Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Vince:

    Rovbert Watson (whoever he is)

    No wonder you couldn’t figure out who I meant.

    Read next time.

    Robert Watson, as I mentioned, was the chair of the IPCC.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2013

    I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

    If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of – and/or accounting for – the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself…

    …then yes, there’s no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.

    I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn’t become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.

    [I'm being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don't allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull...]

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2013

    I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

    If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of – and/or accounting for – the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself…

    …then yes, there’s no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.

    I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn’t become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.

    [*I'm being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don't allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull...]

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2013

    Damn. Too slow with the ‘stop’ button.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Bernard,

    At last you divagate into an interesting field: psychology.

    Please substantiate your diagnosis of “demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy.”

    With reference to the DSM criteria, obviously.

    This’ll be funny.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    BBD,

    This is both lyrical and perceptive:

    More ophidian rhetoric.

    Fascinating fact! The opposite of ophidian is mustelid, or weasel-like, rhetoric—my ancient foe!

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    chek:

    So…..Brad still doesn’t understand what the scientific consensus describes….or is pretending he doesn’t.

    I don’t understand what you’re saying I don’t understand: what the scientific consensus describes? What does that even mean?

    Unlike you (I suspect), I do understand:

    — what a scientific consensus is

    — what the phrase “scientific consensus” denotes

    In both cases, the answer is: the majority opinion among scientists.

    Do you have a dictionary? It would have saved you a bit of confusion here.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

    There’s been no engagement from you at all ever on this thread. You’ve never read any source material given to you and have never so far had any evidence for any of your claims despite being asked and you replying “To which claim in particular”.

    So since you have never been here to engage at all with anyone other than fellow deniers, no it’s pointless trying to engage with you any more.

  9. #9 chek
    February 25, 2013

    “Brad” still professes not to understand that the words ‘opinion’ and ‘evidence’ are not interchangeable, and is therefore immune to the concept that scientific consensus is based on evidence rather than a popularity contest..

    Any confusion as to how this can be is rapidly cleared up once it’s understood that “Brad” is a proud moron who has extreme difficulty with definitions not previously made clear in a Chuck Norris movie or similar.

    Once this is understood now “Brad” has made it clear, the only response required in future when “Brad” so much as mentions the words ‘scientific consensus’ is ‘remember Chuck Norris’.

    That’s the only way we’ll move on from this should Mr. Norris have ever made the relevant movie. If he hasn’t , so much the better.

  10. #10 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Ignoramus Keyes is so stupid does he cannot see that removing a “not” in a phrase dos not make it mean the opposite

    Yup, he’s being doing “all dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs” all along on this subject. He’s not smart enough to change.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Sydney’s humidity is 71% at the moment, whereas Adelaide’s is apparently 43%.

    The modelling in the study you mention involved an 11% increase in humidity.

    Clearly, there are bigger factors affecting humidity than temperature.

    It occurs to me – heating up a given chunk of air actually decreases its relative humidity.
    So air could get warmer, pick up additional moisture, and yet remain at the same relative humidity level….hmmm….

    Indeed: worldwide average humidity doesn’t change much at all with temperature. It holds more water vapour and it’s the ease with which it rains out keeps it somewhat stable worldwide.

    H2O is a greenhouse gas too. So when CO2 produces more warming by increasing in concentration, more water is in the air, causing more warming.

    This is called “positive feedback”.

  12. #12 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “Brad” still professes not to understand that the words ‘opinion’ and ‘evidence’ are not interchangeable, and is therefore immune to the concept that scientific consensus is based on evidence rather than a popularity contest..

    You’re forgetting, he’s said he has data (cf evidence) for all his claims and it turned out the evidence was ENTIRELY his opinion that it was so.

    To him, he cannot hear the difference, they are the exact same word: “opinion/evidence”.

    But when he hears himself say “opinion/evidence” he hears “evidence”, when he hears anyone other than a denier say “opinion/evidence”, he hears “opinion”.

    Comes with having two faces, I guess.

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    chek:

    … “Brad” is a proud moron who has extreme difficulty with definitions not previously made clear in a Chuck Norris movie or similar.

    Once this is understood now “Brad” has made it clear, the only response required in future when “Brad” so much as mentions the words ‘scientific consensus’ is ‘remember Chuck Norris’.

    There is no dictionary in the world that defines ‘scientific consensus’ as anything more than ‘the majority opinion of scientists.’ You’re on your own here, “chek.”

