Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
Ww,
Yr: N. 7, bv: “Y cn st n yr vry twr nd prn [ths ll drctd t "Tm", mnd y, th crnym f sm srt f mystrs, vry-twr prnr-ntty, ssctd wth ths blg, tht rflxvly ds-mvwls my cmmnts whl sprng th ngrt Ww's--g fgr!] yr ‘ BLV n fr spch’ bcs t dsn’t mk ny prblms fr y, ds t. [sc]”
dnn, Ww, bt yr bv sms knd vr-th-tp nd crzy-drkd-p nd vn mr thn lttl bt drngd, thnk cn sy wtht fr f xggrtn. mn, lk, ww!, Ww (Ww s Mm; Mm s Ww)
mn, lk, y’ll prbbly wnt t btn scnd pnn frm Brnrd J.–Dltd’s, lph frd-td–nd ll, bt t lks t m, Ww, lk y’r ndrgng GTDS (Grvy-Trn, Drlmnt, nxty Syndrm) mlt-dwn rl bg-tm lk. nd t n’t prtty, Ww, l’ bddy, f y wnt t knw th trth.
-
Vince, here’s Wikipedia’s “definition” of your supposed “expression with a very specific meaning”…
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
PS—it’s interesting to see the parts you left out.
-
Now you agree that flying fox =/= fox.
When do you I imagine I disputed this, Vince?
-
Wow:
“an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?”
And when this is done, like all other times this has been done to your demand, you will demand something different and ignore the example.
Yawn.
A simple “sorry, on second thoughts there are no examples” would suffice.
-
bill:
After the great winnowing Denial is now made up of people who think the world is secretly run by the ‘banking families’ *wink wink*, while others project their toxic fantasies outward outward, hysterically wailing that fully-justified criticism of Seitz and Singer is ‘anti-Semitism’, and wittering on about Rachel Carson being ‘worse than Hitler’.
‘Banking families’ “wink wink” insinuates what? Sorry, I don’t get it.
Is it supposed to be like ‘secret cabal, Merchants of Doubt, Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg,’ “wink wink”?
-
“when they get shredded”
LMGOROTF
“Some commenters here, including myself, have expressed frustration in the face of sustained bad faith.”
Yeah, it really must be hard when others don’t share your blind faith in the CAGW church, I understand. But that’s not a reason for bad language or juvenil behaviour. Especially not from a supposed PhD supposedly workin at a university. And sertanely not from know nothings like wow, stu, check and the other zealots with their foilhats firmly attached to their heads.
“Turns out that what the preacher jeffie, and his disciples bernie, stu, chek, wow and the rest of the deltoid fanclub really are is unpaid in some cases, paid in other, useful Idiots playing at footsoldiers for the mighty, holy ipcc church in a jihad like defence of the holy scriptures called assessment reports. Amen
-
And psst, chek, I misspelled “certainly” on purpose, so you will have something to rant about.
-
If you think scientific consensus can only possibly be based on evidence, then please tell me: what was the mistaken scientific consensus on continental drift / gastric ulcers / quasi-crystals “based on”?
Keyes, it’s been pointed out to you previously that there’s a substantive difference between your examples and the science of global warming, in that the latter body of work has been scrutinised carefully and repeatedly by thousands of climatologists and physicists. With a small, tenuous body of ‘evidence’ it is quite possible to have incorrect conclusions drawn – this is why we have amongst other things the concepts of type I and II errors, and why we have scientific replication.
However, when a subject is tested, retested, and then tested again – and again and again and again, ad infinitum, the nature of the resulting consensus about the result is – as I keep repeating – substantively different.
The science of global warming has been more closely scrutinised than just about any other area of science that I can think of. It has withstood all efforts to refute it, whilst on the other hand anything resembling science produced by the ‘sceptical’ side has invariably collapsed as soon as it is put to the test.
This is the basis for the consensus on climate change, like it or not.
