Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    In general usage, non-concurrent, remote communication between people, including letters, email, newsgroups, Internet forums, blogs

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @Wow,

    It’s hilarious how many words you’re wasting in your forlorn bid to evade this.

    Below is a true dilemma, not a false one. The choices I’m giving you cover the entire solution space.

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline” as he claimed?

    1. yes
    2. no

  3. #3 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Below is a true dilemma, not a false one.

    Nope, it’s unsupported.

    You claim: Dr Jones claimed he “hid[e] the decline”

    This claim is unsupported.

    Therefore until you can support it with evidence, there is nothing to answer.

    Here’s a little help for you:

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

  4. #4 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Nothing was hidden.

    The divergence problem was widely known and talked about.

    Note too that it is your INFERENCE that it is this divergence problem since there is no mention in the email you give as “complete” for your witch-hunt.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ BBD

    “I notice you took great care not to answer my question. So I must ask you again: where do you sit? Are you happy with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of ~2.5C – ~3C?”

    I’d love to have this conversation.

    What do you mean, happy? Unconcerned?

  6. #6 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    In psychology, avoidance coping, or escape coping, is a maladaptive coping mechanism[1] characterized by the effort to avoid dealing with a stressor.[2] Coping refers to behaviors that attempt to protect oneself from psychological damage.[3] Variations of avoidance coping include modifying or eliminating the conditions that gave rise to the problem and changing the perception of an experience in a way that neutralizes the problem.[3]

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    OK @ Wow, let’s get even more remedial. Here’s a true dilemma for you:

    Did Phil Jones claim to have “hid[den] the decline”?

    1. yes
    2. no

  8. #8 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Brad, lets get extremely remedial:

    If nothing is hidden, how can anyone have hidden it?

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Did Phil Jones claim to have “hid[den] the decline”?

  10. #10 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    You don’t even know what decline was being talked about.

    It’s not in that email.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Did Ballmer claim to have buried people before?

  12. #12 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    c) not enough data

  13. #13 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Reportedly:

    At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.” ….

    @ Wow asks:

    “Did Ballmer claim to have buried people before?”

    Yes.

    Did Phil Jones claim to have “hid[den] the decline”?

  14. #14 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Did Phil Jones claim to have “hid[den] the decline”?

    Unlike you, I don’t claim to know more than is available.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Now, why don’t you decry Mr Ballmer for murder?

  16. #16 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “Unlike you, I don’t claim to know more than is available.”

    What’s so arcane about this?!? The answer is in the email. Can you read English? Then you should be able to tell me:

    Did Phil Jones claim to have “hid[den] the decline”?

  17. #17 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Or is it that you don’t actually think that Ballmer was actually claiming to have buried people before?

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Yes or no, Wow?

  19. #19 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The answer is in the email.

    Except the answer isn’t in there. Since nothing is said to have been in decline to be hidden.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Why don’t you decry Mr Ballmer for murder?

  21. #21 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Brad

    Answer the fucking question please ;-)

  22. #22 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    To avoid the faintest hint of ambiguity, I do mean this question:

    Where do you stand? Are you happy with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of ~2.5C – ~3C?

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    What do you mean, happy? Unalarmed?

  24. #24 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    I mean answer the question. Do you accept this range for ECS to 2 x CO2? Or not?

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    No. While I can’t say that’s impossible, I consider a sensitivity less than 1.5C per CO2 doubling to be much more likely. But if you want to upsell me to twice that, I’m all ears. What is the argument for a higher sensitivity?

  26. #26 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    The argument for the range above is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature. The question here is where you are getting this 1.5C figure from. Please provide half a dozen recently published references supporting this result. Note: blog posts at Bishop Hill do not make the cut.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I consider a sensitivity less than 1.5C per CO2 doubling to be much more likely.

    And your data for this conclusion is what?

    Given that only half a doubling has already produced over 0.9C warming, a 1.8C per doubling is now no longer possible.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Heck, it can be calculated that you get 1.2C per doubling and along with the old denier canard of “H2O is a much more potent greenhouse gas!” along with the well supported Cassius-Clapeyron law indicates that less than 2.4C per doubling is unlikely.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ BBD

    “The argument for the range above is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature”

    So you’re not even going to try to upsell me? That’s fine.

    “Please provide half a dozen recently published references supporting this result. Note: blog posts at Bishop Hill do not make the cut.”

    Nope. I have nil interest in downselling you.

