Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
Oh, I note you ignored:
Take voting.
Less than 50% of the voters vote for the winning party. The majority party.
-
Wow, I’ve been approached to see if we can take measures to stop your spamming this thread with your decerebrate parodies of “thoughts”, freeing it up for actual scientific discussion. I was reluctant to do much about you because:
1. I believe in free speech
2. I believe in comedybut your idiot schtick is wearing thin.
-
The problem Wow is that for the internet to work, it relies on good faith, decency and honesty.
No, the problem is that for free speech to work, it relies on good faith, decency and honesty.
-
Wow, I’ve been approached to see if we can take measures to stop your spamming this thread
That voice in your head, again?
-
-
Wow:
“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set’s elements.”
And you asked about “minority”.
Jesus Christ… this is why I didn’t go into dentistry…
Wow, FFS, give us a straight answer: can a view be “the consensus” even if fewer than 50% of the people in the relevant set agree with it?
-
Jesus Christ… this is why I didn’t go into dentistry…
Veterinary studies was it, then?
-
Hey, as an aside, now you know how BBD feels, do you have anything to say?
-
PS you’re attempting to provide a false dichotomy.
Again.
-
Nonetheless I thought the wager was supposed to concern the putative “global warming crisis.”
How did I know that you’d try to wriggle out of this too?
This is why I explicitly said:
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.
Note my latter emboldening. You are asking about crises stemming from global warming – the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic is a crisis for the Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. It profoundly threatens the population structures and sizes of polar bears, seals, and walrus amongst other species. It’s already affecting Eskimo groups. It’s a source of additional radiation absorption in summer, and a releasing of methane from thawing permafrost, both of which will hasten warming elsewhere around the planet.
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice a direct and obvious indication of the warming of the planet, as I noted in my previous comment. It’s happening much more rapidly than the conservative projections by the IPCC. It’s the first domino to fall, and its unexpectedly early falling marks a significant tipping point which cannot be reversed. With the loss of summer sea ice there are inevitable further (critical) impacts to come, and harms to be manifested.
You were happy to bet on a global warming crisis. The loss of Arctic sea ice is such crisis, and it’s one of the first indisputable signs of warming, and one of the most spectacular. This is why I have chosen it as my marker of change… and it’s why you are back-pedalling as hard as your sorry arse can manage, because you know that you are either going to be fleeced, or that your capitulation is an explicit acknowledgement that serious warming is occurring but that you can’t bring yuorself to admit it.
I knew that you’d be as gutless as the rest of your ilk. All words and no substance. The cowardice of the Denialati, and one that dares not speak its name. And why? Because deep down they know or at least suspect that they couldn’t be more wrong.
-
You were happy to bet on a global warming crisis. The loss of Arctic sea ice is such crisis, and it’s one of the first indisputable signs of warming, and one of the most spectacular.
But since we don’t disagree that global warming is real, or that it may have “spectacular” signs, the only thing that matters is your belief that it’s a crisis. (Thanks, by the way, for supplying an alternative to “catastrophe” that won’t offend anyone.) I disagree. The rate of sea ice diminution does not determine the degree of crisis. Therefore your proposed bet is a waste of my banker’s time. I want to bet on whether AGW is a major generational disaster, “the greatest moral and economic challenge of our generation” (to quote a former Prime Minister of my country), “the most important question in science,” the end of the world, a serious problem, or something along those lines. How would you be prepared to quantify this?
-
Wow, FFS, give us a straight answer: can a view be “the consensus” even if fewer than 50% of the people in the relevant set agree with it?
-
Brad is absolutely fixated on consensus, but doesn’t allow himself understand that it’s built on the accumulated evidence.
It’s almost as if understanding that detail destroys his whole case, which he’s never going to win here because the readership (with two exceptions) does understand it.
Give it up “Brad”, your pointlessness is dull.
-
Brad is absolutely fixated on consensus
What’s even weirder is that this psycho loon demands proof that there IS a consensus and insists that even if such were forthcoming, it isn’t proof of anything.
How much of a waste of time is that?
-
can a view be “the consensus” even if fewer than 50% of the people in the relevant set agree with it?
Yes.