If you’re going to presume to “lay down the terms,” you have to do it before, not after, we agree to enter into enter into the wager.
You’re late to the party Keyes. The basis for my wagers on climate change are dispersed throughout the threads on Deltoid and elsewhere, and have been so for several years… and your denialist friends have to a person been too cowardly to accept them.
PentaxZ has been here for the duration of those years, and knows well from where I am coming, so he already understands what would be expected of him. The measure is minimum annual (= NH summer) Arctic sea ice volume, which is probably the most direct and immediately important empirical proxy of planetary warming. The ‘terms’ to which I referred would mostly concern how much and with whom the sums would be lodged.
If you’re finding the search engine too challenging for your overstretched mind to operate, my current terms are here.
To help you put it into context, you would be betting that the realised September minimum Arctic sea ice volume, tracked by the lurid green line here, will end up slightly above the mustard-coloured exponential extrapolation for November Arctic sea ice volume trajectory, at the equivalent September minimum time in 2017.
Or to put it another way, you would be betting that the red line on Jim Pettit’s radial plot of Arctic sea ice volume at the top of this page will not touch the innermost circle (or, equivalently, the ’0′) before 2018.
Personally, I’m partial to a sigmoid curve, so you might like to consider Neven’s stab at the issue. Just eyeballing the 2 SD confidence range depicted in figure 1, and in the interest of full disclosure, I’d say that I’d have an 85-90% chance of winning…
-
That’s “lurid green line in the second graph here…”
-
Bernard J:
Keyes, it’s been pointed out to you previously that there’s a substantive difference between your examples and the science of global warming,
But you (or whoever I was replying to) talked about “the scientific consensus,” not “the scientific consensus
on global warming
.” Or is that understood implicitly? Is global warming a tumor whose tendrils now penetrate all of scientific inquiry?
LOL… Good grief!
You’re late to the party Keyes. The basis for my wagers on climate change are dispersed throughout the threads on Deltoid and elsewhere, and have been so for several years…
Then why did you use the English future tense with “will” in the sentence “I’ll lay down the terms”? Very misleading, Bernard, very misleading.
(By the way, it’s “Brad”, not “Keyes”—social graces and all that.)
Anyway you can hardly be surprised if I haven’t read the threads I don’t participate in… having to police the cognitive quality of one thread is already bad enough for my blood pressure.
and your denialist friends have to a person been too cowardly to accept them.
My friends include fellow deniers, but as far as I know not one of them is a denialist, so it’s unclear if your clause even has a sensible subject.
Nonetheless I thought the wager was supposed to concern the putative “global warming crisis.” Why don’t we bet on the dimensions of the alleged problem, as opposed to the dimensions of sea ice? At what point (if ever) is global warming going to start being a net detriment to the world, that sort of thing.
-
LMGOROTF
Lifting My Great Orifice Round Obviates The Flatulence?
But it doesn’t.
PantieZ farts out another second hand religion fantasy devised for him by a think tank somewhere and can’t think of any argument against the science. Just his reflex tribal response.
And yet is sure that’s a clever and satisfactory response. Which for a double-digit or less it no doubt is. Or at least the best available. The base level of stupid that is PantieZ is always predictable .
-
Banking families’ “wink wink” insinuates what? Sorry, I don’t get it.
Of course you don’t “Brad”.
The first rule for cranks is never attack other cranks. -
PS—it’s interesting to see the parts you left out.
Which weren’t left out at all because you’ve been told repeatedly and in various combinations for over 15 pages now.
The only thing that is interesting – as BBD points out – is why you even deny it.
-
Wow:
When did insults have to be substantiated, shithead?
Only since we graduated from kindergarten, Wow.
I see you’ve refined Wow’s Theory of the Internet:
“Night all”
So an Aussie, we reckon?
Dad’s money that put him in college was from the mining industry?
Last time I bade you goodnight you assumed I was a toddler or geriatric patient taking an early siesta in the GMT time zone, remember? How encouraging that you’ve now figured out that the internet is, uh, international.