  30. #30 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    So no data for that claim, either.

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Wow,

    what was Phil Jones referring to when he said “the decline”?

  32. #32 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I don’t know.

  33. #33 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Brad

    Let’s be honest, shall we? You cannot ‘down-sell’ me because you have no scientific support for your ECS figure.

    Now, you have said that you are not a denier. I begin to wonder at this point. What, after all, is unwarranted rejection of the mainstream scientific position if not denial?

    It certainly *isn’t* scepticism.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow

    I don’t know.

    Three and a half years later, you still haven’t heard?

    Here, let me quote SkS:

    The “decline” does not refer to a “decline in global temperature” as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record … The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature … The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

  35. #35 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Three and a half years later, you still haven’t heard?

    Followed by a quote of what isn’t in the email.

    If something was hidden, what was it?

  36. #36 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    What, after all, is unwarranted rejection of the mainstream scientific position if not denial?

    No, definitely and always been denial.

  37. #37 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record …

    Which has never been hidden.

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ BBD:

    “Now, you have said that you are not a denier.”

    I hate to be a denial denial denier but: when did I deny being a denier? “Denier” of what, exactly?

    (For example, I AM a phlogiston denier, and have never made any secret of it.)

  39. #39 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    “Denier” of what, exactly?

    Facts.

    Most especially the science of climate whose natural consequence is labeled “AGW”.

    Things like you not believing in the science that indicates a sensitivity to doubled CO2 being in the range 2.5-3.0C per doubling.

    And, apparently, in denial about being in denial, for extra irony.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I AM a phlogiston denier, and have never made any secret of it.

    You never mentioned it before. So you WERE making a secret of it.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And absolutely NO data whatsoever forthcoming about any of his claims.

    Not even his latest one of lukewarmer denialism.

  42. #42 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Therefore BK is arguing from an unsubstantiated position against the scientific consensus (on estimated ECS).

    Presumably his rejection of the scientific consensus is based on strongly-held political views.

  43. #43 chek
    February 10, 2013

    Simple lazy idiocy is another possibility, which could be inferred from the .. ahem … breadth of his knowledge of the subject..

  44. #44 Ian Forrester
    February 10, 2013

    More outrageous lies from Keyes:

    I hate to be a denial denial denier but: when did I deny being a denier?

    Here is what he said (page 4 #38):

    I, Brad, am not a denialist.

    It is one lie after another with this despicable troll. Nothing he says has been evenly closely related to the truth. Just lie after lie. Surely the repeated dishonesty and failure to answer questions should, by any reasonable standard, be enough reason to have him completely banned from a science blog where truthfulness and honesty should be a prerequisite?

    if Keyes is any indicator of what is taught by “philosophy departments” is it not time that universities re-consider if they should be included as part of a University education?

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Ian Forrester,

    I’m not a denialist. But when have I denied being a denier?

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ BBD

    “Therefore BK is arguing from an unsubstantiated position against the scientific consensus (on estimated ECS).”

    LOL! The sheer amour propre.

    I told you my opinion because you asked; I invited you to change my mind using evidence; and you call this arguing against you?

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow

    Maybe you and Ian should get together and work out what this new philosophy you’ve dubbed “lukewarmer denialism” is supposed to be!

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow

    “”This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record …”

    Which has never been hidden….”

    … except, uh, in the graph in which Phil Jones admitted hiding the decline. The graph we’re talking about: the referent of the “Hide the Decline” email. The graph “in question,” as it were.

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow

    ” “Which claims would you like my data for?”

    How about for this claim:

    “ “And what he meant was “I used reliable temperature data in my temperature data graph”

    … but only after 1960.” ” “

    The truth of my claim (“but only after 1960″) is self-evident—by his own admission, Jones only replaced tree-ring data with real temperatures “for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s,”

  50. #50 chek
    February 10, 2013

    “Brad”, given the multiple layers of absorbed stupid you seem hell-bent on exposing of yourself, what do you imagine your purpose here to be? Or do you somehow think you’re holding your own and doing pretty good?

    Just thought I’d ask.

  51. #51 bill
    February 10, 2013

    And, lo and behold – another example of one of Brad’s hero’s ‘flexible’ attitude to the charts.

    (You might want to look up the Don Easterbrook link I gave above. Still, recycling is a civic virtue, eh?)

