Brangelina thread

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

More like this

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here. I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.

Unfortunately we’ll never know, because “deniers” don’t do that kind of thing (suppress inconvenient truths by falsifying graphs).

How amusingly faux-ignorant!

But then that's par for the course with you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

no graph fiddling, eh?

yeah

right

sure

thing

brad

and that was 4 minute's work! oh, but let me guess, you were being post-ironic, or something? that's the 'get out of jail free' card for the high-falutin' denialati, isn't it? 'faux ignorant' indeed...

are there excrements in paradise, brad?

@ Wow, the questions you're still dodging, after all these years, are:

1. was Phil Jones telling the truth in his infamous "Hide the Decline" email?

2. if so, what did he mean by "the decline"?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

bbd
"...they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW."

Counter arguments not needed, since consensus isn't science. But that's of course hard to believe for someone deeply believing in the holy CAGW-religion.

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

ah, pentax and bradtax - 2 peas in a pod!

BBD.
I am very disappointed.
You have asked one of the best questions I have seen at Deltoid.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chameleon, I've just now noticed it amidst the crud—you mean this, right?

"So where do you sit? Are you happy with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of ~2.5C – ~3C?"

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Counter arguments not needed, since consensus isn’t science.

Science consensus is science, you one-track idiot.

Go ahead, the consensus that people fall to the ground because of gravity makes gravitational theory not science HOW, exactly?

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

Counter arguments are necessary but you don't have any.

@ Wow, the questions you’re still dodging, after all these years, are:

Years? Histrionics much, petal??

1. was Phil Jones telling the truth in his infamous “Hide the Decline” email?

Leading question. Stricken from the record.

2. if so, what did he mean by “the decline”?

If not, then what do you mean by "the decline"?

Unfortunately we’ll never know, because “deniers” don’t do that kind of thing (suppress inconvenient truths by falsifying graphs).

Since this has been so soundly beaten as complete falsehood, what do you say now?

Oxford Professor of Physics Jonathan Jones puts it like this:

So he's right because..?

No, he's wrong.

You are wrong.

Live with it, petal.

The obvious implication of this being: the proxies are invalid.

Except that where they are invalid, they aren't being used and you're complaining about them not being used.

The proxies don't change the graph either, since

a) they are only one proxy out of scores
b) they agree with the other proxies including thermometer readings for hundreds of years

Apparently you don't know this.

This is not a surprise since you only learn from denier blogs.

Oh, so Jones was lying.

“No,” according to Wow.

“He was talking to colleagues.”

Well, that clears that up, doesn’t it?

Yes it does. Glad you agree.

Yes, but was he telling the truth to colleagues, or was he lying to them?

Neither, he was talking to them.

If he's hidden something, then what was it?

Was Steve Ballmer lying when he said he was going to "fucking kill google"?

Or is he a murderer?

“This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible and I agree with him.”

And he (and Montford) are completely wrong.

If they were right, then there'd be something hidden.

There isn't.

From the ACTUAL Muir report (http://www.cce-review.org/)

1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to
which CRU‟s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon
and we find no evidence to support that implication.

22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been
properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated
with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.

It seems now the mere fact of saying "Hide" in a private email to someone where the context is unavailable is now a crime.

You deniers certainly twist logic to breaking point and beyond to continue your little fantasy world, don't you.

PS I note that you've still not acknowledged the criminal nature of your own side as shown by Bill above...

For the benefit of "Brad" and his intellectual inspiration PantieZ. consensus isn't the argument, but it does indicate the strength of the argument.,

Is all you have against the consensus that so many people agree with it?

You know, no actual EVIDENCE other than you are contrarian?

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

How about that, then Brat Panties?

Ah, denier accusations of dishonesty - that most hypocritical of phenomena. Spencer and Christy's convenient incompetence, and their concomitant ideological leanings are strangely always glossed over. What's the saying? There's only a crime if there's a motive? Oh wait - there was a motive.

So actual documented suspicious behaviour is somehow overlooked by the conspiratorially minded, in favour of the hidden that wasn't hidden. It doesn't even make sense within the kook's own terms. But then subjective original thinking doesn't come into it. There's a kind of catatonic thinking that triggers a tunnel vision that responds to the command "Look - a squirrel" or 'hide the decline'. And off they go like ants following a sugar trail.

Cammy - of course - sees no ships, and carefully avoids noting anything wrong. I think LB's a psychologist who could frame it all more accurately and eloquently.

@ Wow raises an important (and common) question about apparent double-standards...

"PS I note that you’ve still not acknowledged the criminal nature of your own side as shown by Bill above."

... which deserves an answer.

(I'm only one "denier", so I'll only answer for myself, though I'm pretty sure you'd find the same reasons echoed throughout "denierdom.")

I had no idea about these allegations. Now that bill has brought them to my attention, what do I have to say about them?

No comment.

Why?

Because I haven't looked into them.

Why not?

Because I find them peripheral and boring.

How can I say that, when my confidence in my own climate position relies on the integrity of the researchers bill has now indicted?

It doesn't. I've never read, believed or cited Spencer or Christy's work, as far as I can remember. I know they're "deniers" like myself, but beyond that I honestly couldn't tell you what their climate views are.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ah but fuckwit, you still can't bring yourself to comprehend the colloquial nature of 'hide the decline' but that doesn't prevent you frothing yourself off based on the same ignorance.

I had no idea about these allegations.

So when you opined with certainty:

Unfortunately we’ll never know, because “deniers” don’t do that kind of thing (suppress inconvenient truths by falsifying graphs).

Your data was ignorance?

Because I find them peripheral and boring.

But you find the word "hide" in a personal email where NOTHING HAS BEEN HIDDEN worthy of spending scores of hours pursuing???

The good old denier double-standard at play!

Nor have I cited the work of Michaels, Easterbrook, Eschenbach, Marohasy or Monckton.

Had I done so, I'd be obliged to take all credible accusations against them seriously. I'd be reading bill's links very closely, thinking long and hard about the implications (if any) for the credibility of scientists whose work I've cited and (if necessary) recalibrating my climate conclusions in light of these revelations (if any).

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

I know they’re “deniers” like myself, but beyond that I honestly couldn’t tell you what their climate views are.

ROFLMAO!

Yes, you don't know what they think about climate except they deny the science of climate.

Nor have I cited the work of Michaels, Easterbrook, Eschenbach, Marohasy or Monckton.

Yes, you've been GETTING your tripe from them, but not citing them.

You have done a Bishop and ClimateFraudit.

But oddly enough, you've never cited ANY DATA for your claims either.

Indeed you seem unwilling at the very least to cite anything.

This is anti-science.

Rather ironic given your petulance about "this isn't science". Looking everywhere but in your own back garden.

So basically you're now admitting you've made everything up out of whole cloth.

@chek raves bitterly:

"Ah but fuckwit, you still can’t bring yourself to comprehend the colloquial nature of ‘hide the decline’ but that doesn’t prevent you frothing yourself off based on the same ignorance."

Of course I don't comprehend its newly-alleged "colloquial nature," because I'm aware of no reason at all to think it was "colloquial."

But I take it that your new angle is that Phil Jones "colloquially" hid the decline, without *actually* hiding the decline?

And what, pray tell, did that entail his doing? (Sorry, I don't speak whatever East Anglian slang you're suggesting the email was written in.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow:

"But oddly enough, you’ve never cited ANY DATA for your claims either."

Which claims would you like my data for?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.”

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

And what, pray tell, did that entail his doing?

Nothing.

because I’m aware of no reason at all to think it was “colloquial."

Apart from the lack of anything being hidden.

Just like Ballmer didn't ACTUALLY bury Eric Schmidt and never buried people before, despite the black-and-white saying so.

"More of the tired old rubbish.

I refer you back to my previous query:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…"

And I refer you (and our long-suffering readers) to the answer I've given you every single time you've asked me what was hidden: the decreasing trend in MXD of the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

This decline is NOT VISIBLE in Phil Jones' WMO graph, is it? No.

Why not? Because he used a trick "to hide" it.

As everybody seems to understand but you.

The questions you’re still dodging are:

1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

2. What did he mean by “the decline”?

3. For which of my claims would you like to see my data?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad" - once again there was nothing to hide. Reasonable, logical people know - and if they didn't the investigations explained it simply and straightforwardly, that 'hide the decline' can be paraphrased as 'deal with the well cited divergence problem'.

But not the idiot denier brigade, as exemplified by you.
Until you understand that you're stuck in a groundhog fruitloop. Maybe forever. But nevermind, because nobody's ever going to miss your vastly underwhelming mental acuity.

Oh, there will be stats. Stats and graphs, my friend.

Failed to provide any.

Maybe you’d better tell Michael Mann, who’s conceded precisely what you’re now in denial of!