-
Brad is absolutely fixated on consensus, but doesn’t allow himself understand that it’s built on the accumulated evidence.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t; but only the “accumulated evidence” matters—the continuous and ubiquitous invocation of the extra-scientific concept of a “consensus” can only possibly serve as a distractor therefrom. Why was it introduced into the discourse in the first place, I wonder?
-
but only the “accumulated evidence” matters
Which you refuse to read.
And the accumulated evidence is WHY every national science body agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC reports and is WHY the scientific consensus is there.
For those unable or unwilling to look into the evidence, the scientific consensus is a very useful shorthand to let them know where they should place their bets.
-
Why was it introduced into the discourse in the first place, I wonder?
For those unable or unwilling to look into the evidence, the scientific consensus is a very useful shorthand to let them know where they should place their bets.
-
Or, in other words “Why are YOU right and thousands of scientists who study this wrong?”.
-
Wow, please answer to the best of your bizarro understanding of the English language:
Suppose that 300 randomly-selected widely-published, active climate researchers are asked:
“What is the best-evidenced, most-probable ECS per doubling of CO2?”
Responses:
30% zero degrees—climate change is teh hoax!
20% 2.0C—2.5C
20% 2.5C—3.0C
20% 3.0C—3.5C
10% more than 3.5CWhat is the consensus view of ECS per doubling of CO2 among widely-published, active climate scientists?
-
“Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t;”
There’s no ‘maybe’ about it.
You are clumsily attempting (as per the Luntz playbook) to conflate the everyday meaning of “consensus” – such as that which powers a lynch mob, with the concept of scientific consensus which is what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted.As has been pointed out, most recently by Wow at #18, the value of the scientific consensus is for those of us who can’t do the math or understand the equations that substantiate the science underlying it.
Which of course why followers of Luntz et his trolls are intent on trying to raise doubt about it.
-
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t;
Yet more evidence Bray’s opinion is worthless.
-
Suppose that 300 randomly-selected widely-published, active climate researchers are asked:
Suppose invisible pink unicorns were stealing your socks.
-
Or, in other words “You suppose your answer in your question. In what way is this valid?”
-
Wow, just to jog your memory, you’ve written:
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.
-
Wow, just to jog your memory, you’ve written:
Unlike you, I remember what I wrote.
So your effort there has been wasted.
-
You are clumsily attempting (as per the Luntz playbook) to conflate the everyday meaning of “consensus” – such as that which powers a lynch mob, with the concept of scientific consensus which is what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted.
The distinction in which you place such faith is not supported by any reputable dictionary; even the Wikipedia definition you cited doesn’t mention “what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted”!
You’re on your own there chek.
-
The distinction in which you place such faith is not supported by any reputable dictionary;
Reputable being “Whatever I can find that I like”. I.e. your opinion.
Which, as has already been agreed, is worthless.
-
And the accumulated evidence is WHY every national science body agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC reports and is WHY the scientific consensus is there.
Did every national science body agree with the IPCC’s conclusion about the Himalayan glaciers?
-
Wow. Deja vu.
Tell me, it didn’t work out well for you last time. Are you expecting the same lame bollocks to work this time?
Because that’s insane.
-
“even the Wikipedia definition you cited doesn’t mention… ”
It’s called ‘having the ability to use language to convey meaning’ rather than just parrot it, “Brad”.
-
Lets try this different way to get it through your scull.
What does a typo in WG2′s hundreds of pages about glacier melt have to do with climate sensitivity to CO2?
-
As has been pointed out, most recently by Wow at #18, the value of the scientific consensus is for those of us who can’t do the math or understand the equations that substantiate the science underlying it.
By your own admission you lack the mathematical understanding to know whether “the science underlying it” has been substantiated or not, is that right?
-
Parroting is all Bray can do, the stupid ass.
(see what I did there? pun!)
-
By your own admission you lack the mathematical understanding to know
Sorry? Where is that admission?
Oh, I get it: you’re lying again.
-
Did every national science body expect a work of that size and complexity to be completely and 100% error free?
Nobody does “Brad” – not even Boeing. Just you point scoring morons who didn’t even discover the error yourselves. The science – as advertised – was self-correcting. -
Tim! Tim!–I got a question. Asked it once before even, but never really got an answer.
Bernard J. is again trying to set up (see comment no. 10, above) an international gambling operation on this blog. Is that legal in Australia?
