Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    All THEY see are two papers they don’t know are correct and two people who now are in consensus with each other.

    According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.

    But then if they find themselves in consensus with the other two, then you have a consensus between three people now. And three papers you haven’t checked are right.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, what they see is that two (then three, then four…) runs of the EXPERIMENT agreed with each other

    Since they weren’t there when the EXPERIMENTS were done, no they haven’t seen two then three then four runs of the experiment.

    So all they see are two then three then four … people agreeing with each other.

    Which is a consensus.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    C’mon, we’re dying to know who this non-scientist you quoted is. What on earth is the point of an anonymous quote? Clearly I’m right, which is why you’ve gone all coy.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    C’mon, we’re dying to know who this non-scientist you quoted is. What on earth is the point of an anonymous quote? Clearly I’m right, which is why you’ve gone all coy.

  5. #5 chek
    February 15, 2013

    Try this: “Any scientist ..”

    Try this – it’s a standard denier claim frequently touted by denier non-scientists pulling an appeal to an authority they know nothing about. And nothing you’ve ever said leads me to believe you’re any different to the know-nothings who pull that one out of their arses.

  6. #6 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Clearly I’m right,

    Based on no evidence????

    Really, you don’t seem to care all that much about evidence. Seems as long as you’re making blank statements, lack of evidence is entirely fine.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Clearly, you are wrong, Bray. You have no evidence to support your conjecture. Yet still you make it.

    Yet I, with the evidence to assert whether it was said by a scientist or not, say you are wrong.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    If it were a scientist you would have named them by now.

    You’re really too easy.

    Next.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    If it were a scientist you would have named them by now.

    What causal mechanism maintains that scientific law?

    I haven’t named them.

    But they are a scientist.

    The evidence indicates you are wrong.

    But you don’t do evidence, do you. You only demand it. Then ignore it.

  10. #10 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    And how do you determine a “real scientist”?

  11. #11 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Someone who has a BSc?

    That’s by definition a scientist.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    I haven’t named them.

    But they are a scientist.

    No they’re not. The quote was so scientifically illiterate, they’re unmistakeably the words of someone who does not work in science. End of.

  13. #13 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No they’re not.

    Yes they are.

    The quote was so scientifically illiterate

    How would you know?

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Someone who has a BSc?

    That’s by definition a scientist.

    So I’m a scientist by definition, am I?

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Someone who has a BSc?

    That’s by definition a scientist.

    So I’m a scientist by definition, am I?

  16. #16 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    An example of how you haven’t a clue about science is this:

    If it were a scientist you would have named them by now.

    What causal mechanism maintains that scientific law?

    You haven’t answered, only insisted this law is irrefutable proof that the quote is not from a scientist.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    So I’m a scientist by definition, am I?

    That’s what I’m asking.

    What defines to you a scientist. “Has a BSc” is a fine enough answer.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    What causal mechanism maintains that scientific law?

    Not that it’s really a law, but in short: human behaviour.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Not that it’s really a law, but in short: human behaviour.

    Except human behavior does not mean that because I haven’t said who it was it cannot be a scientist.

    Go on, show me evidence that this is the case or that, yet again, is only your worthless opinion.

  20. #20 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    What defines to you a scientist. “Has a BSc” is a fine enough answer.

    No. It’s way too easy to forget all the scientific habits of thought after you graduate unless you do something to stay scientific—ideally, get a postgrad degree and work in science.

    And besides, you’d be amazed how little BSc students are taught about the scientific method in the first place.

  21. #21 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    ideally, get a postgrad degree and work in science.

    So work as a lecturer in a science department of a university would be fine?

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Lewandowsky, for example, doesn’t understand the scientific method (as I pointed out to him on his blog)—and he’s a Professor in a semi-scientific field.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    you’d be amazed how little BSc students are taught about the scientific method in the first place.

    Not compared to you saying you have a BS. See.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    So work as a lecturer in a science department of a university would be fine?

    No, not necessarily. Nonscientists commonly do that, including at my university.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Lewandowsky, for example, doesn’t understand the scientific method

    You say so, but he’s performed precisely what was needed to accord to the scientific method.

    He’s even managed to replicate his results.

