Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    And this is the case since even though you’d had your answer about the consensus and scientific evidence, you demanded a strict yes or no answer to another question.

    Which would make sense ONLY if they were not the same question.

    But now, having demanded a yes or no answer, you pretend it was the same question you already had the answer to before you asked it.

    How boring.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Let’s hurry up and formalise a real bet about the “global warming crisis

    You have one.

    But you refused it.

  3. #3 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Weird.

    Bray thinks that the fact of a consensus is not evidence of a consensus and that there can never be any evidence of a consensus because he mistakenly believes that consensus is not evidence of a consensus.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Wow, there is no wiggle room. LOL… Give it up!! I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science, and you contradicted yourself. Point blank. :-)

  5. #5 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    “Wow, there is no wiggle room.”

    Which is a pity because you’re wiggling in it.

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is that evidence or not?

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Savor the panic, gentle readers:

    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.


    “Credibility…. Running out. No time for. Complete sentences!”

  7. #7 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science,

    Nope, this is what you asked:

    is consensus evidence?

  8. #8 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is that evidence or not?

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

  9. #9 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    answer: yes or no.

  10. #10 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Come on, I answered yours quickly.

    Not able to?

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Wow, your lies will not avail you in the House of Brad:

    I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science,

    Nope, this is what you asked:

    is consensus evidence?

    Nope, this is what I asked:

    Wow,
    straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
    This will be fun!

  12. #12 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

    Or can’t you answer a simple yes or no question?

  13. #13 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    is consensus evidence?

    Nope, this is what I asked:

    Wow,
    straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
    This will be fun!

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Ah, Wow, you’re priceless. :-)

    As you’ve already confirmed:

    no, it is NOT scientific evidence. It tells us nothing about nature.

    FFS! LOL

  15. #15 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    So are you too busy masturbating to completion or will you answer yes or no to this:

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

  16. #16 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    As you’ve already confirmed:

    You are too busy masturbating to completion to answer the question:

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Why did you demand the answer to a question you now insist you already had an answer to plain-as-day?

    Insane?

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Wow, as everyone can see, I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science.

    This is what I wrote:

    Wow,
    straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
    This will be fun!

    You’re really incapable of quitting when you’re behind, aren’t you? :-)

  19. #19 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    I notice that you seem very “excited” at the moment.

    Make sure to wash your hands afterwards.

    Then answer the question instead of avoiding it:

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Wow, as everyone can see, I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science.

    Apparently twice.

    So why did you insist you need a second answer?

    And as everyone can see, you will not answer my question, will you.

  21. #21 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Why did you demand the answer to a question you now insist you already had an answer to plain-as-day?

    Because I knew your position on it was flipping faster than a slinky and it was such fun proving it! :-)

  22. #22 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Bit dim, aren’t you, Brad.

    Not bright.

    A bit slow.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Because I knew your position on it was flipping faster than a slinky and it was such fun proving it

    Rubbish.

    The conversation had been whether the scientific consensus was the same as the scientific evidence.

    You then asked whether the consensus was evidence.

    Even in science, yes it is.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Er, dude, I answered it several masturbation references ago!

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-18/#comment-149241

    ROFLMAO
    ;-) :-) ;-) :-)

  25. #25 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Er, dude, no you didn’t.

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

    Answer was not yes or no.

  26. #26 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Not too smart, are you, Brad.

    But you’re excited because mining has paid off, just like it did for pappy.

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Let’s hurry up and formalise a real bet about the “global warming crisis

    You have one.

    But you refused it.

    No, we had some boring BS about sea-ice volume. Can you not read my clearly-explained objection to that topic to Bernard? It’s on the previous page. You may not have seen it because you were too busy pwning yourself by being the John Kerry of consensus-as-evidence! LOL

    Ah Wow… how can I stay mad at you when you give me such hilarity…

    ;-)

  28. #28 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    It doesn’t take this long to answer yes or no.