Also, I strongly suspect ol’ BJ has a bad case of welsher-itis, you know. So do you guarantee any lost bets of his that he can’t pay?
And, finally, Tim, if this blog is to succeed as a casino where it failed as a forum for climate science discussions, shouldn’t you dump chek, wow, bill, etc. and replace them with cutie-pie, cock-tail waitresses and all? And, oh by the way, Tim, what do you need BJ for, anyway? I mean, like, I’d just cut that pompous-ass parasite out of the action, like, right now!, if I were you. Just a thought–I mean, like, I know it’s your operation so run it however you want, guy.
You know, Tim, in the States you’ve got to be an American Indian tribe member to own a casino. Did you know that? So how’s it work in Australia? I mean, like, do you have to be an aborigine or something? Are you an aborigine, Tim? I’m pretty sure BJ isn’t how ever much he tries to fake it.
-
“even the Wikipedia definition you cited doesn’t mention… ”
It’s called ‘having the ability to use language to convey meaning’ rather than just parrot it, “Brad”.
Alas, you’re ignoring the language used in your own citation and just imagining concepts which weren’t even conveyed therein:
“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]“
-
Uh, that is proving chek correct, there, Bray, and you wrong.
Did you mean to do that?
-
“The loss of Arctic sea ice is such crisis…”
No, it’s not, bernie. Not in the real world, and certainly not because you say so. There is nil evidence that the ice loss, the summer ice that is, is due to AGW. How can it be? The temperature hasn’t risen a bit the last 16 years and yet you blame AGW for the ice loss. That only make sense in that weird head of yours.
-
No, it’s not, bernie. Not in the real world,
The real world is far more than your mom’s basement, panties.
-
The temperature hasn’t risen a bit the last 16 years
LOL!
-
By your own admission you lack the mathematical understanding to know
Sorry? Where is that admission?
Oh, I get it: you’re lying again.
Since your comment was ambiguous, I courteously suffixed my interpretation with the question (which you’ve chosen to ignore): “is that right?”
If it’s not right, and you’re not among “those of us” who don’t understand the equations that substantiate the science, then why do you keep talking about consensus? It’s valueless to you, according to your own assertion:
As has been pointed out, most recently by Wow at #18, the value of the scientific consensus is for those of us who can’t do the math or understand the equations that substantiate the science underlying it.
-
Since your comment was ambiguous,
Irony: See Brad.
LOL!
-
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get “the science consensus”.
-
There is nil evidence that the ice loss, the summer ice that is, is due to AGW. How can it be? The temperature hasn’t risen a bit the last 16 years and yet you blame AGW for the ice loss. That only make sense in that weird head of yours.
Congratulations PantieZ – you’ve found the flaw in your specious current bit of denierabilia.
Where did the heat to melt those gigatons of ice come from?
Now if you can just manage to apply the ‘weirdness’ part to your own diseased mind, then overcome the cognitive dissonance and native lack of intelligence that precludes you – rather like “Brad” – from understanding the meaning of your own words you may just about make some progress into rational world.But frankly I doubt it.
-
Uh, that is proving chek correct, there, Bray, and you wrong.
Haha… how did I know Wow would consent to chek’s semantic hallucination. How cute. It’s a folie a deux!
Tell me Wow, where is the dictionary definition (reputable or otherwise), or the sentence in the Wikipedia definition, that supports chek’s definition of “scientific consensus” as
what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted
?
Reminder, even Wikipedia doesn’t agree with that:
“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]“
-
Haha… how did I know Wow would consent to chek’s semantic hallucination
Because no matter the reality, you’d think you’d seen it?
That’s generally how the insane keep their hallucinations going.
-
Straight lines again, wow? Really? Haven’t you learnt anything? Sorry, dude, but that really doesn’t cut it. Why don’t you ask pope hansen? He hasn’t seen any rise the last decade, but don’t worry, he will eventually come around too, when he realises that the real world stubbornly refuses to comply with the models.
-
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get “the science consensus”.
It’s great that you recognise “the science consensus” is NOT evidence. You’re learning fast. Well, OK, you’re learning excruciatingly slowly—but I’m trying to be positive here.
However, your assertions are extremely dubious. I’ve looked at reams of evidence.