Yes, as I’ve repeatedly told you, I live in Australia.
Where we don’t actually need our parents’ fortunes to put us through “college,” because
1. we have universities, not colleges
2. student debt can be deferred by a wonderful government program called HECS, enabling the sons and daughters of the working class to become qualified architects, surgeons and Supreme Court justices
-
Which weren’t left out at all because you’ve been told repeatedly and in various combinations for over 15 pages now.
Yes, for a phrase with a “very specific meaning” it’s remarkable what a huge variety of definitions you people have suggested for scientific consensus.
Of course the real answer is simple: if it means anything at all, it means a consensus among scientists.
-
Wow:
‘course, this isn’t a problem for you, is it, Tim.
You don’t actually do anything to rebut these retards. Therefore not your problem.
Why would it be a problem for Tim when people express non-Wow-approved viewpoints on his site, driving up his traffic and exercising the right to debate? Sounds like a win-win. Tim BELIEVES in free speech (except for mk), in case you hadn’t heard.
You can sit in your ivory tower and preen your “I BELIEVE in free speech!” because it doesn’t make any problems for you, does it.
Tim is straightening his feathers? Licking his fur? What “thought” are you trying to convey here, Wow?
Here’s a simple solution for your “problems”, Wow: go away. It’s not your job to try and fail to rebuff our ideological evil here. That’s not on you.
-
chek:
PS—it’s interesting to see the parts you left out.
Which weren’t left out at all because you’ve been told repeatedly and in various combinations for over 15 pages now.
Rubbish. The parts you deliberately elided are rarely, if ever, talked about openly by your ilk:
– Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.– Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.
– Scientific argument is not part of the scientific method.
-
Oops—
– Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method.
-
“What is “activist” a codeword FOR, chek?”
“Bad person”, Bray.
You know, like the difference between our freedom fighter and their terrorist.
For someone preening themselves on knowing words, you certainly don’t seem to understand any meaning of them.
-
“Because I haven’t read it yet.”
And you never will, entirely so you can continue to pretend.
Remember: even you admit your opinion is worthless.
You also opine that everyone else’s is worthless, but that is merely your opinion which, as we have found, is worthless.
-
“My time is divided between school and swatting down inane comments on my thread,”
Oopsie.
So you haven’t actually been and finished university as you claimed, Bray?
PS this isn’t your thread, it’s your cage.
-
“The scientific opinion is the majority opinion among scientists. This is a matter of definition.”
Your definition.
Your opinion.
Which you have agreed is worthless.
-
Keep weaseling “Brad” and counting those angels on pinheads. It’s all you’ve got.
You were told that consensus isn’t the argument, but that it indicates the strength of the argument tousands of words ago. I know because I said it.
Now here you are still floundering around dumber than PantieZ pretending it wasn’t said. Still at least we now know for certain you’re a moron, and a dishonest one at that.
-
“If you’re going to presume to “lay down the terms,” you have to do it before, not after, we agree to enter into enter into the wager.”
REALLY?
Why, then did you spend several weeks claiming “Answer my question and i’ll leave” before actually asking the question?
-
“Wikipedia supersedes the Oxford Dictionary in defining words, does it?”
It supersedes the Bray Dictionary in defining words.
-
Brad admits he gets his misinformation from crank sites
Argumentum ad hallucinationem.
I guess that to you the real world IS a hallucination:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147763
Of course, finding this was more effort than your gish galloping assertion, which is why you do it.
-
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
A scientific consensus.
-
A simple “sorry, on second thoughts there are no examples” would suffice.
This would, however, be a lie.
And unlike your lying ass, this isn’t something I do merely on a whim.
-
Only since we graduated from kindergarten, Wow.
Except you haven’t, and that still isn’t actually true.
I was a toddler or geriatric patient taking an early siesta in the GMT time zone, remember?
Citation?
Oh, that’s right, none.Where we don’t actually need our parents’ fortunes to put us through “college,”
Never said you needed it. Just that you did.
