By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
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.
Yes it does. Read it again. Twelfth:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
A QUOTE.
Quote me saying it.
Except it isn't an extraordinary claim.
Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
Thirteenth (lucky 13?):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
This SkS topic could have been written for Brat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient…
Produce a single quote from me to back up the accusation or admit you’re lying.
A QUOTE.
Quote me saying what you've accused me of saying.
Fourteen:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient…
#88 Wow
February 12, 2013
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg
Bored readers will notice that Wow keeps linking to the same long comment instead of simply telling us where it is that I make the claim he and chek have accused me of making. Readers will correctly guess that this is because Wow cannot locate any such claim by me. (Why? Because the accusation is false.)
Yes, that link points to where you made the claim.
That is what a link does.
Wow,
you could end this right now just by QUOTING ME saying what you've accused me of saying.
Or you can keep playing sillybuggers with your irrelevant links.
Yes your accusation is false.
Evidence predicts otherwise.
Here is precisely what you said, unedited:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
And it does NOT contain the claim you've attributed to me.
Otherwise you would quote me.
Yes it does.
"And it does NOT contain the claim you’ve attributed to me.
Yes it does."
Then quote me, you craven little liar.
Here (sixteenth):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Are you somehow unable to read?
Wow!
For fox ache!
Go to comment #20 on page 8 and discover that BradK was quoting someone else!
Didn't you pick up that quote was separated and in italics?
Even after linking it 12 times?
Who is he quoting Wow?
You are looking incredibly foolish at the moment!
good grief!
16 times?
And he denied saying it.
Now he claims he never denied saying it.
I didn't expect you to nail Brat's lies, but well done.
I know, it's ridiculous! It's like Brat can't read if he doesn't like what he reads!
Eventually one will penetrate.
no Wow!
He was quoting Lotharsson.
Brad DID NOT assert it.
LOTHARSSON DID!
You are obviously the one who is unable to read correctly.
You are indeed looking very, very foolish at the moment.
Do you understand now Wow?
Your 16 links prove that you were mistaken.
Yes, he denied saying it.
And now he denies denying saying it.
Thanks for your help, though you do seem confused over it.
See him here denying he denied saying it and wanting proof he denies saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
And again for the proof he denies saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
You're welcome Wow :-)
chuckle :-)
It was quite easy to expose your ridiculous behaviour.
BTW
I think you have just topped the deny/alist/ing/alism chart.
Chuckle :-)
See what I mean about your confusion.
You've just claimed that Brat never said something.
He claims he's said it and claims that asserting he denies saying it is a lie.
Here is him denying saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
And here him denying denying saying it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
And YOU come along and say he never said it, in contravention of his claim.
chameleon,
near as I can tell, this is the part that Wow thinks constitutes my denial:
"Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me."
Questions are denials, according to believalists. :-)
Wow,
Just a little hint for your very confused mind.
BradK didn't say it, Lotharsson said he did.
Find the actual quote where BradK actually said it like that himself.
If you can't find it you seriously need to stop!
Hint : It's not in that link you keep putting up.
Yes BradK,
Especially in Wow's world!
Hint: the proof Brat kept demanding "or admit you're a liar" is in that link.
Here again is the link:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Yes, it's called "reality" by people residing in it.
chubbie, you don't seem to know what Brat was demanding:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Time to stop Wow,
You're busted!
Brad did not say it.
Lotharsson and now you (ad nauseum) claimed he did.
But by all means keep pretending otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I would prefer to move on if you could manage that.
You're just starting to look petty as well as a bit silly.
Behold, the logic of a climate alarmist!
I'm asked to justify an assertion, and my response is:
“Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Wow reads this and thinks I'm denying the assertion:
And this is just English. We're supposed to believe that idiots who can't follow English understand climate science better than us.
Strange definition of "busted" you have there.
But I guess when you've just skewered your mate, you have to pretend it's something completely different:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
So where do I claim climate alarmism, Brat? Oh, you're making things up again!
you're denying having said it.
Duh.
Here, once again is your whining petulant demand:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
and now even you agree that you claim you never said it.
"You claim “the assertion that Mann’s methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape of MBH98, … ” is nothing you’ve ever claimed"
Now you say you agree that you never said it.
#8 Wow
February 12, 2013
#88 Wow
February 12, 2013
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
+++
And still nothing.
#3 Wow
February 12, 2013
an extraordinary generalization like this…
We’ve been over this enough. Scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.
…requires extraordinary evidence.
Except it isn’t an extraordinary claim.
Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
What the what? Is this self-parody?
It is self-parody.
You've broken the bonds of Full Retard and gone Double Retard.
Well done, "Wow", you had us thinking you were just a much dumber-than-average alarmist footsoldier. It took—how long? a couple of weeks?—to figure out that, no, not even the most brainwashed climate cultist could be as decerebrate as you're acting.
Wow,
it's seriously getting boring.
You're hogging the thread and looking increasingly petulant.
Can we pleeaaase move on to something more interesting than you having a silly hissy fit over an obvious misquote?
Pleeeeaaaasse Wow?
Pretty please?
This is bullshit, Wow:
Your farcical failure to track down any justification for this bullshit has provided much merriment.
Thank you.
So you now claim that what you wanted is bullshit.
This has been known about before.
Stop changing what you demanded.
You demanded this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Now, having caught yourself agreeing with that statement you demanded proof of, you suddenly demand something different.
What a shock. Denier gish gallops off.
'sfunny, brat spend ages and ages having a hissy fit over just that.
Could be: who knows what the hell you're galloping off to now.
You mean like answering the questions:
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
?
LOL! Stop! Stop!
It's too much! ROFL
OK, so you cry "uncle".
You now admit you've been demanding proof of something even you admit was true.
Now that you've dropped the farcical "Prove it or admit you're lying" bollocks, care to answer this:
If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
Asking the troll pool, are we?
I don't know where you're getting this, but it is COMEDY GOLD, Wow.
Oh, it does riddles too!
I know!... to get to the other side?
Do you do birthday parties?
Your statements, Brat.
So apparently you don't know.
Or daren't answer.
At the very least do not WISH to answer.
Go on, try something INTELLIGENT, Brat.
Shock everyone here.
Is there ANY cognition going on in that head, Brat?
Or is the problem that you're actually a shift-worker and who is using the account changes over time?
Well, what's the answer?
I give up. What's the punchline?
Yes, that's what we're waiting for.
Unless you're admitting you have no thoughts of your own, and merely parrot those you like when fed them.
So you don't know English?
Noun1.punch line - the point of a joke or humorous story
gag line, tag line, laugh line
gag, jape, jest, joke, laugh - a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter; "he told a very funny joke"; "he knows a million gags"; "thanks for the laugh"; "he laughed unpleasantly at his own jest"; "even a schoolboy's jape is supposed to have some ascertainable point"
line - text consisting of a row of words written across a page or computer screen; "the letter consisted of three short lines"; "there are six lines in every stanza"
So was that the best the troll pool could do?
Yes.
To get to the other side.
That's my final answer.
"That’s my final answer."
If only.
Q: If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
A: To get to the other side
Really.
It's not even an answer.
Brad
I have reviewed what I have written on this thread. It is clear. You are now engaging in the same obfuscatory games you play with others here. What I said stands.
You haven't answered the key question:
There is no need for *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?
Answer the question, Brad. Your evasiveness and neophyte rhetorics are boring.
Answer the question.
Hell he point-blank REFUSES to answer questions.
I've noticed. I've been keeping a list. These are the questions BK refuses to answer:
- What is the scientific basis for the 'less than 1.5C' ECS claim?
- What does scientific consensus emerge from if not scientific evidence?
- Why do you reject the scientific consensus in favour of an unsupported position?
- Why do you refuse to answer *all* the basic questions which might enable this discussion to progress rationally?
Far more than just those, BBD.
- If the evidence is weak, why does the National Academy of Science say otherwise?
- Why does every national science academy agree with each other that the evidence is indication of the fact of AGW?
- Where is your data for your claim pre-1960 proxy data is unusable
- Where is your data that shows Mann's procedures produced a hockey stick
- Where is your proof that something is hidden in Jones' graph
and many many more.
chameleon, in her usual vague way, claims @ #37 above:
I infer that "it" in the above refers to the assertion that Mann's methodology is responsible for the hockey stick shape, which either Brad made or Lotharsson misquoted him as making. If my inference is correct, she needs to note comment 96 on page 1 of Brads House of Cards:
Didn’t you pick up that quote was separated and in italics?This particular statement is not separated, is not in italics and is not a (mis-)quote. It is a flat statement of faux-fact by Brad. Which even he agrees in BS.
If my inference is wrong, and she was not referring to the assertion about Manns methodology, perhaps she would help "move the thread along" by avoiding being so vague in future.
BradWow reads [a question] and thinks I’m denying the assertion...And this is just English.
Yes, quite simple English. Like the old line "Pretentious? Moi?"
I think most here are quite capable of seeing that for what it was. Brad will deny it was denial, of course. Denying denial is his schtick. :-)
BBD:
The fact that you haven't told me any evidence to the contrary.
This is a question for social psychologists, but my amateur conjecture would be that it emerges for the same reasons any other intellectual fad emerges.
I don't. The two positions you mention are just as silly and unevidenced as each other.
I don't.
Liar.
Yet again.
http://www.ipcc.ch
Except you're absolutely wrong. See link above.
You do.
You claim 1.5 is most likely. It is not.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient…
You do.
Lies, lies some more lies, some avoidance, some lies and a few more lies is all you've got, you waste of sperm.
Apparently, Brat's entire spiel about how there is no evidence for a scientific consensus to be based on is that they have never looked at any.
Rich, isn't it.
Hell, look at all these science papers ignored after demanding some evidence from Brat:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Because if it actually looked, it wouldn't be able to assume that there is no evidence.
FrankD,
an assertion was attributed to me and I was asked to justify the assertion. How can you possibly read my response as a denial?
"That assertion would need to be qualified. Did I use those exact words? If so, it was sloppy of me.”
Are you as illiterate as Wow?
By reading it.
Not unexpected though.
Blind, wilful denial is what the sheep who flock to all the sewer sites that "Brad" gets his initial stories from are taught.
A rational exchange is therefore impossible under the circumstances, the circumstances being "Brad's" lack of capacity to think for himself but endless capacity to regurgitate populist denier memes.
There is no other reason to ask the question if not to deny you said it.
It is your common trick
Of course I ignored them. They weren't available to either Phil Jones or Michael Mann when deciding which periods in the dendro proxies were "valid" and which ones were "invalid." They hadn't been published.
Hence the reason why your claims of "You have never shown me evidence" are complete bollocks.
You refuse to read any evidence.
You didn't ask how they knew (they knew because of this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif ).
You asked how reliable they were in 1500.
And then you ignored the evidence and now have made up a "reason" to have done so that was nonexistent and currently nonsensical.
Much like all your replies.
Wow, only someone as stupid as you could fail to see the difference between this, which IS a denial:
and this, which is NOT a denial:
You asked, remember:
"How “accurate” are the dendro proxies for the year 1500, Wow?"
Not "how do they know the dendro records are accurate".
Yes it is.
Even Chubby was saying you never said it.
Or are you saying Chubby was lying?
BK @ 75
More specious nonsense:
- What is the scientific basis for the ‘less than 1.5C’ ECS claim?
[BK:] The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
It's not up to me to support your claims. You must do that yourself. However, I've pointed out that there *is no evidence* supporting your claim, and you have ignored me. Trying to pass this off as 'evidence' in support of your claim is, frankly, insane.
- What does scientific consensus emerge from if not scientific evidence?
[BK:] This is a question for social psychologists, but my amateur conjecture would be that it emerges for the same reasons any other intellectual fad emerges.