  52. #52 chek
    February 10, 2013

    “The truth of my claim (“but only after 1960″) is self-evident—by his own admission, Jones only replaced tree-ring data with real temperatures “

    “Brad”, do you know what ‘error bars’ are?
    Do you know why scientists use them?
    Why do you think proxies are calibrated and used?
    Why are they acceptable by real (not blog) scientists?
    Why use them in reconstructions when more accurate data are available?

    C’mon “Brad”, they should be easy if it’s all a scam.

  53. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    February 10, 2013

    Brad could claim it is stupidity that is preventing him from understanding the meaning of “to hide” in the context of the well-documented divergence problem.

    However, going in past performance, it’s more likely deliberate dishonesty.

    Here’s a massive hint for you, Brad: in Jones’ paper in which he published the graph which showed how he had managed “to hide the decline”, he discusses his method and its result.

    On another matter, are you still in denial as to the criminal act that facilitated the publication of these private emails which you are so keen to misunderstand and misinterpret?

  54. #54 chameleon
    February 10, 2013

    No BBD & BradK,
    although that is also a good question.
    I am somewhat disappointed in BBD again however.
    I note he replies with the same good vs evil narrative rather than anything else.
    The question I liked from BBD was asked B4 there was a Brad K thread.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The truth of my claim (“but only after 1960″) is self-evident—by his own admission, Jones only replaced tree-ring data with real temperatures

    No, the graph includes the best known temperature data, he USED temperature data. What do you expect someone to do on a TEMPERATURE GRAPH???

    The veracity of the proxies are confirmed by temperature data and most of the proxies CONTINUE to be good proxies, as confirmed by the data.

    Your assertions are unfounded.

  56. #56 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    There’s some confusion here. Compare and contrast:

    I told you my opinion because you asked; I invited you to change my mind using evidence; and you call this arguing against you?

    With:

    Therefore BK is arguing from an unsubstantiated position against the scientific consensus (on estimated ECS).

    Your opinion is your argument, or your position, or your viewpoint. I am not the scientific consensus.

    Your position is unsubstantiated. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you otherwise, so I’m not trying to do that. The point is that your position is unsubstantiated.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The truth of my claim (“but only after 1960″) is self-evident

    The falsity is your claim “but only after 1960″ which is COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED and even refuted by data:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    From where do you get the idea that pre-1960 data is unreliable?

    BEST certainly disagrees with you (and this again gets us back to the “BEST proves the Hockey Stick(s)”).

  58. #58 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    chameleon

    I am somewhat disappointed in BBD again however.

    I’m sorry to have disappointed you. You’ll just have to paste in the quote and we’ll go from there.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow,

    here are some other claims whose lack of “data” you’ve whined about:

    “ “Which [Mann] didn’t disclose.”

    Bare assertion falsified by the paper produced containaing the method.”

    No: fact readily apparent to anyone who reads Mann’s paper hoping to ascertain (say) how he performed his PCA. You really should try it.

    ” “The first person on Earth to succeed in retracing Mann’s statistical steps, even in broad outline, was the retired Canadian mining mathematician Steve McIntyre”

    Complete lie.”

    Complete truth, which is why I know you won’t be able to name anyone prior to McIntyre.

    ” “he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it.”

    The code is not the algorithm.”

    So what? The code specifies the algorithm, and by keeping the code secret Mann was keeping the algorithm secret, as he himself says so unapologetically: “Giving them the algorithm would just be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in.”

  60. #60 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I’m not a denialist. But when have I denied being a denier?</blockquote?

    Here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148046

    (and in the above denial too).

  61. #61 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    No: fact readily apparent to anyone who reads Mann’s paper hoping to ascertain (say) how he performed his PCA.

    Nope, he ascertains how to do it.

    McIntyre couldn’t.

    Indeed one of the inquiries did the exact thing that McIntyre could not do in years as merely part of their investigations, leading to the question: why is McIntyre so crap at this?

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/07/01/mann-exonerated-by-psu-inquiry-no-substance-to-the-allegation/

  62. #62 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The code specifies the algorithm, and by keeping the code secret Mann was keeping the algorithm secret

    Except the algorithm is not secret.

    http://www.mathworks.co.uk/help/stats/princomp.html

  63. #63 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    So many lies from the newest denier recruit.

  64. #64 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    What interests me is why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    Can you say a little more about your reasoning here?

  65. #65 chek
    February 10, 2013

    “he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it.”