    This, once again, is entirely your opinion and is, even compared to your normal fare, worthless.

    and he’s a Professor in a semi-scientific field.

    MmmHmmm.

    Well defined sciency term there, Bray!

    And nobody would ever need the scientific method unless they were in a hard definitely science discipline, right?

    I mean, someone who has a “philospophy of science” degree will have NO CLUE what science is, since it’s only a semi-science discipline!

  26. #26 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, not necessarily

    But can be.

    So how do you tell?

  27. #27 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    (as I pointed out to him on his blog)

    Oh yeah, that’s some sciencey proof there!

    Yawn.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Not compared to you saying you have a BS.

    Ah, that’s what they’re called in most of the world, I think. “BSc” narrows down the quoted idiot by country.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    You’ve made a lot of claims and had absolutely no evidence to support them, Bray.

    Worthless opinion, each claim.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    I mean, someone who has a “philospophy of science” degree will have NO CLUE what science is, since it’s only a semi-science discipline!

    Is that even a degree? I would have thought it came under an Arts degree.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    BSc” narrows down the quoted idiot by country.

    So now you admit not only is your opinion worthless, but you’re also an idiot.

    I guess we have consensus here.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Is that even a degree?

    You claimed it was.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Since they weren’t there when the EXPERIMENTS were done, no they haven’t seen two then three then four runs of the experiment.

    So all they see are two then three then four … people agreeing with each other.

    Which is a consensus.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    No, not necessarily

    But can be.

    So how do you tell?

    Do they work (do research) in science? That’s a good starting point.

    There is no way the person you quoted works in science.

  35. #35 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Do they work (do research) in science? That’s a good starting point.

    So doing research isn’t enough?

    Come on, how do you tell?

  36. #36 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    There is no way the person you quoted works in science.

    Is how you can tell based on your insistence that someone who says what I quoted can’t be a scientist?

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

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Is that even a degree?

    You claimed it was.

    No, I said I studied it at university. My bachelor’s degree does not say “B. Phil. of Sc.”.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    No, I said I studied it at university.

    So you didn’t do science then at university.

  39. #39 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    So doing research isn’t enough?

    Of course not. Most research is not scientific. Science is special.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Hell, if that’s all you need: there’s no way you’re a scientist, Bray, not with the bollocks you’ve spouted on this blog.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Science is special.

    So you can’t say how you decide who is a scientist or not.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    If science is special, maybe this is as close as you get to scientist, Bray:

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

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    So you didn’t do science then at university.

    Yes I did. I have a BA and a BSc. In each degree you do a major and a number of minors. So you don’t just study “one thing” per degree.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Yes I did. I have a BA and a BSc.

    No, you didn’t.

    If you had, you would have said what it was by now.

    Apparently, this is human behaviour.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Is how you can tell based on your insistence that someone who says what I quoted can’t be a scientist?

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

    No, the reason I can tell is that the febrile thinking on display in that quote is incompatible with doing scientific work.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    If you had, you would have said what it was by now.

    If I had, I would have said what what was?

  47. #47 Wow
    February 15, 2013
  48. #48 chek
    February 15, 2013

    The point here “Brad” is that you wouldn’t know. but claim to in order to advance your argumentum ad arsem, to use a ‘sciency’ term..

  49. #49 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    “If I had, I would have said what what was?”

    Yes.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 15, 2013

    Hurry up Wow, I’ve got stuff to do. Who was the non-scientist you quoted?

  51. #51 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    Hurry up Wow, I’ve got stuff to do.

    What? At 5 am?

  52. #52 Wow
    February 15, 2013

    I suppose the shift change is coming on, eh?

  53. #53 BBD
    February 15, 2013

    Brad, what are you arguing?

    It’s never been clear. I’ve noticed you use the term ‘alarmist’ a few times. This would suggest one of three things:

    - You think the atmospheric physics is wrong

    - You don’t, but you think the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 is too high.

    - You agree with the evidence – not the consensus; we can ignore that – but you dispute that a 2.5C – 3C increase in global average temperature will be much of a problem.

    If you haven’t read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not? You asked for some evidence so often I assumed that you were interested in reviewing some. This puzzles me.