This rubbish has been dealt with at length above. Further iterations will be ignored.
- Why do you reject the scientific consensus in favour of an unsupported position?
[BK:] I don’t. The two positions you mention are just as silly and unevidenced as each other.
But they are not, which reveals this to be childishly contrived and empty.
- Why do you refuse to answer *all* the basic questions which might enable this discussion to progress rationally?
[BK:] I don’t.
A blatant lie.
This is going nowhere and your clumsy attempts at misrepresentation are tedious. I have been straight with you and you respond in bad faith. That's piss-poor.
[BK:] The fact that you haven’t told me any evidence to the contrary.
Hell, refuted several times on this thread, ever single time ignored, even when others have pointed out the evidence:
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?
page 8 #42
WHAT evidence is weak? What are you talking about, Wow? Does anyone else on this thread know what Wow's question means, let alone what the answer is?
How the hell would I know? This is a question for corporate psychologists. If this is your *evidence* for AGW, it's pathetic—I can supply you with actual reasons for believing in it if you want, because what you've got here is *not* evidence.
Which proxy data? What do you mean, unusable? I'm not going to comment on such a childishly vague paraphrase—if you want me to justify something I said, then go to the effort of saying what I said.
Mann's paper claims this.
LOL. Really, Wow? Uh, the fact that Jones admits it. The fact that RC goes to great lengths to excuse it. The fact that you're the only person in the climate debate who doesn't believe it. The list goes on.
page 8 #40 and #51
And the links you've been pointed to, such as this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece…
So you're agreeing that the evidence that the science consensus is based on is strong.
What's hidden?
Once again:
So far, we’ve established that:
- You embrace a value for ECS effectively ruled out by the evidence
- Yet you deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on ECS
- You refuse to discuss why you do either of these profoundly illogical things
- Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same: the third leap of illogic
It’s three leaps too far. As I have said, and you have just demonstrated with you # 75, you are incapable of reasoning on this topic. So you are incapable of understanding it or discussing it reasonably.
Instead, you are reduced to lies, misrepresentations, evasion and outright nonsense. Where is your sense of intellectual pride? How can you allow yourself to behave like this? It is incomprehensible.
I know. i should have anticipated that you'd miss the point. Next time I will take greater care to spell out literally what I'm
asking.
Really? Where does Mann's paper claim that the hockey stick is an artefact of their manipulation?
What do YOU mean?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
ROFLMAO (ref #93)
The "science consensus" on what topic? I can't agree with you unless you make some effort to complete your thoughts, Wow.
The point is quite obvious.
You wanted to know how valid the proxies were in 1500.
You got the answer, but you don't WANT answers.
From an anus who continually whines about what this thread is about, you certainly don't care to remember it when it becomes inconvenient.
Keyes
Once again:
So far, we’ve established that:
- You embrace a value for ECS effectively ruled out by the evidence
- Yet you deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on ECS
- You refuse to discuss why you do either of these profoundly illogical things
- Yet you expect to be taken seriously all the same: the third leap of illogic
It’s three leaps too far. As I have said, and you have just demonstrated with you # 75, you are incapable of reasoning on this topic. So you are incapable of understanding it or discussing it reasonably.
Instead, you are reduced to lies, misrepresentations, evasion and outright nonsense. Where is your sense of intellectual pride? How can you allow yourself to behave like this? It is incomprehensible.
Brat was nonsense to begin with. Of that there is no doubt.
He's going for the insanity defence.
Brat and Joan are excellent examples for countering the Free Speech Uber Alles idiocy that is quite common in American culture.
Really.
The answer to these idiots is more talking?
I dare anyone to state that with a straight face after reading the last four pages of Brat's insanity.
ROFLMAO after 11 pages of Brat going apeshit...
BBD
So you say. I've given you ample time to *substantiate* this, and if you do I'll change my mind. (I'm neither passionately devoted to nor highly confident in my estimate, which I only told you because you insisted on knowing it.) But all you've said so far is that "the evidence" and "the consensus" are against me. Are you really that lazy? With outreach like that, is it any wonder your credal group is shrinking every year?
If it's "evidence-based," why do you keep invoking this non-scientific concept "consensus"? You're not doing your viewpoint any favours—if anything, you're making it sound like an irrational cult.
Well now I have.
I couldn't give a toss whether you "take me seriously," whatever that means.
And it has. Several times.
Because it is evidence that evidence for the consensus value is available.
Tired old lie.
So you're here solely to entertain us?
"you’re making it sound like an irrational cult"
ROFLMAO!
So you have no idea. Thought not.
So you don't know then.
So you have no idea what you're talking about and want to pretend it goes away?
S.O.P for you.
Why do you claim there is no science?
Are you telling everyone you don't know what you've been whining about for 1000+ posts?
So, Brat doesn't know that he's been asked about the scientific evidence behind his claim for a climate sensitivity of 1.5C per doubling of CO2.
This does rather explain why you've not been able to find any support for your assertion, doesn't it, Brat.
Here is some science, Brat.
Will you read any of it?
No.
But here goes anyway:
http://www.ipcc.ch
BBD:
Saying it's been dealt with does not make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away. This is Brad's Place. The argumentum ad arrogantiam may work on your fellow cultists but it doesn't cut it in here, jackass.
But having dealt with it, saying it's been dealt with means it has been dealt with.
You DO know how to page up, don't you?
"The argumentum ad arrogantiam "
FROM YOU????
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Wow:
Why do you keep saying "blacks" are mentally inferior to what you call the "higher races"?
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I don't.
:D :D :D :D :P :P
So, ignoring any inconvenient truths, still?
http://www.ipcc.ch
Saying "does not make it so" does not make the claim false.
:D :D :D :D :P :P :D :D :D
Doesn't Brat now sound like Schultz from Hogan's Heroes?
"I know nothing!".
:D :D :P :P :D :D
What ASSERTION, imbecile? I barely care what the ECS is; BBD had to drag my opinion out of me; all I've heard from you lunatics since then is how my idle estimate flies in the face of all the evidence (which you never specify) and the consensus (which you never demonstrate). If your intention was to convince me I'm wrong, you've achieved the exact opposite. I really wasn't sure whether my estimate was too high or too low, but your collective failure to mount anything close to a valid argument against it instils confidence in an even lower ECS. You people really are the most absurdly bad advertisement for your creed. Hence my suspicion that some of you—especially you, Wow—are on the Heartland payroll.
Brad
I'm not here to rehearse the literature with you. This 'debate' has moved far beyond that now. 'Sceptics' unfamiliar with the reasons why their arguments are horse-shit need to do their own homework. You are back to your specious rhetorics again.
Your rubbish about scientific consensus has been dealt with upthread. Dishonestly claiming otherwise doesn't change a thing.
Saying it’s been dealt with does not make it so. Ignoring it does not make it go away. This is Brad’s Place. The argumentum ad arrogantiam may work on your fellow cultists but it doesn’t cut it in here, jackass.
This is not your blog, Brad. Commenting here is a privilege. You seem not to understand that in your case that privilege has been substantially revoked by the blog owner.
I imagine that calling me of all people names edges you ever-closer to a total ban.
What HAS MTV done to the kids of today!
:D
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Seems even YOU can't be bothered to listen to yourself!
:P
Is this why you spent five pages insisting on it being 1.5?
since then is how my idle estimate flies in the face of all the evidence (which you never specify)
Page 8, #40, #51 and http://www.ipcc.ch and ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the… (brought to your attention five times now).
My goodness, you're not even ATTEMPTING to be coherent or appearing sane!!!!
:D :P :D :P
Making it clicky so even your imbecillic capabilities can manage to find it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece…
Do you believe that if you pretend you have never been given evidence that this will make it true?
Do you know what psychological disorder that indicates?
PS You now admit you have no reason to believe your assertion on page 7.
Aside from the fact that you are supposed to know the reasons behind your beliefs (eg ECS less than 1.5C), the main reason why nobody wants to get into the discussion with you is weariness.
We've all been down this road before, many times. Nothing anyone can say to a fake sceptic makes any difference. I can't stop you being a libertarian/conservative ideologue by referencing Ramanathan or Hansen or Annan. Nor am I going to try.
The only thing I can do is demonstrate that you have no *logical* grounds for your arguments. And I have. Repeatedly. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. You have no choice: either admit that you are being wildly illogical or retreat into denial, lies and evasion.
As you chose to do.
BBD,
is this how you imagine you "dealt with" the issues I raised about scientific consensus:
?
If so, you need to be aware that you've asserted the existence of a law of social psychology / group behaviour and are therefore in the position of owing us a spectacularly convincing proof that the law is actually operant in the present universe. I've searched "upthread" in vain for any references to research in the behavioural sciences. Have you provided some evidence for this proposed law that I've overlooked? If so, I apologise—could I ask you to restate the evidence?
BBD,
Actually, perhaps you could—but I would have to start being a libertarian/conservative ideologue first. :-)
Nope, asserted a truth.
Fact, if you will.
Scientific consensus comes from accepting the veracity of the proofs and evidence given when those proofs and evidence are overwhelming.
ROFL!
THIS is why Brat keeps claiming there is no evidence against him! HE LOOKS FOR BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE!!!
:D :P :P
Tell us, Brat,
If you saw the evidence and accepted that it was valid and the conclusions scientifically sound, would you agree with its conclusions?
So you're just paid to have this opinion.
Stop passing off your hallucinations as history. I didn't and I don't "insist" on that. It could be more, it could be less. Nobody here seems to be able to name any reasons either way. (Is a link to the IPCC supposed to be your "argument" for a higher ECS, Wow? Lazy, lazy, lazy.)
Brad
I asked you a question about this which you have repeatedly dodged. I asked you what is scientific consensus based on if not scientific evidence?
Of course you are some sort of free market proponent. Everyone who behaves like you is. Why not just admit it instead of retreating further into denial and falsehood?
I always do.
HALLUCINATE THIS!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Booyah! :P
Yes, boys and girls, reality is only an illusion if you believe hard enough!
You never do.
See, for example http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Brad
This is a non sequitur (or just bollocks, if you prefer):
you need to be aware that you’ve asserted the existence of a law of social psychology / group behaviour
Why? Demonstrate it. Go on.
The statement that scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence asserts no such thing. You are saying stuff. Don't.
So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?
What is scientific consensus based on if not scientific evidence Brad?
What was the medical consensus as to the etiology of gastric ulcers, prior to Warren and Marshall's work, based on?
What was the geological consensus opposing the continental drift theory based on?
What was the chemical consensus on the impossibility of quasi-crystals based on?
Since BK ploughs on regardless, I am going to start repeating myself endlessly.
Aside from the fact that you are supposed to know the reasons behind your beliefs (eg ECS less than 1.5C), the main reason why nobody wants to get into the discussion with you is weariness.
We’ve all been down this road before, many times. Nothing anyone can say to a fake sceptic makes any difference. I can’t stop you being a libertarian/conservative ideologue by referencing Ramanathan or Hansen or Annan. Nor am I going to try.
The only thing I can do is demonstrate that you have no *logical* grounds for your arguments. And I have. Repeatedly. And that is why you refuse to answer my questions. You have no choice: either admit that you are being wildly illogical or retreat into denial, lies and evasion.
As you chose to do.
Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C - ~3C?
No evidence exists. Indications that the range *may* be way too high? None whatsoever (see 'paleoclimate constraints').
It's not going to go away because you don't believe in it Brad.
"What was the medical consensus as to the etiology of gastric ulcers, prior to Warren and Marshall’s work, based on?"
Evidence.
"What was the geological consensus opposing the continental drift theory based on?"
Evidence.
"What was the chemical consensus on the impossibility of quasi-crystals based on?"
Evidence.
What's your 1.5C per doubling CO2 climate sensitivity based on?
