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.
Ww,
Yr: N. 7, bv: "Y cn st n yr vry twr nd prn [ths ll drctd t "Tm", mnd y, th crnym f sm srt f mystrs, vry-twr prnr-ntty, ssctd wth ths blg, tht rflxvly ds-mvwls my cmmnts whl sprng th ngrt Ww's--g fgr!] yr ' BLV n fr spch' bcs t dsn't mk ny prblms fr y, ds t. [sc]"
dnn, Ww, bt yr bv sms knd vr-th-tp nd crzy-drkd-p nd vn mr thn lttl bt drngd, thnk cn sy wtht fr f xggrtn. mn, lk, ww!, Ww (Ww s Mm; Mm s Ww)
mn, lk, y'll prbbly wnt t btn scnd pnn frm Brnrd J.--Dltd's, lph frd-td--nd ll, bt t lks t m, Ww, lk y'r ndrgng GTDS (Grvy-Trn, Drlmnt, nxty Syndrm) mlt-dwn rl bg-tm lk. nd t n't prtty, Ww, l' bddy, f y wnt t knw th trth.
Vince, here's Wikipedia's "definition" of your supposed "expression with a very specific meaning"...
PS—it's interesting to see the parts you left out.
When do you I imagine I disputed this, Vince?
Wow:
A simple "sorry, on second thoughts there are no examples" would suffice.
bill:
'Banking families' "wink wink" insinuates what? Sorry, I don't get it.
Is it supposed to be like 'secret cabal, Merchants of Doubt, Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg,' "wink wink"?
"when they get shredded"
LMGOROTF
"Some commenters here, including myself, have expressed frustration in the face of sustained bad faith."
Yeah, it really must be hard when others don't share your blind faith in the CAGW church, I understand. But that's not a reason for bad language or juvenil behaviour. Especially not from a supposed PhD supposedly workin at a university. And sertanely not from know nothings like wow, stu, check and the other zealots with their foilhats firmly attached to their heads.
"Turns out that what the preacher jeffie, and his disciples bernie, stu, chek, wow and the rest of the deltoid fanclub really are is unpaid in some cases, paid in other, useful Idiots playing at footsoldiers for the mighty, holy ipcc church in a jihad like defence of the holy scriptures called assessment reports. Amen
And psst, chek, I misspelled "certainly" on purpose, so you will have something to rant about.
Keyes, it's been pointed out to you previously that there's a substantive difference between your examples and the science of global warming, in that the latter body of work has been scrutinised carefully and repeatedly by thousands of climatologists and physicists. With a small, tenuous body of 'evidence' it is quite possible to have incorrect conclusions drawn - this is why we have amongst other things the concepts of type I and II errors, and why we have scientific replication.
However, when a subject is tested, retested, and then tested again - and again and again and again, ad infinitum, the nature of the resulting consensus about the result is - as I keep repeating - substantively different.
The science of global warming has been more closely scrutinised than just about any other area of science that I can think of. It has withstood all efforts to refute it, whilst on the other hand anything resembling science produced by the 'sceptical' side has invariably collapsed as soon as it is put to the test.
This is the basis for the consensus on climate change, like it or not.
You're late to the party Keyes. The basis for my wagers on climate change are dispersed throughout the threads on Deltoid and elsewhere, and have been so for several years... and your denialist friends have to a person been too cowardly to accept them.
PentaxZ has been here for the duration of those years, and knows well from where I am coming, so he already understands what would be expected of him. The measure is minimum annual (= NH summer) Arctic sea ice volume, which is probably the most direct and immediately important empirical proxy of planetary warming. The 'terms' to which I referred would mostly concern how much and with whom the sums would be lodged.
If you're finding the search engine too challenging for your overstretched mind to operate, my current terms are here.
To help you put it into context, you would be betting that the realised September minimum Arctic sea ice volume, tracked by the lurid green line here, will end up slightly above the mustard-coloured exponential extrapolation for November Arctic sea ice volume trajectory, at the equivalent September minimum time in 2017.
