Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    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.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I took the time to write you an entire paragraph DISPELLING this common misinterpretation of the idea of Nullius in Verba

    No, you spent ages getting some crap together to make you feel important.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist

    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    You haven’t named them so, no, it wasn’t.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 16, 2013

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

    So you’re making things up again, Bray.

    This is no surprise.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You haven’t named them so, no, it wasn’t.

    Here is some obviously unscientific bollocks.

    But you don’t seem to have spotted it, despite it being only a couple of feet away.

    You are completely incorrect.

  6. #6 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Rubbish Chek!
    You along with BJ, need to follow Latimer’s advice & get out more!
    Try widening your reading habits for a start!
    BTW, did you happen to read the comments attached to that ‘validating climate models’ link you attached yesterday?

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    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.

    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.


  8. #8 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Chubby, you’re a failure.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    LOL, ok, slow down—you’re taking the duty of nullius in verba a bit far here,

    Nope, not me.

    You.

    YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else’s word for it is unscientific, even anti-science.

    Because taking someone else’s word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.

    Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    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.

    I’m getting pretty tired of being misinterpreted by you Wow—so from now on, don’t tell me what I think unless you have a quote to back it up.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Scientists don’t normally suspect other scientists of lying about what happened

    You do.

    All the time.

    To every single national scientific body, the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is in the IPCC, and the vast majority of the practicing scientists.

    So you admit you’re not a scientist.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I’m getting pretty tired of being misinterpreted by you Wow

    So you’re now saying that a consensus is science.

    Making progress.

    But you’ll undo it with more anti-scientific piffle. You always do.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else’s word for it is unscientific, even anti-science.

    That “it” is dangling, a sure sign that you don’t even know the topic. QUOTE ME and you’ll discover that I’m very clear on what you can take someone else’s word for and what you can’t. Stop being so mentally lazy.

  14. #14 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Whose quote is it Wow?
    I am spectacularly uninterested in your opinion of my sucesses and/or failures because you would not have the foggiest.
    I am however interested from whence and/or whom you lifted that quote.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    That “it” is dangling, a sure sign that you don’t even know the topic.

    Another example of how you fail utterly at English comprehension.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I am spectacularly uninterested in your opinion.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Stop being so mentally lazy.

    Except you want a physical act to be accomplished.

    That isn’t a mental activity.

    Yet more sign that you’re a kook.

  18. #18 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else’s word for it is unscientific, even anti-science..

    Because taking someone else’s word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.

    Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.

    (odd, isn’t it, how you can’t even quote me)

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    I am however interested from whence and/or whom you lifted that quote.

    So am I.

    Put a name to the “someone”, Wow.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You whine about needing a quote or being misrepresented.

    Yet you quote mine and distort me without qualm.

    One rule for you, eh?

  21. #21 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    So am I.

    And you can go on being “interested”.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Even though the person is a lecturer in a science department in a university, you will still claim they aren’t a scientist.

    Which is why you weasel out of every attempt to find out your “definition”: you don’t have one. It’s all post-hoc rationalisation with you.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    So you’re now saying that a consensus is science.

    “A consensus is science”? LOL. No.

    A good heuristic, if you think I’m “now saying” something, is: if you can’t find the words in which I’m “now saying” it, then I’m pretty certainly not saying it.

  24. #24 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    “A consensus is science”? LOL. No.

    There, then, is your quote you demanded petulantly earlier.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Because taking someone else’s word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.

    Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Yet you quote mine and distort me without qualm.

    Not at all; such would be a hollow victory, a victory without honor. I have huge qualms about that. If I’ve distorted your meaning, tell me how and when and what you actually meant.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 16, 2013
    Yet you quote mine and distort me without qualm.

    Not at all;

    So you do have a qualm about it, but do it anyway?

  28. #28 chek
    February 16, 2013

    BTW, did you happen to read the comments attached to that ‘validating climate models’ link you attached yesterday?

    Why yes I did, Cammy. At this juncture I’d normally ask what your point is. But in this case it’s you and I already know you don’t have one.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 16, 2013

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

    Their [Creationists’] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

  30. #30 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Common Wow,
    Fess up.
    Whom have you quoted?
    Why so coy Wow?
    Who is this ‘someone’?