    What counts “Brad” is the method, not how the method is achieved. The method is available to everyone. Ways of achieving it are down to how smart (Mann) or how dumb (those who believe McIntyre’s narrative) you are.

  66. #66 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Sorry.

    What interests me is why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    Can you say a little more about your reasoning here?

  67. #67 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    except, uh, in the graph in which Phil Jones admitted hiding the decline.

    Uh, except that nothing is hidden.

    And he doesn’t say on the graph anything about hiding declines.

    All are fictions made up by denier blogs and swallowed wholesale by your gullible and credulous self.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Nothing has been hidden.

    Nothing.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ BBD:

    “Your opinion is your argument, or your position, or your viewpoint. I am not the scientific consensus.”

    Wrong. An opinion is not an argument. I gave you my opinion, whereas you have no idea what my argument is, because I never gave it to you.

    “Your position is unsubstantiated. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you otherwise, so I’m not trying to do that. The point is that your position is unsubstantiated.”

    You couldn’t be less correct.

    The argument for the estimate I gave is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you of this, so I’m not trying to do so.

  70. #70 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ someone who’s obviously never built a piece of software in his life says:

    ” “he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it.”

    What counts “Brad” is the method, not how the method is achieved.”

    In an ideal world, the algorithm determines the code. In the real world, the code determines the algorithm.

    Which world do we live in: an ideal world, or the real world?

  71. #71 chameleon
    February 10, 2013

    BBD,
    What interests me is WHY you ask decent questions and then fall back into a ‘good vs evil’ narrative the moment anyone attempts to answer your questions.
    Instead of asking for evidence you claim instead that there is no evidence ‘other than’ evidence supplied ‘outside of’ what you argue is the side of ‘good’ which you call the ‘consensus’.
    If evidence is supplied from elsewhere, you just assume that it is tainted with ‘evil’.
    Evidence and methodology is just evidence and methodology BBD et al!
    You could all perhaps benefit from following your own advice and cease going back to the same sources for your ‘opinions’.
    RC & SkS etcetera are mostly interested in protecting past work. They are classic egs of ‘academic pissing contests’.
    Isn’t it more important to discuss new evidence and new research?
    Preferably with an open mind?
    Making claims such as BEST confirms MBH98, apart from being incorrect, does not help advance our understanding of the highly variable and highly unpredictable beasts we call ‘climate’ and ‘ environment’.

  72. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ BBD:

    “What interests me is why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    Can you say a little more about your reasoning here?”

    Science is not like guessing how many jellybeans in the jar. In science you do not win the cow if you guess how much it weighs. The “wisdom of crowds” means nothing. Therefore what interests me is your tacit premise that there’s something wrong with rejecting a “scientific consensus”. Where did you pick up that style of thinking? Certainly not from a scientist.

  73. #73 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    And Wow????
    How can you possibly know that nothing has been hidden?
    You do realise that is a silly statement?

  74. #74 chek
    February 11, 2013

    Ah, so “Brad’s” idea is that a consensus is group-think that should be subscribed to (i.e. the crank definition) rather than a common position arrived at by evidence converging from a variety of sources.

    Glad that’s cleared up. No sense in arguing with a crank.

  75. #75 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    “And Wow????
    How can you possibly know that nothing has been hidden?”

    Exactly.

    Especially when Phil Jones SAYS he hid something and, since Climategate, has expended countless words in an attempt to JUSTIFY hiding it.

  76. #76 chek
    February 11, 2013

    You do realise that is a silly statement?

    From the prom-queen of stupid statements. Yes Cammy, we already know that you know nothing. There’s no need to keep telling about how much of it you know.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    “Ah, so “Brad’s” idea is that a consensus is group-think that should be subscribed to (i.e. the crank definition) rather than a common position arrived at by evidence converging from a variety of sources.”

    When have I ever expressed that idea?

    Consensus is simply a majority opinion (among scientists or whoever). How it arises is a separate question.

  78. #78 chek
    February 11, 2013

    Exactly

    Exactly?
    Really?
    What crank interpretation does that open up for you?
    With corroborating evidence this time, for a change please..

  79. #79 chek
    February 11, 2013

    How it arises is a separate question.

    But “Brad”, surely that minor detail is fundamental to asking why it exists, way before deciding to accept or reject it?

  80. #80 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    ummm Vince?
    Are you saying that the crime was that he got caught illegally?
    I hope if someone did something illegal, they are suitably prosecuted.
    The information we’re discussing here however is publicly avaiable information.
    Neither BradK or anyone else is doing something illegal by discussing it.