Or to put it another way, you would be betting that the red line on Jim Pettit's radial plot of Arctic sea ice volume at the top of this page will not touch the innermost circle (or, equivalently, the '0') before 2018.
Personally, I'm partial to a sigmoid curve, so you might like to consider Neven's stab at the issue. Just eyeballing the 2 SD confidence range depicted in figure 1, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'd say that I'd have an 85-90% chance of winning...
That's "lurid green line in the second graph here..."
Bernard J:
But you (or whoever I was replying to) talked about "the scientific consensus," not "the scientific consensus
." Or is that understood implicitly? Is global warming a tumor whose tendrils now penetrate all of scientific inquiry?
LOL... Good grief!
Then why did you use the English future tense with "will" in the sentence "I'll lay down the terms"? Very misleading, Bernard, very misleading.
(By the way, it's "Brad", not "Keyes"—social graces and all that.)
Anyway you can hardly be surprised if I haven't read the threads I don't participate in... having to police the cognitive quality of one thread is already bad enough for my blood pressure.
My friends include fellow deniers, but as far as I know not one of them is a denialist, so it's unclear if your clause even has a sensible subject.
Nonetheless I thought the wager was supposed to concern the putative "global warming crisis." Why don't we bet on the dimensions of the alleged problem, as opposed to the dimensions of sea ice? At what point (if ever) is global warming going to start being a net detriment to the world, that sort of thing.
LMGOROTF
Lifting My Great Orifice Round Obviates The Flatulence?
But it doesn't.
PantieZ farts out another second hand religion fantasy devised for him by a think tank somewhere and can't think of any argument against the science. Just his reflex tribal response.
And yet is sure that's a clever and satisfactory response. Which for a double-digit or less it no doubt is. Or at least the best available. The base level of stupid that is PantieZ is always predictable .
Banking families’ “wink wink” insinuates what? Sorry, I don’t get it.
Of course you don't "Brad".
The first rule for cranks is never attack other cranks.
PS—it’s interesting to see the parts you left out.
Which weren't left out at all because you've been told repeatedly and in various combinations for over 15 pages now.
The only thing that is interesting - as BBD points out - is why you even deny it.
Wow:
Only since we graduated from kindergarten, Wow.
I see you've refined Wow's Theory of the Internet:
Last time I bade you goodnight you assumed I was a toddler or geriatric patient taking an early siesta in the GMT time zone, remember? How encouraging that you've now figured out that the internet is, uh, international.
Yes, as I've repeatedly told you, I live in Australia.
Where we don't actually need our parents' fortunes to put us through "college," because
1. we have universities, not colleges
2. student debt can be deferred by a wonderful government program called HECS, enabling the sons and daughters of the working class to become qualified architects, surgeons and Supreme Court justices
Yes, for a phrase with a "very specific meaning" it's remarkable what a huge variety of definitions you people have suggested for scientific consensus.
Of course the real answer is simple: if it means anything at all, it means a consensus among scientists.
Wow:
Why would it be a problem for Tim when people express non-Wow-approved viewpoints on his site, driving up his traffic and exercising the right to debate? Sounds like a win-win. Tim BELIEVES in free speech (except for mk), in case you hadn't heard.
Tim is straightening his feathers? Licking his fur? What "thought" are you trying to convey here, Wow?
Here's a simple solution for your "problems", Wow: go away. It's not your job to try and fail to rebuff our ideological evil here. That's not on you.
chek:
Rubbish. The parts you deliberately elided are rarely, if ever, talked about openly by your ilk:
– Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
– Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.
– Scientific argument is not part of the scientific method.
Oops—
– Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method.
"What is “activist” a codeword FOR, chek?"
"Bad person", Bray.
You know, like the difference between our freedom fighter and their terrorist.
For someone preening themselves on knowing words, you certainly don't seem to understand any meaning of them.
"Because I haven’t read it yet."
And you never will, entirely so you can continue to pretend.
Remember: even you admit your opinion is worthless.
You also opine that everyone else's is worthless, but that is merely your opinion which, as we have found, is worthless.
"My time is divided between school and swatting down inane comments on my thread,"
Oopsie.
So you haven't actually been and finished university as you claimed, Bray?