  31. #31 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Why yes I did, Cammy. At this juncture I’d normally ask what your point is

    Chubby wants to put out there the inference that there is some controversy or counterpoint in that location.

    There is none, and nobody is fooled.

    But the deniers have nothing better than pretend, so they continue to pretend, even if it’s entirely pointless.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Common Wow,

    Read a dictionary, chubby.

  33. #33 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Why so coy Wow?

    Already been answered two or three times.

    Go read it.

    Or ask an adult to read it for you.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Second of all, Wow, you come across as psychologically volatile in your vicious responses to chameleon, who is nothing but polite. Do you two have some history that might mitigate or excuse your incongruous reactions?

    If so, what is it? Where does the bile come from?

    Otherwise, talk like a grownup. You’re not a Muslim fundagelical, are you? I mean, you can handle the presence of a female in an interaction among equals, can’t you? Otherwise I’m going to have to back several other people up in asking Tim to enforce a “time-out” for you from this thread.

  35. #35 chek
    February 16, 2013

    You along with BJ, need to follow Latimer’s advice & get out more! Try widening your reading habits for a start!

    I agree, constraints on time currently mean that I’m doing well to keep up with my half dozen preferred science-based sites, let alone my other interests at present..

    But what you mean is the crank shit sluices you frequent.
    No thanks.

  36. #36 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Second of all, Wow, you come across as psychologically volatile

    Given your evidenced complete incapability to discern anything you do not wish to be there, this is entirely fabricated hogwash.

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Yet you quote mine and distort me without qualm.
    Not at all;

    So you do have a qualm about it, but do it anyway?

    I don’t do it knowingly; if I’m guilty of it, that scruples my conscience. Why don’t you just give specifics and clear up any misunderstandings?

  38. #38 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    So, avoiding your bollocking by pretending to be all concerned.

    How pathetic.

  39. #39 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    The majority of the commenters were not overly impressed were they Chek?
    They exposed rather serious flaws in the piece didn’t they Chek?

  40. #40 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Also, look up “non sequitur”, Bray.

    Your post at #34 here is a prime example.

    Colloquially known as “Look! Squirrels!!!”.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    The majority of the commenters were not overly impressed were they Chek?

    That would be a consensus that you’re trying to use as evidence, right, chubby?

  42. #42 chek
    February 16, 2013

    to back several other people up in asking Tim to enforce

    How many of these fictional requests you’ve imagined ask for ‘something to be done’ about li’ll mike or PantieZ?

  43. #43 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    So Wow?
    Your ‘someone’ is a ‘no one’?
    How ironic :-)

  44. #44 chek
    February 16, 2013

    They exposed rather serious flaws in the piece didn’t they Chek?

    Not anyone who’s opinion was informed enough to be noted, a metric you’d be unaware of Cammy given the noise machines you’re more at home in.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    So Wow?

    Spelling has improved. Only two letters, thought, so much easier.

    Your ‘someone’ is a ‘no one’?

    Ah, basing a conclusion on no information.

    How like a denier.

  46. #46 chek
    February 16, 2013

    Should of course be ‘whose opinion’.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Bray seems very quiet.

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else’s word for it is unscientific, even anti-science..

    You really need to avoid these facile dangling carats.

    What is “it”, Wow?

    I EXPRESSLY said there is NOTHING unscientific about accepting someone’s report of what happened in an experiment and the data / observations associated with it.
    It is perfectly reasonable for them to ask you to do so.

    What is NOT reasonable is for them to ask you to believe a THEORY ABOUT NATURE on their say-so, or on their think-so.

    THAT is anti-scientific.

    Get the distinction, Wow?

    Or do you at least understand why it’s desirable to be capable of MAKING such distinctions, Wow?

  49. #49 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I’m also worried that Bray didn’t ask you if you’d missed your Ritalin prescription today, chubby.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    How many of these fictional requests you’ve imagined ask for ‘something to be done’ about li’ll mike or PantieZ?

    None, because they aren’t responsible for hundreds of obnoxious comments on my thread.

    Why, have they been antisocial to you? I tend not to read comments from my “side” of the climate debate very carefully, if at all, so I may have missed some verbal atrocities.

