Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    February 11, 2013

    “the kind of manipulation you’re defending is unforgivable in science”

    Don’t be so stupid “Brad”.

    The divergence problem is well known and recognised (except by conspiracy theorists like you and Jonarse who bleat you know what science is better than professional scientists). There is no sense in using poor data (such as the post-1960 trauma affecting SOME but not all proxies) when better data is available.

  2. #2 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    How “accurate” are the dendro proxies for the year 1500, Wow?

    Here you go:

    Vinther, B.M., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Clausen, H.B., Andersen, K.K., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Johnsen, S.J., 2008
    “Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland.”
    Quarternary Science Reviews 29, 522-538

    Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Lough, J.M., van Ommen, T.D., Vinther, B.M. and others, 2008
    “High-resolution paleoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects.”
    Holocene, 19, 3-49

    Melvin, T.M and Briffa, K.R., 2008
    “A “Signal-Free” approach to Dendroclimatic Standardisation”
    Dendrochronologia 26, doi:10.1016/j.dendro.2007.12.001 71-86

    Juckes, M.N., Allen, M.R., Briffa, K.R., Esper, J., Hegerl, G.C., Moberg, A., Osborn, T.J. and Weber, S.L., 2007
    “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation.”
    Climate of the Past, 3 591-609

    Briffa, K.R., Shishov, V.V., Melvin, T.M., Vaganov, E.A., Grudd, H., Hantemirov, R.M., Eronen, M. and Naurxbaev, M.M., 2007

    “Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia”
    Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2119

    Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Wilson, R.J.S., Briffa, K.R., 2005
    “Effect of scaling and regression on reconstructed temperature amplitude for the past millennium”
    Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L07711, doi:10.1029/2004GL021236,2005 Americal Geophysical Union

    Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J. and Schweingruber, F.H., 2004
    “Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review.”
    Global and Planetary Change 40, 11-26 Elsevier. (R)

    Knock yourself out.

  3. #3 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Oh, and your wild claim is that the records are bad pre-1960.

    How inaccurate is that?

    HUGELY:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

  4. #4 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Remember, chek, if bad data goes in, they can claim “GIGO”. If you don’t put garbage in, then they can claim “You’re fiddling the data!”.

    The only aim is to complain about something because they haven’t got any data they like.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow, this is a classic study in denial:

    His email doesn’t say what decline and doesn’t say he actually hid anything.

    Yes it does, it says he hid “the decline.” If your understanding of climate science were better than your understanding of Islam, you’d know that the question “what decline?” is answered by the context of the discussion: the “decline” is a dropoff in the MXD of the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards. But temperatures during the same period went up! This total invalidation of the proxies is also known as “the divergence problem.”

  6. #7 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Yes it does, it says he hid “the decline.”

    The decline of what?

    It isn’t in that email.

  7. #8 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    The decline in some proxies can’t be it because it is entirely open:

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

    So yet again, how can something plainly in the open be claimed to be hidden?

  8. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    So yet again, how can something plainly in the open be claimed to be hidden?

    Because you’re making the (infantile) assumption that if something is “out in the open” in one document it can’t be hidden in another document.

  9. #10 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    “out in the open” in one document it can’t be hidden in another document.

    That doesn’t make it hidden. It makes it “not in another graph”. Is that your ENTIRE case? That it’s “not in another graph”???

    There isn’t ANYTHING about the Guatemalan GDP in the graph.

    It isn’t hidden, though.

  10. #11 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Especially since one graph refers to the paper with the other graph in it.

  11. #12 chek
    February 11, 2013

    “Brad” was told by the crankblogs that he had something. Now he can’t believe he’s got nothing.
    Boo-hoo, poor “Brad”.
    Perhaps he’ll use trustworthy sources in future.
    But I think not.

  12. #13 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Says the guy whose argument is based on Michael Mann’s memoirs.

    Which is appropriate when responding to an argument based on textual analysis, and of secondary sources making claims about Mann at that.

    You’re really quite poor at this “logic” thing. How the heck did you manage to get a degree?

  13. #14 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    He didn’t.

    He flunked. It was too hard for him.

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Brad also asserts that “my argument” is “based on” Michael Mann’s memoirs, when I’ve been referring him to MBH98 as evidence that rebuts his claims.

    But Brad doesn’t lie! Just ask him – he’ll tell you so! (He just leaves out the bits he doesn’t care for, and then characterises the rest as if that were a fair representation of the whole!)

  15. #16 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    I wouldn’t rule that out, Wow.

  16. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge – the assertion that the paper doesn’t specify the algorithm,

    The truth of this assertion follows from, among other things:

    — the (uncontested) fact that Mann’s corrections to the paper, years later, revealed details of the mathematical methods that hadn’t appeared in the original!

