Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
And FFS sake Calumny, do NOT pretend to have a handle on what the literature (BEST or otherwise) shows or doesn’t show. You’ve proved that’s beyond you.
-
You really are hard of understanding, aren’t you Chameleon?
The 4th-floor government building I mentioned in relation to some nesting pee-wees (who you remind me of) was a place I once did some work at, (I was sat on the ground floor).
Co-incidentally, I now work on a 4th floor, but at Macquarie Park this time (ie, not a government building).
And, clearly, I didn’t suggest you suffer from any envy as to the situation of my work cubicle, I was merely pointing out that incredibly dumb people such as yourself, and the intellectually-limited likes of Brad, are ferociously opposed to accepting the advice of those who are smarter than them, because they suffer from intellect-envy.
Australia has intellect-envy in spades – people who do well at school are “smart arses”; smart people who get jobs as government advisors are reviled and threatened by dim-witted loons; etc….
And…blow me down with a feather – did you just suggest *I* read primary sources, Chameleon?
Coming from somebody who hasn’t even read secondary sources such as the IPCC reports, and clearly can’t grasp how BEST failed by finding that MBH98 was correct, don’t you feel kind of embarrassed by that suggestion?
-
‘fraid not Vince. Calumny’s overweening stupidity leaves the sense of entitlement, despite the obvious inequalities, completely intact.
-
Chek,
For fox ache!
You could also follow the suggestions I made to Vince.
I am NOT your enemy or an enemy of the environment.
I don’t hate you or Vince. In fact I don’t really have much of an opinion about you one way or another. I don’t know you.
Vince’s assertions about ‘intellect envy’ are absolutely hilarious.
He even made up a stupid formula based on comments at a political blog.
Vince seems to think there is a war going on between ‘smart people’ and everyone else and that only his idea of ‘smart people’ can possibly understand anything in this world.
Of course Vince also thinks he is one of these ‘smart people’.
Apparently that then follows if anyone DARES to question Vince’s beliefs or the beliefs of his definition of ‘the experts’, they are automatically a ‘moron’ and suffer from an ability to think and he has even inferred that it’s a shame that these (not smart like him) people are allowed to have a vote!
It does make for very amusing reading.
I may or may not have a better handle on the BEST work than you or Vince.
How would you know?
What I did do, however, was read it BEFORE I read any blog reviews of it and was therefore able to make up my own mind.
There is no CONFIRMATION of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST.
David B is the only person here who has been honest enough to point out that due to the limitations (especially time frames) in BEST it has some similarities (which is EONS from a CONFIRMATION) to the latter part of the MBH98 hockey stick in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.
So where have you and Vince et al picked up the notion that BEST has CONFIRMED the hockey stick?
Wouldn’t have been from a blog review (as opposed to a peer reviewed science article) by any chance?
My guess (and of course it is JUST an educated guess, nothing more, nothing less) is that you have both fallen as victims for the ‘academic pissing contest’ that ensued after the release of BEST.
Neither WUWT or RC or SKS or Jonova or whomever were particularly interested in discussing the actual BEST paper.
They were far more interested in using it to conduct a war in academic semantics and politics. -
Too good to pass up:
Vince’s assertions about ‘intellect envy’ are absolutely hilarious.
Spoken like someone who’s never come close to being the target of “intellect envy”.
(Furthermore, those engaging in it are prone to cite humour as an excuse when employing it.)
-
Please substantiate your diagnosis of “demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy.”
With reference to the DSM criteria, obviously.
It’s interesting that you refer to the (historically fraught) DSM, given that narcissism is likely to be omitted from the next iteration (now there’s an irony if ever there was one…) and psychopathy is not currently explicitly defined by DSM IV.
There is a rich literature of both beyond DSM however, and if would be even funnier to see if the Wizard of Keyes can pick the characteristics on his own behaviour on Deltoid that would lead a person to speculate about the two conditions.