Dogma. Faith. Belief.
So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?
BBD: you said that scientific consensus emerges *only* from evidence.
Easy. Scientific consensus is a state of majority agreement (common belief) among a group of people (scientists). It is therefore a group-psychological phenomenon. You postulate that it is determined by a single factor ("evidence"). If so, this would be an extraordinarily powerful law of social psychology. Quite a conceptual breakthrough, all the more stunning for its almost unbelievable simplicity.
BK
Agreement based on evidence is the essence of robust reasoning. You are just saying stuff.
Scientific consensus emerges from scientific evidence. This is indeed straightforward. Your resistance to the facts is rather less so, but since you won't explain why you constantly retreat into illogicality we are forced to speculate.
Assertion assertion assertion.
...assertion.
Saying it is isn't proof it is.
Simple way to demonstrate. Answer my question:
So if you agreed with it, and lots of others agreed with it, are you all in agreement?
The answer is "yes". Isn't it.
Now does that mean that the evidence has stood up to the scrutiny of many people?
The answer to that one is "yes" too.
Ever heard "Many eyes make bugs shallow"? You profess to know things about programming, but even if you don't, this means that any errors in what many people are looking at are found more easily.
Now, because you are in agreement with lots of other people that the evidence is sound and the conclusion scientifically valid, does that mean that the agreement is based on unscientific principles?
The answer to that is "No".
Please note I've answered them for you because you are too much a lying sack of shit to answer them.
Now, again:
Scientific evidence falsifying ECS range of ~2.5C – ~3C?
None exists. See ‘paleoclimate constraints’.
It’s not going to go away because you don’t believe in it Brad.
Yes, you assert that the scientific consensus has not arisen because of agreement on the evidence.
Mere assertion.
And asserting the truth is called "telling the truth".
This, we all know, is a big problem for you.
There has been no evidence provided. This is both assertion and fact.
Assertion etc
Where's your evidence for your *assertion* that ECS is less than 1.5C? You don't get to play that little game from both ends.
Paleoclimate constraints. Start with breaking science: look at the draft paper posted on arxiv by Hansen et al. Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric CO2.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf
This study builds on the analysis in Hansen & Sato (2012) Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate change which makes an empirical estimate of S to 2 x CO2 of ~3C from LGM/Holocene comparison. The latest paper extends the analysis across the entire Cenozoic (65Ma) and confirms the published result in HS12.
The new Hansen study grew out of the PALAEOSENS project, which has just published its own results in Nature (Rohling et al. 2013). This is an intercomparison of published paleoclimate sensitivity estimates. It finds a range for S to 2 x CO2 of 2.2 - 4.8C, which is in agreement with the IPCC AR4 estimated range of 2 - 4.5C with a most probable value of ~3C.
It is this kind of perspective that makes me sceptical of low estimates for S to 2 x CO2. Not to mention the difficulty of explaining how deglaciation under orbital forcing actually works if sensitivity to CO2 forcing is very low.
Or see the synthesis of results here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece…
BK
It's not assertion. It's a statement of fact.
I keep asking you the obvious question: *what else* does scientific consensus derive from *if not* scientific evidence?
Screwing up your face and shouting 'assertion' isn't the answer.
Answer the question, Brad. If I'm wrong, there must be an alternative basis for scientific consensus. What is it?
BK has already "admitted" they agree with conclusions if the data supports it.
Therefore if he's among lots of other people who come to the same conclusion, there is a consensus.
And that doesn't make the conclusion that the evidence is sound unscientific.
"There has been no evidence provided. This is both assertion and fact."
Unless Brat has hidden the evidence!
BBD #64
Thank fucking Christ. Some scientific evidence. Was it that difficult? Couldn't you have told me this, like, 500 comments ago?
Yes, it was horrendously difficult to get you to see any evidence.
YOU WERE TOLD 500 comments ago, but no, you refused to read it.
Isn't it funny how Brad's comprehension problems are EVERYONE ELSE'S fault?
:P
BBD
I suggest, in future, that you be quicker with the evidence and slower with the speculative pop-psychology like this:
There's nothing more damaging to your credibility than telling someone to their face something that they know is false, and that they know you're just guessing.
I'd be amazed if it were unifactorial. So, no, I don't accept that there must be "a basis" for it. We're talking about the dynamics of belief across a group of people—something even more multiplex and harder to compute than the Earth's atmosphere—so there is simply no sensible answer to the question "what is it based on?"
Now, if only Brat can find any evidence for his claim 500 comments ago...
But it seems that jesuz fucking christ, getting some scientific evidence for his claims from Brad is absolutely impossible!
No Brad. We aren't going to pretend that the fault here lies with me. More little games.
Answer the question, Brad. If I’m wrong, there must be an alternative basis to scientific evidence for scientific consensus. What is it?
And this is why you get labelled "denier".
There is.
Evidence.
The scientific conclusion is based on the evidence.
You can find the evidence they looked at here:
http://www.ipcc.ch
Your disingenuous and evasive schtick is irritating Brad.
Answer the question straight. It was asked straight. Let's see some fucking integrity out of you.
That's why he does it.
That and he doesn't know anything.
And while we're at it, show some moral courage and explain why you deny the scientific consensus on ECS.
I think you're just another free marketeer. As long as you refuse to give your reasons, I will continue to think this.
Evasiveness breeds suspicion, you see. And you are extremely evasive indeed.
BK
Here is a history of the scientific investigation into AGW. It includes a very extensive bibliography and reference.
This is the index page for AR4 WG1 - the physical science basis for AGW. It contains extensive references to the scientific literature.
Any further requests for 'evidence' will be directed to these links.
BBD,
Nice to see you here and asking somewhat better questions than Wow.
What you're both missing here is that BradK did NOT insist or assert the 1.5 figure.
He quite clearly stated that he was open to 'being upsold' or to change his mind.
Instead of attempting to ask questions to trap BradK why not discuss the evidence?
That way you could facilitate a civil debate.
You do sometimes ask very decent questions BBD.
Such a pity that you don't pay attention to the answers.
You instead go straight into RIH mode ( ritual intellectual humiliation).
That does not do anything to help a sensible discussion.
And also BBD,
no one is 'denying' evidence and/or that there are claims about consensus.
BradK is correct that evidence and consensus are far from synonymous.
"He quite clearly stated that he was open to ‘being upsold’ or to change his mind." & "That way you could facilitate a civil debate."
You probably have quite the collection of title deeds to some of the world's most famous bridges, right Cammy?
Brad says,
So...Phil Jones doesn't show tree-ring width on a graph displaying temperature/time.
That's what you call, "concealed"?
I guess he also "concealed" the price of eggs and any number of other things for which his Y axis was not labelled.
You really are a duufus, aren't you Brad.
It was a graph showing temperature, not tree ring width, and it accurately showed temperature, not tree ring width, hence nothing was "concealed".
Perhaps you are being led astray by the wilful misinterpretation of words by the politically-motivated crank-blogs which are the source of these odd opinions of yours?
Oh, and we *know* Jones' temperature graph accurately showed temperature due to its successful replication by various independent scientists including the BEST temperature reconstruction which confirmed Jones' graph as being correct.
Wegener's continental drift hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Continental_drift_theory
required such a stupendous supply of energy that many rejected it until the discovery of sea floor spreading
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/HHH.html
lead to HHH's student
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzo_Wilson
to complete the modern plate tectonics theory.
Thus the source of the energy to drive plate tectonics had to be found; it was.
This is just asinine. No other word for it. To sit there and pretend that the previous 800 comments or so did not happen is nothing short of puckering up and flipping logic and civil conversation the bird.
You're a willfully delusional, lying toad. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Wegener?
Another hoax:
http://platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/plate-tectonics-get…
Brad's:
- evasiveness and obfuscation in response to straight questions about the basis of his scientific opinions;
- heavy reliance on textual analysis of secondary sources instead of evidence reported in primary sources
- denial that he has been pointed at evidence (e.g. about ECS) when he clearly was (and when his inability to find any indicts him as incompetent and/or unwilling to assess the evidence);
- denial-based claim that ECS most likely around 2.5 - 3.0 is "as silly and unevidenced as" a value below 1.5;
- claim that the absence in this discussionof what he deigns to notice as evidence forms a "scientific basis" for his opinion;
- similar claim that his opinion (e.g. about ECS) is reinforced by a small number of other people failing to do his homework in a fashion that he deigns to notice
- denial that the scientific consensus on ECS arises from the evidence
- denial of many of these observations of his behaviour
...are arguably now well explained by one simple hypothesis:
It's now clear to almost everyone that Brad's scientific opinions - most stunningly illustrated by ECS - are NOT informed by the evidence but are instead selected for some other reason, and yet Brad desperately wishes to maintain his position that his current opinion is scientifically more likely than (or at least "equally ridiculous as") the mainstream scientific position to avoid admitting that he is engaging in scientific denialism. Accordingly, Brad MUST find a way to convince himself that the mainstream scientific opinion is not based on assessing all the evidence.
Well, that's easy!
Brad simply projects his evidence-free opinion formation method on to research climate scientists, and then argues to himself that any consensus that forms amongst that group simply can't be based on competent assessment of all the evidence - because he just knows that, like him, they're not using it to form their judgements, bolstered by the handy fact that if you leave out the "flying" part of "flying fox" the dictionary proves - proves, I tell you! - that a flying fox doesn't have wings because it's a four-legged ground-based mammal of the canine family!
Yes, this hypothesis could be wrong, but after last night's debacle I think our collective work here - special mention going to BBD - demonstrating that Brad is completely full of shit on these topics is done :-)
Adios, Brad.
Brad Keyes raises gastric ulcers, continental drift, and quasi-crystals apparently as evidence of incorrect scientific consensus. The trouble is, these examples are substantively different from the consensus on climate change.
The example of ulcers is one where the 'consensus' was more an assumption than a result of rigorous testing. Once Barry Marshall and Robin Warren showed otherwise, and presented the evidence, the consensus rapidly moved to acceptance of the <scientific evidence. David B. Benson shows at #85 a similar process in the understanding of continental movement.
The thing with the "climate change consensus" is that it is arrived at after decades of rigorous work, conducted by tens of thousands of professional scientific experts, and presented and critically reviewed in the scientific literature. No other area of science has been so minutely scrutinised, and withstood so well such scrutiny.
Contrast this with the denial of global warming. Where's the body of literature that has withstood scrutiny? References please. In fact, where's the body of literature at all? It's hardly one of pride...
Keyes strategy in his trolling is to use long words and frequent references to complex notion, but never in the process of constructing a coherent, structured, logical, and evidenced narrative. He frequently reflects and contradicts, but he does not carry an argument from beginning to end - because his arguments do not have such structure. He sidesteps demonstration of his errors, and avoids getting involved with logical discussions that would prove wrong the gist of his denialisms.
Observe how he wriggles away from the current challenge to his claim about climate sensitivity:
Keyes...
1) What is transient climate sensitivity?
2) What does the empirical evidence, including the temperature record, suggest is the minimum value for transient climate sensitivity?
3) What is equilibrium climate sensitivity?
4) What factors contribute to determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity?
5) What does the empirical evidence, including the temperature record and the climatic response to the aforementioned other factors, suggest is the most likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity?
Lotharsson.
We seem to have typed essentially the same thoughts at the same time.
Snap!
BBD appeals to moral shame:
What scientific consensus on ECS, BBD? Are you telling us that 51% or more of scientists believe ECS to be 2C–3C per doubling of CO2?
How strong is this consensus: are we just talking 51% of scientists? Or is it a really overwhelming consensus (say, 95% of scientists)?
Excuse my query, it's just that I've honestly never heard of such a survey being carried out across the scientific community. If someone has carried it out, though, I'd be delighted to see the numbers they got, and to give you my thoughts on them.