No proof.

1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

Bare assertion.

3. The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 statistical “methodology.”

Bare assertion with no proof and countermanded by all the other "HS" graphs produced.

Which he didn’t disclose.

Bare assertion falsified by the paper produced containaing the method.

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.

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.

Another complete lie.

Just a few from the VERY FIRST PAGE of this excrescence's shit-laden spewing vitriol.

All in the name of what?

No reasonable person could mistake Ballmer's vow to kill Google and bury Schmidt (or whatever) for a literal declaration of intent.

It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

This is an a priori judgement any reasonable person would make. (It's not necessary to ask whether or not Ballmer ever did wind up committing murder.)

BUT:

Just because someone isn't being *literal*, it never follows that what they're saying is meaningless.

Ballmer wasn't being literal, but he was using a metaphor to indicate something like: "I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business."

If you think Phil Jones was being "colloquial", WHAT DID HE MEAN?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

This decline is NOT VISIBLE in Phil Jones’ WMO graph, is it? No.

Since there IS NO DECLINE to show in that graph, IT IS NOT MISSING.

Shit, you kept crowing about how "easy" it was and quoted this as "proof" of how I was lost:

“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.

See: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…

So in a graph of TEMPERATURES, there is no DECLINE.

And because there is no decline, you're going to pretend there should have been one???

DATA FOR THAT ASSERTION!

The questions you’re still dodging are

Already answered three times before.

leading question. Struck from the record.

1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

Telling what truth?

If you think Phil Jones was being “colloquial”, WHAT DID HE MEAN?

If you think he hid something, WHAT WAS IT?

"All in the name of what?"

Reinforcing the fantasy world he and his new brownshirt friend live in.

It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????

WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!

He hid no decline, Brat.

And by the way, where is my data?

This is an a priori judgement any reasonable person would make.

But no such a priori judgement for someone writing in an email where there is obviously missing emails preceding it who says "hide the decline", DESPITE nothing being hidden?

Again with the double standard.

And STILL waiting for my data as per #36

The point is that BEST’s finding couldn’t be called a Hockey Stick,

Data for that too would be needed.

250 years is plenty to show the pre-industrial average and the shaft of the hockey stick, given that the warming has been mostly since 1950.

Proof of this claim too required.

The “Hockey Stick” has always, always referred to the almost-1000-years-long shaft followed by the 100-to-200-years-long blade.

this claim needs proof too:

why anyone outside the CRU would bother targeting it for a cyberattack, when presumably only those on the inside knew “just how bad the emails (and Ian [Harris'] code) would make the CRU look”.

And your claims that the current warming is not unprecedented.

Data for that is needed.

"It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????"

This has already been explained to you.

As explained to you previously:

He was using a metaphor to indicate something like: “I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business.”

"WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!"

I don't know.

(And it's an odd question to ask about someone who's making a resolution about the future, which is largely unknown, as opposed to a statement about the past, which is known.)

You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

You assert "infamous", yet you have no reasoning for doing so with this:

The scientist to whom Phil Jones wrote the infamous question:

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Remember, you refuse to give any data. Probably for the very same reason "we're only going to find something wrong with it".

Proof of this claim too:

“Hide the decline” requires no spinning. The verb “to hide” is anti-scientific in se.

And when you claim for Ballmer:

No reasonable person could mistake Ballmer’s vow to kill Google and bury Schmidt (or whatever) for a literal declaration of intent.

It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

How about these claims:

“redefine the peer-reviewed literature if necessary,” “beat the crap out of [Patrick Michaels]“, etc.?

Or are you not being a reasonable person?

BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????”

This has already been explained to you.

As explained to you previously:

He was using a metaphor to indicate something like: “I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business.”

And likewise "hide the decline" is metaphorical.

“WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!”

I don’t know.

Funny how that's not good enough for you wrt Phil Jones' email, taken out of context and obviously missing many other emails in the conversation.

@Wow washes his hands of all semblance of good faith:

"1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

Telling what truth?"

Duh... you gots me dere, Pontius Pilate... wot troof?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?

You tell me: is Phil Jones going to fulfil his resolution?

Duh… you gots me dere, Pontius Pilate… wot troof?

You really don't realise that "is he telling the truth" is nonsensical, do you.

What truth?

You don't know.

All you want is "did he hide the decline?" but the answer to that is: NO and that is not an answer you're willing to accept for ideological reasons.

PS still missing a whole slew of data from you.

I guess you're not able to actually ask a question since you've never been capable enough to concoct a coherent sentence.

The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 [sic] statistical “methodology.”

Brad knows - or should know - this is false, because I - amongst others, IIRC - have pointed him to analyses that show otherwise. Brad, despite his protestations that he never lies, is quite happy to repeat falsehoods after they have been demonstrated to be false.

Most people are happy to call that "lying". Brad will no doubt dispute the term, and the claim.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

"He hid no decline, Brat."

So when he wrote to his colleagues that he'd just finished using a "trick" to "hide the decline," he wasn't writing the truth?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

And it’s an odd question to ask about someone who’s making a resolution about the future, which is largely unknown, as opposed to a statement about the past, which is known

Ahem.

"I've done it before, and I'll do it again".

It's odd how you can reach a conclusion without ever once reading what you're supposed to be considering.

I guess it's a result of not caring what the truth is, right?

So when he wrote to his colleagues that he’d just finished using a “trick” to “hide the decline,” he wasn’t writing the truth?

He hid nothing.

I note that you're having to "litter" your message "with" quotes because "you don't" have "a" coherent "question" to "ask".

What are you claiming he said he did and where is your proof he said and meant exactly that?

And still waiting for your data.

"And likewise “hide the decline” is metaphorical."

So he did hide the decline. Metaphorically. Gotcha.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Please explain how this gets to be a nefarious "trick":

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series

Adding thermometer readings to a temperature graph is nefarious HOW exactly?

So he did hide the decline.

No more than Ballmer killed google metaphorically.

He didn't hide a thing.

Get it?

Despite all these vapid responses, no data is forthcoming from you, Brat.

You said you had plenty for all of your claims.

Seems like they're missing.

I mean, talk about trying to find problem.

"hide the decline was metaphorical"

could be considered

a) metaphorical hiding
or
b) a metaphorical "hide the decline"

but brat wants to continue with "there's something missing!!!!" and chooses "hiding, but metaphorically".

Worse, nothing about how a "metaphorical hiding" can be enacted.

Nor even why it would be a problem.

Entirely made up to pretend there's an issue.

Also note that I'd said "And likewise “hide the decline” is metaphorical."

With the quotes around the statement "hide the decline", thereby indicating that the metaphor was to the entire statement quoted not one word in it.

Yet in the interests of fake outrage, Brat wants to pretend that the quotes don't work like that if he doesn't want them to.

""You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?"

You tell me: is Phil Jones going to fulfil his resolution?"

What resolution??

Ballmer made promises for the future (as well as boasts about the past), whereas Jones only referred to the past. He used the present perfect tense, signifying a recently-completed action:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in ..."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

2. What did he mean by “the decline”?

If you don't know, then why are you making claims about something you don't know?

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in real temperatures..."

Why did you cut off your quote earlier?

Is it somehow wrong in your world to use thermometer readings of temperature when you have them?

Ballmer made promises for the future (as well as boasts about the past),

And why does that make a difference?

Ballmer said he had buried people before and would do it again.

But since we have no bodies, we do not accuse Mr Ballmer of a crime.

Since we don't have any missing decline, we have no crime to report against Dr Jones.

And still no data.

@Wow—a multiple choice for you:

Did Phil Jones "hide the decline" as he claimed?

1. yes!
2. yes, but only metaphorically
3. no, he hid nothing

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Still a leading question.

Nothing was hidden.

And still no data, but a lot more wind from the retard.

"Why did you cut off your quote earlier?"

In order to avoid typing "the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Wow—a multiple choice question for you:

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

1. yes!
2. yes, but only metaphorically
3. no, he hid nothing
4. no, nothing was hidden

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

And since there is no preposition for "to hide the decline" ("of what", basically), you have a priori indication that your email is not complete.

I'm presenting you with a tetralemma, in case you hadn't noticed.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

http://www.rationalresponders.com/logical_fallacy_lesson_4_bald_asserti…

You say he claims to have hidden something.

However, since nothing has been hidden, this claim is contraindicated by evidence.

Do you have a problem asking "Did he hide the decline in the proxy readings for a small section of time and for a small section of the proxies?"?

I’m presenting you with a tetralemma,

You're presenting a fallacy.

And STILL a complete lack of data.

@Wow:

"And since there is no preposition for “to hide the decline” (“of what”, basically), you have a priori indication that your email is not complete."