So knock yourself out Brad. You’re so clever – let’s see if you can pick the signs that lead me (and others, no doubt) to wonder…
-
Others; no doubt at all…
-
So where have you and Vince et al picked up the notion that BEST has CONFIRMED the hockey stick?
Um….in sequence:
1. Reading what its champions were expecting it to show
2. Reading what it did eventually actually show
2.a. Watching the reactions of its previous champions when it failed to deliver the result they wanted.
2.a.i. Chortling with amusement at the reputational hara-kiri performed by these non-scientist cranks. -
chek,
So this is a real quote from Robert Watson?
“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.
I guess that means we can bypass Vince’s tedious denials of its legitimacy.
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 …
Bearing in the mind all the fake quotes assigned to David [sic] Houghton, and the evident fact that the statement within the pruported quote is non-factual, scepticism is probably a sensible approach. …
Jonathan Leake!
ROTFL!
Brad’s been had, again!
What a gullible duufus he is …
@#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.
Well that was a waste of time, wasn’t it? Thanks Vince. :-/
-
Bernard J,
interesting take on the burden of evidence:
So knock yourself out Brad. You’re so clever – let’s see if you can pick the signs that lead me (and others, no doubt) to wonder…
No, let’s not.
Let’s see if you can justify the diagnosis you made. Or are you just as full of shit as you seem?
-
Lotharsson?
“……the target of “intellect envy”.
Too good to pass up?
I guess you’re saying that you think you’re a target of ‘intellect envy’ too and that you think there is such a thing as a formula ‘intellect envy’? …as in the one that Vince made up?
ROFL
Anyway, it’s rather interesting to see you grace this thread with your presence rather than commenting about this thread at the other one.
Even more interesting that unlike Brad K, I could have continued the conversation at the Feb thread.
Is that ‘smart’ of you Lotharsson? -
Yawn.
-
Brad Keyes (February 26, 2013) wrote: “chek,
So this is a real quote from Robert Watson?”
Well, Brad, I am still trying to verify this. Maybe you can help. The only source that I can find for the original quote (admittedly I haven’t searched that hard) is the Wikipedia article on Watson, where the source is given as Jonathan Leake, in the Times online. On trying to follow this link, using The Times online’s search engine, I find that I stand before a paywall and can only read a few lines of the article. So, as far as I am concerned, the source cannot be verified. (However, I will try my uni library tonight, in the hope that they subscribe to the Times online.)
That said, even if Watson was reported accurately, SO WHAT? -
Is that ‘smart’ of you Lotharsson?
Yep!
It provided almost exactly the reaction I anticipated – right down to missing the distinction between engaging BK and engaging you, and further verification that you are arguing against “intellect envy” from a position of personal ignorance.
Thanks!
-
Well then Lotharsson,
Please, by all means, do define what you think is meant by ‘intellect envy’ considering you are claiming I am now arguing against ‘intellect envy’.
I’m fascinated that you claim it’s possible to argue against ‘intellect envy’ and that you could anticipate that.
What is this ‘intellect envy’ that you anticipated I would argue against Lotharsson?
BTW Lotharsson, I am fully aware that you were engaging with me.
Of course you would have anticipated that I would comment on your appearance here. I have made no secret of the fact that I think the behaviour is somewhat questionable.
That doesn’t change the fact that you have been prattling on about this thread at the Feb thread.
We all know you CAN do that and that you have CHOSEN to do that.
Like doh!
-
Brad says,
chek,
So this is a real quote from Robert Watson?
…
I guess that means we can bypass Vince’s tedious denials of its legitimacy.You tell us, you quoted it – where did you get it from? Is it real?
Come on, we’re waiting.
For the moment, I personally will assume you got it from the Transylvanian peasant.
-
Chameleon asks,
What is this ‘intellect envy’ that you anticipated I would argue against Lotharsson?