(Warning, though: my thoughts will likely be something along the lines of, "that's all very nice, but opinion is not evidence.")
Bernard J, I'm glad you agree with me that scientific consensus doesn't "only emerge from evidence," as BBD believes:
Perhaps if you explained this to BBD, he might be more receptive to hearing it. He doesn't seem to like me.
Oh!
I think Lotharsson might have edged in front on the den/y/alist/ied/alism meter!
Although BJ looks set to give it a crack.
:-)
Straight questions Lotharsson?
That's hilarious.
:-)
You are spectacularly uninterested in any answers.
You are quite obviously only interested in what you have dubbed RIH.
BTW?
Do you agree with Vince that BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick?
I did my homework and I can't find a confirmation.
The ONLY place I have seen that claim of confirmation is here.
Bernard J, I'm afraid I can't help you with this one:
Perhaps if you asked a global warming denier, they might be able to tell you what (if any) scientific literature that particular view is based on?
chameleon:
Yes, this is a pretty unique community of believers we're witnessing. To take another example, this is the ONLY place I've seen someone deny that Phil Jones *hid anything* in his WMO graph. Can this denial be seen anywhere else in the climatosphere?
Lotharsson misunderstands me:
No, what I said was that "the scientific consensus" and "an unsupported position" were as silly and unevidenced as each other. Which they are, given that neither "scientific consensus" or "lack of support" constitute one iota of evidence.
Lotharsson opines that
Is that why I said I was open to being upsold on the estimate? Is that why I invited BBD to convince me the ECS was higher? Is that why I thanked him when he (belatedly) cited some evidence that I should change my estimate?
And the purpose of this thread is?
It was originally conceived as an asylum of reason in a world of idiocy. Unfortunately the walls seem to have been breached...
I dunno David B,
It appears for some at least, the purpose is to practice RIH
:-)
I have no idea what Wow's purpose is!
Maybe you could try to start an evidence based discussion?
I note you did try with your earlier link but the RIH tribe don't seem interested.
chameleon --- Evidence for what?
Brad Keyes, you are twisting the import of my post. I differentiated between the nature of the consensus around matters such as gastric ulcers and continental drift by employing quotation marks around the word, and by explicitly noting that the 'consensus' in these matters was "substantively different" to that pertaining to global climate change/warming.
You sought to confabulate the acceptance of the thinking on gastric ulcers and on continental drift with the acceptance of climatological science. I pointed out that there is a difference.
I do not "agree with [you]".
Nice try to erect the appearance of concurrence though, when none exists.
I'd say the reason that you "can't help" is that there is nothing which reasonably contradicts the enormous body of evidence that supports mainstream climatology.
And you wonder why there's discussion of a so-called scientific consensus....
Why do you require that anyone should "convince"you of it? Should you not employ your own intellectual capacities, humble as they may be, to address the available science itself? You made a pronouncement on what you believed climate sensitivity to be - from where did that figure emerge, if not from the distal end of your alimentary canal? And if you can find one value, why can you not check its veracity, especially when I and others have left a trail of questioning that would rapidly resolve the uncertainty about the matter that you are demonstrating? Are you refractory to self-directed learning?
All you're doing is saying, subtextually:
Brad Keyes, you are twisting the import of my post. I differentiated between the nature of the consensus around matters such as gastric ulcers and continental drift by employing quotation marks around the word, and by explicitly noting that the 'consensus' in these matters was "substantively different" to that pertaining to global climate change/warming.
You sought to confabulate the acceptance of the thinking on gastric ulcers and on continental drift with the acceptance of climatological science. I pointed out that there is a difference.
I do not "agree with [you]".
Nice try to erect the appearance of concurrence though, when none exists.
I'd say the reason that you "can't help" is that there is nothing which reasonably contradicts the enormous body of evidence that supports mainstream climatology.
And you wonder why there's discussion of a so-called scientific consensus....
Why do you require that anyone should "convince"you of it? Should you not employ your own intellectual capacities, humble as they may be, to address the available science itself? You made a pronouncement on what you believed climate sensitivity to be - from where did that figure emerge, if not from the distal end of your alimentary canal? And if you can find one value, why can you not check its veracity, especially when I and others have left a trail of questioning that would rapidly resolve the uncertainty about the matter that you are demonstrating? Are you refractory to self-directed learning?
All you're doing is saying, subtextually:
There are words for this sort of behaviour, and they're antonymous with "scientific", "logical", and "rational".
[*Substitute with "psychopathology" if preferred...
†I use the termed "convince" in a very loose context - there is no real chance that you actually desire to be convinced of your errors of logic or scientific understanding.]
Read the OP at the top of this page.
You were exiled by others who "conceived" of you as a troll and a dissembler. If you prefer to perceive it as being the opposite then that is your pathology, but don't then be surprised when others accuse you of being quick to distort the truth.
Bernard asks:
And there was me thinking that Keyes pulled it out of his arse.
That is a *very* silly thing to type: the scientific consensus is created by the evidence.
What an idiotic question. Brad thinks it's a popularity contest.
I thought you were trying to contribute an example via weigner and plate tectonics David B?
No?
My apologies.
I also tried to link some new research up thread.
Maybe we need to wait for RC or SkS or Watts or Tamino or Jonova or whoever to set the rules of engagement first?
I noticed no one was prepared to comment on the Church et al paper re SLR until the battle lines were drawn.
:-)
Upthread, we discussed the assertion that the hockey stick emerged from Mann's methodology, rather than the data. About two pages back, chameleon claimed that this assertion was not made by Brad, but that Lotharsson and BernardJ had "misquoted" him reporting someone else''s assertion.
Does chameleon still stand by that claim? Inquiring minds are keen to know.
Frank D?
Sorry?
Did I miss a comment of yours in amongst all the wowisms?
What's the problem?
Please, I hope you're not wanting to go back to those over 20X links from Wow?
He quoted BradK quoting Lotharsson who had misquoted an earlier comment of BradK's.
Haven't we had enough of that one?
Go read the papers referenced in this
http://www.ipcc.ch
(PS I hope chubby got a receipt for her bridges)
So?
Are you complaining that there isn't consensus therefore non-science now?
What was hidden?
It wasn't the divergence problem since that was openly displayed and NOT hidden.
Yes, deliberately.
Because you haven't got a brain in your whole body.
Every single national scientific body has agreed with the evidence.
'sfunny how chubby concentrates on my posts and completely ignores or accepts the bratisms on this thread...
chubby, frank is asking you to stand by your statement.
We know that honesty is not something you do, so your evasion is completely expected.
PS what about the 20x demands for the proof that was in those 20 links that brad posted? No, he's a denier like you, so it's all okey-dokey, isn't it. It's all for the cause...
mike, you are a sad, sad, sad tosser
"Bernard J uses the word “dissembler” "
Yeah, that involves four lip movements when you're reading doesn't it mike? Why wouldn't you complain? Really we could take your lead and reduce the English language to about 400 words and still have plenty of leeway for new concepts, right?
"Gaia"
Is that how you cope with distancing yourself from your mother fixation mike? I don't recall anyone here ever using it, certainly not in this thread. But it's a common enough affliction amongst 'real men' who are anything but, and it would be unkind to ask directly if you complete the pattern by abusing your partner. Plus I doubt anyone really wants to know anymore about you than you've offered already.
Oh dear, the summer ice minimum record is beaten by the winter maximum record. But...but wait...that's not a part of the CAGW plan, is it?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenhunter_175-feb-1…
Don't believe it? Make a graph your self:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Stevieboy doesn't tell you how fragile first year ice is come the summer melt, does he PantieZ? And you're stupid enough to neither know nor care.
So chek, a record is only valid one way, the CAGW way? So convenient. You stupid foilhat.
Notice that the graph says gain. If you start from a low point, you can gain a lot.
Yup PantieZ, a record ice volume has been lost over the past 30 years, as shown in <a href="http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic… PIOMASS graph..
A thin skim of first year winter ice doesn't begin to make up for it - but it fools fake skeptics and plain deniers with no discriminatory powers like you so "Goddard" has done his job.
Yup PantieZ, a record ice volume has been lost over the past 30 years, as shown in this PIOMAS graph.
A thin skim of first year winter ice doesn’t begin to make up for it – but it fools fake skeptics and plain deniers with no discriminatory powers like you so “Goddard” has done his job.
Oh dear, oh dear, chek. You just can't deal with adversity. Poor little thing, reallity really does hurt you. Or maybe that tin foil hat of yours makes your couple of brain cells boil.
chameleon, no we don't need to go over Wow's exposure of Brads disingenuousness (disingenuity?). I'm far more interested in other matters.
Yes - Lotharsson stated (not a quote, but anyway...) that Brad had made a claim that the hockey stick is due to Manns methodology, not the data - Brad's response was the "did I say that?" that Wow linked to a couple(!) of times. But I was wondering about your positive statement that Lotharsson was misquoting Brad.
So, you still assert that Brad never said that the hockeystick is due to Manns methodology. I'm wondering what your basis for making that claim is.
PentaxZ.
Tamino is all over Goddard's spurious nonsense:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/some-people-cant-be-reasoned-wit…
Truly, anyone who thinks that Goddard has disproved global warming is stupider than a boxful of hammers.
Anyone who can't understand why this is so is actually more stupid.
"Oh dear, the summer ice minimum record is beaten by the winter maximum record."
Hmm. Yet again, winter comes as a huge surprise to the idiots.
Here's a wee tip for you. During the polar winter, the poles are FAMOUS for being DARK all the time.
"So chek, a record is only valid one way, the CAGW way?"
No your "record" is irrelevant in the quest to find out if AGW is happening or not.
Bernie dear, My links is about the ice in the Arctic, nothing else. And yet again, thinking that a alarmist site like tamino is somehow an argument for anythiong at all is just plain stupid. It ain't, you stupid zealot.
wow, dear little thing, the variations of the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic is totally irrelevant for detecting any AGW all together. Zealots like you just can't accept that. If ice melts in the summer, you know the period when the sun hardly goes below the horizon at all, it's due to the horrific CAGW. But when it grows back, then it's due to...darkness. Holy cow, your'e really stupid.
"Bernie dear, My links is about the ice in the Arctic, nothing else."
And that is what we're saying you did too.
However, your conclusions cannot be substantiated by the ice in the arctic, nothing else.
"the variations of the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic is totally irrelevant for detecting any AGW all together."
Incorrect.
Sunlight and warm temperatures will melt ice.
Since winter has no sunlight, reforming ice extent depends almost entirely on the orbital inclination of the earth and not its temperature characteristics.
I understand that you're too dumb to understand physics, though.
"you know the period when the sun hardly goes below the horizon at all"
Yes, we know.
You apparently were unaware about polar nights, however. Making your lecturing rather hypocritical. But you've no problem with having two faces, have you.
Now, given that the ice is disappearing anyway, despite this current orbital inclination being the case for several thousand years, if your assertion were the be-all and end-all of it, then polar ice would never have been multi-year ice.
However, any inconvenient truths will be ignored by your denier faith.
Vince Whirlwind:
You're not particularly bright, are you, Vince?
The word consensus implies a MAJORITY OPINION. So yes, a belief obviously has to be widespread enough to qualify.
BK says a belief
There's your problem - which is the same old, same old problem for all idealogues.
Repeat after me "Brad": belief is not evidence.
It may be what you deal in, but it isn't what scientists deal in.
"The word consensus implies a MAJORITY OPINION."
It doesn't MANDATE it to mean "majority opinion" though. Hence you have to use the word "implies". Since it implies, you have to make it do that. The implication being your assertion.
And EVERY national science body has accepted the evidence as valid and the conclusions of the IPCC as supported by the evidence.