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

    Answer yes or no.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, we had some boring BS about sea-ice volume

    Which is your opinion. The “boring BS” is your opinion.

    Which we have all agreed is worthless.

    Anyway, still waiting for the yes or no answer to

    Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.

    Is it scientifically evidence or not?

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    To answer your question again, I reiterate my previous, clear-as-day response:

    No, it is NOT scientific evidence.

    It tells us nothing about nature.

    How much clearer can I make this, Wow? Would you like me to repeat the answer again?

    (You’ll notice my amazing ability to believe the same thing from one minute to the next—no matter how many times you ask it, I’m not going to contradict myself!)

    Hehehe ;-) … ah Wow

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    To answer your question again, I reiterate my previous, clear-as-day response:

    No, it is NOT scientific evidence.

    It tells us nothing about nature.

    How much clearer can I make this, Wow? Would you like me to repeat the answer again?

    (You’ll notice my amazing ability to believe the same thing from one minute to the next—no matter how many times you ask it, I’m not going to contradict myself!)

    Hehehe ;-) … ah Wow

  32. #32 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    You can even manage to type that with one hand.

    So why aren’t you?

  33. #33 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    To answer your question again, I reiterate my previous, clear-as-day response:

    No, it is NOT scientific evidence.

    Is your answer “no”?

    Yes or no are the answers I’m asking for. And you’re not giving me either yes or no.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    No, it ISN’T scientific evidence. It doesn’t tell us anything about nature. Sorry Wow. Hate to break it to you.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Because if your answer is “no” then you are wrong.

    You can count in this physical world the number of national science academies.

    You can view in this physical world their statements.

    And you can repeat these data gathering exercises.

    That is evidence.

  36. #36 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, it ISN’T scientific evidence.

    It’s entirely evidence.

    You can read the statements. The statement is entirely falsifiable.

    It doesn’t tell us anything about nature

    It does.

    It tells us about the statements of the national scientific bodies.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Even weirder is that Bray had previously wibbled on insanely about having done philosophy.

    Except there “blue” as a colour is ENTIRELY from consensus.

    quale, they call the perception.

    And perception is entirely natural. Otherwise eyes would be Proof Of God’s Existence.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    So can you rebut any of the counters to your insane insistence that consensus is not evidence of a consensus?

  39. #39 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Nothing to frot, Brad?

  40. #40 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    In denier world, a consensus is not evidence of a consensus because… well, you’ll work on that…

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    So can you rebut any of the counters to your insane insistence that consensus is not evidence of a consensus?

    You really don’t need me here, do you Wow? You can just imagine me writing things and then rebutt the hallucinations. OK, amuse yourself—night all.

    PS I had a great time humiliating you, Wow. Same thing tomorrow?

  42. #42 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    So are you saying that a consensus IS evidence of a consensus?

  43. #43 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Or are you refusing to say until you’ve had a word with your lawyer?

  44. #44 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Or if you’re saying that a consensus is NOT evidence of a consensus, then in what way was I hallucinating anything?

  45. #45 pentaxZ
    February 15, 2013

    “Straight lines again, wow? Really?
    That’s what you were talking about.”

    Sorry to break it to you, wow, but I most certanly did not. By the way, have you checked with hansen yet?

    “Given that abstract concepts are way over your head pantieZ, this link is likely 100% wasted:
    Validating climate models.
    But at least I tried.”

    Well, chek, to this day, not a single climate model has been validated. Not one. Claming that makes you a liar. Why do you think the people playing with these computer games call the results projections and not forecasts? You stupid fuck face.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    Well, chek, to this day, not a single climate model has been validated.

    Strawman.

    Whatever: How reliable are climate models?.

    You fail again you silly person.

    Now where is that crossing sweeper?

  47. #47 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Sorry to break it to you, wow, but I most certanly did not

    If you’re always sorry about telling lies, why not stop telling lies?