But what do you mean when you say “the evidence”? Every single climate-science paper ever published? Nobody has looked at that. People have lives.
What is “THE evidence” (in your bizarre idiolect)?
-
Reminder, even Wikipedia doesn’t agree with that:
Oh really? How does it not?
-
chek:
You are clumsily attempting (as per the Luntz playbook) to conflate the everyday meaning of “consensus” – such as that which powers a lynch mob, with the concept of scientific consensus which is what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted.
I hate to break it to you, chek, but even Wow agrees with all normal people that “scientific consensus” merely requires the majority of scientists to share the same view (just like a lynch mob’s consensus is whatever a majority of them decides). As I said, you’re on your own, chek. “Consensus” has no extra-special magical meaning in science that it doesn’t have in architecture, fashion or lynch mobs. This is what Wow said:
“What do you call it when 97% of architects share a certain view on an architectural question? An architectural consensus. What do you call it when 97% of suitmakers share a certain view on a sartorial question? A sartorial consensus. What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?”
A scientific consensus. -
Straight lines again, wow? Really?
That’s what you were talking about.
Your assertion completely false.
You knew that, though: you just don’t give a shit.
-
straight lines
Given that abstract concepts are way over your head pantieZ, this link is likely 100% wasted:
Validating climate models.But at least I tried.
-
Reminder, even Wikipedia doesn’t agree with that:
Oh really? How does it not?
By refraining from suggesting, implying, entailing or endorsing it in any way.
-
It’s great that you recognise “the science consensus” is NOT evidence.
Since this has not been in dispute, why do you pretend here it has?
I get it: you’re lying again!
-
but even Wow agrees with all normal people that “scientific consensus” merely requires the majority of scientists to share the same view
But that isn’t what chek is refuting. Chek is refuting:
You are clumsily attempting (as per the Luntz playbook) to conflate the everyday meaning of “consensus” – such as that which powers a lynch mob, with the concept of scientific consensus which is what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted.
Apparently the meaning of this is entirely beyond your ability to comprehend.
-
By refraining from suggesting, implying, entailing or endorsing it in any way.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
-
It’s great that you recognise “the science consensus” is NOT evidence.
Since this has not been in dispute, why do you pretend here it has?
I get it: you’re lying again!
No, I’m drawing an inescapable logical inference from your very words:
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get “the science consensus”.
Now I know it’s difficult for you to relate to what you were thinking five minutes ago, so let me transport you into your ex-mental model: you were alleging that I don’t pay attention to the evidence, so I should pay attention to the consensus instead.
-
D’oh!
Sorry Wow, I assumed you were disagreeing with me. I forgot that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
-
No, I’m drawing an inescapable logical inference from your very words:
Nope, you’re faking shit up again.
YOU get “the science consensus” because you’ve refused every time to read the science evidence.
-
I don’t pay attention to the evidence, so I should pay attention to the consensus instead.
Yes.
What’s wrong with that?
-
I forgot that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And you’re unaware that you are the stopped clock, right?
-
YOU get “the science consensus” because you’ve refused every time to read the science evidence.
From which comes the inescapable logical inference that you view consensus and evidence as TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. (In case that was in dispute.)
-
From which comes the inescapable logical inference that you view consensus and evidence as TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
And yet again, since nobody has said they were the same thing, why are you pretending that this is news?
Oh, sorry, remember now: lying again, right?
-
chek:
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.
And you were wrong. Here’s the logical proof.
In science, consensus is not AN ARGUMENT, and it is NOT EVIDENCE. Period. (This is so basic, even Wow gets it.)
If consensus “indicated the strength of the argument,” it would be EVIDENCE from which you could make AN ARGUMENT that “the argument” was correct.
In other words, it would be EVIDENCE, and AN ARGUMENT.
But we’ve agreed (and this is so basic, even Wow gets it!) that it’s neither of those things.
So your quoted assertion above must be false.
If you’ve ever heard the phrase reductio ad absurdum and wondered what it meant, well, congratulations: you’ve just become the victim of one.
-
From which comes the inescapable logical inference that you view consensus and evidence as TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
And yet again, since nobody has said they were the same thing, why are you pretending that this is news?
Actually, chek says the consensus IS evidence (see above); my apologies if I got my trolls mixed up.