  51. #51 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Chuckle :-)
    Chek!
    The ONLY site I have frequented EVER is this one.
    I have been dutifully reading the majority of the links provided here.
    I usually only read the ORIGINAL publications.
    How deliciously ironic :-)

  52. #52 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You really need to avoid these facile dangling carats.

    You really need to get a dictionary.

    I EXPRESSLY said there is NOTHING unscientific about accepting someone’s report of what happened in an experiment and the data / observations associated with it.

    Yet you EXPRESSLY said that if several people do this, then it is not science.

    You see, the problem is you’re a denier.

    And to hold to that requires multiple contradictory ideas.

    You, being comfortable with the conclusion do not look at this.

    However, when a REAL skeptic comes along and starts dissecting your tortured “reasoning”, these contradictions come out clearly and you’re left sputtering and going “SQUIRRELS!!!!”.

    You EXPRESSLY stated that the word of several people on what a paper says is worth as much as one person’s word on what a paper says and both are worth zero in science.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Bray, it also looks like you’ve failed your “Dudley Dooright” self image (which everyone knows is complete fiction).

    You haven’t lambasted chubby for using a consensus as evidence.

    Despite your insistence you ALWAYS do that.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I tend not to read comments from my “side” of the climate debate very carefully

    So that you can claim that “your side” is correct and never wrong.

    “I see no ships”.

    Pathetic.

  55. #55 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Wow, we’re getting sick of waiting. Whose sub-scientific, uneducated theories about consensus did you quote in that passage a day or so ago?

  56. #56 chek
    February 16, 2013

    The ONLY site I have frequented EVER is this one.

    Right.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Wow, we’re getting sick of waiting.

    Yeah?

    So what?

    You already know why it’s not worth answering your demands.

    You are also avoiding your two extremely embarrassing mistakes with a segue into something irrelevant.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    The ONLY site I have frequented EVER is this one.

    So where did you get your “recollection” that nobody had Mann’s Hockey Stick?

    Where did you get the idea that climate sensitivity was 1.5C?

    Where did you get the idea that a climate sensitivity of 2.5-3C was an outlier?

    It wasn’t from here.

    Where did you get your links to, for example, climateaudit, if you’d never been there?

  59. #59 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Whose sub-scientific, uneducated theories about consensus did you quote in that passage a day or so ago?

    I have never quoted a passage from someone like that.

    Except when quoting you, chubbie, panties or other denier sub-scientific and uneducated troll.

  60. #60 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    DELTIOD NONSENSE

    Once again, Brad manages to ignore pertinent questions and so I must repeat myself:

    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.

    Please clarify your position. Thanks.

    ***

    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.

    ***

    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 ;-)

    I would like to see some *evidence* of good faith as demonstrated by your reviewing some of the *evidence* and giving the forum your considered, detailed views on it. Otherwise you might be written off as an attention-seeking tosser who isn’t remotely interested in the scientific evidence. This would re-enforce the view that you are motivated by political conviction rather than any understanding of the scientific position. If I were in your shoes, I would be at pains to correct such a misapprehension. Merely denying it – as you have done – is insufficient. You do far, far too much talking. Now you have to walk the walk.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    And if you only read the science side of the debate as you claim, and ignore the denier side, you have just proven you lied when you claimed that you ALWAYS told off anyone who used a consensus as evidence.

    And have done so deliberately.

  62. #62 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    If you haven’t read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not?

    Bray isn’t interested in evidence.

    Simples.

  63. #63 chek
    February 16, 2013

    None,
    I thought not
    because they aren’t responsible for hundreds of obnoxious combative comments on my thread.
    I see, so it’s not their objective offensiveness and lack of content that bothers you, as long as they’re onside in supporting “Brad”, however vaguely.

    Can’t see Tim being too impressed by your flexible standards, not that I can say either way.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Yet you EXPRESSLY said that if several people do this, then it is not science.

    You EXPRESSLY stated that the word of several people on what a paper says is worth as much as one person’s word on what a paper says and both are worth zero in science.

    *Sigh.* No, I said that in science, the opinion of several people about nature is worth as much as a dead dingo’s donger’s opinion about nature.

    Who even brought up the question of what people say a paper says? READ the effin’ paper. What does it matter what other people say it says?