OMG—the email was truncated? We're not being shown the whole sentence???

LOL.

Really, Wow? You're going to try this angle? What year are we in, 2009?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Heck, prove it isn't meant as a follow up to "The politicians won't understand: the decline in science understanding in the political class is horrendously obvious and putting data on there that doesn't have to be on there will just show it up even more starkly".

So he put the temperature figures on there and cut off the bad data to hide the decline in education of the politicians.

OMG—the email was truncated? We’re not being shown the whole sentence???

Nope.

How retarded can you actually get?

We only have one statement in a conversation that would have comprised many statements by several (at least two) correspondents.

Brad Keyes

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?

Alternatively, if you can find within that one email alone in itself any mention of a decline in tree ring proxies, then you may be given the point.

Yet more avoidance of providing data.

Its data doesn't exist.

@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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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]

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad, lets get extremely remedial:

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

It's not in that email.

Did Ballmer claim to have buried people before?

c) not enough data

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"?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

"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”?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Yes or no, Wow?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

Why don’t you decry Mr Ballmer for murder?

Brad

Answer the fucking question please ;-)

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?

What do you mean, happy? Unalarmed?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

So no data for that claim, either.

Wow,

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

I don't know.

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.

@ 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-adv…

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

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

No, definitely and always been denial.

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

Which has never been hidden.

@ 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.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

“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.

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.

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

Not even his latest one of lukewarmer denialism.

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.

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

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?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Ian Forrester,

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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,”

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.

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?)

"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.

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?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

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)").

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.

@ 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.”

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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-sub…

So many lies from the newest denier recruit.

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?

“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.

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?

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.

Nothing has been hidden.

Nothing.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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'.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Exactly

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

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?

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.

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

chameleon

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

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?

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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?

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

BK

Why do you reject the scientific consensus on ECS?

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...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad can deny rejecting the consensus position [...] all he likes,"

But I haven't denied that.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

No, but now that you mention it, perhaps you are simply intellectually incompetent in just the right way to make it look like a pattern of deliberate mendacity. I may have been grievously mistaken all along!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chameleon

Small correction:

Didn’t Brad K say he HAS NOT ‘rejected’ it?

What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

But I haven’t denied that.

My bad.

Please tell chameleon. She's asserting you said you "... [have] NOT ‘rejected’ it?" [the consensus position].

Only one of you can be correct.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

Firstly, the likelihood you place on the range you specified constitutes a rejection of the consensus position. I think we're all in agreement with that. Even the 1.5C value itself is an outlier in the consensus position, an outlier so extreme that values below it are considered to be ruled out with very high confidence - and your comment was about "less than 1.5C" which is still more extreme.

"Supported" in science does not generally mean "there's a paper that claims it"; it means that it's a defensible inference from ALL the evidence. Your claim - the ECS range you cited and the weight you place on it - is indeed an unsupported outlier value in the light of ALL the evidence. The fact that you refuse to cite supporting evidence makes it even more ironic that you claim your position is not "unsupported".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

BTW Lotharsson,
Brad is correct. I misquoted him.
It doesn't change the substance of my comment to BBD.
However, apologies to Brad.
He most definitely said : in favour of . . .

By chameleon (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

Dear Chebbie,

What year did MBH '98 start?

signed,

All The People Actually Paying Attention

:waves frantically:

There seems to be something wrong with this merry-go-round! Can the mechanic fix something so that we're not going backwards and forwards over the same 2 metres the whole time?

Please!

@Lotharsson, you really should read my comments in context: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…

FTFY:

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

"The argument for the range above [ ~2.5C – ~3C] is exhaustively documented in the scientific literature."

…let’s take a look at it.

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 very similar to BBD's hero Fabius Maximus' 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).

You're welcome.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

@bill,

I just wanted to tell you how witty you are.

"Dear Chebbie,"

It took me ages to get it, but... that nickname is so clever, because chameleon and Chebbie BOTH START WITH "CH"!

LOL!

It works on so many levels. You, sir, are the new Hitchens!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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."

Goodo. Seeing as this argument is now presented in the discussion of the range for ECS, we now presume that there is a "complete and utter rebuttal" of the 2.5 to 3C calculation available in the scientific literature.

Where is the citation?

Lotharsson, you really should read my comments in context...

There goes another irony meter. Brad tries to lecture other people about taking context into consideration - right after misinterpreting a quote scientist by refusing to apply context!

And Brad, I already did so.

Your comments were in the context of alleging that you weren't lining up behind an unsupported outlier. And your lame attempt to "FTFY" by replacing "Brad" with "BBD" misses the mark because of context. BBD wasn't lining up behind a position that it as unsupported outlier, nor has the position he cited been completely rebutted - unless you want to allege those things thereby pushing the envelope of denialism into the realm of complete farce?

So Brad, what adelady said: citations please.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Feb 2013 #permalink

'Chebbie' came from 'Debbie' at Jo Nova's being coincidentally the only other person in the entire universe who happens to believe that Flannery said snow would be a 'fleeting fancy' by 2012. She denies they're the same person. I couldn't be bothered checking.

Well done on working out the 'Ch' bit. Next you'll be telling me you figured out why I referred to latimer as 'Larch'.

Hitchens was a war criminal and an anti-religious bigot, so your sarcasm is wasted.

And since it goes to Brad's lack of critical thinking ability and/or lack of honesty...Brad is repeating the claim that Mann's algorithm was "kept secret" based on allowing Brad's personal interpretation of an alleged quote in the WSJ to outweigh the plain evidence of the algorithm being published in the MBH98 paper itself, it is worth also noting that I have pointed out previously to Brad that (ignoring the paper) even the quote is suspect, as Mann writes in his book:

Regalado also gave readers the false impression that my coauthors and I had something to hide. He quoted me as saying "Giving them [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in." I doubt I said that to Regalado since the algorithm was published in our original (MBH98) article, and thus there would be no need to give it to someone. I might have said that regarding the source code...and for good reasons: (1) our source code wasn't necessary to reproduce and verify our findings. Scientists such as Eduardo Zorita...had independently implemented our algorithm without access to our source code. ...

The most likely explanation is that the journalist - who Mann details making several other misleading statements, even after having interviewed Mann and other scientists - confused "source code" with "algorithm". Heck, even McIntyre himself, a key player in the events in question, when writing in this article quietly corrects Mann's quote when he quotes from the WSJ!

Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he says.

Not only does Brad foolishly rely on a quote in a newspaper article to tell him what is found (or not found) in a freely obtainable paper, but the guy the quote refers to rejects the specific word in the quote that Brad relies upon.

Once you've absorbed that calamity of error on Brad's part, read the whole page of Mann's book at the first link - and the surrounding pages that are available for context! - and note how they contradict not just this but a number of other claims that Brad makes about Mann and his group's work. For example, not only is the algorithm that Brad alleges was kept secret evident in the paper itself, but other researchers were able to implement it without having the source code! How could that possibly be true, if the algorithm were kept secret - or if "the source code specifies the algorithm"?!

And yet Brad continues to make these allegations. Based on past performance - and having been informed of these issues previously - he is very unlikely to acknowledge any errors, not even when McIntyre himself corrects them, and will simply Gish Gallop to his next sophistical gambit. We must also conclude that Brad is incompetent - or a crank and a liar, or perhaps all three.

So I reiterate the request for citations either supporting an ECS or 1.5 C or less over and above all of the counter-evidence, or comprehensively rebutting an ECS most likely to fall in the range of about 2.5 - 3.0 C, but based on Brad's demonstrated inability to argue in good faith and his ability to parse the completely unexpected from English text if it "benefits" his position, I expect nothing substantive to arise from it.

(Go on Brad, surprise me! ;-) )

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

“exhaustively documented in the literature”,

So...is this bit in dispute?

Maybe compare it with the "exhaustiveness" of any documentation for the <1.5 degree/doubling?

As far as I know, the latter is pretty much exclusively confined to crank posts on crank blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova.

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”,

Yeah, probably because its intended meaning was as per the statement as written, and not as your second statement, which is obviously true, but wasn't at that point under discussion.

Perhaps they were a bit overzealous in the philosophy unit concerning, "Red Herrings"? Such a shame you wasted your time on such a pointless and truth-avoiding course of study.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Just out of interest, are you now, or have you ever been, a fan of the "theory" of the abiogenic mechanism for the origin of petroleum?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the Hockey Stick?.
Bill,
If you have outlined the issue of timeframes in your rather vague question re MBH98, does that mean you agree or disagree with Vince re BEST and MBH98?.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson, are you confabulating again?

"Heck, even McIntyre himself, a key player in the events in question, when writing in this article quietly corrects Mann’s quote when he quotes from the WSJ!"

Really? Here's McIntyre:

Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

And here's the original:

Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he says.