    — Mann’s refusal to “giv[e] these people the algorithm” (if this quote is accurate)

    the assertion (IIRC) that no-one else could implement the algorithm without the source code,

    The truth of this assertion

    — follows from the truth of the previous assertion

    — is unaffected by the fact that Eduardo Zorita managed to implement the algorithm Mann described in his paper. When Zorita did so, IIRC, he got a different result—implying that the algorithm Mann described in his paper and the one he implemented in his source code were two different things.

    (This didn’t necessarily point to dishonesty on Mann’s part—even with the best of intentions, most software doesn’t do what its author claims, or even what its author thinks. Code is rarely correct.)

    the assertion that the source code is the specification of the algorithm,

    The truth of this assertion is obvious to programmers.

    Ideally, pseudo-code or English should work just as well when specifying a program.

    Practically, code rarely does what its English “specification” claims, or even what its author thinks. So if you need to know what algorithm was actually executed, there’s no substitute for seeing the source code. (To be sure, this may not be necessary unless there’s a discrepancy—but if there is, then the self-correcting imperative of science requires disclosure of the source code.)

    the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, …

    This assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.

    My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data. In this sense, the resulting graph is an “artifact” even if Mann’s method couldn’t have created a fully-fledged hockey stick ex nihilo.

    Bet you don’t acknowledge any of them.

    That’s an irrational bet, given my proven willingness to acknowledge my errors. (See Oreskes discussion near the top of this thread.) But then, you have no idea how my mind works, Lotharsson, and you probably never will: your entire schtick depends on misunderstanding “skeptic” psychology.

  17. #18 chek
    February 11, 2013

    My reading of the literature denier blogs is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data. ”

    Fixed that for you. No that was a McIntyre lie, based on cherry picking 100 out of 10,000 samples that vaguely curved upwards. Although at far less magnitude than the actual hockey stick. You never did read those Deep Climate links all those pages ago, did you? You’d have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

    You’re lost in a sea of second-hand denier crap, “Brad”.

  18. #19 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    the (uncontested) fact that Mann’s corrections to the paper, years later, revealed details of the mathematical methods that hadn’t appeared in the original!

    Except the actual paper DOES contain the mathematical method used.

    PCA.

    And this is a standard statistical technique, therefore someone wanting to implement PCA would go to their best source of statistical software. NOT an unpaid demand on a researcher’s time.

    Mann’s refusal to “giv[e] these people the algorithm” (if this quote is accurate)

    It isn’t.

    The truth of this assertion is obvious to programmers.

    Indeed: as a programmer of over 20 years, the truth of that statement is obvious: it is obviously a load of crap.

    Algorithms cannot be copyrighted.

    Source code can.

    My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data.

    You are reading M&M’s paper and denial blogs, not the actual literature you’re “critiquing”. You may also be asserting Wegman’s results which are a complete and UTTER farce.

    Your assertion here is entirely false.

    That’s an irrational bet, given my proven willingness to acknowledge my errors.

    It’s an absolute dead-cert bet.

  19. #20 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, …

    Is asserted yet again in your statement:

    My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data.

    So you’re in denial about what you say.

  20. #21 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    the resulting graph is an “artifact” even if Mann’s method couldn’t have created a fully-fledged hockey stick ex nihilo.

    BEST gets exactly the same (to within a few hundredths of a degree) hockey stick.

  21. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow, is this supposed to make sense:

    My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data.

    So you’re in denial about what you say.

    ?

    Because it doesn’t.

  22. #24 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    …the (uncontested) fact that Mann’s corrections to the paper, years later, revealed details of the mathematical methods that hadn’t appeared in the original.

    Nope. Zorita did it. You’re burying your head in the sand and proclaiming that the sun has set.

    Mann’s refusal to “giv[e] these people the algorithm” (if this quote is accurate)

    Nope. The quote is contested by Mann, and even McIntyre agrees that the quote was about the source code rather than the algorithm.

    …is unaffected by the fact that Eduardo Zorita managed to implement the algorithm Mann described in his paper.

    Nope. An algorithm is a specification from which implementation(s) are derived. Your argument about the implementations being different still does not mean that the algorithm was not specified.

    The truth of this assertion is obvious to programmers.

    As someone – who the heck was it? – once said, you should familiarise yourself with a field before you make pronouncements on it.