  54. #54 BBD
    February 15, 2013

    BK

    There’s a couple of things worth reading if you are interested in the scientific consensus. Knutti & Hegerl (2008) reviews the evidence and the uncertainty and is a good place to start. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) demonstrates how the ‘fat tail’ of high sensitivity estimates can be docked. Anti-alarmist science in action ;-)

  55. #55 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2013

    -”Tim” doesn’t seem inclined to guarantee your bets, BJ

    Mike, you seem to be cognitively impaired.

    I’ve already stated and repeated the terms of the bet, which stipulate that the funds are to be sumbitted in advance, to be held in escrow.

    Do you understand this? The money is already there. It guarantees itself.

    What part of this concept do you not understand?

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    You can dissemble as much as you like, but Arctic sea ice loss is a significant, immediate, and clear proxy for cilmatic crisis.

    Take it or leave it.

    I assume that you will persist with the latter, because you know that you will lose. You’ve lost though even in the refusal to engage the wager, as that refusal is an explicit admission that there is something serious happening to the planet’s climate.

  57. #57 mike
    February 16, 2013

    Bernard J.,

    yr: #55 above

    Hey BJ! You don’t mind if I invite the folks to Google: “escrow fraud” do you? I mean, like, that wouldn’t mess up any big plans you may have in the works, would it?

    And I notice, BJ, you didn’t speak to my prior comment’s concern with the legality of the improbable, international, net-based “bookie” operation you’re running on this blog–a blog in which you probably have no ownership interest. The legal review of your little enterprise is undoubtedly an interesting one, BJ–care to post it?

    You know, BJ, no one on this blog rips off more noisome, room-clearing, asinine, pompous-ass, superior airs than you. That, combined with your spastic-dork, fussy-nerd , grotesquely-comic, maladroit-milquetoast, dud-booger obsession with and ineptitude in the put-down, zinger department marks you as one of Deltoid-land’s true delights.

    So, BJ, please do keep trying your creep-out, control-freak, hive-bozo-aristocrat best to put me in my place–I love the show! But I offer you a fair-warning, I’m not a status-anxiety ridden, self-doubting phony. And that’s an advantage I can draw on in any dust-up between the two of us.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Bernard J

    — I don’t accept any ice-volume-based bet because:

    1. I lack the obsessive, detailed icepertise to bet intelligently on it (in fact I didn’t even give any thought to what my chances of winning on those terms would have been)

    2. it doesn’t interest me because no matter who won on those terms, it wouldn’t have settled the real bet, which is whether AGW is a catas—er, I mean a crisis. The friend I mentioned was more than willing to put his money where his mouth was because he has the courage of his conviction that this really is a massive threat to civilisation we’re talking about. Don’t you? If so, I’m sure you and I could find a parameter that objectively tells us, in 5 years’ time, whether this grand hypothesis has (at long last) started to come true, couldn’t we?

    — if (as mike argues) it’s dodgy to do this via an escrow arrangement, why not simply publicise our real names and details and let honor enforce itself?

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Bernard J

    You can dissemble as much as you like, but Arctic sea ice loss is a significant, immediate, and clear proxy for cilmatic crisis.

    And you can play the racist card as much as you like, Arctic sea ice loss will still be a meaningless metric unless it kills people and destroys things to no benefit.

    For example, you seem to treat it as axiomatic that Arctic and sub-Arctic human communities are terribly afraid of / are lamenting the warming of the Arctic. I don’t buy it. I expect that, like normal human beings, they hate freezing, they hate ice and they can (at best) take or leave snow. Human beings prefer warmer-than-Arctic climates.

    Take it or leave it.

    I assume that you will persist with the latter, because you know that you will lose.

    No, as I’ve said I haven’t even bothered calculating my chances, because nothing interesting to me hangs on that measurement.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Wow:

    ”Hurry up Wow, I’ve got stuff to do.”
    

What?
    At 5 am?

    No, at 8am, when I wrote that.

    Since they weren’t there when the EXPERIMENTS were done, no they haven’t seen two then three then four runs of the experiment.