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes’ figure for climate sensitivity assumes that immediate, transient sensitivity is the same as equilibrium sensitivity.

    It seems that for all of his much self-vaunted cleverness he doesn’t know much about physics.

  82. #82 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    Brad

    Consensus is simply a majority opinion (among scientists or whoever). How it arises is a separate question.

    Science is combative. It’s a dogfight over ideas. Scientific consensus emerges by default over ideas that nobody has been able to tear down. Like scientific knowledge, it is provisional, but it stands until torn down.

    You say:

    The argument for the estimate I gave [1.5C] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature. It doesn’t matter whether I convince you of this, so I’m not trying to do so.

    But in truth, it isn’t. So you are arguing from an unsubstantiated position. Yet you say this:

    Science is not like guessing how many jellybeans in the jar. In science you do not win the cow if you guess how much it weighs. The “wisdom of crowds” means nothing.

    Agreed.

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2013

    And for what it’s worth, nothing was hidden in the original Mann paper – the text of the paper explains exactly what is and is not in the graph.

    I guess though that ignorant, unintelligent, and/or ideological non-scientists who don’t actually read the literature wouldn’t understand the subtleties of how to synthesis knowledge from scientific information.

  84. #84 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    chameleon

    Isn’t it more important to discuss new evidence and new research?

    Preferably with an open mind?

    Of course. What do you make of Rohling et al. (2012)’s confirmation of the IPCC range for sensitivity?

    Or this Hansen et al. preprint that also came out of the PALAEOSENS project? Again, the analysis is extended across the Cenozoic (65Ma) and the central estimate for S to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.

    What do you think?

  85. #85 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    chameleon

    And before I forget, what what that question you were asking about? Paste in the quote and I will do my best.

  86. #86 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    Since you didn’t say, I remain curious about why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

    Why is that?

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ BBD,

    is there any evidence for this:

    “Scientific consensus emerges by default over ideas that nobody has been able to tear down.”

    ?

    I’ve seen ideas torn down and their ideators walk on as if nothing had happened. Next day they’re back to ideating exactly the same crap. These are scientists I’m talking about. People don’t change their stances on things, as a general rule. If there is a prevailing opinion or consensus, then it “advances one funeral at a time.”

    You must be aware that consensus is not evidence; yet you seem to have fallen into the trap of “sure, but it’s BASED ON evidence.” This idea (for which I’ve never seen good evidence, by the way!) is invariably the prelude to using consensus as evidence of evidence.

  88. #88 bill
    February 11, 2013

    I’ve seen ideas torn down and their ideators walk on as if nothing had happened. Next day they’re back to ideating exactly the same crap

    Haven’t we all, ‘Brad’, haven’t we all?

    Are you familiar with the concept of ‘projection’ at all?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ chek:

    ” “How [consensus] arises is a separate question.”

    But “Brad”, surely that minor detail is fundamental to asking why it exists, way before deciding to accept or reject it?”

    Absolutely.

    This is what matters: is the consensus based on the evidence, or isn’t it?

    If yes, then agree with it.

    If no, then don’t.

    But in order to know whether the consensus is based on the evidence or not, we need to know what the evidence says.

    But if we knew what the evidence said, why would we care what the consensus said? It’s totally redundant.

    This is why scientists don’t talk about consensus. Never have, never will. Only voodoo pseudoscientists go on about it.

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ BBD:

    “Since you didn’t say, I remain curious about why you reject the scientific consensus on sensitivity to CO2 in favour of an unsupported outlier value.”

    I don’t. So you’re posing yourself a trick question.

  91. #91 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    The scientific consensus is what’s left standing. The last dog alive.

    Nobody has torn down the ECS estimate of ~2.5 – ~3C for 2 x CO2, so there it stands.

    Either we can overturn the scientific consensus with a scientific argument or we can’t. And so far, we can’t.

  92. #92 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    BBD
    The question had something to do with what should be done and what are we trying to achieve in the real world.
    It was a question based on practical concerns.
    I know it was you who asked BradK BBD but, I can’t remember on which thread you did so.
    And yes BBD, those papers along with others should be considered.
    I’m not sure whether you understand the difference bewteen vindicating and/or justifying previous research and simply updating with real time data?

    BradK had another way of saying this:
    In an ideal world, the algorithm determines the code. In the real world, the code determines the algorithm.