    I am a professional programmer and I have completed a PhD which required quite a bit of programming. Your claim is not obvious to me, nor to anyone I work with. In this industry we write specification documents – which if necessary include algorithm specifications – and then someone implements them and someone tests the implementation against the specification. If the implementation doesn’t meet the specification then the implementation is considered buggy; it is most certainly not considered a superior specification to the specification document! When we come across situations where there is no specification and the code is the closest thing to one, we curse the incompetence of the team that built the software.

    And in acadaemia it’s even more stringent. My PhD dissertation did not include the source code, it specified algorithms. The papers by other researchers that I referenced in my PhD did not include the source code, they specified algorithms. When I wanted to make use of those researchers’ algorithms I implemented them, I didn’t get copies of their source code. Doing your own implementation makes it far more likely that you catch errors in the algorithm which constitutes the research claim than trying to analyse what someone else’s code does.

    So if you need to know what algorithm was actually executed, there’s no substitute for seeing the source code.

    As pointed out above – and to you in the past, like the rest of these points – that’s not what you need to know if you’re assessing a scientific paper that specifies an algorithm. The algorithm is the claim, so you need to evaluate the algorithm, not evaluate their particular implementation.

    My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data.

    Mann’s original methodology created – at worst – hockey sticks with very small blades, much smaller than the one in his results.

    But your claim is even more incorrect than that. It had an equal probability of creating an upward-sloping or downward-sloping blade, e.g. of de-exaggerating “the hockey-stickness of the data”.

    And I’m pretty sure I’ve pointed that out to you in the past as well.

  23. #25 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    “So you’re in denial about what you say.” is pretty self-explanatory.

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed, yet in the same post you deny this, you state “My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data.”

    Which is the same damn thing.

    Of course, your grasp on English language and more importantly any meaning thereof is practically nonexistent.

  24. #26 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    But then, you have no idea how my mind works, …

    I don’t claim to have an understanding of how your mind works. But I’ve got a pretty good catalog of ways that it fails to think. I’m also comfortable drawing inferences about your likely behaviour based on your past behaviour, and so far my record seems to be quite a bit better than random guessing would be.

  25. #27 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    BBD 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 BBD 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.

    This is specious and relies on a false statement. Of course the extensive documentation in the literature is held equivalent with ‘best inference from all the evidence’. The documentation in the literature is the *record* of the investigation in to the evidence.

    Nobody has ever come close to rebutting the ~2.5C – ~3C range for ECS. On the contrary, it looks stronger than ever in 2013.

    More specious argument.

    Don’t waste my time with rubbish like this. I am doing you the intellectual courtesy of being straight with you. Return it.

    To recap, you are claiming ECS to be less than 1.5C. This is an unsubstantiated position. Defending it from scientific evidence and argument is essentially impossible.

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    What motivates your retreat into illogicality? It’s the most interesting thing about it, and the most deserving of discussion.

  26. #28 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    …given my proven willingness to acknowledge my errors.

    Brad, I suspect you believe this to be a fair assessment of how you operate.

    It’s not.

    You very occasionally acknowledge some errors, but the majority slide right out of view unacknowledged as you rush to try on the next gambit. And I’m not exclusively talking about things like the recent discussion of your claims about MBH where you think you have a rational case but are mistaken (even though those mistakes have been pointed out before). The threads here have a number of examples of you making claims that are clearly rebutted by various commenters – and some of them are as trivial as claiming they said something that meant (A) when they pretty clearly indicate that they did not mean (A) – and that should have been obvious before they reiterated it.

  27. #29 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    This is an unsubstantiated position.

    And to be precise, I see climate scientists making a stronger statement than “it is unsubstantiated”. They generally say the evidence rules it out with high (or even higher) confidence.

  28. #30 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    You can look at this, Brad, as asking “How come you are right and thousands of people who do this for a living are wrong?”.

  29. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Lotharsson, you argued:

    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.

    BBD isn’t buying your logic for one second:

    This is specious and relies on a false statement. Of course the extensive documentation in the literature is held equivalent with ‘best inference from all the evidence’. The documentation in the literature is the *record* of the investigation in to the evidence.

    Fight! Fight!

  30. #32 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    “BBD isn’t buying your logic for one second”

    You’re avoiding again.

  31. #33 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    You see the 2.5-3C per doubling IS both exhaustively documented in the literature AND is the best inference of all the evidence.

    Less than 1.5C per doubling is now both exhaustively refuted in the literature AND was NEVER the best inference of all the evidence.

    Nobody is buying your “look squirrels!” moment.

  32. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ BBD asks me:

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    What on earth makes you think I don’t understand the term scientific consensus?

  33. #35 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Mind you, the sound of galloping trotskyite is entirely predicted.

  34. #36 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, firstly I already explained – and see, this is an example of why people tag you as a liar and a bad faith commenter – that your “FTFY” substitution of “BBD” for “Brad Keyes” fails. Those reasons still stand.