2. student debt can be deferred by a wonderful government program called HECS
Benefit Scrounger.
-
– Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
This implication is not absolute. That is why you use “imply” rather than “means”. But you don’t understand MEANING do you, Bray.
– Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.
Nobody is making it by itself a scientific argument.
However, arguing it is not a fallacy.
– Scientific argument is not part of the scientific method.
Absolutely false. Otherwise there would be no need to replicate others work (as you have previously tried to imply hasn’t happened with MBH98). The only reason to verify is so that you can come to the same conclusion on the evidence.
And coming to the same conclusion is called…
wait for it…A CONSENSUS!
-
– Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method.
Still bollocks, for exactly the same reason.
-
Wow:
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
A scientific consensus.
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that “scientific consensus” means “majority opinion among scientists.” Thanks Wow!
-
Yeah, it really must be hard when others don’t share your blind faith in the CAGW church
Religious fundies call science a religion.
Panties calls science a religion.
Coincidence? I think not.
-
The penny finally drops that “scientific consensus” means “majority opinion among scientists.
And again, Bray confuses “All dogs are animals” with “All animals are dogs”.
-
Wow:
– “Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method.”
Still bollocks, for exactly the same reason.
Your misunderstanding of science is complete.
Nevertheless, if you want to let chek know that Wikipedia’s definition of scientific consensus is “bollocks,” be my guest!
-
But that’s not a reason for bad language or juvenil behaviour.
Nor bad spelling.
Nor mike.
’nuff said.
-
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
A scientific consensus.
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that a majority opinion among scientists is called a “scientific consensus.” Happy now Wow? Thanks!
-
Your understanding of science is complete.
FTFY.
he only reason to verify is so that you can come to the same conclusion on the evidence.
And coming to the same conclusion is called…
wait for it…A CONSENSUS!
-
– Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
This implication is not absolute. That is why you use “imply” rather than “means”. But you don’t understand MEANING do you, Bray.
You’ve never studied logic have you, Wow? In formal contexts, implies means means.
-
The penny finally drops that a majority opinion among scientists is called a “scientific consensus.
Sorry, “opinion” is incorrect.
We had (seemingly YEARS ago) agreed to use agreement.
However, you seem to be immune to anything you agree to if it will limit your complete bollocks.
-
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
Is what you said.
Not “share a certain opinion.
Then again, you don’t know the meaning of words.
-
In formal contexts, implies means means.
We are not in formal logical contexts.
We are in colloquial contexts.
-
You’ve never actually lived with people, have you, Bray.
All you have is what you’ve been told, no context.
You’re like one of those accountants: knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.
-
I guess that to you the real world IS a hallucination:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147763
I see no admission that I get my “misinformation” from “crank sites.” How many cones have you smoked today, Wow?
-
I guess that to you the real world IS a hallucination:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147763
I see no admission that I get my “misinformation” from “crank sites.” How many cones have you smoked today, Wow?
-
There’s no difference between a majority view and a majority opinion, but since the equation seems to provoke such outrage from Wow, let’s change it to:
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
A scientific consensus.
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that a majority view among scientists is called a “scientific consensus.” Happy now, Wow? Thanks!
-
I see no admission that I get my “misinformation” from “crank sites.”
Mmmhmmm.
climateaudit is a crank site.
Or is your denial that you can see anything?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Horatio_Nelson#.22I_see_no_ships.22
-
There’s no difference between a majority view and a majority opinion,
Then why did you change the word?
-
The penny finally drops that a majority view among scientists is called a “scientific consensus.”
Nobody has disagreed that a majority view among scientists is a scientific consensus.
What we disagree with is your partisan insistence is that a majority is the ONLY way to get a consensus.
The penny, for you, never drops.
-
I guess that’s another example of you getting “all animals are dogs” again.
-
Wow:
For someone preening themselves on knowing words, you certainly don’t seem to understand any meaning of them.