    You keep trying to tell us scientific consensus is “based on evidence” and “indicates the strength of the scientific argument,” yet are outraged when it’s pointed out to you that this would make consensus itself a form of scientific evidence. You’re quite right to be embarrassed by that; but it’s the logical reductio of your own delusory premise. Deal with it.

  14. #14 chek
    February 25, 2013

    “Brad’s” still requiring more clarification from the Chuck Norris oeuvre, I see.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    you “argue”:

    BTW, if talking about someone [behind their back] is not kosher in your book, I look forward to your condemnation of Brad as a C****D! for talking about Mann, Schneider, Jones, Cook and others instead of talking to them.

    Alas for you, I have communicated directly to Dr Mann, on his facebook page, where he could respond. And respond he did …in a way. By bravely blocking me. :-)

    Alas for you, I did communicate directly to Professor Jones, by email, when he had all the time in the world to reply—having been temporarily stood down from his CRU directorship for confessing to crimes against science—but he apparently had nothing to say in his defence. Unless of course you count the media interview he gave, in which he claimed he was being driven to suicidal ideation by the phone calls and emails he was receiving. (Some of which were later published and were indeed cruel, vulgar and stupid.) Being a nice guy, I decided not to bother Jones again in his fragile state. Are you suggesting that it’s safe to do so again, Lotharsson? Do you have his new email address?

    You reproach me for not talking to John Cook. Alas for you, I’ve left a number of comments at Cook-moderated blogs, where he had every opportunity (and frequently took them) to reply inline to his critics. Would you prefer that I email him personally?

    You reproach me for not talking to Stephen Schneider. Fair enough. Next time you’re holding a seance, let me know.

    But your lame attempt to paint me as a C****D is pure p********n, Lothar.

  16. #16 chek
    February 25, 2013

    So your reputation as a c**t precedes you “Brad”.
    How interesting.

  17. #17 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Brad,

    In 2010, Robert Watson, a former Chair of the IPCC, noted of the errors discovered in the AR4 report: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.” A Dutch assessment of the IPCC AR4 found much the same.

    Please cite the source of this statement and in particular the emphasised portion.

    The problem is you see that a Google turns up loads of hits (mostly from the usual suspects) but when any paged is searched, and I have also tried removing the quotes from Watson’s alleged statement, I draw a blank.

    Why can you not simply link to the precise source for any quotations?

    BTW I was not in disagreement with Ian Forrester with respect to science and consensus and I went to some trouble informing you about the relationship between science and consensus, scientific consensus is an entirely valid concept as I argued here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-28/#comment-150556

    The scientific consensus on climate change describes the broad agreement on the specifics of the anthropogenic component as informed by the multidisciplinary nature of the data supporting that consensus position.

    As with other consensus positions in various other areas of science such as, relativity, plate tectonics and evolution there is still room for much debate about some of the details, indeed over the years this has required some drastic re-jigging of certain aspects of those sciences but the overall structure remains intact.

  18. #18 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “Why can you not simply link to the precise source for any quotations?”

    Because he doesn’t require evidence for claims he likes.

  19. #19 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Lionel, “Brad” isn’t here to understand what the scientific consensus is, he’s here to show there’s no such thing, and failing that, that it’s worthless.

    “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
    Frank Luntz.

    It’s classic Luntz denial straight from the manual as above. Only trouble is that being a moron, “Brad” doesn’t have the requisite skills to make a dent, except in his own completely demolished credibility.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Brad re correspondence with Mann and Jones,

    I would like to be able to read the content of the emails that you sent but judging by the inflammatory, inaccurate and even libellous statements you have made WRT these scientists here It is likely that they found your emails extremely offensive and indicative of a scientific ignoramus behaving badly.

    This whole thread has evolved because of your basic lack of scientific knowledge, of how science works and even of the back-story of the denial machine that has fed you the muck that has poisoned your mind. Indeed you showed considerable Chutzpah – equating to insolent audacity.

    You are clearly a neophyte in this area and need to do much background reading and avoiding the sources I listed here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-150022

    Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Mann and Jones opened those emails.

  21. #21 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “There is no dictionary in the world that defines ‘scientific consensus’ as anything more than ‘the majority opinion of scientists”

    There is no dictionary in the world that defines the plural of consensus as “consensi”.

    And there isn’t a dictionary that defines two words.

    Please stop living in denier-world, nobody outside the insanity can have a clue what you’re doing.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    And so what?