    But it’s worse than that for you. BBD is arguing about your failed version, not my original as you allege – as any competent parser of English can easily see. Thus BBD isn’t disagreeing with my position at all.

    And he is “…doing you the intellectual courtesy of being straight with you.” You’re clearly not returning the courtesy.

  35. #37 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    What on earth makes you think I don’t understand the term scientific consensus?

    Just about everything you’ve written about it?

  36. #38 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Of course not, being straight or honest is devastating to his denial.

  37. #39 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed,

    No I don’t. What is with you people and comprehension?

  38. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @Lotharsson:

    What on earth makes you think I don’t understand the term scientific consensus?

    Just about everything you’ve written about it?

    For instance?

  39. #41 Wow
    February 11, 2013
    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed,

    No I don’t.

    Bare faced liar, doesn’t care how easy their lies are to refute:

    This assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.

  40. #42 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    What is it with the latest idiot deniers and their insistence on never meaning anything?

  41. #43 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    For instance?

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-6/#comment-147901

    Nice catch, pentaxZ:

    ““…they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    I’d just tweak your riposte slightly:

    Counter-arguments are not necessary, because consensus is not an argument.

  42. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Wow, what are you going on about this time?

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed,
    No I don’t.

    Bare faced liar, doesn’t care how easy their lies are to refute:

    This assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.

    What lie do you believe I told, Wow?

    Seriously.

    I’m interested. I want to know. What was my lie, in your mind?

  43. #45 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Or here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148087

    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.

  44. #46 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Or here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-7/#comment-148104

    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.

  45. #47 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    lie
    1    [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
    noun
    1.
    a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
    2.
    something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
    3.
    an inaccurate or false statement.
    4.
    the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
    verb (used without object)
    5.
    to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
    6.
    to express what is false; convey a false impression.

  46. #48 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    (waiting for the sound of more gish galloping)

  47. #49 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, after your latest diversionary objection dies down, I’d like to see a serious answer to BBD’s main question. (And hey, here’s a chance to go one better than your hero, Latimer!)

  48. #50 Wow
    February 11, 2013

    Brad, not only having the temper of a two-year-old, also has the attention span of one!

  49. #51 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    What on earth makes you think I don’t understand the term scientific consensus?

    The things you say about it, for example, this:

    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?

    I repeat: science is combative. It’s *not* a popularity contest. It is self-correcting. It’s a dogfight over ideas. It operates by *falsification*. Scientific consensus emerges by default over ideas that nobody has been able to tear down. Like scientific knowledge, scientific consensus is provisional, but it stands until torn down.

    Nobody has ever even come remotely close to demonstrating that the ~2.5C – ~3C ECS estimate range is wrong. Less than 1.5C has effectively been written off *based on the evidence*.

    Scientific consensus is qualitatively different to popular consensus and political consensus. It is not amenable to the popular madness of the crowds, in the way you think you are subtly implying.

  50. #52 BBD
    February 11, 2013

    And Brad, your wriggling evasiveness is as irritating as your various clunky rhetorics. Please answer the question:

    Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the scientific consensus (a term you apparently refuse to understand, but that too is your problem).

    What motivates your retreat into illogicality? Why do you deny the scientific consensus on sensitivity?

  51. #53 Vince Whirlwind
    February 11, 2013

    Brad asks,

    How do you know where the data is “valid” and where it’s “invalid”?

    I guess you have a choice between:

    1 – Reject the data that conflicts with your ideological biases

    2 – Embrace the data established as solid through replication of results.

    SO here’s an exercise for you:

    – Which do your crank blogs use in relation to the Hockey Stick?

    – Which do you use to decide on a sensitivity value of 1.5 degree?

  52. #54 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    You’ve made some fervent statements about the magnitude of climate sensitivity, but you have avoided my questions to you regarding the definitions and the evidence that you use to define it.

    This is most curious.

    As is the fact of your fixation of Mann “hid[ing] the decline”, when anyone who has read the paper knows that the text clearly explains what is represented by the graph. Either you have not read the actual paper, or you are engaging in a semantic pretzelisation, or both.

  53. #55 bill
    February 11, 2013

    Both. Brad has a history of claiming to have read things he hasn’t, and then tying himself in knots defending half-arsed critiques gleaned from the usual suspects he’s attempting – unconvincingly – to pass-off as his own ‘considered’ opinions.

  54. #56 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    As is the fact of your fixation of Mann “hid[ing] the decline”, when anyone who has read the paper knows that the text clearly explains what is represented by the graph.