The quote appears to be unchanged. McIntyre didn't "correct" a word of it, did he?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

The quote appears to be unchanged. McIntyre didn’t “correct” a word of it, did he?

My mistake. I was looking at the clarification that he was talking about the source code, and the fact that the entire McIntyre article is written in terms of "source code", not algorithm. In other words, McIntyre does at least interpret the journalist's quote as applying to the source code which is at least consistent with your conflation of "source code" with "algorithm" - and consistent with Mann's belief that he was misquoted by the journalist after talking to him about the source code.

Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge - the assertion that the paper doesn't specify the algorithm, the assertion (IIRC) that no-one else could implement the algorithm without the source code, the assertion that the source code is the specification of the algorithm, the assertion that Mann's methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, ... Bet you don't acknowledge any of them.

And then there is the question of the citations for your preferred estimate of ECS...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson?
Do you agree with Vince that the hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST?

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, that question was asked and answered long ago.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon, do you agree with Brad that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is most likely below 1.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

"My mistake. I was looking at the clarification that he was talking about the source code, "

The "clarification" was nothing more than a replacement of the pronoun "it" by the noun it signified.

Original:

Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

ClimateAudit excerpt:

Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

"and the fact that the entire McIntyre article is written in terms of “source code”, not algorithm. In other words, McIntyre does at least interpret the journalist’s quote as applying to the source code which is at least consistent with your conflation of “source code” with “algorithm”"

I'm not the one who mixed things up here, Lotharsson.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

It's funny how when you live in a world made of the merest fluff even the simplest question can appear vague...

Brad, your #24 agrees with what I said about the McIntyre article in #22.

How interesting that you felt the need for a whole comment on the part where I agreed with you, and completely ignored the set of erroneous claims you have yet to acknowledge!

But par for the course.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Dr. Mann refuses to release [the source code]. “Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in,” he says.

So again with the hearsay.

And the algorithm is public. It's a common advanced statistical technique NOT invented by Michael Mann.

And replication in science isn't "do precisely what someone else did". It's "do the same process".

You really don't know the first thing about science, do you.

<blockquotethe hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST?

BEST proves the Hockey stick MBH98.

Now, you have several mistakes to acknowledge – the assertion that the paper doesn’t specify the algorithm, the assertion (IIRC) that no-one else could implement the algorithm without the source code, the assertion that the source code is the specification of the algorithm, the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … Bet you don’t acknowledge any of them.

So, care to acknowledge your errors, Brat?

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”,

It uses different words, but please demonstrate how they have a different meaning entirely.

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you don't do proof, do you.

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?”

If he didn't say that, then you're query is void.

“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.

Except you do.

You said:

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

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

It is.

Hope that clears it up for you.

is there any evidence for this:

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

Yes.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

When have I ever expressed that idea?

All the frigging time.

By whom Lotharsson?
I have asked YOU!
When you answer that oft asked question, I will happily answer yours :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

How can you possibly know that nothing has been hidden?

I can't.

But I DO know that "the divergence problem" wasn't one since it is not hidden.

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

You see, if you can see it, it isn't hidden.

How can you say that something in plain sight is hidden, chubby?

(also note that the term used was "hide": future tense. Just like Ballmer's "I'm gonna fucking kill Google")

By whom Lotharsson?

And he answered you.

And BEST proves MBH98.

Brad, since we've already had over 0.9C of warming for a half-a-doubling of CO2, how can you get anything less than 1.8C per doubling for climate sensitivity to CO2?

By whom Lotharsson?

By me. That's what "asked and answered" generally means when someone says it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

You know, Wow, I've long had a rather vague but persistent notion that there's something unsettling--unhealthy even--about your obsessional, groupie-like fixation on a known weirdo who sports the improbable surname "Mann."

But bill's comment, up-thread there, about Latimer and bill callin' him "Larch" and all, helped me to finally put my finger on what it is that's been puzzling me about you, Wow.

In particular, Wow, I suddenly realized the disturbing fact that your chosen moniker, "Wow", is just "Mom" rotated 180 degrees!

And so, it's suddenly dawned on me that your last Michael "MANN" comment was really nothing more than a desperate, really creepy plea for help!

Hey Wow!

Be a pal and add another 180 degrees to that rotation, up above, would you?

Pretty simple explanation here: The sun has an effect.

Funny how you whining bitches complaining eternally about how it's the IPCC that is fixated on CO2 are fixated on CO2...

mike, projection is giving away an awful lot of your secret thoughts.

Just being a pal...

Hey, our WUWT cut-and-paster is here!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

But our WUWT cut-and-paster is a bit slow. It already made Tamino's comments on Jan 24.

Trying to find explanatory cycles in the Central England Temperature record, which isn't global and isn't even all from the same location - what could possibly go wrong?! ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Anything the denieridiot wants!

We were wrong, you know; 'mike's' position on the LoSA scale is more like 20!

Just when we all thought that psychoanalysis was completely discredited, and the only half-way accurate thing Freud ever said is that you should certainly forgive your enemies (after they have been hanged), along comes mike in his scary drag role as Norman Bates' momma...

What I said was that I have not rejected it in favour of an unsupported outlier value.

1.5C per doubling is an outlier value and rejected the most likely value of around 3C per doubling.

You have rejected the current warm anomaly of over 0.9C.

You have rejected the measure of increased CO2 to nearly 400ppm.

Your assumption of 1.5C per doubling is less supported by data than the value of 6C per doubling.

And you're rejecting the most likely value for an extreme (and now impossible) outlier.

Nah, Wow, Brad's not rejecting things left, right and centre! He's merely espousing private semantics. The key word in his quote is "unsupported". Brad likes to think his position is "supported", which does not seem to match the usage of the word by scientists. I expect that - should Brad deign to clarify - under Brad's definition of "supported", it simply does not matter that recent warming appears to be rather too strong for his preferred range of values. In other words, "supported" can include "strongly rebutted by evidence" as long as Brad can point to some scientist somewhere (Lindzen, anyone?) who once claimed ECS was rather low.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Odd then that he calls the IPCC report unsupported, then. Or any of the claims by, for example, BBD as unsupported.

Maybe you're only nearly correct: his definition of "supported" is actually "I like it".

Maybe you’re only nearly correct: his definition of “supported” is actually “I like it”.

I could believe that.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad Keyes.

Can you describe your understanding of the difference between transient climate sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity?

Once you've done that, can you explain what the current observed warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, compared with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the same period, implies about equilibrium vs transient climate sensitivity? Reference to numbers, forcings, feedings-back, and sundry empirical studies would be interesting.

I'm keen to see if your climate physics is any better than your pH chemistry...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson?
You will have to direct me to where you answered that question.
I must have missed it amidst all the wowisms.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Why the hard-on for Lotharsson's answer?

Is it that you want to just demand, demand, demand like a two-year-old who wants their every whim answered NOW!

?

Or is it that you only think Lotharsson is right?

WUWT cut and paster?
If you're referring to pentaxZ there is no link to WUWT at the PNAS site.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ummm Wow?
Neither :-)
You have also claimed Lotharsson answered that question.
Maybe you can direct me to that answer?

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Neither

So why do you absolutely need Lotharsson's answer so much that you can't go on without it, yet not so much that you can justify looking for the answers between when you asked and now, which would only be a couple of pages to search through?

Because the front-runner for explaining this is the two-year-old tantrum thrower idea.

Over at WTFUWT you'll find the same link and this is where panties got the idea to link to it from.

You deniers are all pretty transparent, for all that you're incredibly thick.

If you’re referring to pentaxZ there is no link to WUWT at the PNAS site.

I didn't say there was.

The article in question was just touted on WUWT (via Bishop Hill), and the timing of pentaxZ's (ahem) emissions generally suggest he that he gets his info from WUWT (and other denialosphere) articles and then cuts and pastes here. Lord knows he shows little sign of comprehending what he writes.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow, chameleon is just hoping to stir up controversy, perhaps to distract from Brad's latest failures which may even be obvious to her - just like Brad manically posted a bunch of crap to try and distract from Latimer's failures.

Either that, or - and this is quite plausible, given her history here - she can't remember what she read a couple of days ago. She certainly shows no sign of any ability to research simple questions, and she is still on record as denying what she herself wrote a few days before she denied writing it.

Mind you, there's nothing stopping both of the above hypotheses being true.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

I rather suspect it's the best she can do to "punish" people for not buying into her denialism. See her attempts to get ME to do the work she could easily do.

lotharsson

To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything. It's a activist site, like csc and rc. I would say PNAS have a slightly heavier impact than the activist sites.

Not much left of the once so bright and shiny CAGW castle. You deltoids really are like the forgotten japanese soldiers forgotten on a remote island in the pacific. Hahaha....