    Which world do we live in: an ideal world, or the real world?

  93. #93 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    BK

    Why do you reject the scientific consensus on ECS?

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    The code specifies the algorithm, and by keeping the code secret Mann was keeping the algorithm secret, …

    I’m pretty sure I’ve previously pointed out to Brad that this is incorrect, which renders Brad’s subsequent conclusion false too – and renders Brad’s repetition of the claim what most people would call “a lie”. As Brad Keyes advises, perhaps commenters like Brad Keyes should take the time to familiarise themselves with the basics of a field – like programming, especially programming for a peer-reviewed paper – before they make pronouncements upon it.

    Note carefully how the sleight of hand is performed.

    In the real world, the code determines the algorithm.

    This claim excludes any other “real world” specifications of algorithms, such as describing the algorithm in English or in pseudo-code – something that is frequently done in peer-reviewed papers (in science, engineering and computer science) and also in commercial software development, all of which are “in the real world”.

    Brad does not bother demonstrating that Mann’s paper did not specify the algorithm even though others have pointed to the paper itself as doing so; he hopes readers will accept his false generalisation and apply it to Mann’s work themselves without noticing his lack of substantiation. Once he has readers accepting a false premise – that Mann’s code is the only possible specification of Mann’s algorithm – he then uses it to draw the fallacious conclusion that he’s so hung up about.

    (And Chek is correct – Brad is a crank. I suspect he prefers negative attention to lack of attention, but really who knows why?)

    So far BBD’s approach seems to be the most fruitful…

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ BBD, you assure us that “The scientific consensus is what’s left standing. The last dog alive.” Does it follow, to your way of thinking, that if an idea is widespread (“alive”) in the scientific community, then the idea must be a good one, i.e. justified by the natural evidence? Can we therefore use the popularity of ideas in the scientific community as social evidence of what the natural evidence is saying?

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Lotharsson,

    if Mann’s algorithm is given in the original paper, then please explain why Mann was saying, 7 years after it was published, that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in?”

    LOL!

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Assuming Brad expects this to be taken at face value as some kind of support for his position:

    The argument for the estimate I gave [1.5C] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature.

    …let’s take a look at it.

    Brad says the argument for his estimate is “exhaustively documented in the literature”, which any philosophy student with basic English parsing skills could tell you is a very different claim to “is the best inference from all the evidence”, which makes one wonder why Brad specified the former concept and not the latter. There are any number of scientific propositions that are exhaustively documented in the literature – along with their complete and utter rebuttal, the validity of which almost no-one now denies.

    Brad can deny rejecting the consensus position (and implicitly the evidence it is based upon) all he likes, but “I consider a sensitivity less than 1.5C per CO2 doubling to be much more likely” is incompatible with the consensus position due to the confidence levels attached to it.

    This is very similar to Brad’s hero Latimer’s M.O. which attempts to avoid any defence of one’s asserted position by simply refusing to demonstrate that one’s position is the best inference from all the data (and in part by ignoring the confidence levels in various propositions put forth by others).

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    Oh, Lotharsson, you egomaniac.

    “I’m pretty sure I’ve previously pointed out to Brad that this is incorrect, which renders Brad’s subsequent conclusion false too – and renders Brad’s repetition of the claim what most people would call “a lie”.”

    Has it occurred to you that I may have found your objection feeble and unpersuasive, continued to believe the proposition you objected to and therefore persisted in the claim in bona fide?

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    if Mann’s algorithm is given in the original paper, then please explain why Mann was saying, 7 years after it was published, that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in?”

    Because, as I explained to you before and as any competent Philosophy or English student could tell you, the context makes it clear that he was using “algorithm” to refer to the request for the code itself.

    You can’t insist with any intellectual integrity that a speaker intended a precise technical meaning for a word that is used outside of the field where the precise technical definition applies, when the context belies it.

  100. #100 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    There you go again BBD,
    That question implies there is a battle raging between ‘good and evil’.
    “Why do you reject the scientific consensus on ECS?
    Didn’t Brad K say he HAS NOT ‘rejected’ it?
    Once again you seem to not understand terms of reference.
    Just because people don’t AGREE with EVERYTHING or they don’t have BLIND FAITH in the work does not automatically mean that they have unilaterally REJECTED it.
    The other obvious question would be:
    BBD
    Why do you faithfully accept the scientific consensus on ECS?

1 5 6 7 8 9 48