It’s perfectly simple:
I assert the likes of yourself and Brad hate science, scientists, the scientific process and the knowledge it results in for the reason that you suffer from intellect envy.Do you admit it, or are you arguing?
-
Perhaps you could start by denying that you sourced that quote from the unreliable Jonathan Leake?
-
And seeing as you are so keen to talk about the IPCC’s supposed “mistakes”, have you read this yet?
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.htmlHow 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 CapsHow about finding just one error for us?
-
Before I tender the evidence for your narcissism and possible borderline psychopathy as I see it, Keyes, I will ask you again if you can detect anything in your behaviour that would lead others to perceive such traits.
Are you genuinely unable to understand why other see you as such?
-
Well Vince,
That’s an accusation and an assertion, not a definition.
I asked Lotharsson for a ‘definition’ of this ‘intellect envy’ that I am apparently arguing against.
BTW, your personal accusation/assertions are incorrect, rather insulting and probably not very ‘smart’ of you.
Some of my family, some of my best friends and quite a number of my business associates are scientists.
I bear no ill will towards science, the scientific process or the knowledge that science brings.
Ironically, I have science subjects in my uni degrees.
My IQ is just peachy and I bear no ill will towards other people with higher than average IQ.
Nor do I bear any ill will towards people who don’t have university quals and/or higher IQ’s.
IMHO, being ‘smart’ or a ‘smart person’ is not just about IQ or possessing tertiary quals. -
I asked Lotharsson for a ‘definition’ of this ‘intellect envy’
Well, if you’re having trouble with words, look them up in the dictionary instead of wasting our time here.
IMHO, being ‘smart’ or a ‘smart person’ is not just about IQ or possessing tertiary quals.
Of course not, no matter how incoherent they might be, some people console themselves with something they like to call, “emotional intelligence”.
Funny how “emotional intelligence” seems negatively correlated with science comprehension and positively correlated with belief in woo, though, isn’t it Chameleon?
Into a bit of homeopathy, are we?
-
You tell us, you quoted it – where did you get it from? Is it real?
I got it from Roger Pielke Jr, as should have been obvious from my Roger Pielke Jr quotation.Come on, we’re waiting.
Why? I already told you where it came from (Roger Pielke Jr) when I first quoted it.
For the moment, I personally will assume you got it from the Transylvanian peasant.
But since I was clearly quoting Roger Pielke Jr, that’s a stupid assumption.
Perhaps you could start by denying that you sourced that quote from the unreliable Jonathan Leake?
I deny that; but let me go even further and tell you my source!
It was from Roger Pielke Jr.
-
Just following the trail here, but Pielke isn’t quoting Watson here, exactly, he’s reporting what someone else said.
Specifically, he sources the quote to The Australian which reprinted an article from the Sunday Times by Ben Webster and Robin Pagnamenta. That article simple reports that Watson said them without providing any details of when or where that might allow independent verification.
While Pielke referenced the remarks as Webster and Pagnamenta reported them, he also showed that the claim was wrong, didn’t he Brad? Pielke’s review of Brysse et al confirms that three out of the three AR4 errors they included are underestimates.
Is this some subtlety that escaped me? That these underestimates simultaneously overstate the impact?
-
Bernard J:
Before I tender the evidence for your narcissism and possible borderline psychopathy as I see it, Keyes, I will ask you again if you can detect anything in your behaviour that would lead others to perceive such traits.
What’s with this “Keyes” nonsense, Bernard? The polite thing to say is “Brad.” Were you raised by fucking wolves?
Sure, there’ve been an infinity of behaviours on my part that could easily lead others who had no idea what they were talking about to suggest I had “such traits.” We all know the kind of pop-psychologist poseurs I’m alluding to here: the idiots who accuse us deniers of “thinking you’re so much smarter than, you know, the world’s leading scientists!” one day and “intellect envy” the next day.
Are you genuinely unable to understand why other see you as such?
Uh, because others are idiots maybe?
Now, stop stalling and “tender the evidence”!