And, as chek says, you insist it is "belief", but that is entirely a shibboleth of your denier credo.
Brat, how come whenever you get answers, you ignore any that you don't think you have a "comeback" on?
FrankD:
So far, the closest I've been shown to have come to saying that is that if you don't use Mann's methodology, you don't get a HS from Mann's data. In other words, I said his algorithm was NECESSARY for the Hockey Stick shape (given the data he was working with). This isn't quite the same as saying it was RESPONSIBLE for the shape. Therefore when I was asked to justify the assertion that it was RESPONSIBLE, I quite sensibly said:
"That assertion would need to be qualified. Did I say it in those words? If so, I was being sloppy."
You'll notice, if you understand words, that I did NOT deny it.
Yet Wow repeatedly[!] linked to my non-denial in the forlorn hope of defending his untrue claim that I'd denied it.
You'll notice that Wow was simply compounding his lie by repeatedly[!] linking to a non-proof of it.
Yet I'm the one whose "disingenuousness (disingenuity?)" was exposed by this affair, according to FrankD!
LOL. What a retard.
"You apparently were unaware about polar nights,"
Hahaha....says a computer zealot. A hint, I live in Sweden. Look it up on a model globe. You might actually notice a thing called the polar circle. Please, dumbass, don't try to lecture me about the polar nights. Or physics for that matter.
No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years. Deal with it!
Wow:
If something is a consensus, then it is a majority opinion. By definition.
This is not my "assertion"; it is an a priori truism, a matter of definition, an axiom.
What makes you think I'm ignoring them? The lack of a comeback? Your question is why I don't have a comeback to questions to which I don't have a comeback? Is that it? Have I understood you correctly?
"No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years."
Then where did the extra heat come from after all that time to cause a record polar ice loss in the summer of 2012, PantieZ?
It was having no answer to repeating that denier meme du jour which caused your pal Jonarse's head to explode, remember.
Your question was about global warming denial, not "mainstream climatology" denial. The reason I can't help you with it is that I'm not a global warming denier myself, and I'm unfamiliar with the reasons (if any) cited by global warming deniers.
Poor "Brad" is still discombobulated over the term 'scientific consensus' and desperately trying to spin it as a plain old common or garden consensus, despite the difference being pointed out to him multiple times.
Poor, stupid "Brad" still thinking anyone here is ever going to buy it. But insane enough to plug on in the hope of getting a different answer next time. Poor insane, stupid "Brad".
chek:
I say "a belief", do I? Do I also put some words around that—like a predicate, for example—to form, you know, a sentence?
Do I say that a consensus is a majority belief?
Guess what: it is. If you don't like it, take it up with a lexicographer.
Or do I just say "a belief"... like some kind of "ideologue"[sic]?
Chek:
Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?
You're chock full of beliefs you can't substantiate "Brad". Who can forget your avoidance of explaining the evidence underlying your ECS "belief" just as one example. Or about how Mann's hockey stick was derived for another. You get the picture, not only in hi-res, full-colour but repeatedly refreshed.
So yes, the fact that you frame things in that fashion highlights that 'belief' is the correct key word to emphasise.
Incorrect.
"General agreement."
Doesn't define that it must be majority agreement.
PS 100% of national science academies agree with the evidence.
"Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?"
A scientific consensus.
This, however, is a complete lie.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece…
We notice that you refrain from any meaning by your definition of "understand words".
Yet the words only have meaning if they are denying the statement.
Another deniable denial.
Yes.
Wow:
And out of those 10,000+ papers, is there a paper that demonstrates (using valid survey methods) that 51% or more of scientists think ECS is 2C—3C?
Because if not, then you can't possibly say there's a scientific consensus that it's 2C—3C. That would be an assertion of pure imagination.
chek:
Great!
(Technically, the correct answer is "a climate-scientific consensus" or "a climatological consensus"—but you were close enough.)
So we agree that a majority belief is a consensus.
Guess what: it is. If you don’t like it, take it up with a lexicographer.
“No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years.”
Bare faced lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html
To be expected from The Faithful.
"Guess what: it is"
Nope.
Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement.
"So we agree that a majority belief is a consensus."
Nope, Chek did not agree that a majority belief is a consensus. They said:"A scientific consensus"
in answer to the question:
“Hey chek, what would you call a situation where 97% of active, publishing climate science experts shared a particular view?”
"Check with a lexicon. General agreement. Not Majority agreement."
And what does "general agreement" mean, pray tell?
Even better—so Chek agrees that a majority view among scientists is "a scientific consensus."
Excellent. Making progress here.
Why did they use "general" pray tell?
Ah, the idiot's guide to set theory.
Because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs.
What a fucking retard you are, Brat.
The ONLY place "majority" appears in there is when you claim it. Chek doesn't say it at all and it isn't in the question he was asked either.
For someone who whines about "anyone who understands words", you certainly do a lot of not understanding words...
And "Brad" wonders how his reputation for dishonesty came about.
The skunk doesn't notice their own stink...
Cue the reliably dull Cammy pointing out the nano-particles in everyone else's eye while ignoring the sequioa emanating from "Brad's" eyelid.
"And yet again, thinking that a alarmist site like tamino is somehow an argument for anythiong (sic) at all "
Yeh cos like Tamino uses proper maffs and ting that I don understand to make a point which is so unfair, the mean alarmist.
Do you know what's weird when the idiot does that?
There's nothing there BUT ad hominem. Absolutely nothing else.
Not even looking at the evidence or argument there, just "tamino's site? nah".
If there had ever been evidence that tamino had gotten some maths or stats wrong, there may be some tiny reason to go "why should I trust he has it right?". But that's not happened.
Brad believes in a wildly improbable ECS.
Brad rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.
Brad even rejects the definition of 'scientific consensus'.
Brad won't say why he does all these illogical things.
Brad won't read.
Brad won't listen.
Brad won't think.
Brad is taking the piss.
Yes Brad, this is an entirely original idea of yours. We've never heard that one before.
Weirdly, his demand there is PRECISELY what Bray has complained about not being science.
And it is PRECISELY NOT what BBD was talking about.
And it is precisely not what the science shows, if the donkey ever bothered to read the science he's demanded, been supplied with, but then apparently entirely ignored.
BBD:
What scientific consensus on ECS? Do you have any evidence at all that more than 50% of scientists agree with your estimate of ECS?
Stu:
And what was your comeback last time, Stu?
Well, I know what "scientific" means; I know what "consensus" means; and since no reputable dictionary has an entry for the alleged term of art "scientific consensus," what else is there to know?
Exactly.
Thanks for demonstrating BBD's point.
That you know what the dictionary says about things, but don't have a fucking clue what it means.
Except that I didn't reverse the order of the sets, did I? I simply obtained confirmation from chek that if 97 percent of scientists have the same view, that's a "scientific consensus."
Wow, you're being non-responsive.
What are you, 8 years old? Either answer the question or leave it to those who are intellectually capable of doing so.
No. Doofus.
Except I never said you had, did I?
Tell me, do you actually read words, or do you just think what you'd like it to say and argue that?
Poor insane "Brad" tries the same thing again, hoping for a different outcome.Yawn.
Wow. YOU say that?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:D :D :D
Wow, you have no idea how to define "scientific consensus" in such a way as to win this argument, do you?
I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS, and that it's higher than my estimate.
Rather in the same way as someone running against a dictator doesn't know how to win the rigged elections, because you insist that it can ONLY be you who decides what a definition that is correct can be.
And then you just define any correct definition as wrong and complain that no definition has been made.
It is entirely the argument of the six year old.
And Saddam simply wanted to own Kuwaiti oilfields.
Neither he nor you get to demand what you want because you want it and expect everyone to just play along.
I simply want some evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS
Once again, every single National Academy of Science accepts the IPCC reports.
Where's your denier equivalent, "Brad". Oh wait - there isn't one. Just a few pop-brains like you and your source blogs.
And which of these National Academies of Science has measured the opinions of its members? And what was the result: did 51% of scientists estimate ECS to be 2C—3C?
68% ?
95% ?
99% ?
What level of consensus are we talking here?
Yes, but if I don't get what I want (evidence that 50%+ of scientists agree on a particular value or range of ECS) then you don't get what you want (the right to say I'm rejecting the value or range which 50%+ of scientists assign to ECS), do you?
Yawn.
Kick the record player: you're stuck on the same track.
No, we totally get to do that.
You don't have a clue how science works do you "Brad".
What *you* now have to do to support your hypothesis is find how many papers reject that value for ECS. Then you'll have somthing to say beyond your customary 4th grade piffle more fitting to a nine year old who's just discovered logical thought. You won't of course, because you're insane and to compound it ideologically, your a denier.
chameleon --- Somewhere earlier a commenter brought up Wegener and the wide, but not unanimous, rejection that his ideas received. I thought I should set the story straight.
There is at least one paper in which a collection of climatologists were asked for their estimates of ECS; the results were then subjected to a Bayesian analysis to conclude the most likely range was about 2--4 K. The most recent thorough analysis of a wide variety of source of evidence for ECS is a paper by Annan & Hargreaves; the Bayesian analysis of that data gives the same range. The most recent papers of ECS suggest the the value is about 2.4 K. But as just more grist for the Bayesian mill, I'll say that indicates a range of about 2.2--3 K as most likely.
No time now to dig out the references; apologies.
Wow (February 13, 2013
And Saddam simply wanted to own Kuwaiti oilfields.
Wow, I thought that one of the issues leading to GW1 was that Saddam wanted the Kuwaitis to stop angle-drilling into Iraqi oilfields? I.e., he wanted them to stop stealing IRAQI oil(??)
peterd, that was an allegation, which even if true accounts for a record distance of just over six miles across the then border, and in actuality probably much less, given 1980's technology.
In other words an excuse.
six mile max link for above
Brad doesn't seem to understand what a consensus is:
Why would the opinions of all its members be in any way relevant?
Do you expect that 100% of scientists are qualified to measure sensitivity, is that your problem?
Surely you don't believe that, and are just indulging in yet another episode of crank-blog-inspired bullshitting?
No I don't, but I wasn't the one who claimed that there was a scientific consensus (a majority agreement among scientists) that ECS was 2C—3C.
Where are all the papers disputing the scientific consensus, "Brad"?
Wrong.
Or, to put it another way, Tim Flannery's opinion is irrelevant to the fact there is a scientific consensus on the relative likelihoods of a range sensitivity values.
Of course, Tim Flannery's opinion is useful if you are unaware of what that consensus is, because it is his function to provide a meta-analysis of the facts for a target audience comprised of those unqualified to undertake either original research or analysis of said research for themselves.
Oh, for pity's sake.
Brad Keyes, just look at the fracking literature. There's a summary and reassessment here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0620-4
and figures two and three in particular give a neat précis of the expert opinion on climate sensitivity.
And guess what? The weight of scientific opinion as seen in this work is that climate sensitivity is likely over 2° C.
And for the record, I have a little bet with a colleague about this post...
OK guys'n'gals. I'm now at the bottom of page 12.
Is there any good reason why I should bother with page 13?
Sure, Adelady - you've made it this far...
Brad still believes in a wildly improbable ECS.
Brad still rejects the scientific consensus on ECS.
Brad still rejects the definition of ‘scientific consensus’.
Brad still won’t say why he does all these illogical things.
Brad still won’t read.
Brad still won’t listen.
Brad still won’t think.