-
In science, consensus is not AN ARGUMENT, and it is NOT EVIDENCE. Period.
Wrong twice. No, three times.
It is an argument.
It is evidence (of a consensus).
No period.
-
Actually, chek says the consensus IS evidence
Except he doesn’t.
Unless you hallucinate it to be so. Which entirely explains your confused ramblings.
-
If consensus “indicated the strength of the argument,” it would be EVIDENCE from which you could make AN ARGUMENT that “the argument” was correct.
And it does, and you can.
You, specifically, will not, but that’s neither here not there.
-
Wow:
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get “the science consensus”.
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence. You’re learning fast. Well, OK, you’re learning excruciatingly slowly—but I’m trying to be positive here.
-
“Brad” lying and wilfull misunderstanding reflects only on you, not those you seek to misrepresent. What you imagine you’re achieving here is now beyond me.
-
Whom have I misunderstood, chek?
-
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence.
It’s not a cat either.
Do you wish to thank everyone for agreeing it isn’t a cat as well?
Oh, and it is evidence that the evidence the consensus relies upon is reliable.
-
Whom have I misunderstood, chek?
Yes.
And me.
The IPCC,
BBD,
BJ.
Reality.
Words.
Science.
Philosophy.
Maths.
And many, many more.
-
Bray is just trying to justify his pay.
Think of a spam list marketer: doesn’t matter IN THE LEAST if there’s any change by their efforts, all that is needed is the effort.
-
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence.
It’s not a cat either.
Do you wish to thank everyone for agreeing it isn’t a cat as well?
Oh, and it is evidence that the evidence the consensus relies upon is reliable.
Ah, so consensus IS evidence then?
LOL
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get “the science consensus”.
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence. You’re learning fast. Well, OK, you’re learning excruciatingly slowly—but I’m trying to be positive here.
-
chek, you seem hurt:
“Brad” lying and wilfull misunderstanding reflects only on you, not those you seek to misrepresent. What you imagine you’re achieving here is now beyond me.
I certainly hope you haven’t run off crying just because I was mean to you. How will intellectual bullies learn if you always wuss out? So tell me: how did I misunderstand you?
-
Whom have I misunderstood, chek?
Answered by Wow.
You’re learning fast.
And you’re learning nothing whatsoever.
You’ve been misplaced “Brad”. You should be on Yahoo forums or somesuch dazzling and confusing morons at PantieZ level with your schtick. -
The rate of sea ice diminution does not determine the degree of crisis.
Once again you are twisting my words to suit your own narrative of dissembling ambiguity.
I didn’t say that “[t]he rate of sea ice diminution” determines the degree of crisis. I said that the loss of sea ice volume was a good proxy for warming.
And the magnitude of this loss (a volumetric measure, not a rate measure) that has already been realised (and will continue to be realised) is engendering an ecological crisis. The rate at which it occurs simply means that we will see the crisis manifest in the coming decade or several, but it is not the determinant of the crisis. In case you’re still not getting it, volume and rate are qualitatively different measures. Your confabulation is a strawman, a logical fallacy.
You’re a great one for arguing semantics, but you are not averse to tossing that linguistic precision aside when it suits your own ends. That smells to me of rank hypocrisy.
And also of cowardice. By any ecological measure, the loss of summer Arctic sea ice is a crisis. If you want to avoid that admission, fine, knock yourself out, but don’t expect anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size (which excludes PentaxZ, mike, and Chameleon for starters) to be blind to the fact that you’re the naked emperor of a realm populated by knuckle-draggers, nose-pickers and sundry other numpties.
I’m happy to leave it at this point. You can persist in picking your nits as much as you want, but it’s obvious that you have nothing more for your sling than sour grapes and snot balls.
-
Ah, so consensus IS evidence then?
Evidence, definition:ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Verb
Be or show evidence of.
Synonyms
noun. proof – testimony – witness – attestation – obviousness
verb. prove – show – testify – demonstrate – evince – manifestWords. You only understand them in your own “special” way.
-
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence
Yet more evidence of insanity.
-
Mike:
Also, I strongly suspect ol’ BJ has a bad case of welsher-itis, you know. So do you guarantee any lost bets of his that he can’t pay? ,/blockquote>
This just goes to show that you don’t read the links. You argue from ignorance.