@Lotharsson

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

Are these statements in the WSJ article correct?

Dr. Mann offered a strong rebuttal of the Canadians' 2003 journal article, explaining that it didn't correctly apply his techniques. In doing so, however, he revealed details of his data and mathematical methods that hadn't appeared in his original paper.

When Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick pointed this out to Nature, the journal that first published the hockey-stick graph, Dr. Mann and his two co-authors had to publish a partial correction. In it, they acknowledged one wrong date and the use of some tree-ring data that hadn't been cited in the original paper, and they offered some new details of the statistical methods.

If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything

A VERY>/b> lazy ad hom there.

Yup, more hearsay from Brat.

PCA is a standard advanced statistical technique and wasn't invented by Mann for his paper.

The source code could only be used to show that the program was run, which isn't science.

If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

Since he did specify, it isn't so.

I would say PNAS have a slightly heavier impact than the activist sites.

Only if the paper stands up to post-publication scrutiny. At first glance it seems likely to suffer from some of the fatal flaws of some of the papers that were widely celebrated by the denialosphere before the responses started to roll in.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

If so, then Mann failed to specify (among other things) the algorithm in the original paper.

Even "if so", your claim does not follow. The text you quoted does not demonstrate that the algorithm was not published - no matter how many times you repeat the claim. Furthermore, as previously pointed out repeatedly, Zorita's independent replication demonstrates that the paper's description was sufficient for a competent researcher - just not for M&M, who have demonstrated quite a lot of incompetence over the years (including horrendously screwing up their attempted "correction" of Mann's original method).

I note - again - that you are arguing about what's in the paper from someone else saying things about the paper, instead of demonstrating that the paper does not contain the algorithm. This is almost as low on the credibility stakes as pentaxZ cutting and pasting from WUWT. Maybe ignoring primary evidence in favour of sophistically parsing secondary comments about the evidence passes for thinking in a philosophy degree, but it's showing you up as a poor critical thinker and unreliable claimant here.

But hey, as long as you keep getting attention, even disapprobation, it's all good, right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Wow

But I DO know that “the divergence problem” wasn’t one since it is not hidden.

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

You see, if you can see it, it isn’t hidden.

Could the audience of Phil Jones' WMO presentation see it? You know, the people who saw the graph Phil Jones was referring to in the "Hide the Decline" email? Could they see the divergence problem when he put up the slide in question?

(also note that the term used was “hide”: future tense. Just like Ballmer’s “I’m gonna fucking kill Google”)

That's odd—I thought "[to] hide" was the infinitive.

Please tell us more about this new grammar!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

PentaxZ in a bid to out-stupid Brad, emits:

To use tamino is hardly any heavy argument for anything.

It's a heavy argument for what I used it for - that you're a bit slow on the ball and rely on waiting until "news" hits WUWT, Bishop Hill, etc. before you transfer it to a comment here.

But comprehending what I wrote was probably too advanced a task for you, right?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

That’s odd—I thought “[to] hide” was the infinitive.

To hide is future.

Have hidden is past perfect.

Try this "I have hide the leaving card".

Compare with "I have hidden the leaving card".

Or "I went to hide the leaving card" which is not saying they DID hide it, just went to do so, compared to "I have hidden the leaving card" which states that the hiding has happened.

However, being a flunk-out of philosophy, your inability to find coherent meaning is entirely expected.

If something has been hidden, it isn't the decline of some temperature proxies accuracy. Because that is entirely visible.

So, Brad, about those errors you need to acknowledge...

...and the evidence either FOR "ECS is probably less than 1.5 C" or against "ECS is most likely between 2.5 and 3.0 C"...

...and Wow's question at #40?

...and Bernard's questions at #54?

Oh, who am I kidding? Brad's not going to seriously answer any serious questions let alone acknowledge errors! The latter would immediately belie his personal assessment of the awesomeness of his own intellect, and the former would expose him to the same danger!

[And damnit, looks like the comment numbering here for old comments here can change if another comment was held up in moderation :-( ]

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

And if something had been hidden on that temperature graph, then BEST would have found a record different from that one.

They haven't, so the contention that something is hidden on it is unsupported by any facts.

Speaking of both MBH and the WMO graph, it's rather interesting that Brad spends far more energy on textual analysis of comments about a work than on any analysis of the work itself. (And he's not the only one.)

Why, it's almost like he's taking more of a humanities approach to "analysing" scientific claims than a science approach...and even there doing it rather haphazardly by analysing secondary sources rather than primary ones...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow:

To hide is future.

So then, you understand grammar about as well as you understand Islam or how science works.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad" and PantieZ don't look at science papers. They're too busy snarfing up all the denier trash they can about science papers.

So then, you understand grammar about as well as you understand Islam or how science works.

Yes, thanks for the compliment!

So, brad, given that your assertion as to what was hidden is absolutely false (it's in the paper referred to in the graph, as is common when synthesising the results of many papers: you don't cut and paste the entire contents of all the papers you're referring to), what is hidden?

Nothing.

So, brad, given that your assertion as to what was hidden is absolutely false (it’s in the paper referred to in the graph, as is common when synthesising the results of many papers: you don’t cut and paste the entire contents of all the papers you’re referring to),

No, but if you say such-and-such a curve comes from such-and-such a source, you can't quietly chop and change the curve (in order, say, to hide the bits you don't like). That's essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it's called "verballing."

what is hidden?

The decline. Like Phil Jones said. (Are you calling him a liar?)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Speaking of both MBH and the WMO graph, it’s rather interesting that Brad spends far more energy on textual analysis of comments about a work than on any analysis of the work itself.

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

(And he’s not the only one.)

No, we're all doing it—but only you, Lotharsson, are pompous enough to sneer at the practice.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

you can’t quietly chop and change the curve

Yes you can. It's entirely accepted. You use the data where it is valid and don't use invalid data.

This is known as "Quality Control" Colloquially, failing to do this leads to GIGO.

Your insistence on garbage in so you can get garbage out is entirely because you have an ideological problem with the results of the impersonal consequences of climate science.

The decline

What decline? Phil jones hasn't said what was in decline in that email.

Or are you picking information from OUTSIDE that email, in contravention of your fake shock at my assertion that that one email was insufficient as to show what was being talked about?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Well said, Richard Feynman.

No, we’re all doing it

No, you're projecting again.

After all, if everyone is doing it, then you're not bad for doing it, right? Much more effective than not doing the scummy things you want to do.

what is hidden?

The decline.

Except that nothing is hidden on that graph, else there would be a difference between it and an independent analysis of the temperature records for the same period, such as in the BEST study.

Nothing is hidden.

Or are you calling BEST a fraud?

Well said, Richard Feynman.

Is this why you don't believe in McIntyre, then?

@ Wow

also note that the term used was “hide”: future tense.
...
To hide is future.

Any backers? Would anyone else like to show us that they're as ignorant about grammar as Wow is about Islam, how science works, grammar, ...?

LOL

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

That’s essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it’s called “verballing.”

Nope. It isn't. It's essentially NOT like attributing a mangled quote to someone, and nowhere is this act known as "verballing".

That’s essentially like attributing a mangled quote to someone. Where I come from it’s called “verballing.”

Given your misattribution and mangling of quotes from a third party as being ones from Mann himself, I can only say: ROFL!!!!

And Steve Ballmer really killed Google, right?

you can’t quietly chop and change the curve

Yes you can. It’s entirely accepted. You use the data where it is valid and don’t use invalid data.

How do you know where the data is "valid" and where it's "invalid"?

You haven't thought this through too well, have you?

LOL

Next time you meet a scientist, ask them what they think about your nu ethics. (Hint: as Jonathan Jones, Richard Muller and Paul Dennis have pointed out, the kind of manipulation you're defending is unforgivable in science.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Like with anything else: you compare it with concurrent proxies.

You know, like thermometers.

And guess what? You get a graph like this:

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

Which indicates VERY good agreement with the thermometer record for this specific proxy up until some time after 1960.

There are also PROXIES. I.e. multiple proxy measures.

These too agree with each other and with the thermometer record where they too are available.

You know, use data to determine how accurate something is.

You haven’t thought this through too well, have you?

PS if it’s hidden, how come you can see it here:

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

Because that's a different graph.

Remember, Phil Jones only said he'd hidden the decline in his own, Phil Jones', graph; he never claimed to reach out through space and time and mangle Keith Briffa's version.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Because that’s a different graph.

Well spotted.

Now is this other graph invisible?

No?

No, it isn't.

Therefore the decline is not hidden.

Remember, Phil Jones only said he’d hidden the decline in his own, Phil Jones’, graph;

Remember: he didn't. His email doesn't say what decline and doesn't say he actually hid anything.