    Whuh? The discussion here at Brad’s Place has centred around PHIL JONES’ concealment of the decline in his WMO GRAPH.

    Pay attention.

  55. #57 chameleon
    February 11, 2013

    Yes PentaxZ,
    It is interesting that we have people here who are critical of others going to what they call ‘crank sites’ and then immediately link to rebuttals to other sites that merely argue from a differing perspective.
    What’s even more interesting is that they think it’s valid to dismiss work simply because their favoured sites have dismissed the work.
    They also think it’s valid to question the ‘motives’ of people rather than questioning the actual work.
    It is simply more of the same:
    ie: “An academic pissing contest.”
    It would be far more productive to discuss the merits and/or useful application of ALL the work that is available (IMHO)
    Instead we have this continuing narrative about ‘good vs evil’ .
    Apparently one brand of work is all good and completely correct and ‘undeniable’ and pro the environment and others are tainted by evil, fraught with errors/miscomprehension ‘contrarian’ and anti the environment.
    Even more, it can therefore be ‘assumed’ that people are mentally deficient and/or believe in ‘conpiracy theories’ simply because they have the audacity to ask questions!
    :-)
    BTW Lotharsson et al:
    I still notice that no one will answer a very simple yes/no question.
    Do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98?
    I am asking because it is pertinent to the ensuing discussion here.
    It seems (to me at least) that people are making this particular assertion with no corroborative evidence.
    I have linked to the BEST papers and I have been unable to find any CONFIRMATION of MBH98.
    As BradK and others have pointed out, the timeframes are not the same.
    Please point me to where this confirmation is.
    An online article at RC is NOT a confirmation from BEST.
    That would be more a case of ‘self confirmation’ or perhaps ‘wishful thinking’ wouldn’t it?
    Vince asserted many times here that BEST has confirmed MBH98.

  56. #58 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    bill:

    Brad has a history of claiming to have read things he hasn’t,

    Fuck you.

    Gentle readers, bill seems to be struggling to get over the fact that I read Merchants of Doubt in less than 4 hours—which some have called an impossible feat on the grounds that the audio version of the book lasts 13 hours!

  57. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 11, 2013

    @ Bernard J

    You’ve made some fervent statements about the magnitude of climate sensitivity,

    Sure… if by “fervent statements” you mean “a single expression of my take on the question, which BBD insisted on hearing, and which I followed by an invitation to change my mind.”

    Yeah, I’m a real fanatic, aren’t I?

    but you have avoided my questions to you regarding the definitions and the evidence that you use to define it.

    This is most curious.

    Why? I’ve explained to you, over and over again, the reasons for my policy of ignoring your “questions.” What part didn’t you understand?

  58. #60 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    I repeat: science is combative. It’s *not* a popularity contest. It is self-correcting. It’s a dogfight over ideas. It operates by *falsification*. Scientific consensus emerges by default over ideas that nobody has been able to tear down. Like scientific knowledge, scientific consensus is provisional, but it stands until torn down.

    You’re quite right that SCIENCE is not a popularity contest.

    But a scientific consensus (an idea believed by a majority of scientists) is, by definition, a question of popularity.

    Scientific consensus is qualitatively different to popular consensus and political consensus.

    Saying it’s different won’t make it so.

    A consensus is a majority opinion. Period. Use a dictionary.

  59. #61 chek
    February 12, 2013

    Cammy #57, crank sites and science sites (aka ‘activist’ sites in kook-speak) are not a different perspective. Except to batshit know-nothings like you to whom lying is merely a menu choice.

  60. #62 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    @ Wow,

    what exactly is your objection to:

    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.

    BBD didn’t seem to object to it. In fact, he wrote “Agreed” in response to the first 3 sentences! He had nothing to say about the other 2 sentences.

  61. #63 chek
    February 12, 2013

    But a scientific consensus (an idea believed by a majority of scientists) is, by definition, a question of popularity.

    Wrong. The scientific consensus is a question of durability i the face of constant questioning by ongoing research, not popularity.

    The cranks don’t do any research (and when they try it blows up in their faces. How come you’re stupid enough not to know the difference, and critique that which you plainly know nothing about “Brad”?

  62. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow:

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed

    Where?

  63. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    chek, your war against the English language is not going to end well for you.

    The scientific consensus is a question of durability i the face of constant questioning by ongoing research, not popularity.

    con·sen·sus [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA
    noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
    1.
    majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
    2.
    general agreement or concord; harmony.

  64. #66 chek
    February 12, 2013

    #17 My reading of the literature is that Mann’s methodological choices (in particular his PCA parameters) exaggerate the hockey-stick-ness of the data. In this sense, the resulting graph is an “artifact” even if Mann’s method couldn’t have created a fully-fledged hockey stick ex nihilo.”