    LOL, ok, slow down—you’re taking the duty of nullius in verba a bit far here, Wow. Scientists don’t normally suspect other scientists of lying about what happened; to give the description and data associated with an experiment the benefit of the doubt is perfectly compatible with skepticism, even if you weren’t in the room when shit went down, unless there’s some prima facie reason to think fraud or human error has occurred, or unless the science has become pathologically hostile. So scientists are allowed to believe “such and such happened” because “I say it did.” (They are also allowed to “Доверяй, но проверяй”—the second passage you quoted this morning got something right when it emphasised that scientific work must be scrutable.) What we are never expected to do is take someone’s theories about nature on their word alone, i.e. to believe “nature works in such-and-such a way” because “so-and-so thinks it does.” There must be a physical-evidence-based argument.


    So all they see are two then three then four … people agreeing with each other.
Which is a consensus.


    No, they see 2 then 3 then 4 papers (corresponding to 2, 3, 4 cycles of the scientific method) that document a growing body of evidence.

    According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.

    But then if they find themselves in consensus with the other two, then you have a consensus between three people now.
    And three papers you haven’t checked are right.

    No, this person has now performed the third replication of the same experiment. Why would he/she need to replicate both the original and the replication?
    You’re confusing yourself by thinking in terms of “checking” the papers themselves—that’s not really the point. The point is to see whether nature behaves the same way again. If nature behaves consistently with the original paper’s hypothesis three (four, five, six..) times in a row, it becomes increasingly hard to dismiss this as dumb luck, and increasingly likely that the original author was on to something real.


    ”Lewandowsky, for example, doesn’t understand the scientific method (as I pointed out to him on his blog)—and he’s a Professor in a semi-scientific field.”

    All right, we can argue all day about whether climate psychology is a real science, but there are some fields that are real sciences, no question—and whoever you’re quoting does NOT work in one of those fields.

    ”Not that it’s really a law, but in short: human behaviour.”
    Except human behavior does not mean that because I haven’t said who it was it cannot be a scientist.
    Go on, show me evidence that this is the case or that, yet again, is only your worthless opinion.

    It’s my opinion (but it’s not only an opinion) that the person you quoted is not a scientist. There is evidence for the idea: not only the grossly unscientific content of the quote itself but the fact that, despite my unequivocal prediction that it’s not a scientist who said it, you still haven’t revealed the source, which you would have done in a heartbeat if you could thereby falsify my prediction in front of the whole Internet. You have no imaginable motive for being evasive other than reluctance to concede that my prediction was right in front of the whole Internet.
    Unfortunately, your evasions look even worse. Better to admit I’m right than to act cravenly.

    ”(as I pointed out to him on his blog)”
    Oh yeah, that’s some sciencey proof there!
    Yawn.

    Actually, my proof was nearly as ironclad as in the current example. Lewandowsky had written that, “Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.” This is just plain wrong—I’ve valiantly struggled to interpret it in a non-wrong way, but there is none (do you understand why?)—and even Lewandowsky’s off-the-charts shame threshold couldn’t plausibly have allowed him to write such a thing if he’d understood the scientific method.
    I addressed this question to him in the shapingtomorrowsworld comments: “So Professor Lewandowsky, given that you evidently don’t know how science works, what exactly do you have in mind when you accuse people of ‘rejecting science’? What does that mean to you?” My question stirred surprisingly little controversy—Lewandowsky even emailed me about a different matter without ever mentioning it—and I’m sure it had nothing to do with why the SkS kidz banned me a couple of weeks later.

    Except there “blue” as a colour is ENTIRELY from consensus.
    quale, they call the perception.

    OK, you’ve impressed me by knowing about qualia. However, the only thing we all agree on when it comes to the blue percept is that we’ll all call it “blue”—and as Feynman pointed out, knowing the name of something doesn’t tell you anything about it. Naming things is just a convention. It’s no more a “consensus” than when we agree we’ll drive on a certain side of the road. Nobody is actually suggesting the right or the left is superior—no claim is being implied about nature, physics, engineering, etc.—but it is unquestionably better to do what everyone else is doing, once the convention is established. This type of convention (violation of which causes fatal collisions) has an intrinsic benefit.

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

    
What do you mean? A consensus IS a consensus.

    Nothing to frot, Brad?

    
“Frot”? “Brad”? Two typos in a four-word sentence—you must have really been upset by the obvious self-contradiction I’d caught you in!

    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?