Brad, please explain how something plainly obvious and referred to can be called "hidden".

TIA.

"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.

You know, use data to determine how accurate [some other data] is.

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

@ 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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

The decline of what?

It isn't in that email.

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

“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.

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

"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.

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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

He didn't.

He flunked. It was too hard for him.

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!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

I wouldn't rule that out, Wow.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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".

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

...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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

...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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?".

@ 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!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

"BBD isn’t buying your logic for one second"

You're avoiding again.

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.

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

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Just about everything you've written about it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

@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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink
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 is it with the latest idiot deniers and their insistence on never meaning anything?

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Or here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…

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.

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.

(waiting for the sound of more gish galloping)

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!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

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?

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?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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"?

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

#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 I can't see 'popularity' in your vanilla definition of consensus "Brad", let alone how it may relate to a scientific consensus.

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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"?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

It's been quite apparent for some considerable time who the liar is in this thread, "Brad".

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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!

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

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Oh goody, the intelligentsia's arrived.

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

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson:

"Making you (and Wow) liars."

That’s pretty rich coming from you.

Hardly disputing it, though, are you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chek?
I have read them.
Have you?
I'm starting to suspect that you may have only read the RC analysis of them which would be just as questionable as someone else only reading a Jonova or Watts analysis of them.
Compare them?
If I compare them, what is it that you think I will find?

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson:

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?

*Sigh.* You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead. But no, that's not how climate proselytisation works, is it?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

...you can only really know what a program is doing by reading the code.

Disregarding the context where this claim is proffered to support a position, this claim even shorn of context is not strictly correct.

You can get closer to understanding what a program will do by reading the machine code - but hardly anyone has those skills these days, and even then that may not be sufficient.

I have debugged cases where the code says one thing but the compiler had done something else. Reading the code did not tell me what the program was doing.

I have written self-modifying code that is rather difficult for someone else to understand. Reading it is no guarantee of understanding it. Some people have a talent for writing code that is very difficult for others to understand, even without using self-modification.

There was a famous case of the Pentium floating point bug, where reading code - even machine code - that tripped the bug was not sufficient to understand what the program was doing. There have been other similar problems in hardware in the past - caching issues, timing issues, coherency issues, transcription errors...

I experienced a demonstration of a software development tool that applied machine reasoning to certain propositions about programs. Right there in the demo it produced a claim about one of our programs that was very surprising. I was pretty sure was wrong - and so was everyone else, and we had a bunch of very smart people in the room. I read the code, and was even more convinced it was wrong. I read it again stepping through it on paper and about the third time through finally twigged as to how it could occur. The tool was correct - and this was merely analysing a fairly simple program. This illustrates that what one thinks a program that one reads will do is not 100% reliable either.

Taken together these examples illustrate why it's far more powerful to separately implement a published algorithm and compare the implementations than it is to try and assess the correctness of the code by reading it. Separate implementations do not rely on the accuracy of what humans think the program will do, and because they are independent implementations of the specification they are far more likely to catch errors in the specification.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

You represented yourself as knowing this stuff - knowing it well enough to accuse Mann of criminal acts! My bad for taking your knowledge claims at face value. Noted for future reference.

Mann says that this paper (PDF) uses his methodology, and the authors of that paper claim it too. You'll note that it does not attempt to reproduce MBH98 or MBH99.

The paper I know of with Zorita as a co-author that does attempt to analyse MBH's methodology is the one I mentioned above ("Reconstructing past climate from noisy data", von Storch et al. 2004) which did not fare so well in post-publication peer review - but by then it had been widely touted in certain circles and the peer responses, well, not so much.

The official version is behind a free registration wall, but (I believe) is this one (PDF).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

I’m not going to do that.

How.

Very.

Amusing!

You and Latimer and Chameleon, all operating from the same playbook and all apparently for the same reasons. Whodathunkit?!

...you burst in and demand: “Prove to us that we’re wrong!”

Teh Projection and Teh Self-Flattery is strong in this one.

You were the one who "burst in" here - and loudly proclaimed we were wrong about any number of things. And you're still doing it!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

You represented yourself as knowing this stuff – knowing it well enough to accuse Mann of criminal acts! My bad for taking your knowledge claims at face value. Noted for future reference.

I believe it was you, not me, who mentioned Zorita. You said, IIRC, that Zorita had successfully implemented Mann's algorithm. This fact was proffered as disproof of my claim (that McIntyre was the first person on earth to work out how Mann's statistical steps actually worked), IIRC. But the only Zorita paper I'm familiar with fails to support your argument, for the reasons I've discussed. Surely it's incumbent on you to name the paper you meant, if you meant a different one.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

You were the one who “burst in” here –

Huh? This is my thread, in case you hadn't noticed.

and loudly proclaimed we were wrong about any number of things

Not about ECS though. BBD repeatedly asked me what my estimate was. So I told him, at a normal conversational volume.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

No Lotharsson,
That is once again utter tosh!
No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.
Rather, you are being asked why you are so certain you are right.
Those questions are being asked in the light of emerging real time data and new research.
Despite what you seem to think, they're not being asked to prove you wrong.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

This is my thread, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Teh Conceit is strong in this one.

It's Tim's blog. The thread doesn't belong to you; it's your thread prison.

The interesting thing is that despite Brad's characterisation to the contrary, BBD's ECS request wasn't asking Brad to prove BBD wrong:

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.

I guess we'll never know ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.

Chameleon, meet Brad Keyes. You might want to check out some of the claims he has made in the past here at Deltoid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

But BBD's request was accompanied by demands to see the evidence "compellingly rebutting" the high ECS estimate you believe in, weren't they?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad Keyes says:

I’ve explained to you, over and over again, the reasons for my policy of ignoring your “questions.”

This is another exhibition of logical fallacy.

Leaving aside the "over and over again... reasons" (I'd like to see the links, as that implies at least three separate occasions), this thinking is at best a form of the fallacy referred to as "poisoning the well". Even if I'd previously asked a spurious question (which Keyes has in no way demonstrated), it has no bearing on the pertinence of my questions regarding climate sensitivity.

I posit that Keyes is avoiding answering the questions because to do so would expose the poor excuse of a limp rag that he is attempting to pass off as science. In this avoidance he is demonstrating his intellectual cowardice.

Given this, together with his blatant narcissism and what appears to me to be a hinting at psychopathy, it's a good thing that he has been corralled in this single thread.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

By the way, Brad, please stop talking about software engineering. There are at least three people on this thread alone that have forgotten more about software modeling, forecasting and engineering in general than you can ever hope to comprehend in your futile existence.

You're embarrassing yourself enough as it is. Please limit your public display of ignorance to as few fields as possible.

Bernard: if you push a denier hard enough and long enough, it always boils down to a long, embarrassing list of "what do you know" questions that he/she will do anything to dodge. Look at the Jonas thread.

So far we have established that Brad is a failed sophist in love with his thesaurus. He has demonstrated incompetence and ignorance in every single subject he has touched. All he has left is bluster, whining and galloping.

But BBD’s request was accompanied by demands to see the evidence “compellingly rebutting” the high ECS estimate you believe in, weren’t they?

I'm pretty sure that was adelady who called the bluff you made in your facetious and fallacious "FTFY". In response you abjectly folded.

BBD is "...doing you the intellectual courtesy of being straight with you." He's straightforwardly asking why you assert the positions you do when there is such strong evidence against them. Despite your earlier claim at Deltoid that you were looking for a discussion of viewpoints you are clearly unwilling to return the intellectual courtesy - most likely for one or more of the reasons Bernard J. posits. And unless you significantly improve your game Stu's most recent paragraph looks pretty spot-on as well.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Feb 2013 #permalink

bll,

n rspns t yr: "mk s mmm's nmbr n by, fr sr..."

Yr knw bll, y rmnd m f "bll" wh ws n grd schl wth m. mn, lk, my schlmt bll ws n bnxs-pn, nsty, lttl, prt-grnshrt, gk rtrd wh ws rlly nt hs whny-crybby, sck-p-snk, tchr's pt, tttl-tl, mmmy-drd, brt-ct "thng". Ndlss t sy, r yth-mstr, tlnt-sct tchrs f th lft jst lvd l'l bll. vryn ls--nd mn VRYN LS--thgh h ws th ltmt crp-t.

Wll, nywy, wht rmmbr mst bt th bll wnt t grd schl wth ws th dy h cm t schl wth bgr, nbknwnst t hm, cnspcsly hngng ff th nd f n f hs ns hrs. mn, lk, ll f s thr kds jst lghd t ld t hm whn w sw hm thr wth hs dnglng gbr-dl nd ll nd l' cllss bz-bll ddn't vn knw wht w wr ll lghng t. Fnny tht smthng lk tht wld stck n my mmry ftr ll ths yrs.

t ny rt, lk sd, bll, y rmnd m f tht thr bll---hmm...wndr whtvr hppnd t tht bll sd t knw n grd-schl, nywy?