Brad is still taking the piss.
adelady
No. See # 10
Brad
The IPCC doesn't conduct research into climate sensitivity. The reports are simply assessments of the state of scientific knowledge. This is what it says in AR4 WG1:
WG1 6.9.4:
Overall, several lines of evidence strengthen confidence in present estimates of ECS, and new results based on objective analyses make it possible to assign probabilities to ranges of climate sensitivity previously assessed from expert opinion alone. This represents a significant advance. Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS is very likely larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C. The lower bound is consistent with the view that the sum of all atmospheric feedbacks affecting climate sensitivity is positive. Although upper limits can be obtained by combining multiple lines of evidence, remaining uncertainties that are not accounted for in individual estimates (such as structural model uncertainties) and possible dependencies between individual lines of evidence make the upper 95% limit of ECS uncertain at present. Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2).
Box 10.2:
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
Just how long are you going to keep up the evasive nit-picking before you accept that:
- the scientific consensus is based on evidence
- the scientific consensus effectively excludes an ECS less than 1.5C
How long?
But you DO claim there is no scientific consensus, and you DO claim that 1.5C is much more likely, and you DO claim that 2.5-3C is an outlier, and you DO claim that you have data for all your claims.
And you DO insist that "just because" every national society agrees that the evidence supports the conclusions of the IPCC, that doesn't make it a consensus.
Hell, the data we currently have excludes an ECS of less than 1.8C.
And so the consensus myth is finally blown away. Read and weep, zealots.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey…
Ah yes pantieZ, the James Taylor who is a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
Yes that Heartland Institute, the very heart of shonky shill 'science' with a very particular ideological axe to grind.
Shame they didn't bother to survey any climate scientists but the usual mish-mash of engineers and assorted geologists from Alberta, home of the Canadian oil sands.
The only thing weep-worthy PantieZ, is that idiots like you once again demonstrate you'll believe anything.
So, a management journal surveys ideologically- and/or professionally-biased non-experts and from this infers that most scientists are sceptical of climate change.
I need a new, non-bloody wall.
And there goes Organization Studies' impact factor, and quite possibly another editor or two - if they have any moral scruples.
PentaxZ, when rebuttal after rebuttal piles up in response to this nonsense. will you post an apology. You have many others that are long overdue.
And if you think that there no "global warming crisis", perhaps you'd care to enter into a high-stakes wager with me...
Please say yes, and I'll lay down the terms.
So so, little chek. For your information, I don't dislike Heartland as you do, so tha't not an counterargument. Just your usual whining about something you don't like. And as you pretty much know, the definition "climate scientist" isn't a oficial recognized occupation. There is no specific education for "climate scientist". And I surley think geoscientists and meterologists know a hell more about the climate than you or anybody in the Team. Tough luck, your stupid zealot, but reality is catching up with your blind faith in the CAGW religion.
For your information, HI is entirely funded to produce PR for the paying companies.
Therefore their statements are entirely unreliable.
"And as you pretty much know, the definition “climate scientist” isn’t a oficial recognized occupation."
It's a recognised occupation in the same way as veterinary doctor is.
I know it's a stereotype, but I assumed you people would be against fracking.
What the? This is just another climate psychology article! Nary a mention of what fracking experts think. The fracking industry isn't even allowed a say.
I can't access Figg 2 and 3—can someone please let me know what percentage of scientists are of the opinion that climate sensitivity is over 2° C?
Journals likle Organization Studies seriously need to be careful about their editorial processes.
In today's social media-connected world, and with the capacity to instigate rapid online protests, such shonky journals could very quickly find that their higher-quality contributors are easily pursuaded to take their papers elsewhere.
From the paper:
"Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists,"
None of whom have standing to answer this question.
Hey, stupid bernie. Do you really mean that the infamous "98%" survey, which turned out to be about 95 out of 98 scientists wasn't biased? If so, you really must have a whole lot of screws loose in that tin can you call your head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ml74-tOxU
Journals like Organization Studies seriously need to be careful about their editorial processes.
In today's social media-connected world, and with the capacity to instigate rapid online protests, such shonky journals could very quickly find that their higher-quality contributors are easily pursuaded to take their papers elsewhere.
Weird. Bray here is becoming irrelevant on the thread he's been banned to...
Do you really mean that you think there was a 98% survey which was 95 out of 98 scientists?
Really, Wow? Someone has to complete a Climate Science degree and a formal, nationwide exam certifying their right to hang out their shingle as a climate scientist?
wow, 1077 is a whole lot more than 98.
"Someone has to complete a Climate Science degree"
No.
That, however, is not necessary for it to be an official recognised occupation.
Brad, in wow's pink, cuddly world it propably is so. ;-)
Best you could do, panties?
Never mind, lovver
:P
"That, however, is not necessary for it to be an official recognised occupation."
Ah, that explains how a train conductor can become a climate scientist.
"wow, 1077 is a whole lot more than 98."
98 is higher than 4.
And 924,579,284 is a while lot more than 1077.
What was your intent here with your remedial maths knowledge?
In other words, you don't need a formel education at all.
"Ah, that explains how a train conductor can become a climate scientist."
Where did this happen?
No, I know: in your fantasy.
"In other words, you don’t need a formel education at all."
Apparently you don't.
Weird, though.
Panties links to a paper that says that engineers should be included as a group into deciding whether climate science is correct, implying that engineers must be allowed a say.
Then he complains about an Engineering Doctorate being put in charge of the IPCC where he can assess the evidence and have a say in deciding whether climate science is correct, implying that engineers must NOT be allowed a say.
wowie, you surley know, your'e just ignoring it. You know, the 98% argument? That turned out to be 95 scientists out of 98? And on top of that the ones making the survey didn't know how to round of properly? Are you in denial?
Wow:
No, I DID honestly report a couple of days ago that my understanding was that the evidence pointed to an ECS less than 1.5C. Then, after hundreds of comments deriding this position as counterfactual, BBD finally specified the evidence in favor of a higher ECS, as I had invited someone to do from the very beginning.
What difference has this new (to me) evidence made to my viewpoint? You have no idea—you seem to be afraid to ask.
It's rather more than that, but you'd know that if you had access to the actual paper.
It's more than a little rich that you pronounce on material that you haven't even read. It's also more than a little rich that you waffle on about what the consensus of scientist think about climate sensitivity, and when directed to a paper that gives you exactly what you ask for, you dismiss it as if it wasn't relevant.
What do you want - for a cooking magazine to publish the work, a la the Organization Studies survey of 'scientists'?
Your pathetic incompetence is becoming ever more blatant Keyes. Give it up.
a) it wasn't honest understanding. It was a deliberate lie.
b) you still haven't given any data that you insist you rely on before making conclusions that led you to that "understanding".
c) there are still plenty of other claims in that post you partially quoted from that you have made. Ignoring them doesn't make them nonexistent, even though that is the form of a toddler's reasoning. Peek-a-boo!
Implying? Straw man building, wow. I'm not implying anything. Just pointing out that no proper education is required to be a "climate scientist". Low standards indeed, within the IPCC. As long as you confess the holy CAGW church, that is.
This has been its M.O. for a good half-dozen or more pages. Ignore any evidence of his error and therefore he can continue to pretend that he has no evidence to change his mind.
That he had no evidence for how his mind was made up is yet another point it pretends doesn't have to be acknowledged.
Your desperate inferences are self-serving bollocks. Pentax merely alluded to the fact that a railway engineer has more than once been called (and never seems to have corrected those who called him) the world's leading climate scientist.
"Implying? Straw man building, wow."
Yes, I suppose your implications ARE strawman building.
Thanks for letting us know, though I must tell you your antics are entirely obvious.
The rest of your post makes zero sense. Work on cognition.
"Your desperate inferences are self-serving bollocks."
Incorrect.
Neither desperate nor bollocks. Which is why you're so stung by them.
"Pentax merely alluded"
Which would be a "desperate inference", right?
" to the fact"
Data for this fact is WHERE, exactly?
Tell us, Bray, is the site
nofrakkingconsensus.com
your current meme du jour?
BJ:
What I do know is that it has nothing to say about fracking, and does not include input from genuine fracking experts—that was a lie, BJ, which effectively sinks your credibility here or on any topic you presume to pronounce on!!! LOL
PS oddly enough, despite all the call-outs to papers saying it, they don't say it and they are all links to other links that embed links to the source.
Meaning that 20 links could all point to one source, but be pretending to be 20 disparate links...
Resume padding for the incompetent denialist...
google it.
Note that a google search on
dr pachuri "worlds leading climate scientist"
gives links to people calling him this IN ORDER TO SLAM HIM.
No, I don't mean that.
It might help if you actually learned to read to the point of comprehension, PentaxZ.
Who's stupid now, eh? Whose screws are loose, hmmm?
Idiot.
So it rather looks like the term is "commonly used" in denialist rags, where they repeat the meme and make it all at the same time.
Isn't that convenient for them!
Yes, we know that you have a tiny brain.
Wow
How the frack would you recognise a denialist, Wow? Aren't you the entity that fell in a spectacular heap when challenged to name 1 climate-related theory + 2 other scientific theories I denied, after calling me a serial science denier?
VW
"Brad doesn’t seem to understand what a consensus is:"
I'm sure he knows exactly what it is'n, namely science or argument.
They're pretty damn obvious. You're all desperate and haven't got a hope, so you're throwing caution to the wind.
Anything to extend another year of doubt.
<blockquote.Aren’t you the entity that fell in a spectacular heap when challenged to name 1 climate-related theory + 2 other scientific theories I denied
Nope.
I'm the entity that discarded your carefully crafted denialist cover meme.
You are a denier. Evidence? This page. The tired old "I never even looked, but it's not got anything I asked for" bollocks you've done with Bernard.
BJ / Wow:
*Sigh.* I have no idea whether it's relevant until someone can tell me what percentage of scientists it finds believe in an ECS > 2.0C. I don't have access to figures 2 and 3.
"I’m sure he knows exactly what it is’n, namely science or argument"
That, of course, is basically based on "He's a fellow denier and I will support him, hell or high water".
Telling, isn't it, how PentaxZ doesn't understand the concept of representative sampling.
No, you will have no idea whether it's relevant until you read it.
You have no idea whether your demand "50%+ of scientists" is relevant to there being a science consensus on ECS.
Every national science academy agrees that the IPCC conclusions are supported by the evidence.
Vince W:
Vince doesn't seem to understand words. I've repeatedly given the exact, dictionary definition of "consensus [of a given group]": majority opinion [in that group]. If you don't like it, start your own university and publish a dictionary.
Wow:
So "every national science academy" agreed that the claim about the Himalayan glaciers was "supported by the evidence"? They must be pretty gullible.
Another fact-free assertion by Bray.
Wow
"“No warming for the last 16, soon 17 years.”
Bare faced lie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_years_faq.html
To be expected from The Faithful."
Haven't you learned anything? How many times must one tell you, references to skeptical science, real climate or tamino isn't valid arguments. They are alarmistic blogs run by alarmistic zealots who like tampering with data to promote their alarmistic world view. How hard is it to get that into your head?
So now, apparently, we see where Bray is going to go next:
The consensus is from the evidence only because everyone other than me is gullible!
Put your efforts into educating this donkey appropriate with that knowledge of how much it's going to be listened to...
Lots of things.
You, however, are stuck on the same dead trope. You can't learn anything because the evidence is all against your religious belief in the "scam" of AGW.
No, they're not references you will read because you're an idiot.
Wow:
LOL...
How much is Heartland paying you, Wow?
Yeah, this is about the level of your logic and comprehension Keyes.
How do you live with the humiliation?
Of course, to your denier fundie mindset, ANY site that doesn't proclaim AGW a scam and shows actual evidence is "alarmist".
"How much is Heartland paying you, Wow?"
Non sequitur.
After all his whinging like "Vincent doesn't understand words", appears that Bray is entirely fine with not understanding words.
As long as it's himself doing it.
What a Janus.
Or something like that :D
"That, of course, is basically based on “He’s a fellow denier and I will support him, hell or high water”.