    Let say scientific consensus is the agreement of a majority of scientists.

    That consensus exists in climate science with the results of the IPCC.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    This will be fun.

  24. #24 chek
    February 25, 2013

    That consensus exists in climate science with the results of the IPCC.

    That would mean it was based on evidence, not popularity.
    I don’t think Chuck Norris has dealt with that on his Syllabus For Thunking Deniers yet, so the difference will elude “Brad” for a while yet.

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow,

    as you know, I no longer bother reading your comments, but my eye was caught by the extraordinary and (as far as I know) unprecedented sight of your writing something correct:

    Let say scientific consensus is the agreement of a majority of scientists.

    Yes.

    That’s what it is.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    chek:

    Lionel, “Brad” isn’t here to understand what the scientific consensus is, he’s here to show there’s no such thing,

    When have I ever claimed that, you liar?

    and failing that, that it’s worthless.

    It is worthless as evidence.

    As you know.

    Or have you decided that consensus is a form of scientific evidence, despite your earlier indignant denial of said idea?

  27. #27 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    And?

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Lionel A:

    BTW I was not in disagreement with Ian Forrester with respect to science and consensus

    So, shall I reinstate you on the “They Are to be Despised” list for endorsing Forrester’s exhortation to “ridicule” us for saying “consensus is not science”?

    Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?

  29. #29 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “When have I ever claimed that, you liar?”

    Where did chek ever claim you claimed that, you liar?

    “It is worthless as evidence.”

    Your opinion, which as you’ve said before, is worthless.

  30. #30 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Oh Bray, who gives a flying fuck who is on your “list”: you’re a nothing.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?”

    And all animals aren’t dogs.

  32. #32 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow:

    And?

    And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest.

    Which it is.

    (Don’t tell chek—I can’t stand to see lovers fight.)

  33. #33 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Bray, I don’t bother reading your posts either, just the quotes taken from your blatherings by others far more capable than you of cogitation.

  34. #34 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest.”

    No it doesn’t.

    It only makes it require the majority of scientists have to agree.

    Nothing there about being a contest. Only general agreement.

    Tell me, is consensus mathematics?

  35. #35 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Because you’ll find that there is a consensus among mathematicians that Pi is an irrational number.

    Does that mean that the value of Pi is a popularity contest?

    No.

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow:

    And there isn’t a dictionary in the world that defines two words.

    ROFLMAOAYI !!!

  37. #37 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Go on, then where does a dictionary define two words?

  38. #38 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Oh, that’s right: you don’t care about facts, just how brilliant you think you are.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    This should be amusing

  40. #40 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Or have you decided

    I haven’t decided anything, YOU LIAR.

    Hey this partial quote-mining thing is good fun – I can see how “Brad” thinks he’s clever now, in a special needs/Chuck Norris setting at least.

    When have I

    I neither know nor care, YOU MORON.

    Or have you decided that consensus is a form of scientific evidence, despite your earlier indignant denial of said idea?

    What ‘form’ would that be, “Brad”.
    This is, after all, your baby you’re trying to give birth to by pulling it out of your anus, so be as clear as you’re capable of.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Still no evidence for this claim: “And that would make scientific consensus a popularity contest.”

    No evidence: not a fact.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    A whole heap of quiet from Bray.

    I guess finding a dictionary that defines two words is proving difficult for him, rather in counter to his professed amazement at the statement that would indicate he thought the search would be trivially easy to show.

  43. #43 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    According to Bray, the existence of Australia, being a consensus view of people living there, is merely a popularity contest.

  44. #44 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    According to Bray, the existence of yesterday, being a consensus of most human beings, shows prior existence is merely a popularity contest.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    According to Bray, dictionary definitions, being a consensus of the language meanings, is merely a popularity contest.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    According to Bray, the only facts that aren’t consensus are the only ones that can ever be possibly true.

    He knows this because other deniers say so.

    Ooops.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    And according to Bray, the popularity of something is proof of it being incorrect.

    Given the number of deniers who backslap each other, he may have a very minor point here, though.

    Which is nice.

  48. #48 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    I wonder what would happen if I were the only one posting here.

  49. #49 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Since he thinks this thread is important, that most posts are from me is what is making it important.

  50. #50 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow,

    this is why I stopped reading your comments:

    Go on, then where does a dictionary define two words?

    You’re no challenge.

    Every dictionary I’ve got defines “flying fox.”