Yeah yeah, mike, very creative. I sure hope you do refer the prison shrink to your efforts on these pages.

Make that at least four. My first program ran on an IBM 704.

By David B. Benson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson,
I'm interested in your answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.
It is not being asked for any of the reasons you have so far postulated here.
I have read the papers and I cannot find a confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in BEST nor can I find a confirmation by Muller et al (the authors of BEST) in any of the reports and articles about BEST.
Also Lotharsson you claim this here:
"You and Latimer and Chameleon, all operating from the same playbook and all apparently for the same reasons."
and then when I question that you reply with this:
"Chameleon, meet Brad Keyes. You might want to check out some of the claims he has made in the past here at Deltoid."
What are the claims, what are the reasons and what is the playbook?
If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

By chameleon (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

I'm bored now with all the Mann stuff .... how many yeeears has this been dragging on.

But I'm fascinated by the ECS side-step. I really thought that I'd be treated to a rehash of Lindzen or, more likely, a few misinterpreted quotemines of other papers /reports where the uncertainty/ error bar discussion is pretzelled into contradicting the authors' own conclusions. I really didn't expect this wholesale abandonment. But it's not getting CPR. It's just been neglected, left to die alone and uncared for. Like a pet or a toy that a kid is only interested in until it needs feeding, or the game isn't always easy to win.

Stu:

By the way, Brad, please stop talking about software engineering. There are at least three people on this thread alone that have forgotten more about software modeling, forecasting and engineering in general than you can ever hope to comprehend in your futile existence.

I think you'll find I've made some fairly uncontroversial remarks about computer programming—I'm unaware of having broached the more sublime question of software engineering yet! Do you have any specific criticism of my statements so far? Or are you just engaged in empty braggadocio?

Anyhow, should the conversation ever turn to software engineering, we'll see who's forgotten more about it. We'll see.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad, let me propose an hypothesis:

You have forgotten nothing about climate sensitivity...

...because you knew nothing about it in the first place.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

I’m interested in your answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.

I'm not interesting in your inability to do your homework, especially on a moot point like this.

What are the claims, ...

Brad made any number of loud claims that various aspects of the consensus climate science are wrong. Go do your homework.

...what are the reasons and what is the playbook?

This was referring to something else and you've conflated the two.

The playbook is to make claims that are inconsistent with well-supported science, or that are side issues or non-issues but serve as convenient distractions, and then to refuse to honestly engage by discussing the best inference from all evidence and appropriate confidence levels, refuse to modify one's position based on the inability to support the claim or unwillingness to follow the evidence where it leads, and merrily Gish Gallop on to the next one. Any number of logical fallacies and sophistical gambits are used to adorn these tactics, including rather a lot of projection.

The reason for not engaging is that the claimant is far more interesting in making the assertion in question than demonstrating that the assertion is supported or perhaps finding out that it is not (and perhaps is aware at some level that the weight of the evidence does not lie in their claim's direction).

If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

I can't see that being fruitful. I reckon you'll bring out the playbook in your discussion of those things, just as you have time and time again in the past. But feel free to attempt it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Mike.

Nursey is still trying to find you in order to deliver that long-overdue medication. Please rush to see her - your display of your damaged childhood is embarrassing, on your behalf, most readers of this thread.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

adelady,

Yes, the ECS showdown was a fizzler. Hundreds of comments later, after all the bluster and trash talk, the scoreboard tells a bathetic tale:

Citations in support of lower (<1.5C) ECS: 0
Citations in support of higher (2–3C) ECS: 0

My excuse, of course, is the nil interest I had in playing. What's yours, alarmists?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

I really don't know why anyone's wasting their time with this guy - it's quite possible to just leave him here to rot, you know...

Lotharsson, I'm still waiting for your explanation of your Zorita argument. How exactly does Zorita's work problematize any claim I've made about Mann?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson:

You approvingly quote BBD's 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).

I agree that this is an interesting question. It's interesting that a supposedly scientifically-literate person would ask it.

As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I've taken part, consensus is not evidence. It's therefore fascinating that in a supposedly scientific conversation, one person should put a question like this to another person:

"Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of [something that's not evidence]?"

Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of a gun barrel?

Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of today's horoscope?

Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of screaming and yelling?

Why, therefore, are you maintaining an indefensible position in the face of the tea leaves?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Bernard J,

finally you stray into an interesting subject—psychology:

Given this, together with his blatant narcissism and what appears to me to be a hinting at psychopathy, it’s a good thing that he has been corralled in this single thread.

Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

chameleon:

If I knew what they were then maybe I could oblige and discuss those reasons, those claims and that playbook?

Don't ask Lotharsson! He just dispenses the insults—he doesn't understand them.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

chameleon:

No one is loudly proclaiming you were wrong.

Sure, not that we can perceive directly. But you're not experiencing this from their POV.

The alarmist side exhibits what's known as rhetorical synaesthesia, in which written statements come with their own volume setting. To them, we're a tiny but disproportionately vocal minority. Steven McIntyre doesn't draw attention to mistakes—he screams "Mistake!" And we never correct our own errors—we quietly correct them.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

BJ,

In response to yr: "...your damaged childhood..."

My "damaged childhood", eh, BJ? Well, BJ, whatever else might be said about my supposed, "damaged childhood", I think it safe to say that it compares favorably with your counterpart, "damaged" larval-stage of development, right, BJ? Not to mention that creep-out, totally fracked-up spectacle you presented in your mutant, pupa-toid days--but, then, this blog's nymph-toids were a bad influence on you, I know. Still are.

Curious thought, isn't it, BJ?--if your bug-breeding betters hadn't gotten DDT banned, then you genetically-engineered, blood-sucker hive-bozos would never have achieved your current status as an arthropod plague on humanity of Biblical proportions.

Lotharsson, I’m still waiting for your explanation of your Zorita argument. How exactly does Zorita’s work problematize any claim I’ve made about Mann?

Already explained.

As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I’ve taken part, consensus is not evidence.

And...there we have you once more refusing to understand the connotations of the term "scientific consensus". Worse still for someone who claims to have a philosophy degree, you left out the context which refutes your interpretation [my emphasis]:

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).

Parsing 101 - the use of "indefensible position" in the second paragraph of the quote refers to the sentence about "Defending it...is essentially impossible" in the first paragraph of the quote. That sentence specifies defending it on the basis of "scientific evidence and argument", not on "geez, it's a common belief amongst climate scientists".

Are you using this kind of blunder to try and construct misrepresentations to fool other people, or to fool yourself?

And you're apparently too poor at comprehension (or too unwilling to face the implications) to recognise that BBD's question is just as potent if you leave out the qualification that you fallaciously object to. To wit:

Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position?

(And Chameleon, this is a classic example of a misdirection and refusal to engage play right out of the playbook.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson, I realize that this is a potent question (or would be, if its premises were correct):

"Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position?"

The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it:

"Why are you maintaining a [scientifically] indefensible position in the face of something that isn't evidence?"

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

And…there we have you once more refusing to understand the connotations of the term “scientific consensus”.

The phrase has no connotations that aren't obvious from its component words. (It's not like "heavy metal", which apparently means something quite different from "metallic element which is heavy.") It means nothing more or less than "consensus among scientists."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it...

You are asserting (oh, the irony!) facts not in evidence.

And that has been previously pointed out.

Repeatedly!

Remember when you were bemused when BBD said you misunderstood "scientific consensus"? This is you misunderstanding (or denying) it. The concept of strong scientific consensus connotes the evidence and argument that leads the consensus to form, a connotation which was made fairly explicit in the context in which BBD used the term in his question.

It beggars belief that you are so poor at English that you cannot understand this, but who knows. Maybe that explains a lot of your incoherent "thinking", although there are other plausible explanations.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ah, so in our crossed-over comments I see that we've reached the bedrock of plain denial in the service of not answering the question. (Another one from the playbook, Chameleon.)

Enjoy your prison thread. I'm off to do other things.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

The concept of strong scientific consensus connotes the evidence and argument that leads the consensus to form

No it doesn't.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

Heh heh, now how did I know that you'd ask?

However, given that you have, apparently, a brain the size of a planet, I'd be interested to see if you can shrink yourself and detect what in this and other threads would lead one to conclude what I did...

Meanwhile, I'm still curious about your avoidance of my questions on climate sensitivity.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ah, so in our crossed-over comments I see that we’ve reached the bedrock of plain denial in the service of not answering the question.

Huh? How can the point I'm making be in service of avoiding BBD's question, when I've already EXPRESSLY STATED I have no intention of answering it?