-
interesting take on the burden of evidence:
Just because you ignore any evidence given to you doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
So you now need to show evidence for YOUR claims.
So far you have shown ZERO evidence.
-
Are you genuinely unable to understand why other see you as such?
Uh, because others are idiots maybe?
Oh, the irony…
-
I got it from Roger Pielke Jr, as should have been obvious from my Roger Pielke Jr quotation.
Where is that RPJ quotation? I bet you didn’t link to RPJ saying it, did you.
And given that it is the same as Leake, your assertion is still just that: unverified assertion.
It’s a strange reversal of evidence you have here: we>/i> have to prove where your statement came from.
And since it still isn’t from Woods either, whether he said it or not is still unverified.
-
I deny that; but let me go even further and tell you my source!
Telling is not showing.
Unscientific claptrap, yet again, from Braying Donkey.
-
What’s with this “Keyes” nonsense, Bernard? The polite thing to say is “Brad.”
you just answered your own question.
You’re a moron.
-
You missed a much bigger load of codswallop irony, Bernard:
Now, stop stalling and “tender the evidence”!
!!!
-
Wow?
Do you ever get that ‘you’re posting too fast, slow down’ message?
I get it when I try to apologise for typos.
Just asking -
Brad Keyes
You were asked to respond True/False to three questions:
[You know nothing about the science T/F]
How would I know?
- You have already admitted wide-ranging ignorance of the scientific evidence, some of which we discussed in detail (ECS; paleoclimate behaviour and CO2). That’s how you know you know nothing about the science.
[You deny the evidence because it conflicts with your political beliefs T/F]
False
- See below
[You are afraid of AGW and so in denial T/F]
Not as far as I’m aware!
- See below
***
You say:
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.
You deny that it’s politics, deny that you are in denial and admit that you know nothing about the science. How you can reject the standard scientific position on AGW from a position of ignorance is a mystery to me, unless we invoke politics and/or denial arising from fear.
So what are your reasons?
What can they be?
-
Geeze BBD,
Why are you missing the bleeding obvious?
I am seriously disappointed.
BTW I think you have just surpassed Lotharsson, Vince, Bill and Wow on the den/y/alist/ism meter.
-
Calumny, I’m torn between deciding whether you could possibly be a real-life person, or a sock on “Brad’s” masturbating hand.
Strange how you give that impression, isn’t it?
-
Chek?
ROFL!
You are a hoot
I don’t know BradK any better than I know you sweetie.
I couldn’t give a toss for your personal insults Chekky babe.
Any sexual behaviour is defintely reserved for my husband.
-
# 34
What am I missing that is ‘bleeding obvious’?
-
Nothing, BBD.
But by saying so, the idiot thinks that this will be “proof enough” of something being missed.
-
# 34
Come on. Answer me.
-
You know what, wow? I’m beginning to wonder if chameleon might just possibly be a troll?
What do you think?
-
Oh, I think you’re on safe ground with that prediction.
-
No Calumny, given your remarkably similar skillsets (and lack of) and single directional support, I was implying a far more intimate relationship.
-
@ 34
What am I missing? If not ignorance or politics or denial or a mix of same, what possible ‘reasons’ can there be for rejecting the mainstream position on AGW?
None are obvious to me. So please answer the question.
-
What you missed (not really, but by actually asking rather than just answering for them because they will never do so) is that Bray is trolling, pure and simple.
-
Vince wrote:
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.htmlHow 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 CapsHow about finding just one error for us?
Indeed and I was trying to get Brad to investigate that for himself when I wrote in http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-29/#comment-150658:
You do realise the minor nature of the errors in the AR4 wrt Himalayan glacier melt do you not? If you do not then go study the appropriate sections where you will find that one such could be nothing more than a typo that went unchallenged by a body not actually engaged in investigative scientific work, which is not the function of the IPCC.
But of course BK in his arrogant ignorance decided that wasn’t for him ’cause he just knows what he gets from Pielke etc., is the truth.