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-17/#comment-149162

    The temperature hasn’t risen a bit the last 16 years

  48. #48 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    By the way, have you checked with hansen yet?

    Yup.

    He figured a 3.4C per doubling for the median emissions scenario.

    Turned out with the actual emissions that happened, a sensitivity of 3.2C per doubling would have been spot on.

  49. #49 pentaxZ
    February 15, 2013

    “Yup.

    He figured a 3.4C per doubling for the median emissions scenario.”

    So predictabel, wow. Dodging the topic, that’s one of your trades. And another is of course lying. And yet again, straight lines proves nothing. Perhaps in your head, but not in the real world.

    Strawman, lionel? How can the truth be a strawman? Please, inform the world, where can we find a validated climate model? So I have to educate you too. You know, the thing is that referring to scs, rc, tamino, desmoblog and other zealot sites isn’t a valid argument in any way. Heavily biased, alarmistic blogs with censorship as their main tool for discussion just doesn’t cut it. Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot, you’re a fuck face too.

  50. #50 Wow
    February 15, 2013
    He figured a 3.4C per doubling for the median emissions scenario.”

    So predictabel, wow. Dodging the topic

    Since the demand was “have you checked with hansen yet?”, no topic at all, how can I dodge “the topic”?

    And yet again, straight lines proves nothing.

    They prove your statement about temperatures wrong.

    Please, inform the world, where can we find a validated climate model

    He already showed you. The blue underlined thing is called “a hyperlink”.

    Click on it.

  51. #51 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    I forgot, you’re a fuck face too.

    From the whining arse-vomit who complained “no need for bad language”…

  52. #52 Lionel A
    February 15, 2013

    Strawman, lionel? How can the truth be a strawman?…..Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot, you’re a fuck face too.

    You were offering a strawman argument which had nothing to do with the validity or otherwise, of any climate models because that is not how things work.

    What we find is that those climate models used to represent the state of climate and the science which include all forcing factors run fairly close to projections and within the ranges given. This you would have discovered if you had bothered to educate yourself before going out into the playground leaving behind a string of filth – emphasised so that nobody misses it.

    Now, where is that crossing sweeper?

  53. #53 chek
    February 15, 2013

    We’ll have to forgive PantieZ outbreak, as I suspect he’s having a breakdown trying to assimilate where the heat came from giving the record Arctic melt this summer with his latest beloved ‘no warming for 16 years’ meme.

    Given that even Cardinal Hansen and Algore together couldn’t conscript enough ‘activists’ to cart it away in wheelbarrows, someone must be lying to him.

    And the general first response, especially with psychos, is to turn on the source of the uncomfortable information. Sorry arsed little cretin that he is.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Or all those temperature trends not going the way he claims they do.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Someone’s words on science and consensus:

    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

  56. #56 chek
    February 15, 2013

    Or all those temperature trends not going the way he claims they do.

    Don’t forget though that ‘lines’ mean nothing to him.
    But the ice pack….. someone’s been lying, and it ain’t the Arctic.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    There’s very little that panties can work out what it means.

    But it’ll certainly CLAIM a straight line of “no warming for 16 years” then claim “Straight lines mean nothing (if they’re not saying “AGW is a scam”)”.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    LOL… Wow:

    Someone’s words on science and consensus:

    “There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.”

    Whoever came up with this turgid word-salad is not a scientist, that’s for sure.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Was it Gore?

  60. #60 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Whoever came up with this turgid word-salad is not a scientist

    Ah, your opinion again.

    As already noted: worthless.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    So you agree that a consensus is evidence of a consensus?

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Whoever came up with this turgid word-salad is not a scientist

    Ah, your opinion again.

    No—a syllogistic deduction. No scientist could possibly have said that. Go ahead, end our suspense, what whackjob are you quoting?

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Here’s a laugh-out-loud category error:

    Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence

    Wow, you need better sources!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

  64. #64 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Here’s a laugh-out-loud category error:

    Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence

    Yeah, it being funny is what..?