An explicit part of my wager was that both sides submit their cash to a third party in advance of the bet being completed, and that the third party be paid for the responsibility.
And your comments about aborigines are despicable.
I’d call you a grub, mike, but grubs are much nicer entities. The same with arse-holes – it’s tempting to refer to you as such, but at least arse-holes are useful.
-
Bah.
Mike:
Also, I strongly suspect ol’ BJ has a bad case of welsher-itis, you know. So do you guarantee any lost bets of his that he can’t pay?
This just goes to show that you don’t read the links. You argue from ignorance.
An explicit part of my wager was that both sides submit their cash to a third party in advance of the bet being completed, and that the third party be paid for the responsibility.
And your comments about aborigines are despicable.
I’d call you a grub, mike, but grubs are much nicer entities. The same with arse-holes – it’s tempting to refer to you as such, but at least arse-holes are useful.
-
And have a purpose.
-
Bernard J, I really didn’t mean any offence by the word “rate,” you’re reading vastly too much into it. Instead of “rate”, read, “the EXTENT of sea ice loss [does not correlate to crisis-ness, blah blah blah].” Better?
My point remains that sea ice loss does not necessarily tell us anything about the claim that there’s a crisis—what I’m much more interested in betting on is the core thesis of the climate movement, that AGW is a net disaster for the planet. How do you think we might frame a bet on that?
I’ve already got a bet running with someone else about this, but the stakes are a bit lower, and we’re good friends, so the terms are correspondingly more subjective than you and I would probably need.
So I’m open to suggestions: how could we objectively detect in, say, 5 years’ time whether the anti-carbon-dioxide-emissions movement was on to something or not? In terms of civilizational impacts?
-
My point remains that sea ice loss does not necessarily tell us anything about the claim that there’s a crisis
And the Boxing Day Tsunami wasn’t a problem for you either.
Likewise no northern summer ice won’t be a problem for you down there in Australia.
However, the world is much more than your mom’s basement.
-
whether the anti-carbon-dioxide-emissions movement was on to something or not?
No such movement exists.
-
Wow,
straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
This will be fun!
-
Yes.
-
This will be repetitive and boring….
-
Likewise no northern summer ice won’t be a problem for you down there in Australia.
However, the world is much more than your mom’s basement.
You really are culturally insular, aren’t you Wow? In Australia we don’t have moms, and basements never really took off here either.
-
You really are culturally insular, aren’t you Wow?
Yet more evidence of the internal world you exclusively inhabit.
-
In Australia we don’t have moms
OK, so you’re claiming all Australians are the result of asexual reproduction???
-
BJ,
I am laughing at you again.
What possesses you to write such sneering insults?
My IQ is just peachy thanks.
What has your assessment of my intelligence quotient got to do with your attempt to lay a wager with Brad?
BTW, you have misquoted yourself re sea ice loss
-
My IQ is just peachy thanks.
Indeed. The idiot is always blissfully happy with that state of affairs.
-
What possesses you to write such sneering insults?
What possesses you to write such drivel that you deserve nothing other than sneering insults, chubby?
-
LOL … ok Wow… flashback:
I said:
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence.
and you replied:
Since this has not been in dispute, why do you pretend here it has?
Later you even added:
It’s not a cat either.
Do you wish to thank everyone for agreeing it isn’t a cat as well?
LOL… thank you Wow, for agreeing consensus isn’t evidence OR a cat!
Now we’re back to me saying:
Wow,
straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
and you saying:
Yes.
You really are the gift that keeps on giving, Wow!
-
Bernard J, what the hell’s your problem?
don’t expect anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size (which excludes PentaxZ, mike, and Chameleon for starters) to be blind to the fact that you’re the naked emperor of a realm populated by knuckle-draggers, nose-pickers and sundry other numpties.
Let’s hurry up and formalise a real bet about the “global warming crisis“… I can’t wait to part such an unpleasant troll from its precious gold.
-
Uh huh.
You had been talking about the scientific evidence.
Which nobody had been saying that the scientific evidence was the scientific consensus.
Then you asked if it was evidence.
It is, however, evidence.
Just not the scientific evidence the conclusion of the scientific consensus was based on.
Words.
Have meaning.
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013
February 15, 2013