I wouldn't answer it whether or not he'd added the fascinating words "in the face of the scientific consensus."

But he did.

Which is fascinating.

I’m off to do other things.

No! Not now! You were so close to making me change my mind about Mann's algorithm! All you had left was to do was provide some evidence.

(Your non-answer about Zorita is noted. Clearly you realize his work doesn't support your point.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Meanwhile, I’m still curious about your avoidance of my questions on climate sensitivity.

But I've explained it. How can you remain curious when I've explained it? What's wrong with you?

Remember why I refused to answer your quiz about pH?You're not my governess.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Could you please elaborate on and/or substantiate these ideas?

Heh heh, now how did I know that you’d ask?

You knew I was a skeptic, maybe?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

has centred around PHIL JONES’ concealment of the decline in his WMO GRAPH.

Liar again.

Oh, and there's nothing hidden.

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

Fuck you.

No, fuck you sir, sideways and with a porcupine.

This is an entirely correct and supported characterization of your tiresome time here.

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

And another example of how you don't understand what the science consensus is.

what exactly is your objection to:

I wasn't objecting to it, I was pointing out as yet another example of how you don't understand what the science consensus is proven with just about every statement you make on it.

Wow, you're back!

Have you finally found a quote to substantiate the following accusation, or are you now willing to admit it's a lie?

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

And another example of how you don’t understand what the science consensus is.

Oh, goody, a new piece of jargon: "science consensus."

As with "scientific consensus," I assume you've prepared a fake definition to go with it?

(Where do I buy one of these dictionaries of Climate English, by the way?)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

Yup, so the general agreement is that the evidence is that AGW is real and the sensitivity far higher than your assertion puts it.

So why is everyone else wrong MERELY because they agree with reality?

A majority opinion is BY DEFINITION a popular opinion.

And that doesn't make reality false, just because reality is something everyone agrees on.

Just like the email says.

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

So your entire argument hinges on "the words hide the decline are in an email taken out of context, therefore there must be something hidden!"?

Because it isn't the divergence problem, since that was out in the open and completely not hidden.

Wow,

at the comment you link to, THERE IS NO STATEMENT that substantiates your lie. Do you think that if you provide a link, people will assume there must be something there? They're not stupid. They'll notice that you've failed to actually quote the statement you allege I made. They'll reach the obvious conclusion: I never made the claim you say I made.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

Yet I just have.

You are a liar.

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.

And that only tells you what the program will do.

NOT WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO DO.

To find out what it is supposed to do, you READ THE SPECIFICATION. For code implementing an algorithm, that would mean reading the algorithm.

NEVER EVER become a programmer you retarded streak of bumgravy.

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.

Yet I just have.

No you haven't.

Produce the quote or admit you're lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

I don’t owe you any justification or argument or bibliography.

Yes you do.

You claim to follow data only.

But here you have a conclusion you are now agreeing has NOTHING to do with the data and is refuted specifically by the actual real measured data today.

Therefore, you either need to drop the pretense that you only rely on data, or give us the data (and support it against contradicting data) that makes you assert less than 1.5C warming is more likely.

*Sigh.* You COULD just tell me which Zorita paper I should be looking at instead.

You asserted you remembered details about that paper.

Are you now admitting lying?

I believe it was you, not me, who mentioned Zorita.

And we KNOW you claimed to have read and remembered details about it:

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

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.

Yet I just have.

No you haven’t.

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Huh? This is my thread, in case you hadn’t noticed.

No, it's your cage.

Tweet little birdie!

And you burst in here, this blog.

But I guess your entire spiel is one of "misreading" someone and pretending that they are wrong because you wilfuly lied about what is happening.

I think you’ll find I’ve made some fairly uncontroversial remarks about computer programming

If by "uncontroversial" you mean "accepted", you are entirely 200% wrong.

You've made several complete bollocks statements about computer programming.

Citations in support of lower (<1.5C) ECS: 0
Citations in support of higher (2–3C) ECS: 0

Make that a little over 300:

http:/www.ipcc.ch

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.

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

As has been repeatedly, voluntarily, bilaterally acknowledged on other threads in which I’ve taken part, consensus is not evidence.

And when the consensus is because so many have seen the evidence and agree with the conclusions?

What is that evidence of?

The solidity of the evidence that leads to that conclusion.

Data, dear boy, data is evidence. And the consensus is a lot of datapoints of how the evidence for AGW stands up to scrutiny.

The question is why BBD felt the need to add an appeal to non-evidence (namely, consensus) to the end of it:

Because you fail to answer the question: why is it you are right and everyone else wrong?

Especially now you've admitted you haven't read very much information on the subject.

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

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

That is a link.

That is not a quote.

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Have you finally found a quote to substantiate the following accusation

Yup.

Seven times so far.

You knew I was a skeptic, maybe?

No, idiot.

Stop wasting readers' time with that link.

Quote me saying what you accuse me of saying.

Oh, that's right.

You can't.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Huh? How can the point I’m making be in service of avoiding BBD’s question, when I’ve already EXPRESSLY STATED I have no intention of answering it?

Because your intention of not answering BBD's question indicates

1) your lack of argument
2) your lack of manners
3) your lack of any reasoning for your screed
4) your lack of evidence

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

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

NOT a link to a comment in which you allege I say it.

A QUOTE.

Quote me saying it.

Or admit you're lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

Is your claim that that comment is not yours?

Or do you claim that only quotes taken out of context with no proof that these words were said constitute, for your denier mind, proof?

Brad Keyes

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

And:

consensus is not evidence

We've been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence. *Only* from what has not, so far, been falsified. It emerges by default, not by artifice and construction. I'm past caring now whether you are failing to understand this because you are a fool or a liar. It doesn't matter. As always in circumstances like this, further nonsense argument based on this false premise will be ignored.

So far, we've established that:

- You embrace a value for ECS effectively ruled out by the evidence

- You deny the scientific consensus (evidence-based) in the same breath

- You refuse to discuss why you do either of these profoundly illogical things

- Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same. This is the third leap of illogic

For me, it's three leaps too far. Whatever the reasons (you won't say), you are incapable of reasoning on this topic. So you are incapable of understanding it or discussing it reasonably.

- You deny the scientific consensus (evidence-based) in the same breath

More basically, he denies the evidence with the SOLE REASON being that "lots of other people think it's good".

Talk about hipster ego...

If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?

All

If you find discussion with BK frustrating, the simplest thing to do would be to walk away. BK clearly enjoys the attention, so deprive him of it entirely. Think tactically. It works.

Actually, just as with Joan, the entire reason why DK here gets attention on this blog is because Tim lets him on here.

Is your claim that that comment is not yours?

That comment you keep linking to is mine, and does NOT substantiate the accusation.

Which is why you can't tell us what words of mine constitute the claim you've accused me of making.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

You've never provided evidence for that massive generalisation (which, if it were true, would revolutionize science because it would mean scientific consensus WAS scientific evidence).

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

which, if it were true, would revolutionize science because it would mean scientific consensus WAS scientific evidence

Your attempts at logical steps are quite laughable "Brad".
But nevertheless, that's exactly how scientific consensus is used by laymen and non-scientists who have neither the time nor expertise to research for themselves.

Scientific consensus separates the supported from the unsupported, which is why the cranks, kooks and paid liars hate it so much and attack it at every opportunity.

Brad

If you were capable of reasoning on this topic, you would see straight away that I don't need *additional* evidence. Either the scientific consensus emerges from the evidence (as repeatedly stated) or we have to account for its existence some other way.

How might we do that?

The scientific consensus can be used as an indication of the state of scientific knowledge. It cannot be *substituted* for scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean it is stripped of all value, as you insinuate.

It's all just a mess of juvenile rhetorics and I'm bored with it now.

chek expresses it pithily:

Scientific consensus separates the supported from the unsupported, which is why the cranks, kooks and paid liars hate it so much and attack it at every opportunity.

Thank you, chek.

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.”

Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.

A QUOTE.

Quote me saying it.

Or admit you’re lying.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

BBD,

an extraordinary generalization like this...

We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

...requires extraordinary evidence. You are asserting nothing less than a law of organisational psychology. (Are you a psychologist, by the way?)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink

You’ve never provided evidence for that massive generalisation

Yes we have. Plenty of times. Here is one again:

http://www.ipcc.ch

Having asserted that ...

Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.

... I'm curious as to why you concede that ...

It cannot be *substituted* for scientific evidence,

Why not? Consider a hypothesis, N, about the natural world. If a consensus in favor of N can *only* emerge from evidence that N is true, surely such a consensus would *prove* that the evidence for N exists, which in turn would be evidence for N, would it not?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 12 Feb 2013 #permalink