Well, I do pride myself on knowing the difference between preen and pride, idiot.
-
Ah, the tacit premise is spoken:
Mmmhmmm.
climateaudit is a crank site.
In your incorrect opinion, maybe.
-
knowing the difference between preen and pride
I suppose you have to take pride in the little things you understand.
PS I understand too.
Preen was correct.
-
In your incorrect opinion, maybe.
Except it isn’t incorrect.
Climateaudit is a crank site.
-
What we disagree with is your partisan insistence is that a majority is the ONLY way to get a consensus.
So, a minority view can be a consensus then?
Oh, this is fun!
-
Do you remember when bill gave you six cases of deniers faking evidence and graphs, Bray?
It seems you haven’t learned anything.
Or, rather, refused.
-
So, a minority view can be a consensus then?
100% of medical practitioners can agree on something.
If you expand the polling, you get 0.01% agreement. Because medical practitioners may be 0.01% of your polled group.
Really, don’t you understand the slightest thing about maths?
-
Oh, and what do you mean minority?
30% A
20% B
20% C
20% D
10% Eand A is the majority but also a minority.
Words.
They have meaning.
-
What’s the matter, tim? You don’t like when I speak ill of your CAGW church?
-
Remember: even you admit your opinion is worthless.
You also opine that everyone else’s is worthless, but that is merely your opinion which, as we have found, is worthless.
No, the subtleties of valid syllogism elude you, as per usual.
I said (as an axiom of science) that opinions about nature are meaningless in science. That is, opinions have zero evidentiary weight in science. Unless you understand this, you don’t know how science works.
-
Take voting.
Less than 50% of the voters vote for the winning party. The majority party.
-
when I speak ill of your CAGW church?
Talking to themselves is another religious fundie trait.
-
Look, a bunch of stus, wows and cheks exploring the secrets of physics. Smart gys, these collegestudents. Hahahaha…
-
No, the subtleties of valid syllogism elude you, as per usual.
That would be your OPINION, right?
Worthless. We’ve all agreed.
-
Moderation, wow, moderation.
-
I said (as an axiom of science) that opinions about nature are meaningless in science.
Irrelevant.
Incorrect if replaced opinion with “evidenced opinion”.
-
So the modal view on a scientific topic is the scientific consensus, Wow?
-
Moderation, wow, moderation.
Yes, moderation.
What about moderation?
-
So the modal view on a scientific topic is the scientific consensus
Why “the scientific consensus”?
-
Mmmm…a real CAGW burger.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Climate_change_burgers_scr.jpg
-
Look, a bunch of stus
Look, pandies, the only problem you get is one you go looking to get.
You can hardly blame everyone else for your actions.
-
To stupid to figure that out, are you, wow? Heck, no surprise there.
-
Mmmm…a real CAGW burger.
Glad you agree that only denier cranks dribble on about CAGW.
-
Wow, you say the axiom of science I cited is
Irrelevant.
Incorrect if replaced opinion with “evidenced opinion”.
So the axiom would be incorrect if you changed it?
Okaaaay….
But what if you were to just read it, without doctoring it in your head?
-
To stupid to figure that out, are you, wow?
The meanderings of a diseased mind (yours, panties, in case you are unaware) is opaque to that of a sound mind.
-
So the modal view on a scientific topic is the scientific consensus
Why “the scientific consensus”?
Oh, the fun of pulling teeth.
So, Wow, the modal view on a topic is the consensus? Have I understood your “argument”?
-
So the axiom would be incorrect if you changed it?
It would be incorrect EVEN IF I changed it. That’s how wrong you are.
-
pandies? Wat happend to PantieZ?
Admit, wow, the one in the bin is you, isn’t it?
-
Conspiracy sites and projection.
Yup those are PantieZ ‘information’ sources. -
Oh, the fun of pulling teeth.
Is that what you do in school?
-
pandies? Wat happend to PantieZ?
Meh, who cares what you’re called? Even you don’t.