What the likes of Brad don’t realise is that most of us, myself included, have had locally available copies of this entire document (and many associated) for study long since, which we did when this particular zombie was set running the first time. Not only that, I would hazard that most like myself keep a hierarchical list of appropriate bookmarks handy, which unfortunately after some time fail but if the page or doc has been saved can most times be found gain – at least from those sources with nothing to hide.
But aside from other things discovered at the time SkS as ever produced a handy reference The IPCC’s 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
-
Keyes, this ‘so ten years ago‘ stuff is rich coming from you:
Were you raised by fucking wolves?
Don’t be so silly, how could wolves raise anything (other than the obvious but best not go there) if they are so busy fucking?
You now descend into pure comedy as you swallow your tail, or should it be tale.
-
@ 34
No response?
I’m seriously disappointed.
-
Bernard J:
“”Are you genuinely unable to understand why other see you as such?”
Uh, because others are idiots maybe?”Er… I mean… others are so smart with their superior intellect! We hates them!
Oh, the irony…
Come now, Bernard, don’t be too hard on Lotharsson and his
theoryhypothesisconjectureguessing—he’s not a competent psychologist like you! At least he’s trying to explain behaviour that confuses him.Speaking of which, remind me:
did I ask you to keep stalling? Or pony up your evidence?
The second one, I’m pretty sure.
-
Stalling for time still, Bray?
-
Lionel A:
But aside from other things discovered at the time SkS as ever produced a handy reference The IPCC’s 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Hey, I thought the IPCC was “not in the business of making predictions”! (Was it Vince or chek who set us all straight on this?) The IPCC makes projections, Lionel! Your choice of words makes you sound suspiciously like some sort of denier.
By the way, what happened to Naomi Oreskes’ (and some of the local troletariat’s) adamance that the 2035
preder, prophecy was “a typo”? Even John Cook isn’t brazen enough to try that one on! LOL -
BBD:
What am I missing? If not ignorance or politics or denial or a mix of same, what possible ‘reasons’ can there be for rejecting the mainstream position on AGW?
Of the myriad positions on AGW current among scientists who acknowledge (like I do) that it’s a real phenomenon, how on earth do you know which position is the “mainstream” one? (I assume you mean the modal / majority position?)
-
Hey, I thought the IPCC was “not in the business of making predictions”!
Yes, you probably would.
-
Yes, you’re even in denial about denial.
Who would have thought it.
-
Of the myriad positions on AGW current among scientists
You’re confusing ‘scientists’ with ‘pseudoscientists’.
It’s the latter group that have ‘myriad’ , conflicting and self-contradictory positions (which happily for some, all happen to go in the same direction as approved of by the fossil fuel lobby).
-
None of them ever bother to disagree with each other, though, do they.
Doesn’t look like they believe IN their position, they merely agree AGAINST the science.
-
chek:
It’s the latter group that have ‘myriad’ , conflicting and self-contradictory positions (which happily for some, all happen to go in the same direction as approved of by the fossil fuel lobby).
LOL
I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!
I know a super-smart mental health perfessional who can help you with that mode of ideation, chek. If you ever want to talk to someone about it, email stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au
-
-
I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!
Something else you know nothing about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
-
wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!
Of course you didn’t chucklebrain, their outposts tell you that all the time, don’t they. And you’re only too ready to believe them too chucklehead, because – and I don’t know why you just don’t come clean and admit it to BBD – you’re a moron denier.
In total, between 2002 and 2010 Donors’ Trust and the Donors’ Capital Fund, the two identity-laundering groups paid $311m to 480 organisations -
Defend your position, Brad.
I say you are a lying, mentally ill, ignorant fool.
Prove me wrong by answering the question this time.
Explain your reasons.
-
Or I’m going to carry on filling in the blanks for you.
-
“I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!”
Yet you believe in a scientific conspiracy to make up facts in support of AGW.