    No offence intended, Wow, either to you or to my (immensely more intelligent) friends who never went to uni, but your lack of tertiary education shows in these disputes, when you imagine that other people are available to relieve us of the burden of reading and thinking for ourselves. They’re not.

  65. #65 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Hell, no need to strike out obnoxious.

    Mike is entirely made of obnoxious.

    But since he’s part of The Team and fighting for The Cause, (hey, didn’t he quote from Judith? If he’s never been there, how does he know what she says???) he doesn’t look therefore, like a toddler, it doesn’t exist if you can’t see it.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    No, I said that in science, the opinion of several people about nature is worth as much as a dead dingo’s donger’s opinion about nature.

    Nope, that isn’t what you said.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Who even brought up the question of what people say a paper says? READ the effin’ paper. What does it matter what other people say it says?

    If READING the paper is sufficient, why does it need to be replicated?

  68. #68 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    No offence intended

    Bollocks.

    cf “I’m no racist, but…”

  69. #69 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    or to my (immensely more intelligent) friends

    Your opinion again.

    Says nothing. Worthless.

  70. #70 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    BK

    The ‘DELTIOD [sic] NONSENSE’ slipped in by mistake – it is a header in a text file I use to keep track of these long, tedious exchanges.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Yet you EXPRESSLY said that if several people do this, then it is not science.

    You see, the problem is you’re a denier.

    And to hold to that requires multiple contradictory ideas.

    You, being comfortable with the conclusion do not look at this.

    However, when a REAL skeptic comes along and starts dissecting your tortured “reasoning”, these contradictions come out clearly and you’re left sputtering and going “SQUIRRELS!!!!”.

    You EXPRESSLY stated that the word of several people on what a paper says is worth as much as one person’s word on what a paper says and both are worth zero in science.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    chek,

    I’ve only ever considered complaining about Wow, because nobody else comes close in terms of sheer *volume* of noisome noise. If you think I’ve missed something worthy of condemning from someone else, which I probably have, since I don’t read my “side” as much as yours, then tell me next time and I’ll condemn them if they deserve it.

  73. #73 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I’ve only ever considered complaining about Wow, because

    You’re afraid.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    nobody else comes close in terms of sheer *volume* of noisome noise

    Except you.

    Oh, and Joan.

    Oh, and “noisome”? Your opinion. Worthless.

  75. #75 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    Wow!
    Vince claimed that BEST confirmed MBH98 and the hockey stick.
    Have you read the BEST research?
    I have.
    I found NO confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in the BEST research.
    I have linked the BEST research upthread.
    Would you like to point out where this ‘confirmation’ of MBH98 and the hockey stick is?
    Maybe that same ‘someone’ you quoted earlier is the person responsible for this assertion?
    Was that ‘someone’ a member of the Muller et al team of researchers?

  76. #76 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    You, Brad, are “doing a Doug”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    If READING the paper is sufficient, why does it need to be replicated?

    Because it was JUST ONE EXPERIMENT—even if every single word is the honest to God swear-to-Christ Gospel truth, its evidentiary value is necessarily limited. It only happened once. The hypothesis, if confirmed, was only confirmed once. In one lab. On one day. In one litter of rats. In order to know with any confidence something interesting about nature, we need to rule out that it was a fluke.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Vince claimed that BEST confirmed MBH98 and the hockey stick.
    Have you read the BEST research?

    Yes.

    I have.

    No you haven’t.

    I found NO confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in the BEST research.

    Yes, you have to look first.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Because it was JUST ONE EXPERIMENT

    Yes, that is what one paper is.

    Are you saying two agreeing with each other is more solid confirmation?

  80. #80 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    It only happened once.

    Incorrect.

    If you’d ever been in a science lab, you’d know that you don’t just do things once.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    But since he’s part of The Team and fighting for The Cause, (hey, didn’t he quote from Judith? If he’s never been there, how does he know what she says???) he doesn’t look therefore, like a toddler, it doesn’t exist if you can’t see it.

    No, stop guessing. I don’t LEARN anything from people who are already in agreement with me about the climate. I only LEARN from exposing myself to other viewpoints. That’s why it’s a waste of my time to read most material written by fellow realists. I’d rather concentrate on what you have to say.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    If neither you, nor your “much more intelligent friends” thought that “it only happened once” was true of a science paper, then you are ALL incompetent.