    A consensus is a majority opinion, so you can only have a consensus “of” people [of some type], you can’t have a consensus of cheese, prime numbers, evidence, cucumbers, bacteria, etc. It’s a category error. Geddit?

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Wow,

    This second quote is preoccupied with something called “denialists”, meaning… what exactly?

    A denialist may promote small gaps not yet accounted for by the consilient evidence,

    So from the sounds of it, a “denialist” is a kind of scientist.

    or small amounts of evidence contradicting a conclusion without accounting for the pre-existing strength resulting from consilience.

    Yep, a “denialist” is clearly an Einstein-like person who recognises that it would only take one discrepant observation to falsify their theory.

    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]

    Well yes, that would be silly if equipment malfunction or misinterpretation of results WERE “much more likely” than the theory being wrong. But who judges that?

    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.

    No, if the evidence is weak, then the theory is unpersuasive—and if the ARGUMENT you use to big up the evidence is “look how many people agree it’s strong,” it’s obviously pissweak. That has been my entire tiresome tirade.


    Finally a quote that makes some sense, Wow! …

    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.

    Now you know why (among other reasons) Phil Jones and Michael Mann are considered rogue scientists. They operate outside the civilised borders of this “basic expectation.”

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    I addressed this question to him in the shapingtomorrowsworld comments: “So Professor Lewandowsky, given that you evidently don’t know how science works, what exactly do you have in mind when you accuse people of ‘rejecting science’? What does that mean to you?”

    My question stirred up surprisingly little controversy—Lewandowsky even emailed me about a different matter without mentioning it—and I’m sure it had nothing to do with why the SkS kidz banned me a couple of weeks later.

    Just in case this was confusing: the SS kidz were moderating Lewandowsky’s site, whence they banned me.

    You could read the entire exchange about Lewandowsky’s dubious understanding of science for yourself if those brave klimate kommunicators had been content with merely banning me. Alas, they bravely shoved all my extant comments down the memory hole.

  63. #63 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Lewandowsky is the epitome of the CAGW celebrity.
    He has NO training in any science related to climate.
    Yet here he is cashing in on the ‘funding’ available that is related to the ‘politics’ associated with CAGW.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    By the way, folk such as the Russians buck the convention on the blue quale—they gots no word for it. You say “goluboi” or “sinyi,” depending on whether it’s dark blue or light blue, but there’s (reportedly) no common concept for the blue percept. Then again, we Westerners have a proud history of saying that well-known Russian words don’t exist (svoboda, anyone?)…

    ”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.

    They may or may not be “related”, but they’re not synonyms like you claimed they were, Wow:

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

    In science, consilience of data matters (it helps you form a likely hypothesis), but consensus of scientists doesn’t—it’s just opinion.

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

    I don’t, as such—I want to replicate their experiment. (So that we’ll have more evidence one way or the other.)
    Whether the results turn out the same this time is up to nature, not me.



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

    Right. Very good point.

    What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!” He merely wanted to audit it (which is sometimes called “internal replication”).

    Why?

    Because McIntyre couldn’t tell—and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say—exactly how they’d got from their own data to their own conclusion.

    The question for McIntyre, therefore, was whether the paper was even valid (not whether its finding was empirically robust). That is, did its conclusions even follow from its own data?

    To validate the paper, it was only necessary to know what Mann’s own raw data were and how he’d analysed and transformed them to get the final graph. If these two factors had been self-explanatory to readers of the paper itself—as they should have been, since the paper was generally presented as a work of science—then history would have been very different. There would have been no Climate Audit, no Hockey Stick Wars, no Jerry Sandusky references and no libel suits. Remember what one of your quoted passages says:

    Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists…

    But if any other scientists had “scrutinised” MBH98’s methodology, they didn’t say so publicly.

    A paper’s peer reviewers are supposed to vouch for its validity, at least prima facie, so they should have sent MBH98 back as soon as they noticed it was impossible to guess how to trace the steps from raw data to conclusion. But as Richard Muller points out, there was a strong desire in the climate community to “believe” in the Hockey Stick; and because it was such an “attractive conclusion,” there was also a strong temptation to rush it into print without due diligence.