Hmmm.
-
Remember, as long as Bray has one unanswered question out there, he will insist they are answered before he deigns to answer yours.
And if you do answer them all, he’ll ask another question before he answers, so that there will now be another unanswered question out there for you to answer first.
-
Lionel A,
on one of the minor threads (where, as you know, I don’t respond inline to my critics) you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
… scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You then linked your few readers to some google searches, which are of zero avail to you because they fail to show that I’ve ever denied the existence of consensus in science.
Apparently you think you can justify your aspersion with the further generalisation that, “Anyone who checks these citations will see that [the alleged claim is] made regularly by well know[n] and not so well known AGW deniers.”
Well, it is well know[n], among those who know stuff, that I am not an AGW denier.
So that excuse is abortive.
Secondly, even you know that I’ve never claimed that scientific consensus doesn’t exist. Google can’t help you prove a lie.
Thirdly, just in case you were thinking of pretending you only accused me of saying that, “Science is not about consensus,” science is not about consensus. I don’t believe I’ve ever pointed it out to you before, largely because it’s so goddamn obvious. Nothing could be closer to the truth than the fact that science is not about consensus. If you don’t grasp this, it’s a sad indictment of your nation’s education system.
-
More hilarious walter mitty views from Bray.
-
Keyes:
Hey, I thought the IPCC was “not in the business of making predictions”
Faff about over words all you like you are still in a mess WRT that Watson quote. You see you shouldn’t trust Uncle Roger when it comes to quotes as he seems to have gone to the same training school for quoting as Plimer.
By the way, what happened to Naomi Oreskes’ (and some of the local troletariat’s) adamance that the 2035 pred er, prophecy was “a typo”? Even John Cook isn’t brazen enough to try that one on! LOL
So you still have not gone to the heart of that matter then.
Why do you keep repeating from ignorance. Because you say John Cooke isn’t brazen enough to try that one does not mean he would not, he just hasn’t. You gotta do better than this.Looks like your holes within holes are getting tighter, less wiggle room.
-
But you’ve said that consensus is a form of evidence, Bray.
-
BBD:
Defend your position, Brad.
I say you are a lying, mentally ill, ignorant fool.
Make up your mind, BBD.
Prove me wrong by answering the question this time.
Explain your reasons.
No. It would be a waste of my valuable time to articulate the evidence against your belief system, when you and I don’t even understand / mean the same thing by the concept “evidence.”
First things first.
-
” “I say you are a lying, mentally ill, ignorant fool.”
Make up your mind, BBD.”
You are lying, mentally ill and an ignorant fool too. They are not mutually exclusive.
You should read up what those words mean.
In your dictionary that defines two words!
-
“First things first.”
See what I mean in post #63.
-
“valuable time”
LOL!
-
Brad, you haven’t defended your reasoning. Again.
You stand revealed as a deluded, dishonest, evasive, ignorant, naive and mentally ill troll.
-
Sorry, I missed ‘arrogant’.
-
Keyes you are confused about this too, looks like you are entering melt down here:
Lionel A,
on one of the minor threads (where, as you know, I don’t respond inline to my critics) you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
… scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I had trouble finding this, as you didn’t provide a precise pointer, one of your stupid baffle-gab tactics I know, and then I did find it but guess what, it was not I that wrote that and here is the evidence precisely pointed:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/#comment-150922
And the rest of that post is simply more repeated prolix bolix. If you are not an AGW denier then what are you, given the way this thread has played out?
Here is your theme tune,
but
I would rather listen to the early hits from this artist with a smile to melt ice, having collected her early singles and first three LPs, the third one of which ‘North Country Maid’ would now cost serious money by the look of things. As she appears there she is almost a dead ringer for my youngest daughter who is now in her late thirties.
-
- Brad chuckles “I wasn’t aware anybody seriously believed that conspiracist garbage about a fossil-fuel-funded denial industry anymore!”