    That’s right: your opinion.

    Really, do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

  65. #65 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No—a syllogistic deduction. No scientist could possibly have said that.

    Nope, your deduction.

    Based on your OPINION that it couldn’t have possibly been said by a scientist.

    You are, in fact, wrong.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    You may want to read up on what consensus means.

    You could use synonyms like “consilience” which is commonly used too by real scientists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

  67. #67 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Science denialism (for example, climate change denial) is often based on a misunderstanding of this property of consilience. A denialist may promote small gaps not yet accounted for by the consilient evidence, or small amounts of evidence contradicting a conclusion without accounting for the pre-existing strength resulting from consilience. More generally, to insist that all evidence converge precisely with no deviations would be naïve falsificationism,[9] equivalent to considering a single contrary result to falsify a theory when another explanation, such as equipment malfunction or misinterpretation of results, is much more likely.[9][10]

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    “No—a syllogistic deduction. No scientist could possibly have said that.”

    Nope, your deduction.

    Based on your OPINION that it couldn’t have possibly been said by a scientist.

    You are, in fact, wrong.

    Bullshit I’m wrong. Any self-respecting scientist would shave his / her tongue off, piece by piece, rather than utter the abortive vomit you quoted.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Indeed your earlier whines about how nobody could manage to re-create Mann’s results is an appeal to the necessity of consensus.

    If you can’t agree on the evidence, then the evidence is weak.

    Indeed that has been your entire tiresome tirade.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Bullshit. I’m wrong

    FTFY.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Bullshit. I’m wrong

    FTFY.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Any self-respecting scientist

    Again, only your opinion.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.

    Note: if consensus is not scientific, why should others be able to reproduce your results?

    All that can result in is an agreement on the results being correct.

    Which is a consensus.

    Which you insist is anti-scientific.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Confirmation

    Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[67]

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    You may want to read up on what consensus means.

    It means majority opinion. Don’t get me started—I spent hours explaining this to someone I assume was moderately intellectually handicapped yesterday.

    You could use synonyms like “consilience” which is commonly used too by real scientists.

    Yes you could, but then you’d actually be saying something somewhat coherent, because “consilience” is NOT A SYNONYM of “consensus.” (Seriously, what cheap-ass dictionary are you using, Wow?)

    Consilience and consensus are not synonyms, Wow.

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Indeed your earlier [pointed remarks] about how nobody could manage to re-create Mann’s results is an appeal to the necessity of consensus.

    No, it’s an appeal to the necessity of replicability.

    You somehow remind me of this poor person I spent hours trying to educate yesterday.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, it’s an appeal to the necessity of replicability.

    And if you can replicate it?

  78. #78 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Consilience and consensus are not synonyms, Wow.

    They are related subjects.

    Consilience is the agreement of various lines of data.

    Consensus is the agreement of various people.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Why do you want to replicate someone else’s results?

  80. #80 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Don’t get me started—I spent hours explaining this to someone I assume was moderately intellectually handicapped yesterday.

    The mental handicap was on the other side of the conversation, Bray.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    why should others be able to reproduce your results?

    Slow down—others should be able to replicate your experiment. The results may or may not be the same as you found. If they are, the finding becomes more certain.

    All that can result in is an agreement on the results being correct.

    No, it could go the other way too.

    You could really benefit from an elementary book about how science works.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Shall I tell you why?

    To find out if you agree with the conclusion.

    Now what is that called..?

  83. #83 mike
    February 15, 2013

    Bernard J,

    Hey BJ! Just saw your latest comment directed at moi. Some real pompous-ass zingers you let fly in your last there, BJ! You really get off on that phony-hyped, sanctimonious, judgmental-dork, high-dudgeon, hive-bozo business of yours, don’t you guy? Not the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I respect, BJ, that you are a master craftsman in that line of lefty, agit-prop flim-flam.