    And “Trojan horse.”

    And “heavy metal.”

    (But not “scientific consensus,” admittedly.)

  51. #51 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    But since he doesn’t read my posts, he must think that they aren’t important.

  52. #52 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Wow v Brad:

    “Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?”

    And all animals aren’t dogs.

    Exactly Wow, I originally finished off that post with a similar comparison and snipped at the last minute.

    And Brad, you can put me on whatever list you want I don’t give a flying phart for you can shove such up seventh rock from the sun. Which may be a difficult task seeing as you are full of it anyway.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    But that means then that this thread isn’t important, then, either.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    It’s a quandary for him, isn’t it.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “Every dictionary I’ve got defines “flying fox.””

    We have no evidence of this dictionary of yours.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    This is going to be funtastic..!

  57. #57 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    No challenge making Bray make a fool of himself.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Go on, show us where a dictionary defines two words.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow:

    According to Bray, dictionary definitions, being a consensus of the language meanings, is merely a popularity contest.

    The history of our lexicon is, in effect, just that: a popularity contest.

    If the vast majority of English speakers votes that the plural of “woman” is “women,” then that’s a pretty convincing argument that the plural of “woman” is “women.”

    Consensus is a form of evidence, in language.

    But not in science.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Lionel A:

    you quote this as if it’s some kind of zinger:

    “Or do you have the IQ to grasp that consensus is not science?”

    And all animals aren’t dogs.

    There’s no actual punchline there, but as long as you find it amusing, that’s nice.

    May I take this as confirmation that you agree with us deniers: consensus is not science?

    Right?

    No need to tell me shove it up my ass. Teen temper tantrums are so ten years ago.

    A simple agree/disagree is all you need to indicate.

  61. #61 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    BK

    No need to tell me shove it up my ass. Teen temper tantrums are so ten years ago.

    Once again you draw the wrong conclusions, nothing to do with teen temper tantrums (much too late for that, ten years – as if) but more about the utter contempt that I now hold you in.

  62. #62 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Consensus is a form of evidence, in language.

    But not in science.

    You not being a scientist HTFWYK!

  63. #63 BBD
    February 25, 2013

    Brad’s ‘axioms’:

    1. “consensus is not science”
    [Agreed]

    2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
    [Agreed]

    3. scientific consensus is not evidence of scientific evidence
    [Disagree; yes, it is in the specific sense that it *derives* from scientific evidence]

    4. scientific consensus does not “indicate the strength of the argument”
    [Disagree; yes, it does because it derives from the scientific evidence]

    5. it is illegitimate for scientists to argue, or seek to persuade the public, or seek to convey the strength of an argument, using non-evidence (e.g. scientific consensus)
    [Disagree; you ignore the source of a scientific consensus, which is scientific evidence]

    6. a scientific consensus can occur in the absence of what John Cook calls “a consensus [i.e. a consilience] of evidence” (multiple lines of evidence all converging on a single consistent answer)
    [Disagree; the SC is derived from the scientific evidence; how could it come into existence *without* said evidence and even if it could, being *derived* from scientific evidence, how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?]

    Apart from avoiding answering the substantive questions, I can see no purpose to your attempt to re-hash a discussion we had a long time back. If you really care, then go and look at the relevant comments yourself. Presumably they are all still there.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 25, 2013

    Now, answer my questions.

    That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

    What reasons?

  65. #65 BBD
    February 25, 2013

    BK

    More questions:

    - Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded you from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications (True/false)

    - You understand the situation reasonably well but reject the standard position because it is in direct conflict with your political beliefs (True/false)

    - You have glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW (True/false)

    Once again, I invite you to examine your conscience and tell us what you find.

    Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why do you never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?

    Is it politics? You say not, but I for one think you are lying because you are evasive

    Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won’t read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up your constructed reality at any cost to your own integrity or that of your ‘arguments’ etc).

    Only you can clear this up and you keep refusing to do so. So we continue to assume you are lying and it’s politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps, for all the bravado and bluster, you are actually terrified inside. So frightened that your mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.

    Is *this* the case, Brad?

  66. #66 BBD
    February 25, 2013

    Or is it mainly ignorance and politics?

  67. #67 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Hey “Brad” when that vigilante your fellow moron mob took the popular decision (after being stoked up by a press campaign orchestrated by one of Murdoch’s flunkies) to attack the house of a paediatrician (marked with a brass plaque, naturally) believing it to be the dwelling of a self-advertised paedophile, were they right because that was their popular, ill-educated, pig-ignorant consensus opinion?

