawman building.

    Thanks for letting us know, though I must tell you your antics are entirely obvious.

    The rest of your post makes zero sense. Work on cognition.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “Your desperate inferences are self-serving bollocks.”

    Incorrect.

    Neither desperate nor bollocks. Which is why you’re so stung by them.

    “Pentax merely alluded”

    Which would be a “desperate inference”, right?

    ” to the fact”

    Data for this fact is WHERE, exactly?

  48. #48 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Tell us, Bray, is the site

    nofrakkingconsensus.com

    your current meme du jour?

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    BJ:

    This is just another climate psychology article!

    It’s rather more than that, but you’d know that if you had access to the actual paper.

    What I do know is that it has nothing to say about fracking, and does not include input from genuine fracking experts—that was a lie, BJ, which effectively sinks your credibility here or on any topic you presume to pronounce on!!! LOL

  50. #50 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    PS oddly enough, despite all the call-outs to papers saying it, they don’t say it and they are all links to other links that embed links to the source.

    Meaning that 20 links could all point to one source, but be pretending to be 20 disparate links…

    Resume padding for the incompetent denialist…

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    “Pentax merely alluded”

    Which would be a “desperate inference”, right?

    ” to the fact”

    Data for this fact is WHERE, exactly?

    google it.

  52. #52 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Note that a google search on

    dr pachuri “worlds leading climate scientist”

    gives links to people calling him this IN ORDER TO SLAM HIM.

  53. #53 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    Hey, stupid bernie. Do you really mean that the infamous “98%” survey, which turned out to be about 95 out of 98 scientists wasn’t biased? If so, you really must have a whole lot of screws loose in that tin can you call your head.

    No, I don’t mean that.

    It might help if you actually learned to read to the point of comprehension, PentaxZ.

    Who’s stupid now, eh? Whose screws are loose, hmmm?

    Idiot.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    So it rather looks like the term is “commonly used” in denialist rags, where they repeat the meme and make it all at the same time.

    Isn’t that convenient for them!

  55. #55 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    What I do know is that it has nothing to say about fracking

    Yes, we know that you have a tiny brain.

  56. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow

    Resume padding for the incompetent denialist…

    How the frack would you recognise a denialist, Wow? Aren’t you the entity that fell in a spectacular heap when challenged to name 1 climate-related theory + 2 other scientific theories I denied, after calling me a serial science denier?

  57. #57 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    VW
    “Brad doesn’t seem to understand what a consensus is:”

    I’m sure he knows exactly what it is’n, namely science or argument.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    BJ / Wow:

    and when directed to a paper that gives you exactly what you ask for, you dismiss it as if it wasn’t relevant.

    *Sigh.* I have no idea whether it’s relevant until someone can tell me what percentage of scientists it finds believe in an ECS > 2.0C. I don’t have access to figures 2 and 3.

  59. #59 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    How the frack would you recognise a denialist, Wow?

    They’re pretty damn obvious. You’re all desperate and haven’t got a hope, so you’re throwing caution to the wind.

    Anything to extend another year of doubt.

    <blockquote.Aren’t you the entity that fell in a spectacular heap when challenged to name 1 climate-related theory + 2 other scientific theories I denied

    Nope.

    I’m the entity that discarded your carefully crafted denialist cover meme.

    You are a denier. Evidence? This page. The tired old “I never even looked, but it’s not got anything I asked for” bollocks you’ve done with Bernard.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “I’m sure he knows exactly what it is’n, namely science or argument”

    That, of course, is basically based on “He’s a fellow denier and I will support him, hell or high water”.

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    1077 is a whole lot more than 98

    Telling, isn’t it, how PentaxZ doesn’t understand the concept of representative sampling.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    *Sigh.* I have no idea whether it’s relevant until someone can tell me what percentage of scientists it finds believe in an ECS > 2.0C

    No, you will have no idea whether it’s relevant until you read it.

    You have no idea whether your demand “50%+ of scientists” is relevant to there being a science consensus on ECS.