  83. #83 chek
    February 16, 2013

    I found NO confirmation of MBH98

    Firstly, you have to understand what the MBH98 paper shows, which is apparently beyond you. Then you have to understand what the BEST paper shows, again ditto. Then with those understandings in hand, you can compare the two – and hey presto, the unprecedented rate of warming in the 20th Century matches very well.

    Witless googling is unlikely to help you Cammy, and Google isn’t the problem there..

  84. #84 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    I don’t LEARN anything from people who are already in agreement with me about the climate.

    I think someone needs to keep a link to this freudian slip!

    :D :D :D

    Yes, you don’t learn anything from them because they have nothing other than empty blather and irrelevancies.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Because it was JUST ONE EXPERIMENT

    Yes, that is what one paper is.

    Are you saying two agreeing with each other is more solid confirmation?

    Yes, two PAPERS (corresponding to two experiments) confirming the same hypothesis is better (more solid) than one.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Witless googling is unlikely to help you Cammy, and Google isn’t the problem there..

    A hint for you, Chubby: PEBKAC.

  87. #87 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Of course, Bray, you REFUSE to learn anything from the science either.

    Which makes your rantings rather irrelevant.

  88. #88 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Yes, two PAPERS (corresponding to two experiments) confirming the same hypothesis is better (more solid) than one.

    So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper’s result.

    You’re saying consensus is evidence.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Rephrasing because you’re an idiot denier who never SAYS anything they don’t want to believe.

    Yes, two PAPERS (corresponding to two experiments) confirming the same hypothesis is better (more solid) than one.

    So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper’s result.

    Which MEANS consensus is evidence.

  90. #90 BBD
    February 16, 2013

    Brad

    I do hope you will get around to responding to my recent comment on this thread at some point. I will check back this evening.

  91. #91 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    He won’t have done. It is devastating to his imagination.

  92. #92 chameleon
    February 16, 2013

    The unprecedented warming in the 20th century matches very well?
    Seriously?
    Who is this ‘someone’ or ‘someones’ that you lot are quoting?
    Does Muller et al agree with your assessment Chek?

  93. #93 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    BBD

    I do hope you will get around to responding to my recent comment on this thread at some point. I will check back this evening.

    So do I, but perhaps you’ve noticed a certain Sisyphean chore that is occupying every moment I spend on this thread, BBD? Maybe if you were to help us roll the prolix, palindromic rock away I would get a goddamn minute to read your links in peace.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    The unprecedented warming in the 20th century matches very well?
    Seriously?

    No, actually.

  95. #95 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Does Muller et al agree with your assessment Chek?

    Yes.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    Oh, and before deniers spooge their pants (if they’re wearing any):

    The “No, actually” means that “Seriously” is incorrect. The word to use is “Actually”.

  97. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper’s result.

    Which MEANS consensus is evidence.

    You’re making a category error. The same one I’ve expressly drawn your attention to within the last 24 hours.

    There is no such thing as a consensus of papers, Wow. Papers don’t have nervous systems. They cannot form beliefs, plans for the future, suffer and rejoice as we do. There can only be consensi OF PEOPLE (or possibly of some higher animals).

  98. #98 Wow
    February 16, 2013

    So do I, but perhaps you’ve noticed a certain Sisyphean chore

    Yes, we know anyone trying to get a straight answer out of you is on an uphill struggle.

    However, how can you say “So do I”? YOU are the one making it an uphill struggle.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 16, 2013

    Wow, who was the supposed scientist who said/wrote that passage about consensus that you quoted?

  100. #100 Wow
    February 16, 2013
    So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper’s result.

    Which MEANS consensus is evidence.

    You’re making a category error.

    Nope. You need to understand English a bit more, Bray.

    The same one I’ve expressly drawn your attention to within the last 24 hours.

    Nope, you’ve said a load of bollocks, but despite drawing my attention to it, this doesn’t make your assertion true.

    Papers don’t have nervous systems.

    Doing a doug again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls

    Tiresome.

    There can only be consensi OF PEOPLE (or possibly of some higher animals).

    Except you’re wrong.

    Two papers agreeing is a consensus of two.

Current ye@r *