- Several people provide links with proof of that industry.
- Brad reverts back to whining about his own, new, magical, superior definition of “consensus”.
Shocker.
-
Stu:
- Brad reverts back [sic] to whining about his own, new, magical, superior definition of “consensus”.
Yep, my “own” definition of consensus (as majority opinion) is so new and magical that it’s found in every dictionary known to humankind.
Return back (sic) to Jotunheim, troll.
-
Aw poor “Brad” it was everybody else that made you the dishonest little denier, unable to admit any error or acknowledge any lie, that you are and none of it is poor li’ll “Brad’s” fault, nosiree Bob.
Both pathetic and disgusting “Brad”. Well done.
-
Lionel A,
while I congratulate you on the pulchritude of your spawn, I fear you are confused about this too, and that you may be entering meltdown here:
Keyes you are confused about this too, looks like you are entering melt down here:
“on one of the minor threads (where, as you know, I don’t respond inline to my critics) you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
“… scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. “”
Far from confused, I wrote what you quote in a state of crystal lucidity. As you figured out for yourself, at length, the basis for my precisely true remark was your precisely false accusation (emphasis added):
Here is another example of the lies, ignorance and arrogance shown by Keyes. He is a know nothing who just likes to disgree with anything anyone says*.
Back on page 4 of this thread (comment # 72: I wrote:
“I always get a good laugh when scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth”
Keyes responded in his usual insulting, dishonest and completely wrong fashion by stating (page 28 comment #7 of his thread):
“Citation?
Oh, that’s right—you just made it up.”
And since I’ve never said what you falsely attribute to me—that science is not about consensus and consensus does not exist in science—I reiterate, if only for the edification of our readers: you made it up.
*Incidentally, I’m an agreeable person par excellence and would much rather concur with others, but unfortunately they have to be right in order to enable me to do so.
And the rest of that post is simply more repeated prolix bolix.
Hehehe. How can I stay mad at you, A, when you put such wit into your comments?
If you are not an AGW denier then what are you, given the way this thread has played out?
An AGW believer.
-
In case that was too prollocks for you, Lionel A, here’s the chase:
Since I’ve never said what you falsely attribute to me—that science is not about consensus and consensus does not exist in science—I reiterate, if only for the edification of our readers: you made it up.
-
Yep, my “own” definition of consensus (as a popularity contest)
FTFY unless you’re now dropping the “it’s only a popularity contest”.
Are you?
-
Far from confused, I wrote what you quote in a state of crystal lucidity.
Yeah, just like Nero’s “crystal lucidity”, right?
-
An AGW believer.
Yeah, believe it to be false.
Oh dear, your linguistic feats are obvious.
Try getting an education next time, hmm?
-
BK
If you aren’t lying, or ignorant of the scientific evidence (although you have admitted that you are) or politically prejudiced or in denial, then it is very hard to understand why you say:
I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.
What are your reasons?
What can they possibly be?
-
Try answering the question, Brad.
-
Since I’ve never said what you falsely attribute to me—that science is not about consensus and consensus does not exist in science
So you now say that your rant against Ian Forrester was a load of baloney???
How quick you turn, when it becomes convenient to change your statement.
A proper little whore, aren’t you?
-
BBD:
Brad, you haven’t defended your reasoning. Again.
That’s because it would be a waste of my valuable time to articulate the evidence against your belief system when you and I don’t even understand or mean the same thing by the concept “evidence.”
You wrongly disagreed with the majority of my 6 (axiomatic) epistemological ground rules for scientific conversation. I’m drafting a detailed exposition of your mistaken reasoning, but the Augean chore (with which you haven’t lifted a finger to help) of cleaning up after the troletariat is delaying that reply to you.
-
“with which you haven’t lifted a finger to help”
Aaaw, widdle bwad keeps cannot do it aww awone….
ROFL!!!
-
What talents?
You have none.