-
Tim, I can’t tell you how you should run your site, but you REALLY have to do *something* because the retard trolls are turning this blog into a shithole.
-
Wow, you’re a bottomless source of amusement:
Oh, and what do you mean minority?
30% A
20% B
20% C
20% D
10% Eand A is the majority but also a minority.
As everyone else can see, you’ve conflated the concept of a majority with that of a plurality. Words. They have meanings.
But don’t let us interrupt you mid-blunder. Full speed ahead.
-
And yes, this anchor must be a hard core believer in CAGW. Nice people you have on your side.
-
If you want an opinion of what might work and be a minor change in procedure is that if someone gets banned to their own thread, if the shit continues to happen, ban them.
If they stop, then you can unlock them from their cage and let them post.
If they’ve learned to at least pretend reasoned discourse, then fine. If on being released, they return to their storm of shit, then you know what will stop it: putting back in their cage.
As it is, troll threads give bugger all protection to those not wanting to get the dribble on their monitors.
You may want to see if you can make troll thread posts not appear in the “recent posts” applet.
-
Crying for Tim to help you, wow? Really, so out of valid arguments? Hilarious.
-
As everyone else can see, you’ve conflated the concept of a majority with that of a plurality.
Incorrect.
I have demonstrated that not majority doesn’t have to be a minority view.
But you really don’t want to learn.
-
Crying for Tim to help you, wow?
Crying to tim to help you was fine, though???
-
“If you want an opinion of what might work and be a minor change in procedure is that if someone gets banned to their own thread, if the shit continues to happen, ban them.
If they stop, then you can unlock them from their cage and let them post.
If they’ve learned to at least pretend reasoned discourse, then fine. If on being released, they return to their storm of shit, then you know what will stop it: putting back in their cage.
As it is, troll threads give bugger all protection to those not wanting to get the dribble on their monitors.
You may want to see if you can make troll thread posts not appear in the “recent posts” applet.”
Hm…why doesn’t wow and chek have their own threads? The description above fits them like a glove. Tim, please, would you be so kind and banish wow, chek, stu, bernie and jeffie to their own threads. They are turning deltoid into a sewer.
-
“My time is divided between school and swatting down inane comments on my thread,”
Oopsie.
So you haven’t actually been and finished university as you claimed, [Brad]?
Were you aware people can complete more than one university degree in a serial manner, Wow? It sounds incredible, I know, but it’s the reality.
PS this isn’t your thread, it’s your cage.
Ha! Do you think this thread can contain me?
Do you think it HAS contained me? Oh, Wow, you simpleton. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
-
Really, so out of valid arguments? Hilarious
Says to double-digit troll who’s never constructed an argument in its life.
-
“Crying to tim to help you was fine, though???”
Fantasy of yours. My comments were awaiting moderation. But as it turned out, I had misstyped my e-mail. You silly little infant.
-
Hm…why doesn’t wow and chek have their own threads?
Because Bray is far far worse?
-
Were you aware people can complete more than one university degree in a serial manner,
Yes.
Next question.
-
“Crying to tim to help you was fine, though???”
Fantasy of yours.
Nope. Reality. Page 15.
-
Ha! Do you think this thread can contain me?
It has.
-
But as it turned out, I had misstyped my e-mail.
Of course.
And you were just about to buy that jumper, right? Just forgot it was in your bag…
-
Wow, let me put you out of you misery by quoting chek’s favorite “dictionary”, Wikipedia:
“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set’s elements. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset considered.”
-
The problem Wow is that for the internet to work, it relies on good faith, decency and honesty. Right wing think tanks and their troll armies are anything but.
Rather like that seminar for right wing evangelists showed, they’ll quite happily corrupt and turn to shit anything that seemed like a good idea at the time and could have been useful, such as Amazon ‘recommends’.
Theirs is a scorched Earth policy, literally so in the case of climate change deniers
-
“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set’s elements.”
And you asked about “minority”.
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