So wrong, wow. That's based on the fact that science isn't conducted by hand waving, but with empirical facts. Perhaps you should take a course in basic scientific procedures.
"Telling, isn’t it, how PentaxZ doesn’t understand the concept of representative sampling."
Or, Bernie, perhaps pentaxZ perfectly well understand the concept of eliminating deviant opinions untill you are left with the ones who support your view.
Yes, it is very wrong indeed to do so. Why then do you do it?
That is entirely true and entirely why the conclusion I made is supported by the evidence on this page.
Indeed, hence how you do that each and every time you post "supporting data" for your fundamentalist position.
Bernard J:
Humorless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humorless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Humorless cultist
Eternal umbrage
Yup, that's you all right.
But let me guess: you think that's everyone else, right?
Citation?
Citation?
Here you go:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Of course, I should include where you don't like it when OTHER people do it. That would be here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Wow,
Why are you drawing attention back to your ad-hoc denial that the Physical Science Basis is part of 'the science', and my derision of your ad-hoc denial?
More citations for Bray loving it when HE gets to misunderstand words can be found on this page by searching for the word "frack".
Thank you for displaying PRECISELY what that link was about: your willful ignorance of words and how it's fine when YOU do it.
Something NOT in the Physical Science Basis is not the science forming the scientific consensus.
Just so your pin head can have at least a chance of understanding, Bray.
Good to see that you acknowledge your modus operandi PentaxZ.
There's nothing more to be said.
Hey Wow, don't forget, if all else fails, you can defend the shoddy science of the IPCC by invoking the clause: "the IPCC Doesn't Actually Do Any Science!"
"You, however, are stuck on the same dead trope. You can’t learn anything because the evidence is all against your religious belief in the “scam” of AGW."
Nice try, zealot. But as usual way off target. The fact is that the lot of you zealots do act as a sect, with the holy IPCC as your church and they ARs as your holy scripts. Nothing can change that, your stupid copy cat.
Wow,
Oops, fair enough, I just reread your post:
So now, the only "conclusions" the IPCC draws are the ones drawn by WG1?
“the IPCC Doesn’t Actually Do Any Science!”
It doesn't.
Where, though, is your problem with that?
Nature (the journal) doesn't do science either.
But if you want to read what the science is doing, you can go to Nature (the journal) and find out. Likewise, you can go to the IPCC website and find out what the science says about climate.
Here:
http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
"But as usual way off target"
Why? Are you waiting another couple of hours before playing that old trick?
"So now, the only “conclusions” the IPCC draws are the ones drawn by WG1?"
You know you wanted in post #81 on this page a citation for my statement's proof?
That post was another one.
Thanks for helping out, though you didn't mean to.
Hey Keyes.
After 14 pages of this thread it's blatantly obvious that you don't "do" science.
You don't even demonstrate a pass-level grade 6 understanding of science.
You're just a pouting troll.
Wow
So the IPCC doesn't draw scientific conclusions?
Or it does draw them, but without using the scientific method?
Let me ask: when you said every national science academy accepted the IPCC's conclusions, were you accusing them of accepting non-scientific conclusions?
Well, bernie, agree, there indeed isn't more to say. You perfectly well show, all by your self, what a looney you are. With tin foil hat and all.
BJ:
"You’re just a pouting troll."
No, this is my thread—you're the tr- I mean, you're my guests.
"Why? Are you waiting another couple of hours before playing that old trick?"
And what trick would that be? Please, enlighten me.
BJ
The differential characteristic of True Believers' attempts at insult is their baseless vagueness. For example, you hand-wave:
I suppose it's too much to ask you to provide an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?
"No, this is my thread"
Yup, more proof of your insanity.
Tell me, when did your delusions REALLY start to kick in?
"Please, enlighten me."
This would require you be able to think, Panties.
This has proven impossible for you.
"The differential characteristic of True Believers’ attempts at insult is their baseless vagueness. "
Says the queen of vagueosity 9...
"an example of my sub-grade-6 understanding of science?"
And when this is done, like all other times this has been done to your demand, you will demand something different and ignore the example.
Yawn.
Find another track, dickhead.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
See, gentle readers? Comments 2, 3, and 4 are three consecutive attempts at insult by Wow, with not one example substantiating any of them.
The fact that you can't synthesise a functional understanding of the climatology of global warming works for me. I suspect that it suffices for most others here too, barring your troglodyte acolytes like PentaxZ and Chameleon - but then, they're definitive evidence that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...
'course, this isn't a problem for you, is it, Tim.
You don't actually do anything to rebut these retards. Therefore not your problem. You can sit in your ivory tower and preen your "I BELIEVE in free speech!" because it doesn't make any problems for you, does it.
"with not one example substantiating any of them"
When did insults have to be substantiated, shithead?
PS another example for post 81 on the last page for you.
Hey, why aren't you demanding that panties substantiates his claims against, for example, tamino's site and evidence?
Oh, that's right: don't harm The Cause.
According to Lotharsson, you shouldn't bother, Wow:
The irony being that if Lotharsson understood science at a passing grade 6 level, he'd know that my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as "the scientific consensus" (whatever that is), as does his opinion, my dog's opinion or a random opinion generating program's opinion. Opinion is not evidence. Not in science, the alien and uncharted country, Lotharsson.
Wow:
Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?
The irony there being that if you understood science at an adult rather than six year old level, you'd understand that no, your opinion does not carry every bit as much weight as the scientific consensus.
Indeed, I don't think anyone over about 18 months old has a problem in counting one and seeing that "more than one" is a bigger count of them.
Seems we've been overestimating your educational level.
Not even pre-school.
"Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?"
Yes.
And is that the only reason why you haven't slated him for unsubstantiated insults? that you weren't CERTAIN that it was Panties who did it?
Because the causality there is the wrong way round.
Hey, surely you believe that Lotharsson's opinion of you carries just as much weight as YOUR opinion of yourself, right?
And several others have the same opinion, each carrying just as much weight as yours each.
So, unless this is anarchy or despotism, the evidence weights against your opinion of yourself and opinions much less flattering of you by numerous others.
You aren't a COMMUNIST, are you, Bray?
But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile.
"This would require you be able to think, Panties.
This has proven impossible for you."
So it was nothing but an emty, rattling bin. Not surprised.
Try this again, like an adult, and I might answer you.
Try this again, like an adult, and I might answer you.
"But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile."
Thank you for that blinding flash of the obvious, retard.
Would you also like to tell me that one plus one is two?
"[I am] nothing but an em[p]ty, rattling bin."
FTFY.
"Try this again, I might answer you."
Based on past performance, this is extremely unlikely.
And this:
Indeed, I don’t think anyone over about 18 months old has a problem in counting one and seeing that “more than one” is a bigger count of them.
Remains unanswered.
But 2,500 times 0 is still 0, you acalculic imbecile.
And therefore my (scientifically meaningless) opinion is worth just as much as the (scientifically meaningless) opinion of 2,500 scientists.
Geddit?
Mind you, you DO seem to understand that your opinion has ZERO information behind it.
You're getting closer.
You still have your projection problems to deal with.
"And therefore my (scientifically meaningless) opinion"
That's true.
"the (scientifically meaningless) opinion of 2,500 scientists."
That is your make-believe.
Your worthless opinion is worth zero. The informed opinion of 2500 scientists is worth much more than zero.
Hey, given your belief that opinion is worthless, why didn't you berate panties pointing to a petition of 1077 engineers and geologists (who may easily do their allotted work with zero informed opinion of climate science)?
Oh, right, forgot. Serve The Cause.
I berate all appellants to consensus on questions about nature.
It is perfectly legitimate to appeal to opinion on questions about opinion, however.
Since I haven't read any comment by a "panties" I can't say which type of question he/she/it was arguing about when pointing to the 1077 signators you mention.
You didn't.
Ergo your claim is falsified.
ROFL!
Another one for page 14, post 81.
With double helping of irony because this post was much earlier than even idiocy allows:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
The only Cause I'm aware of in the climate debate is an unspeakable chthonic divinity to whom Michael Mann pledges his soul.
“By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
“They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.”
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause“
Hey, Bray, why are you posting here?
That last couple of posts have merely been the gilding on the lilly demonstrating your incapacity and how every opinion of yours is, as even you attest, worthless.
So why are you doing this?
And no, "I want to educate people" or similar shit won't do. Even you have claimed your opinion worthless.
OMG!
Can Wow be confined to a personal thread?
It could be argued that Wow wants one considering the number of wowisms here :-)
And BJ? I am neither an acolyte or a troglodyte nor any other puerile insult you would care to choose.
What possesses you to write such things?
It only makes me laugh at you.
You could perhaps take the advice of Latimer (I think?) and consider getting out more.
You might find that spraying insults and arguing semantics and assuming you have the right to lecture people about (your opinion) of their abilities doesn't get you very far out here in the real world.
You are of course entitled to your opinions but if they're accompanied by sneering insults, don't be too surprised if no one takes you seriously :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Lets face it, a dog having a poop makes you laugh.
You're not really adult.
Obviously hundreds of thousands of them remain unberated by me, simply because they haven't come to my attention. What I meant was: I condemn, in principle, all of them.
Given there are only 1400 posts on this thread, this seems HIGHLY unlikely.
But we already know you can't do counting.
To you, zero is the same as 1 is the same as 2500.
Wow, this is the kind of juvenile rhetoric we were just talking about:
Grow the fuck up.
That principle being "only if they refute my denialist claims will I point them out, though"?
Totally agree.
Chubby, see, even Bray wants you to grow the fuck up.
And he's someone who can't even grasp the counting mathematical genius of an 18 month old baby!
No, the principle being "I condemn all of them."
That principle being entirely not evidenced.
I get it: another worthless opinion of yours, right?
Well, here's another opinion: you don't condemn them all, only ones that disprove your denialist creed. And this, unlike yours, has actual evidence to inform that opinion.
About poop, wow, do you honestly believe that your speving diarrhea in some way makes your case? Well, it propably does, but not in the way you believe.
And by the way, there isn't "2500 scientists". The correct number is 97. Get that into that vaccum of yours.
Readers will notice that Wow has avoided answering the most pressing question: How much Heartland is paying him for this.
Do you honestly believe speving is a word?
And given that the only one calling it diarrhea is you, this would be yet another case of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You need to direct that to the one who claimed it. You can see them do this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
yes, that's right: your BFF Bray.
So you claim there are only 97 scientists now????
Ain't it strange, The deltoid zealots has gotten both Jonas and Brad banned to their own threads because they can't make their case with valid arguments. And yet they come to these threads to get their asses spanked. I would say they propably are some kind of sadomasochists. ;-)
Wow, show me a comment that I should condemn, according to the principle I've professed. Please include sufficient context to clarify that the person quoted is arguing about nature as opposed to, say, arguing about the alarmist belief in a consensus of scientists supporting them. I will read it and condemn, berate and chastise it if appropriate. But I'm going to bed so don't get impatient if you don't get an answer for a few hours.
Night all
Completely correct. If Joan or Bray had been able to make their case with valid arguments, they wouldn't be banned to a single thread.
PS the word is "have". "have gotten". Not "has gotten".
Yes, in the survey that concluded that "98% of the scientists claims CAGW is true" there was only 97. Your precsious consensus that is.
You already know.
If you don't then this is yet more indication of how everything you say is completely empty of thought.
Since no such paper exists, I guess you can make up any number you like.
Moreover, this entirely proves my point.
If you only condemn denialist rebuttals pointing to a consensus on your own volition, but will demand that you have to be ordered to condemn a pro-denialist consensus claim, then your assertion that you condemn all appeals to consensus is proven false.
Information No results found for “98% of the scientists claims CAGW is true”.
Even according to every other denier in existence, no such paper exists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-of-doubt-strategy-1-deny-consen…
That's you, that is, Bray.