PS this isn't your thread, it's your cage.
"The scientific opinion is the majority opinion among scientists. This is a matter of definition."
Your definition.
Your opinion.
Which you have agreed is worthless.
Keep weaseling "Brad" and counting those angels on pinheads. It's all you've got.
You were told that consensus isn't the argument, but that it indicates the strength of the argument tousands of words ago. I know because I said it.
Now here you are still floundering around dumber than PantieZ pretending it wasn't said. Still at least we now know for certain you're a moron, and a dishonest one at that.
"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."
REALLY?
Why, then did you spend several weeks claiming "Answer my question and i'll leave" before actually asking the question?
"Wikipedia supersedes the Oxford Dictionary in defining words, does it?"
It supersedes the Bray Dictionary in defining words.
I guess that to you the real world IS a hallucination:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Of course, finding this was more effort than your gish galloping assertion, which is why you do it.
A scientific consensus.
This would, however, be a lie.
And unlike your lying ass, this isn't something I do merely on a whim.
Except you haven't, and that still isn't actually true.
Citation?
Oh, that's right, none.
Never said you needed it. Just that you did.
Benefit Scrounger.
This implication is not absolute. That is why you use "imply" rather than "means". But you don't understand MEANING do you, Bray.
Nobody is making it by itself a scientific argument.
However, arguing it is not a fallacy.
Absolutely false. Otherwise there would be no need to replicate others work (as you have previously tried to imply hasn't happened with MBH98). The only reason to verify is so that you can come to the same conclusion on the evidence.
And coming to the same conclusion is called...
wait for it...
A CONSENSUS!
Still bollocks, for exactly the same reason.
Wow:
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that "scientific consensus" means "majority opinion among scientists." Thanks Wow!
Religious fundies call science a religion.
Panties calls science a religion.
Coincidence? I think not.
And again, Bray confuses "All dogs are animals" with "All animals are dogs".
Nor bad spelling.
Nor mike.
'nuff said.
Wow:
Your misunderstanding of science is complete.
Nevertheless, if you want to let chek know that Wikipedia's definition of scientific consensus is "bollocks," be my guest!
:-)
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that a majority opinion among scientists is called a "scientific consensus." Happy now Wow? Thanks!
FTFY.
he only reason to verify is so that you can come to the same conclusion on the evidence.
And coming to the same conclusion is called…
wait for it…
A CONSENSUS!
You've never studied logic have you, Wow? In formal contexts, implies means means.
Sorry, "opinion" is incorrect.
We had (seemingly YEARS ago) agreed to use agreement.
However, you seem to be immune to anything you agree to if it will limit your complete bollocks.
Is what you said.
Not "share a certain opinion.
Then again, you don't know the meaning of words.
We are not in formal logical contexts.
We are in colloquial contexts.
You've never actually lived with people, have you, Bray.
All you have is what you've been told, no context.
You're like one of those accountants: knows the cost of everything, the value of nothing.
I see no admission that I get my "misinformation" from "crank sites." How many cones have you smoked today, Wow?
I see no admission that I get my "misinformation" from "crank sites." How many cones have you smoked today, Wow?
There's no difference between a majority view and a majority opinion, but since the equation seems to provoke such outrage from Wow, let's change it to:
What do you call it when 97% of scientists share a certain view on a scientific question?
A scientific consensus.
Thank Christ for small miracles! The penny finally drops that a majority view among scientists is called a “scientific consensus.” Happy now, Wow? Thanks!
Mmmhmmm.
climateaudit is a crank site.
Or is your denial that you can see anything?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Horatio_Nelson#.22I_see_no_ships.22
Then why did you change the word?
Nobody has disagreed that a majority view among scientists is a scientific consensus.
What we disagree with is your partisan insistence is that a majority is the ONLY way to get a consensus.
The penny, for you, never drops.
I guess that's another example of you getting "all animals are dogs" again.
Wow:
Well, I do pride myself on knowing the difference between preen and pride, idiot.
Ah, the tacit premise is spoken:
In your incorrect opinion, maybe.
I suppose you have to take pride in the little things you understand.