    Why are you trying (as in expending thousands of words) to peg the IPCC at the same level? And do you see why you won’t succeed?

  68. #68 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    “The history of our lexicon is, in effect, just that: a popularity contest.”

    So words mean nothing, then.

  69. #69 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Consensus is a form of evidence

    Glad you agree that consensus is evidence.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    BBD, Bray’s avoidance of any answers can be seen by his evident flip-flopping he’s done on consensus.

    Before consensus is not evidence
    Now Consensus is a form of evidence

  71. #71 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    I told you this would be fun.

  72. #72 Lionel A
    February 25, 2013

    Wow,

    I told you this would be fun.

    If you consider watching a pompous pretentious prat (and there is something Moncktonesque about BK) eviscerate himself with his own words as fun then yes it could be.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    Wow,

    “Consensus is a form of evidence”

    Glad you agree that consensus is evidence.

    I wrote:

    Consensus is a form of evidence, in language.

    But not in science.

    Quote-doctoring to alter the original meaning is a form of lying.

    You’re back to lying.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 25, 2013
    Wow,

    “Consensus is a form of evidence”

    Glad you agree that consensus is evidence.

    I wrote:

    Consensus is a form of evidence

    Indeed you did write just exactly what I said.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 25, 2013
    Wow,

    “Consensus is a form of evidence”

    Glad you agree that consensus is evidence.

    I wrote:

    Consensus is a form of evidence

    Indeed you did write just exactly what I said.

  76. #76 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Go away.

    Ya Wol! Mein Kommondant!!!

    How quickly you abandon JSM’s liberty at the earliest convenience.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    BBD:

    - Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded you from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications (True/false)

    How would I know?

    - You understand the situation reasonably well but reject the standard position because it is in direct conflict with your political beliefs (True/false)

    False.

    - You have glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW (True/false)

    Not as far as I’m aware!

    Thanks for your questions!

  78. #78 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Or should I say

    Jawohl, mein Koncerned Women’s Auxiliarykommandant!

    ?

  79. #79 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    BBD asked:

    – Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded you from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications (True/false)

    Rather than type a single-word answer, Bray typed:

    How would I know?

    No, Bray, it’s a simple question with a single-word answer (true or false), and your evasion of it is astounding.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    BBD asked:

    – You have glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW (True/false)

    Rather than type a single-word answer, Bray typed:

    Not as far as I’m aware!

    No, Bray, it’s a simple question with a single-word answer (true or false), and your evasion of it is astounding.

  81. #81 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    Before: consensus is not evidence
    Now: Consensus is a form of evidence

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    February 25, 2013

    BBD:

    1. “consensus is not science”
    [Agreed]

    Good.

    Just be prepared to “be ridiculed and told that [you] are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner” by a certain Forrester.

    2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
    [Agreed]

    Good.

    But this makes your later comments surprising (my emphasis):

    the SC is derived from the scientific evidence; how could it come into existence *without* said evidence and even if it could, being *derived* from scientific evidence, how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?

    I would have thought you’d just answered that question yourself.

  83. #83 Wow
    February 25, 2013

    But this makes your later comments surprising (my emphasis):

    Only because you’re a half-wit with half your brain taking the lifetime off.

    You even said it yourself:

    Consensus is a form of evidence

  84. #84 Wow
    February 25, 2013
    how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?

    I would have thought you’d just answered that question yourself.

    Funny how you never explain yourself how that worked. You just want everyone else to do the work, you workshy scrounger.

  85. #85 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Poor ol’ “Brad”cammy.

    Hopefully this self-inflicted final phase burn-out is being documented by Stephan L., as a post script at least.

  86. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Basic grammar lesson for Brad, who only managed to spend 3 years at Uni learning to talk bullshit:

    Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models

    Who’s doing the predicting in this sentence?

    LOL, indeed….

    As the suggestor here of the claim that, “all IPCC errors are in one direction”, it is up to you to show it.

    We’ve demonstrated your first source was wrong.

    Try another.

  87. #87 peterd
    February 25, 2013

    Lionel (#17):
    I found what appears to be the source of Brad’s quote of Watson in the Wikipedia article. See the article’s Reference 8.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Watson_(scientist)

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Brad asks,

    When Robert Watson said, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” which typos was he referring to, Vince?