    When these problems started coming to light, the climate science community suddenly adopted a code of omertà. To their eternal discredit, they protected the bad scientists in their ranks and disparaged McIntyre instead.

    Fortunately we know a bit about what they were saying behind closed doors—thanks to the Climategate emails.

    4241.txt: Rob Wilson:
    “The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel …   The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. 

    Tom Wigley:
    I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith [Briffa] is better? – or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike [Mann] is too deep into this to be helpful.

    3994.txt: John Mitchell:
    “Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me  that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

    Tom Wigley:
    “Mike,
    ———-
    Re WSJ. They say …
    “Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.”
    Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn’t mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.”
    —————–
    It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M — but it seems that you do too.

    Tim Barnett:
    “Not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as I remember. For instance, I seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures.”

    Myles Allen:
    “I completely agree with Tim, but the question is whether we have either the energy or thick enough hides. My recollection of the experience of asking (I thought quite politely) Mike [Mann] about this kind of thing is rather unpleasant.

    Hans von Storch:
    “Simon, I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre’s in GRL. I would assign the following significance to these articles (just among us, please):
    —ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be “true”. (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbility.)
    […]
    —McIntyre &McKitrick: As far as I can say (we did not redo the analysis, but Francis Zwiers did) the identfied glitch is real. One should not do it this way.

    1527.txt: Rob Wilson:
    ”There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”

    4369.txt: Tim Osborn:
    “This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ” 

    4369.txt: Ed Cook:
    “I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

    1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA):
    “How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
    The media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness.”

    1104.txt: Wanner:
    “I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report… I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.”

    4101.txt: “Dr Dendro”:
    “Hi Phil,…
    In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
so.”

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    chameleon—yep, and I bet Lewandowsky can’t believe his luck. Climate psychology sure beats real work!

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    chameleon, do you recognise this fully retarded quote Wow dragged in:

    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.

    Wow doesn’t have the guts to identify its source. It’s obviously not from a scientist, and I’d say very likely from a “CAGW celebrity” (e.g. some mediocrity like Lewandowsky, who was my first guess). The combination of pomposity and scientific illiteracy reminds me of Al Gore or Chris Mooney, but apparently whoever chundered these words out has a BSc!

  67. #67 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    When someone has replicated another person’s paper, all a third person sees are two papers they don’t know are correct and two people who now are in consensus with each other.

    According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.

    But then if they find themselves in consensus with the other two, then you have a consensus between three people now. And three papers you haven’t checked are right.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    BBD: “Brad, what are you arguing? ”

    The tiresome troll is arguing that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

    Based on zero evidence.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    It’s obviously not from a scientist,

    Since you can’t say how you define whether someone is a scientist, another opinion of yours. And as agreed, worthless.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    The tiresome troll is arguing that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

    Aw. :-( Just when I thought we were developing an understanding, Wow. As you can see, I took all your questions as genuine and serious requests for clarity and tried my best to answer them.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    And the only “evidence” of iLewandowsky not being a scientist is that he’s let you deniers made fools of yourself.

    Then let you double down on the same idiocy in his second paper.

    Seems like “true scientists” in your world only ever make you deniers feel good.

    Not very scientific.

  72. #72 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Just when I thought we were developing an understanding

    No, you’re piteously easy to understand, troller.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    You keep saying this, Wow; I have no idea why. Do you?

    According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    and tried my best to answer them.

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!

    No, you avoid answering questions left right and centre.

    Truly you are a pitiful troll.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You keep saying this, Wow; I have no idea why. Do you?

    I know why.

    And I can entirely understand why you want to say you don’t understand.

    It’s something you continue to fail to answer.

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Since you can’t say how you define whether someone is a scientist, another opinion of yours. And as agreed, worthless.

    I already said this—though we got distracted by the other question of who understands the scientific method—but a scientist is someone practicing one of the physical sciences.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.

    But since I’ve never said this or indicated that I believe this, you’re not being truthful, are you Wow? After all the progress we’ve made, you’re apparently just attributing random concatenations of words to me again.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    the other question of who understands the scientific method—but a scientist is someone practicing one of the physical sciences.

    Except you said “usually”.

    You are only going to say “they are not a scientist” no matter who I say.