  63. #63 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Every national science academy agrees that the IPCC conclusions are supported by the evidence.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Vince W:

    Brad doesn’t seem to understand what a consensus is:

    Vince doesn’t seem to understand words. I’ve repeatedly given the exact, dictionary definition of “consensus [of a given group]“: majority opinion [in that group]. If you don’t like it, start your own university and publish a dictionary.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow:

    Every national science academy agrees that the IPCC conclusions are supported by the evidence.

    So “every national science academy” agreed that the claim about the Himalayan glaciers was “supported by the evidence”? They must be pretty gullible.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Vince doesn’t seem to understand words

    Another fact-free assertion by Bray.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    agreed that the claim about the Himalayan glaciers was “supported by the evidence”?

    You mean the thing that wasn’t in WG1, Physical Science Basis?

    Well, since that isn’t the science, why would that be relevant in a scientific consensus?

    Oh, sorry, didn’t you know where that came from? You were only told to repeat it, as if it were a mandala against fact.

  68. #68 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    Wow

    ““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.”

    Haven’t you learned anything? How many times must one tell you, references to skeptical science, real climate or tamino isn’t valid arguments. They are alarmistic blogs run by alarmistic zealots who like tampering with data to promote their alarmistic world view. How hard is it to get that into your head?

  69. #69 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    So now, apparently, we see where Bray is going to go next:

    The consensus is from the evidence only because everyone other than me is gullible!

    Put your efforts into educating this donkey appropriate with that knowledge of how much it’s going to be listened to…

  70. #70 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Haven’t you learned anything?

    Lots of things.

    You, however, are stuck on the same dead trope. You can’t learn anything because the evidence is all against your religious belief in the “scam” of AGW.

    references to skeptical science, real climate or tamino isn’t valid arguments

    No, they’re not references you will read because you’re an idiot.

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow:

    You mean the thing that wasn’t in WG1, Physical Science Basis?

    Well, since that isn’t the science, why would that be relevant in a scientific consensus?

    LOL…

    How much is Heartland paying you, Wow?

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013
    It’s rather more than that, but you’d know that if you had access to the actual paper.

    What I do know is that it has nothing to say about fracking, and does not include input from genuine fracking experts—that was a lie, BJ, which effectively sinks your credibility here or on any topic you presume to pronounce on!!!

    Yeah, this is about the level of your logic and comprehension Keyes.

    How do you live with the humiliation?

  73. #73 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Of course, to your denier fundie mindset, ANY site that doesn’t proclaim AGW a scam and shows actual evidence is “alarmist”.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “How much is Heartland paying you, Wow?”

    Non sequitur.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    After all his whinging like “Vincent doesn’t understand words”, appears that Bray is entirely fine with not understanding words.

    As long as it’s himself doing it.

    What a Janus.

    Or something like that :D

  76. #76 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    “That, of course, is basically based on “He’s a fellow denier and I will support him, hell or high water”.

    So wrong, wow. That’s based on the fact that science isn’t conducted by hand waving, but with empirical facts. Perhaps you should take a course in basic scientific procedures.

    “Telling, isn’t it, how PentaxZ doesn’t understand the concept of representative sampling.”

    Or, Bernie, perhaps pentaxZ perfectly well understand the concept of eliminating deviant opinions untill you are left with the ones who support your view.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    So wrong, wow.

    Yes, it is very wrong indeed to do so. Why then do you do it?

    That’s based on the fact that science isn’t conducted by hand waving, but with empirical facts

    That is entirely true and entirely why the conclusion I made is supported by the evidence on this page.

    perhaps pentaxZ perfectly well understand the concept of eliminating deviant opinions untill you are left with the ones who support your view.

    Indeed, hence how you do that each and every time you post “supporting data” for your fundamentalist position.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Bernard J:

    What I do know is that it has nothing to say about fracking, and does not include input from genuine fracking experts—that was a lie, BJ, which effectively sinks your credibility here or on any topic you presume to pronounce on!!!

    Yeah, this is about the level of your logic and comprehension Keyes.

    Humorless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humorless cultist
    Eternal umbrage
    Humorless cultist
    Eternal umbrage

  79. #79 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Yup, that’s you all right.

    But let me guess: you think that’s everyone else, right?