    Stop being a lying weasel “Brad”. You’re tedious.

  65. #67 chek
    February 12, 2013

    @65 I can’t see ‘popularity’ in your vanilla definition of consensus “Brad”, let alone how it may relate to a scientific consensus.

  66. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow, and now chek, you’re either missing or fleeing the point.

    You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed

    When did I claim it was nothing I’d ever claimed? In other words, when did I deny having ever claimed it?

  67. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    February 12, 2013

    Brad, puzzlingly, says:

    Whuh? The discussion here at Brad’s Place has centred around PHIL JONES’ concealment of the decline in his WMO GRAPH.

    Why are you still on about that, when you have been unable to explain what was “concealed”?

    What was “concealed”?

  68. #70 chek
    February 12, 2013

    Yawn.

  69. #71 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    chek,

    @65 I can’t see ‘popularity’ in your vanilla definition of consensus “Brad”, let alone how it may relate to a scientific consensus.

    A majority opinion is BY DEFINITION a popular opinion. Have you gone Full Retard?

  70. #72 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Vince:

    Why are you still on about that, when you have been unable to explain what was “concealed”?

    What was “concealed”?

    “The decline.” That’s what was concealed.

    Just like the email says.

    Just like I’ve explained. Time and time again.

    I’ve also explained what “the decline” was. And in case you didn’t believe my explanation, I referred you to SkS:

    The “decline” is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
    Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”.

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

  71. #73 chek
    February 12, 2013

    So you can’t comprehend a decision can be made by a majority, which may at the same time not be popular, such as sacrifice for the greater good during war time for instance. Popularity incorporates elements of choice and liking. Perhaps you’re confusing popularity with approval.

    But you’re still stupidly misunderstanding and squirming over what a scientific consensus is. Likely because you’re dumber than Cammy.

  72. #74 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    But you’re still stupidly misunderstanding and squirming over what a scientific consensus is.

    LOL. I haven’t vacillated one millimetre in my definition of scientific consensus, and you know it.

    You’re the one who’s now trying to pretend that a majority opinion can simultaneously, magically, be an unpopular opinion. Why embarrass yourself like this? What would you achieve even if you succeeded in rewriting the English dictionary?

  73. #75 chek
    February 12, 2013

    As I said, it’s beyond your double digit comprehension,regardless of your infantile diversionary general definition offered without the defining prefix ‘scientific’.

  74. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Yes, chek, it’s beyond my comprehension why you object to a majority view being characterised as a popular view.

    I suspect it would be beyond most people’s comprehension. After all, a majority view is, by definition, popular. (Here’s an alarm bell for you: Lotharsson is conspicuously not backing you up on this idiocy.)

  75. #77 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    chek, your war against the English language is not going to end well for you.

    You should communicate that warning to one Brad Keyes.

    The dictionary definition of “consensus”, as I think has been pointed out to you, does not directly apply in the presence of the modifier “scientific”. The key here might be the concept of “modifier” in the English language which may “modify” the definition. The dictionary definition of “fox” is:

    A carnivorous mammal (Vulpes and other genera) of the dog family with a pointed muzzle and bushy tail…

    Whereas the dictionary definition of “flying fox” is:

    A large fruit bat (Pteropus and other genera, family Pteropodidae) with a foxlike face …

    Under your “logic”, a flying fox must be a carnivorous mammal of the dog family – which means it sure as heck doesn’t have wings, no matter how many biologists claim it does.

  76. #78 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    A majority opinion is BY DEFINITION a popular opinion.

    Well, to nit-pick, you might also consider that an opinion that is held by the majority may be unpopular in the other sense of “popular” – the sense of being liked or disliked, rather than the sense of being widely held, so using “popular” is potentially ambiguous. The set of propositions that encompass AGW are pretty unpopular amongst climate scientists in the former sense, even as they are very popular in the latter sense.

    Fortunately it seems that you’re focusing on the second sense so let us take that as a given. The problem with your obsession with this sense of “popularity” is that it’s nowhere near the full story.

    But a scientific consensus (an idea believed by a majority of scientists) is, by definition, a question of popularity.

    No, it’s not by definition a question of popularity, because the definition of “scientific consensus” is not just the definition of “consensus” scoped to “science”, just like a flying fox is not a dog that flies. Here’s one definition of the term:

    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study…

    It is a question of collective judgement of the robustness of the case for the proposition in question. “Popularity” amongst the relevant set of scientists is merely the emergent property that arises from a robust case. It is difficult to call to mind a scientific proposition that is generally described as enjoying a “scientific consensus” where the case is weak. As others have pointed out science is an intellectual combat sport, and where cases are weak there tend to be a whole load of competing propositions and very little in the way of widespread agreement – or in other words, a collective judgement does not exist.