Indeed it is likely the only time you'd be associated with "Number 1".
Being associated with "number twos" would be a much more likely occurrence...
:-D
So an Aussie, we reckon?
Dad's money that put him in college was from the mining industry?
Hmmmmmm?
I wonder if anyone would bother to visit Wow's personal thread?
It probably wouldn't matter as Wow obviously likes arguing with Wow and commenting on comments by Wow.
:-)
And Wow also likes answering Wow's questions and if people don't ask Wow any questions then Wow just barges in and answers questions asked of others.
:-)
It's amusing to read.
Maybe BradK is onto something re that Heartland comment?
You should have warned those with a dwindling supply of irony meters before saying that, Chubby!
Leave thinking to those equipped for it, Chubby.
"Brad" still ineffectually wrapping his brain around 'consensus' and Michael Mann, I see.
And with even more limited assistance from PantieZ and Cammy. I expect Dr. Mann is quaking in his boots. You're going nowhere fast, ain't'cha "Brad", in spite all that extra push from the half wit chorus.
Not worth answering the rest of their combined rubbish - which they'll have forgotten by tomorrow anyway. Oh except for this: “Is that your puerile name for PentaxZ?”
Actually, it's a short version of 'Panties size Z', which came about after a prolonged period of observation on another thread which suggested - rather like the Terminator's Skynet, an arse so bigly huge it achieved a degree of consciousness. Of course, it's still absolutely an arse, and thinks, in its limited fashion, like an arse as is self evident to this day and in it's gutteral, protean way will never be anything but a double-digit arse. But that's PantieZ for you.
You can tell a lot about ideas like denial from the type of brownshirt they attract.
And here he was berating everyone for asking him about Mann when the thread is only about Phil Jones...
They don't help themselves by knowing just about nothing, and the little they do know, well it's all the same thing innit?
So, Brad, what *did* you think of the new (to you) evidence for ECS being in the evidence-based range (the scientific consensus)? Since nobody asked you I shall. I am very interested to hear your views on the studies referenced, and indeed on the research background into which they fit.
This background is summarised by the IPCC reports. Remember, the IPCC doesn’t conduct original research; the reports are simply reviews of the state of scientific knowledge.
You made no mention of the excerpts from WG1 I posted up on the previous page, so here they are again for convenience:
WG1 9.6.4:
Overall, several lines of evidence strengthen confidence in present estimates of ECS, and new results based on objective analyses make it possible to assign probabilities to ranges of climate sensitivity previously assessed from expert opinion alone. This represents a significant advance. Results from studies of observed climate change and the consistency of estimates from different time periods indicate that ECS is very likely larger than 1.5°C with a most likely value between 2°C and 3°C. The lower bound is consistent with the view that the sum of all atmospheric feedbacks affecting climate sensitivity is positive. Although upper limits can be obtained by combining multiple lines of evidence, remaining uncertainties that are not accounted for in individual estimates (such as structural model uncertainties) and possible dependencies between individual lines of evidence make the upper 95% limit of ECS uncertain at present. Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C (Box 10.2).
Box 10.2:
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.
I wonder if "Brad" accepts as a consensus that out of 33,700 peer reviewed climate paper authors between 2001 and 2012, only 34 were rejectionists (c.0.1%)
@ chek 1565
I wonder, would you have the balls to actually behave so juvenile face to face. Na, don't think so. You're just another coward hiding behind your computer. And you propably doesn't have any balls at all. Given your falsettic screaming I am almost sertan you're a enuck.
pentaxZ
Do grow up.
"I wonder, would you have the balls to actually behave so juvenile face to face."
Says an anonymous internet troll...
Given your falsettic screaming
Text doesn't do that, PantieZ. That's all completely within your thuggish little mind.
And who are you to open your mouth, BBD? You actual haven't noticed the behaviour of the regulars here? Even CV waving jeffie, who claims having a Phd, behave like a spoilt juvenil. So, please, fuck off with your hypocrisy!!
"And who are you to open your mouth, BBD?"
Yes, that's who they are.
Maybe if you could do more than shit out denier links and your freshly received talking points - or even had the wherewithal to defend them when they get shredded, or demonstrated some original thought, there might - just possibly - be a different opinion of you. But you can't. You've never been able to yet and you likely never will PantieZ.
Even your derogatory terms (activist) are plain if unexplained code amongst your right wing clique who much prefer their drivel coming from recognised and transparent corporate lobbyists Which is why I characterise you as nothing more than a huge talking arse somebody else speaks through. So, please, fuck off with second-hand, second-rate stupidity.
Oh, and much as expertise and achievement pains you and your gang, Jeff H. doesn't just * claim * to have a PhD, he really does have one. You could learn something (I doubt you get many opportunities to interact with the educated) but of course such an idea would be anathema to your slavering troll arse.
Brad says,
That pretty much sums up the entire worth of what Brad has had to say over the last few weeks.
Brad did say:
my opinion does carry every bit as much weight as “the scientific consensus” (whatever that is), as does his opinion, my dog’s opinion or a random opinion generating program’s opinion. Opinion is not evidence. Not in science
This is dispiriting, given the effort that has gone into explaining that the scientific consensus is not 'opinion' in the loose sense BK uses here.
On the one hand we have a scientific consensus based on evidence. On the other, we have BK's opinion, based on goodness only knows what.
When BK states that his opinion carries every bit as much weight as the scientific consensus, we have to ask him to demonstrate that his opinion is based on scientific evidence.
When we do that, he refuses to discuss this aspect of his reasoning openly.
So I refer BK back to his own words:
Opinion is not evidence. Not in science
And to # 68 above.
pentaxZ
Some commenters here, including myself, have expressed frustration in the face of sustained bad faith.
This is not hypocrisy.
chek:
What is "activist" a codeword FOR, chek? It's an honest question—not being a member of a right wing clique, their alleged dialect is a fascinating mystery to me.
Haven't had time to read it. My time is divided between school and swatting down inane comments on my thread, which keeps me busy. However since you presented what appears to be high-quality evidence I have provisionally changed my answer from "less than 1.5C" to "I don't know; ask someone else."
The evidence-based range and the scientific consensus may refer to two completely different ranges. So I don't know what question you're asking here.
Wll, wll--ths Dltd-lnd, blg-styl, "r-dctn cmp" thrds tht hrbr "clss nms" lk Brd, Snspt, nd Jns (nd vn m, t n tm) crtnly brng t th bst n Dltd's grl-thg, scl-rjct, wtrmln-drk, chk-wnnb hv-bzs, dn't thy?
ll f pttrn. Thnk: Rd Grd pblc hmltn; Strdy-nght, bsmnt blw-t t th Lbynk; Vyshnsky n rll; Lysnk n hgh ddgn: r Pggy hvn' "Lrd f th Fls" bd dy--th brly-cntnd, hv-mntlty tht rvld n th th Hldmr, th Grt Lp Frwrd, nd th Cmbdn Kllng Flds.
ndd, thr's cllctv slp f th cyncl, gt-prp, dplcts, lnsky msk n ths blg's "ghtt-thrds" jst sffcnt fr th dscrnng y t dtct th gd-cmrd, grnnng, grnshrt, glg dth's-hd tht lrks bnth, chfng t nlsh ts fll, cll-crzy crlts.
By, hy! cld jst b sm prnd, rght-wng nttr. Rght, Dltds? S wht d y sy w pn th mttr p t th flks, gys? n tht rgrd, th flks mght Ggl: "nn Brssngtn clb f rm ytb" nd "Lrry Grthwhl yrs ytb". Th flks mght thn dcd fr thmslvs. Fr ngh?
The scientific opinion is the majority opinion among scientists. This is a matter of definition. If you don't like it, write your own dictionary.
Consensus may be based on evidence (as may my opinion), in which case you should argue from the evidence; or it may be based on something other than the evidence, in which case you should argue from the evidence; in either case, you should argue from the evidence only. There is never any rational basis for even mentioning consensus (or my opinion) in a scientific argument, and it's prima facie suspicious when you do so.
BK
For the nth time, tell me what the scientific consensus is based on if not the evidence.
Otherwise concede that yes, the scientific consensus emerges from the evidence. In which case your question is meaningless.
Ignoring definitional quibbles, the argument from the evidence is that ECS to 2 x CO2 is in the range ~2.5C - ~ 3C.
You say:
How do you justify your shift to agnosticism in the light of the evidence? It's illogical.
Turns out that what 'Sunspot', 'Brad', 'Jonas' and their fanboys / fellow-travellers really are is unpaid* Useful Idiots playing at footsoldiers for billionaires.
*We assume. Certainly none of you are giving value-for-money, at any rate!
Because I haven't read it yet.
BBD
For the nth time where n > 3, this is a facile question because the scientific consensus is a function of social psychology and is therefore practically guaranteed to be multifactorial. If you think scientific consensus can only possibly be based on evidence, then please tell me: what was the mistaken scientific consensus on continental drift / gastric ulcers / quasi-crystals "based on"?
If you know how to reason, you'll understand that arguments in science should only be based on evidence, never on non-evidence (e.g. consensus).
Bernard J
You really do lack social graces, don't you. If you're going to presume to "lay down the terms," you have to do it before, not after, we agree to enter into enter into the wager.
However, I'm extremely interested, so what we're going to do is negotiate terms. What did you have in mind?
Exactly!
"in either case, you should argue from the evidence only."
Consensus, from wherever or whatever is:
noun. (often followed by "of")
1 a) general agreement (of opinion testimony, etc)
b) an instance of this
2 (attrib) majority view, collective opinion.
Origin : Latin = agreement.
Look up the definition of 'scientific'
If they're put together, it is basically an:
oxymoron:
noun (used in rhetoric)
a figure of speech in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Origin Greek = pointedly foolish.
The other oxymoron that we often hear about climate science is :
'The science is settled'.
OK Chameleon, now contrast your mistaken and made-up definition with what even Wikipedia can explain:
OK?
So it's not the opinion of a majority of scientists.
It's not even remotely "an oxymoron".
It's an expression with a very specific meaning.
Had you and Brad managed to complete a worthwhile course of studies in your youth, you wouldn't need this explained to you.
And, as usual, it is astounding to see the pair of you arguing goodness-knows-what from your position of profound ignorance.
Vince,
Wikipedia supersedes the Oxford Dictionary in defining words, does it? How fun to watch climate-alarmist scholarship at work!
"scientific consensus" isn't "words". It is an expression that has a meaning.
Your posts here betray that you are either ignorant of this meaning, or you are in denial of it.
Considering the effort that has gone into unsuccessfully educating you as to this meaning, the latter option seems likely.
Oh, I see - we're back to "flying" "fox".
Brad is stuck in a loop of cognitive malfunction.
Here's a post just for you, Brad:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scient…
Brad admits he gets his misinformation from crank sites and is now exhibiting crank behaviour.
Argumentum ad hallucinationem.
Except that "flying fox" is a proper phrase with a dictionary definition.
What do you call it when 97% of architects share a certain view on an architectural question?
An architectural consensus.
What do you call it when 97% of suitmakers share a certain view on a sartorial question?
A sartorial consensus.
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
Bullshit.
Science is about gaining knowledge about nature. Until Naomi Oreskes, "scientific consensus" was almost never measured, let alone said to be a goal of science.
Maybe you can let us know what issue the architects and showmakers are all agreeing on, and what published peer-reviewed research exists to lead them to that agreement?
No?
Thought not.
Now, I wonder why you snipped that?
Can't be said too often.
Now you agree that flying fox =/= fox.
Maybe you're making progress?
If you could just explain to Chameleon that her laborious efforts at reading a dictionary definition of "consensus" don't also provide an explanation for "scientific consensus", you might save us all another of her type! type! type! episodes.