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1 -
Y’see BBD, it’s not “Brad’s” fault at all, nosiree Bob.
He’s not squirming and evading not nohow.
It’s everybody else just making it seem like it. -
I wasn’t wrong, Brad. You were.
You are the one with the personal definition of scientific evidence.
This is just more fucking evasion.
-
What are your reasons? Just WRITE THEM DOWN.
-
HE CAN’T!!! HE’S DENYING THEM!!!!
-
That’s because it would be a waste of my valuable time to articulate the evidence against your belief system
I’d like to see you try, Brad. Why not even try? Bit short of confidence are we? Or perhaps you just don’t have a scientific case? Could that be it?
BTW the word-twisting is starting up again. What you refer to as ‘my belief system’ is correctly called ‘science’.
What we are interested in here is *your* belief system.
-
“Brad” a denier denying denial – or do you deny it?
-
If you have a scientific case then why ever not wheel it out, Brad?
You’ve been asked time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
Why so fucking coy, Brad? Come on man, out with it.
-
Brad, Are you nucking futs?
More of BK’s cupid stunts!
Lionel A,
on one of the minor threads (where, as you know, I don’t respond inline to my critics) you have accused me of lying by accusing you of lying when you wrote that
… scientifically challenged deniers such as Keyes and Monckton claim “science is not about consensus, consensus does not exist in science”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You then linked your few readers to some google searches, which are of zero avail to you because they fail to show that I’ve ever denied the existence of consensus in science.
Groan. Is there no end to this?
Now that was from #64 above here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-31/#comment-151003
Note that it was not I that wrote what you attribute to me in that above and I have emphasised where you addressed ME, and nobody else, indirectly using ‘you’.
One thing is for sure, you are getting tedious and repetitive.
Time to start answering straight questions still outstanding from BBD and Bernard J. You moan about wasting your precious time without thinking for one moment about the time we waste trying to clear your prolix sophistry aka baffle-gab.
-
” trying to clear your prolix sophistry aka baffle-gab.”
And THAT is why you must be PUNISHED, Lionel.
How DARE you!
-
Lotharsson,
Drama,
this seems to be the canonical formulation of your childish attempt at psychologizing me, chameleon and our “likes”:
I assert the likes of yourself and Brad hate science, scientists, the scientific process and the knowledge it results in for the reason that you suffer from intellect envy.
And here is a minor sample of the ways in which your speculation is stupid:
1. If we hated “the scientific process” we’d take it out on the scientific process, rather than defend its integrity tooth and nail from innovators and vandals like Oreskes, Cook and Lewandowsky, who’ve taken it upon themselves after 250 years of triumphant discovery to retool the epistemology at the heart of modern science, sabotaging the finest intellectual technology ever made by man.
2. If we hated “the knowledge it results in” we’d take it out on the countless branches of science that are generating knowledge at a mind-boggling rate, rather than lament the state of climate science, in which field you can’t name off the top of your head a single useful thing the human race actually knows that we didn’t know (say) five years ago, can you?
3. If we hated intelligent people we’d take it out on intelligent people, wouldn’t we? Why would we care about Phil Jones, who admits he can’t get his head around Excel? We wouldn’t. We’d resent the people you resent—people like Steve McIntyre and JeanS, who, armed with nothing but a genius for statistics and a home PC, can force NASA to correct its calculations and David Karoly to retract $300,000 climate-science research.
4. If we hated scientists for their “intellect” we’d take it out on the most intelligent scientists—the ones who are right about stuff, whose predictions are vindicated and who win Nobel Prizes—the science laureates, not the mediocre hockey-bacillographers who pretend to be Peace laureates—wouldn’t we?
Neo-Freudian farcical fail, gentlemen.
-
“Neo-Freudian farcical fail, gentlemen.”
You don’t even know what you’re saying, you loon.
-
“1. If we hated “the scientific process” ”
More evidence of your psychosis.
February 25, 2013
February 25, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013