    To look at it another way you’re vastly over-simplifying by entirely eliding the concept of the dimension of the confidence with which the proposition is held. That confidence (or lack of it) is an aspect of the strength of the consensus, and it speaks to where the weight of all the evidence lies and how strongly it does so. The stronger the evidence for a proposition, generally the more widely held it becomes and the higher the confidence in it. When someone speaks of a “scientific consensus”, they are generally implying that the evidence is quite strong and confidence is quite high, and that strength of evidence is not seriously challenged. Because of those facts, a large majority of scientists subscribe, albeit provisionally pending additional evidence, to the proposition. “Scientific consensus” generally refers to this widespread subscription emerging from the robustness of the case, not from a majority of scientists happening to weakly hold the same opinion.

    You seem to have fooled yourself into thinking that any mention of scientific consensus is ONLY about what proportion of scientists subscribe to the proposition. This can easily mislead you as to what the consensus connotes – and appears to have done so.

  77. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Wow and chek,

    You’ve both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Because the accusation is a lie.

    Making you liars.

  78. #80 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    You’re the one who’s now trying to pretend that a majority opinion can simultaneously, magically, be an unpopular opinion.

    There’s simply no way you parsed your way to a philosophy degree with Teh Stupid like this. It’s even stupider because you’re responding to chek who just gave an example of a majority-popular opinion that was disliked-unpopular.

    Here’s an alarm bell for you: Lotharsson is conspicuously not backing you up on this idiocy.)

    Here’s an even bigger alarm bell for you. Drawing inferences like that from a lack of evidence is fallacious and foolish (see my previous comment) as there may be several different reasons for a lack of evidence. You thought of one reason and then presumed it was the only possible one. It would be smart to debug this flaw in your thinking and try not to indulge in it in future.

  79. #81 chek
    February 12, 2013

    It’s been quite apparent for some considerable time who the liar is in this thread, “Brad”.

  80. #82 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    1. Enough with this red herring about “liked or disliked”. That may be a colloquial connotation of the word “popular” but the context of our discussion makes it crystal clear (to all but the deliberately obtuse) that no such connotation was intended.

    2. If a vast majority of scientists shares a certain view on nature, that is a scientific consensus, is it not?

  81. #83 mike
    February 12, 2013

    check and Brad,

    Perhaps, I can resolve your issue with the term “popular”. That is, I think this disagreement between the two of you with regard to the term “popular” is really due to the ambiguous meaning of the term and nothing more.

    Brad uses the term “popular” in the sense of “adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority” (Merriam-Webster).

    In contrast, check uses the term more in the sense it’s employed in, say, a high-school setting by the kids to describe those supremely attractive, socially competent, fellow students–typically football team members/cheerleaders–who dazzle their fellow classmates with their golden “charisma” and who, regularly, go out on dates on Saturday nights and all and who are described by their teen-age peers as “popular” in contra-distinction to those bitterly envious, weirdo, dorked-up, creep-out, “unpopular” opposite-numbers like, say, well…, you know, check!

  82. #84 chek
    February 12, 2013

    Even bigger yawn out of boredom with our tedious double-jointed squirming weasel.

  83. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    To put it another way:

    if 97 percent of scientists say X is true, then there is a scientific consensus on X, isn’t there?

  84. #86 chek
    February 12, 2013

    Oh goody, the intelligentsia’s arrived.

  85. #87 bill
    February 12, 2013

    mike is his momma’s number one boy, for sure… say, isn’t that her calling you now, baby?

  86. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Chek,

    You and Wow have both accused me of denying ever having made ““the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98.”

    Yet you cannot produce a single quote from me to back up this accusation.

    Because the accusation is a lie.

    Making you (and Wow) liars.

  87. #89 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    That may be a colloquial connotation of the word “popular” but the context of our discussion makes it crystal clear (to all but the deliberately obtuse) that no such connotation was intended.

    Your response to chek on that matter was foolish denial. This quote would have been a much better response.

    And perhaps if you start applying this principle to your own writing about other people – such as scientists like Mann, or commenters here – others here will be happy to do the same to yours.

    If a vast majority of scientists shares a certain view on nature, that is a scientific consensus, is it not?

    Yes, complete with the “collective judgement of all the current evidence” connotations I described above. I think you’ll struggle to find a counter-example despite the lack of those connotations being essential to your argument.

    You’ll be tempted to cite examples where the consensus changed as additional evidence arrived, but that doesn’t demonstrate that the earlier consensus was NOT a collective judgement of all the (previously available) evidence.