    Let’s start with, “Did Robert Watson say such a thing”?

    Why do you quote somebody without providing a reference?

    Excuse me for being sceptical, but when I see such a thing, I imagine a quote crafted by a crank and lovingly passed around from crank to crank, then brandished when required to protect its bearer from any imminent danger posed by facts or knowledge in much the same way a superstitious and trembling Romanian peasant will brandish a clove of garlic at the shadows of the night.

    Bearing in the mind all the fake quotes assigned to David Houghton, and the evident fact that the statement within the pruported quote is non-factual, scepticism is probably a sensible approach.

  89. #89 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Jonathan Leake!

    ROTFL!

    Brad’s been had, again!

    What a gullible duufus he is…

  90. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Correcting my earlier post:

    Basic grammar lesson for Brad, who only managed to spend 3 years at Uni learning to talk bullshit:

    Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models

    Who’s doing the predicting in this sentence?

    LOL, indeed….

    As the suggestor here of the claim that, “all IPCC errors are in one direction”, it is up to you to show it.

    We’ve demonstrated your first source was fraudulent and wrong.

    Try another.

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    @#73, Brad said:

    Quote-doctoring to alter the original meaning is a form of lying.

    You’re back to lying.

    Liars are not welcome here.

    Good.

    So, bye then, Brad, we certainly won’t miss you.

  92. #92 chek
    February 25, 2013

    “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.” Adding “We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”[

    But we now know (in the light of real world events such as the more rapid than predicted collapse of Arctic sea ice) that Watson was wrong. That the misnomered ‘skeptics’ hang on to an old quote is par for the course with them.

  93. #93 Stu
    February 25, 2013

    There’s simply no way this clown ever made it through a single college-level course on propositional logic or set theory.

  94. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    Stu, there are some pretty piss-poor Universities out there…

  95. #95 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Oh, and before “Brad”cammy gets too excited, this is what deniers do all the live long day.

    Unquoted “quotes” from their pet sources such as the recent supposed Pachauri ‘quote’ from Murdoch’s flunky Graham Lloyd that had deniers wetting their pantieZ across the blogosphere.

    It’s far easier to manufacturei ncidental fanciful garbage from pet pooches than to dispute any actual science papers, especially when you don’t bother quoting the actual words spoken and just paraphrase them to taste.

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    February 25, 2013

    More background on Brad’s favoured source on whether the IPCC contains errors or not:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/20/leakegate-how-jonathan-leake-c/

    Leake also claims that

    A leading British government scientist [Robert Watson] has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

    But since Leake routinely misrepresents his sources, we don’t know what Watson really said.

    How about you just read it yourself?
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): “The Physical Science Basis”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    How about starting with
    Chapter4, Section5:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5.html
    4.5 Changes in Glaciers and Ice Caps

    How about finding just one error for us?

  97. #97 chek
    February 25, 2013

    But not that piss-poor Vince, surely.
    Except for the Oregon Institute home school packs of course.

  98. #98 chameleon
    February 25, 2013

    Vince,
    after reading your made up nonsense at the Feb thread, I am imagining something very different to you.
    Vince seems to have invented a formula for an invented personality disordef called ‘intellect envy’.
    He thinks people who comment at some blog (Bolt?) hate ‘smart’ people like him.
    I think Vince needs to follow Latimer’s (?) advice and get out more.
    He revealed a few weeks ago that he works on the 4th floor of a government building.
    Why would anyone envy that?
    He also must spend far too much time on these crank blogs he keeps mentioning.
    What’s smart about that?
    Vince also keeps arguing from an ‘us & them’ (them being morons who lack intelligence or the ability to think) mindset, as if he imagines we are in a soap opera or fairytale.
    I have some suggestions for you Vince:
    Walk out of your office and talk to real people who work outside or who work with other real people in other real businesses.
    Instead of forming your opinions about people from stupud toxic political blogs from both sides of the climate debate, go outside and talk to real people (as per suggestion 1) and read the primary literature BEFORE(!) you read blod reviews.
    (This will help you avoid errors like your assertions re BEST).
    That is probably enough for now, other than a suggestion that you develop a sense of humour.

  99. #99 chameleon
    February 25, 2013

    Oops!
    apologies for the typos.

  100. #100 chek
    February 25, 2013

    Calumny, just because you know nothing does not mean that applies to everybody. The echo chamber is called that for a reason,and morons will always lag behind in being aware.