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    After all his whinging like “Vincent doesn’t understand words”, appears that Bray is entirely fine with not understanding words.

    As long as it’s himself doing it.

    Citation?

  81. #82 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Of course, I should include where you don’t like it when OTHER people do it. That would be here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-14/#comment-148864

  82. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow,

    Why are you drawing attention back to your ad-hoc denial that the Physical Science Basis is part of ‘the science’, and my derision of your ad-hoc denial?

  83. #84 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    More citations for Bray loving it when HE gets to misunderstand words can be found on this page by searching for the word “frack”.

  84. #85 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    your ad-hoc denial that the Physical Science Basis is part of ‘the science’

    Thank you for displaying PRECISELY what that link was about: your willful ignorance of words and how it’s fine when YOU do it.

  85. #86 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    Something NOT in the Physical Science Basis is not the science forming the scientific consensus.

    Just so your pin head can have at least a chance of understanding, Bray.

  86. #87 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    …perhaps pentaxZ perfectly well understand the concept of eliminating deviant opinions untill you are left with the ones who support your view.

    Good to see that you acknowledge your modus operandi PentaxZ.

    There’s nothing more to be said.

  87. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Hey Wow, don’t forget, if all else fails, you can defend the shoddy science of the IPCC by invoking the clause: “the IPCC Doesn’t Actually Do Any Science!”

  88. #89 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    “You, however, are stuck on the same dead trope. You can’t learn anything because the evidence is all against your religious belief in the “scam” of AGW.”

    Nice try, zealot. But as usual way off target. The fact is that the lot of you zealots do act as a sect, with the holy IPCC as your church and they ARs as your holy scripts. Nothing can change that, your stupid copy cat.

  89. #90 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow,

    Oops, fair enough, I just reread your post:

    You mean the thing that wasn’t in WG1, Physical Science Basis?

    So now, the only “conclusions” the IPCC draws are the ones drawn by WG1?

  90. #91 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “the IPCC Doesn’t Actually Do Any Science!”

    It doesn’t.

    Where, though, is your problem with that?

    Nature (the journal) doesn’t do science either.

    But if you want to read what the science is doing, you can go to Nature (the journal) and find out. Likewise, you can go to the IPCC website and find out what the science says about climate.

    Here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

  91. #92 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “But as usual way off target”

    Why? Are you waiting another couple of hours before playing that old trick?

  92. #93 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “So now, the only “conclusions” the IPCC draws are the ones drawn by WG1?”

    You know you wanted in post #81 on this page a citation for my statement’s proof?

    That post was another one.

    Thanks for helping out, though you didn’t mean to.

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2013

    Hey Keyes.

    After 14 pages of this thread it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t “do” science.

    You don’t even demonstrate a pass-level grade 6 understanding of science.

    You’re just a pouting troll.

  94. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    Wow

    “the IPCC Doesn’t Actually Do Any Science!”

    It doesn’t.

    So the IPCC doesn’t draw scientific conclusions?

    Or it does draw them, but without using the scientific method?

    Let me ask: when you said every national science academy accepted the IPCC’s conclusions, were you accusing them of accepting non-scientific conclusions?

  95. #96 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    Well, bernie, agree, there indeed isn’t more to say. You perfectly well show, all by your self, what a looney you are. With tin foil hat and all.

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    BJ:

    “You’re just a pouting troll.”

    No, this is my thread—you’re the tr- I mean, you’re my guests.

  97. #98 pentaxZ
    February 14, 2013

    “Why? Are you waiting another couple of hours before playing that old trick?”

    And what trick would that be? Please, enlighten me.

  98. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 14, 2013

    BJ

    The differential characteristic of True Believers’ attempts at insult is their baseless vagueness. For example, you hand-wave:

    After 14 pages of this thread it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t “do” science.

    You don’t even demonstrate a pass-level grade 6 understanding of science.

    I suppose it’s too much to ask you to provide an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?

  99. #100 Wow
    February 14, 2013

    “No, this is my thread”

    Yup, more proof of your insanity.

    Tell me, when did your delusions REALLY start to kick in?