  88. #90 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    Making you (and Wow) liars.

    That’s pretty rich coming from you.

    Speaking of which, we notice while we’re waiting that you still hasn’t acknowledged your errors re: Mann and re: programming, although you did go close on one of the former. Maybe it will happen later after you’ve had more time to digest the “new” information. (How long ago was the Lewandowsky-related kerfuffle? That length of time clearly wasn’t enough seeing most of the “new” information was presented back then…perhaps if we double it?)

  89. #91 chameleon
    February 12, 2013

    @ Chek,
    Utter tosh! (to once again borrow from JeffH terminology).
    Unlike you, I am not arguing for particular sites and/or pretending that one is always right/good and another is always wrong/evil.
    Your comment is hilarious. I found the PINAS link here!
    The ONLY place I have seen it asserted that BEST confirms MBH98 is here!
    When people ask for proof/citations for whatever, they are linked to Tamino or RC.
    When other studies are linked such as Church et al on SLR (for example) we are then redirected back to RC or SkS or similar and their ‘take’ on the papers.
    Unlike you, I think all of them have a point to make.
    I notice BTW that Lotharsson has still not managed to answer the question re BEST and MBH98.
    Is there a CONFIRMATION?
    Linking to RC or other sites neither proves or disproves Vince’s assertion that BEST confirms MBH98.
    The information would have to reside in the BEST studies.
    Whatever RC or Watts or Tamino or Jonova or anyone else says is not relevant if it is and/or isn’t in BEST.

  90. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    we notice while we’re waiting that you still hasn’t acknowledged your errors re: Mann and re: programming, although you did go close on one of the former. Maybe it will happen later after you’ve had more time to digest the “new” information.

    Which new information did you expect to alter my position in rē: Mann’s algorithm? The fact that Eduardo Zorita succeeded in implementing the statistical procedure described in Mann’s paper?

    That would be quite compelling if, by doing so, Zorita arrived at the same graph Mann had arrived at. But my recollection is that Zorita’s result looked quite different from Mann’s.

    This implies to me (and correct me if I’ve made an error in logic) that the algorithm (and/or the input data) DESCRIBED by Mann’s paper and the algorithm (and/or the input data) USED by Mann’s paper were two different things.

  91. #93 chek
    February 12, 2013

    Cammy, why don’t you stop typing and go look at both studies and compare them.

  92. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson:

    “Making you (and Wow) liars.”

    That’s pretty rich coming from you.

    Hardly disputing it, though, are you?

  93. #95 David B. Benson
    February 12, 2013
  94. #96 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    Hardly disputing it, though, are you?

    Of course not – I haven’t assessed the claim, and my memory’s not perfect enough to just know.

  95. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    in rē: programming, I’m not sure where we disagree.

    Perhaps you object to the verb “specify” in my statement that “in real life, the code specifies the algorithm.”

    You replied that when the cursed code fails to do what the cursed specification promises, the goddamned code is never considered a “superior specification.”

    Yes, thank you, I know that.

    What I meant was that in real life, wherein programmers are fallible and code is incorrect, you can only really know what a program is doing by reading the code.

  96. #98 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    Which new information did you expect to alter my position in rē: Mann’s algorithm?

    Firstly, what about the rest of it? You have a bad habit of objecting to one objection (whether validly or not) and simply letting the others slide right by.

    But my recollection is that Zorita’s result looked quite different from Mann’s.

    I don’t trust your recollection, let alone your interpretation.

    Did the graph you recall appear in the paper where von Storch and Zorita et al. added an extra step to Mann’s algorithm which changed the resulting graph – as subsequently pointed out by Wahl, Ritson and Ammann – and which failed to report in the main paper that its supplementary material included results that were inconsistent with its published conclusions as pointed out by Rahmstorf, or do you think you saw it somewhere else?

  97. #99 Lotharsson
    February 12, 2013

    What I meant was that in real life, wherein programmers are fallible and code is incorrect, you can only really know what a program is doing by reading the code.

    As I explained already, this reliably misses the point.

    Par for the course.

  98. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 12, 2013

    By the way, you can stop reminding me of my supposed obligation to justify to you my ECS estimate from the literature. I haven’t forgotten the demand and I’m not trying to quietly avoid it.

    I’m not going to do that.

    I don’t owe you any justification or argument or bibliography. You people are one step more obnoxious and ridiculous than door-to-door Christians. Instead of inviting yourselves into people’s houses and trying to convince them of your theological worldview, you burst in and demand: “Prove to us that we’re wrong!”

    Ever wonder why the pews are emptier and emptier each year?