    Let’s see now. I think the highlight of your comment was a your high-drama denunciation of my references to Aborigines as “despicable.”

    Despicable?–really, BJ? Please forgive me, but I’m not likely to be convinced by your judgement in this matter on the sole basis of your one-liner, drive-by say-so, thank you very much. On the other hand, if you can show me the “despicability” of my relevant words, then I’m ready to stand corrected and offer appropriate apologies. To help guide your efforts there, if you care to pursue the matter, I note:

    -Since you, BJ, are using this blog to set-up an international, internet gambling operation, I considered your enterprise and your high-pressure sales pitch on its behalf, using my American frame of reference–and, perhaps, I may have made some over-hasty assumptions there in doing so.

    -In America, a Native American heritage is a source of pride and my experience is that anyone with a trace of American Indian blood will readily boast of it (family lore has it that Comanche blood proudly flows in my veins, as it happens). By analogy, I assumed the same for an Aboriginal heritage in the Australian context. Was I wrong there, BJ? Is the suggestion that an Australian might have one or more Aborigine ancestors considered “despicable” by people like you, BJ?

    -In America, in many locales, casino gambling is only legal on Indian reservations. The general feeling there–even among the palest of pale-faces–is delight that the Indians “won” one this time. And the income from the gaming businesses run by Indian tribes can produce quite a handsome income for the tribal members. Therefore, I wondered and inquired if gambling wasn’t run in Australia by Aborigines along similar lines. So, BJ, was my inquiry, in this regard, “despicable? And, if so, how so, BJ?

    -The world is filled with scumbag hustlers, BJ–the CAGW con-job and the eco-trash scamsters attracted to it, come to mind, for example. And, in that regard, the American experience encompasses some unfortunate episodes in which individuals claiming to have Native American status have been unmasked as imposters. Indeed, two leading academics (one a former Harvard professor, no less), as examples, have had their status in this area very much called into question after decades of profiting from the affirmative action hiring and promotion advantages of their dubious, Indian ancestry claims. Others have likewise pitched a falsely claimed Indian heritage in order to cash in on the lucrative income benefits of one or another tribal casino operation. So, within that context, was my cautionary wonderment, BJ, about business-related, fraudulent claims of Aboriginal heritage, that might be attached to your “bookie” operation, really “despicable?” Again, if so, how so?

    A couple other quick ones:

    -”Tim” doesn’t seem inclined to guarantee your bets, BJ, being offered on his very own blog, which speaks louder than words that he no more trusts your “third party”, “Murphy Man” assurances that you’re “good” for your lost bets than moi. Prudence not “cowardice” at play here, guy.

    -So, BJ, you avoided one particular question I posed in that previous comment of mine with which you, otherwise, took such histrionic exception–namely, my inquiry as to the legality of your gaming business. So please inform us, BJ, as to the address and phone number/e-mail of your place of business and show your certain compliance with all laws governing international, internet gambling operations from that locale via an Australian based blog. And-what the heck!–while you’re at it, BJ, you might even throw-in proofs that you have all required business licenses and permits, proof of your business’ creditworthy financial status, a demonstration that all your business-related taxes and fees have been paid, and a police-issued, background-check document affirming that you are not running some sort of “front” operation for this, that, or another organized criminal syndicate or terrorist network.

    I mean, like, this is a “quality” blog, BJ, and so I’m sure you’ll be glad to pony up and flash your gambling operation’s bona fides with all the hyper-active hoop-lah we’ve come to expect, for example, from Jeff’ with his cheer-leader-with-pom-poms pumps of his hot-dog, I’m-such-a-smarty-pants credentials . Right, BJ?

  84. #84 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Slow down—others should be able to replicate your experiment.

    Why?

    If they are, the finding becomes more certain.

    Except according to you, the don’t.

    All you have now are two people who agree on something.

    According to you, that is merely a consensus. And according again to you, that is not proof of anything.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, it could go the other way too.

    But then someone has to replicate to see if your version is repeatable.