    Hence saying is irrelevant.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    And the only “evidence” of iLewandowsky not being a scientist is that he’s let you deniers made fools of yourself.

    Didn’t you read what I wrote after that? I quoted a scientifically-illiterate passage from Lewandowsky. That is how we know he doesn’t understand how science works. Are you even reading before typing, Wow?

  80. #80 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    But since I’ve never said this or indicated that I believe this

    So you’re saying that a consensus is acceptable evidence now.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I quoted a scientifically-illiterate passage from Lewandowsky.

    And you have no idea what a scientifically illiterate passage looks like.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I quoted a scientifically-illiterate passage from Lewandowsky. That is how we know he doesn’t understand how science works.

    That isn’t how you can tell if someone understands how science works or not.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Except you said “usually”.

    You are only going to say “they are not a scientist” no matter who I say.

    Hence saying is irrelevant.

    I don’t remember saying “usually”, but so what? The definition stands as I’ve just reiterated it. Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.

    If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.

  84. #84 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    But since I’ve never said this or indicated that I believe this

    So you’re saying that a consensus is acceptable evidence now.

    You skip your Ritalin today, Wow? What I’m saying is that nobody has to replicate all the previous replications of a study and I’m at a loss to figure out what dark shaft you mined that random idea from.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I don’t remember saying “usually”, but so what?

    Do you mean “so what” to the not remembering, or “so what” to the “usually”?

    Former: your memory is unreliable.

    Second: so your new statement isn’t a definition that you use to define a scientist.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You skip your Ritalin today, Wow?

    Have you stopped shagging your baby sister, Bray?

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    I quoted a scientifically-illiterate passage from Lewandowsky.

    And you have no idea what a scientifically illiterate passage looks like.

    Yes I do—I can tell such a passage from 20 feet—it’s one of the superpowers you get when you become scientifically literate.

  88. #88 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    What I’m saying is that nobody has to replicate all the previous replications of a study

    And that’s what the problem is.

    Because if you’re not replicating the study, you’re accepting other people’s word on it being correct.

    And you, only you, insist this is not science and is, indeed, anti-science.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Yes I do—I can tell such a passage from 20 feet

    No, you can’t.

    You know what answer you want, and then you fit what you see to it.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    it’s one of the superpowers you get when you become scientifically literate.

    Thereby proving you are scientifically illiterate.

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    You skip your Ritalin today, Wow?

    Have you stopped shagging your baby sister, Bray?

    My ad-hom came from the fact that you were randomly saltating between apparently unrelated ideas.

    Where did your ad-hom come from? Nasty, dude.

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.

    If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Because if you’re not replicating the study, you’re accepting other people’s word on it being correct.

    I took the time to write you an entire paragraph DISPELLING this common misinterpretation of the idea of Nullius in Verba. Why don’t you read the whole thing, think about it, then reply with some equally nuanced and substantive remarks of your own, rather than give your usual sentence-by-sentence first-thought-that-comes-into-your-head critique? Your tweets are the reason this thread is already 19 pages long, dude.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    My ad-hom came from the fact that you were randomly saltating between apparently unrelated ideas

    My ad hom came from the fact that you’re a retard and have no clue how to act in society.

  95. #95 chek
    February 16, 2013

    “Brad” #64 tries his hand at doing a Montford with selective bites of chit-chat, presumably in some misguided effort to show that consensus arrives whole, pristine and virgin from Heaven, and isn’t established in the usual way humans establish things – by trying to knock it down until it’s what’s left standing.

    The trouble for “Brad” is that MBH98 hasn’t been refuted. Quite the opposite – the more historical reconstructions that have been researched, the more more hockey sticks have been found. Which rather blows “Brad’s” epic piece of intricately constructed nonsense out of the water.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist

    Then the quote was from a scientist.

  97. #97 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    WTF?
    Wow!
    Whose quote is it?
    Who is the ‘someone’ who said it?
    Scientist or not?

  98. #98 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    FOAD, chubby. You’re a tiny cockroach of a person with no redeeming features whatsoever.

  99. #99 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.

    Again, solely your OPINION.

    And, as agreed, worthless.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    The trouble for “Brad” is that MBH98 hasn’t been refuted.

    Do you understand the difference between validity and truth, chek?