    Which now means you have a consensus of 2 to 1 against.

    But you claim that a consensus is no proof of anything.

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    If you’re right, you need your experiment to be replicated, in order to confirm that your finding wasn’t a fluke.

  87. #87 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    If you’re right, you need your experiment to be replicated, in order to confirm that your finding wasn’t a fluke.

    If that happens, then you have one other person agreeing with you.

    In consensus.

    Which you insist is not proof of anything.

    So therefore the repetition of the experiment has proven nothing in your terms.

    So it was a waste of time.

    Except you insist that it isn’t.

    How can that be?

  88. #88 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    If your results are confirmed, that means that there is a growing consensus that your results are valid.

    But you insist this cannot be science.

    So why are confirming results necessary?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    *Sigh.*

    No, Wow, it’s not about increasing the number of people who agree with your finding, it’s about increasing the amount of experimental data that supports your finding.

  90. #90 chek
    February 15, 2013

    Any self-respecting scientist ..

    Oh look, yet another tell.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    If you’re right, you need your experiment to be replicated, in order to confirm that your finding wasn’t a fluke.

    If that happens, then you have one other person agreeing with you.

    In consensus.

    Which you insist is not proof of anything.

    Of course it’s not proof of anything—it’s not even EVIDENCE of anything in science.

    But you’ve succeeded in generating twice as much experimental data as you had before, and therefore twice as much actual, physical, natural, scientific evidence. Geddit?

  92. #92 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, Wow, it’s not about increasing the number of people who agree with your finding

    So someone will write a paper and do work that confirms your results and won’t agree that your findings are correct????

    it’s about increasing the amount of experimental data that supports your finding.

    Except you didn’t want that with MBH98. You demanded no new data.

    But all this replication that happened was no more than the original. It could be flawed too. The only person who knows if it is or not is the author.

    So anyone else wanting to see if the original conclusion was right has to do the replication for themselves.

    But if they do that and agree, then anyone who hasn’t yet done the replication of the work only sees three people now agreeing.

    All they (and you) see is a growing consensus.

  93. #93 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Of course it’s not proof of anything—it’s not even EVIDENCE of anything in science.

    Therefore the fact that two people have now produced a paper and now agree with each other is not proof of anything.

    According to you.

    So why did they bother?

  94. #94 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Worse, after two papers, anyone needing to find the evidence will have to replicate TWO papers to find out the evidence under your insane theory.

    And if they should find out they agree, then the next person has to replicate THREE PAPERS!!!

    So in your world, why on earth is replication of results necessary?

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    chek:

    “Any self-respecting scientist ..”

    Oh look, yet another tell.

    Try this: “Any scientist ..”

    Put it this way, Wow’s quote was so incoherent that my list of suspected sources is quite short and includes Gore and Lewandowsky and probably a couple of other jokers I haven’t thought of.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    But you’ve succeeded in generating twice as much experimental data as you had before

    No you haven’t.

    Two people generated experimental data, but in your fruit-loop-world, anyone else wanting to find evidence would have to replicate the two papers themselves.

    All they see is that two people have agreed with each other.

    A consensus of two.

    And if this third person agrees, then three papers, and a consensus of three.

    So therefore, according to you, absolutely no proof has been found for anyone else.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Worse, after two papers, anyone needing to find the evidence will have to replicate TWO papers to find out the evidence under your insane theory.

    Er, no they won’t.

  98. #98 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    quote was so incoherent that my list of suspected sources is quite short and includes Gore and Lewandowsky

    Hmmm.

    Lewandowsky is far more a scientist than you, Bray.

    And you’re still wrong.

  99. #99 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Er, no they won’t.

    Er, yes they will.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    All they see is that two people have agreed with each other.

    A consensus of two.

    No, what they see is that two (then three, then four…) runs of the EXPERIMENT agreed with each other. The more empirical confirmation you get, the harder it is to explain as a fluke.