PS I understand too.
Preen was correct.
So, a minority view can be a consensus then?
Oh, this is fun!
Except it isn't incorrect.
Climateaudit is a crank site.
Do you remember when bill gave you six cases of deniers faking evidence and graphs, Bray?
It seems you haven't learned anything.
Or, rather, refused.
100% of medical practitioners can agree on something.
If you expand the polling, you get 0.01% agreement. Because medical practitioners may be 0.01% of your polled group.
Really, don't you understand the slightest thing about maths?
Oh, and what do you mean minority?
30% A
20% B
20% C
20% D
10% E
and A is the majority but also a minority.
Words.
They have meaning.
What’s the matter, tim? You don’t like when I speak ill of your CAGW church?
Take voting.
Less than 50% of the voters vote for the winning party. The majority party.
No, the subtleties of valid syllogism elude you, as per usual.
I said (as an axiom of science) that opinions about nature are meaningless in science. That is, opinions have zero evidentiary weight in science. Unless you understand this, you don't know how science works.
Talking to themselves is another religious fundie trait.
Look, a bunch of stus, wows and cheks exploring the secrets of physics. Smart gys, these collegestudents. Hahahaha...
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=143323502495196
That would be your OPINION, right?
Worthless. We've all agreed.
Moderation, wow, moderation.
Irrelevant.
Incorrect if replaced opinion with "evidenced opinion".
So the modal view on a scientific topic is the scientific consensus, Wow?
Yes, moderation.
What about moderation?
Why "the scientific consensus"?
Mmmm...a real CAGW burger.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Climate_change_burgers_scr.jpg
Look, pandies, the only problem you get is one you go looking to get.
You can hardly blame everyone else for your actions.
To stupid to figure that out, are you, wow? Heck, no surprise there.
Glad you agree that only denier cranks dribble on about CAGW.
Wow, you say the axiom of science I cited is
So the axiom would be incorrect if you changed it?
Okaaaay....
But what if you were to just read it, without doctoring it in your head?
The meanderings of a diseased mind (yours, panties, in case you are unaware) is opaque to that of a sound mind.
Oh, the fun of pulling teeth.
So, Wow, the modal view on a topic is the consensus? Have I understood your "argument"?
It would be incorrect EVEN IF I changed it. That's how wrong you are.
pandies? Wat happend to PantieZ?
Admit, wow, the one in the bin is you, isn't it?
Conspiracy sites and projection.
Yup those are PantieZ 'information' sources.
Is that what you do in school?
Meh, who cares what you're called? Even you don't.
Tim, I can't tell you how you should run your site, but you REALLY have to do *something* because the retard trolls are turning this blog into a shithole.
Wow, you're a bottomless source of amusement:
As everyone else can see, you've conflated the concept of a majority with that of a plurality. Words. They have meanings.
But don't let us interrupt you mid-blunder. Full speed ahead.
And yes, this anchor must be a hard core believer in CAGW. Nice people you have on your side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObU7awpJctQ
If you want an opinion of what might work and be a minor change in procedure is that if someone gets banned to their own thread, if the shit continues to happen, ban them.
If they stop, then you can unlock them from their cage and let them post.
If they've learned to at least pretend reasoned discourse, then fine. If on being released, they return to their storm of shit, then you know what will stop it: putting back in their cage.
As it is, troll threads give bugger all protection to those not wanting to get the dribble on their monitors.
You may want to see if you can make troll thread posts not appear in the "recent posts" applet.
Crying for Tim to help you, wow? Really, so out of valid arguments? Hilarious.
Incorrect.
I have demonstrated that not majority doesn't have to be a minority view.
But you really don't want to learn.
Crying to tim to help you was fine, though???
"If you want an opinion of what might work and be a minor change in procedure is that if someone gets banned to their own thread, if the shit continues to happen, ban them.
If they stop, then you can unlock them from their cage and let them post.
If they’ve learned to at least pretend reasoned discourse, then fine. If on being released, they return to their storm of shit, then you know what will stop it: putting back in their cage.
As it is, troll threads give bugger all protection to those not wanting to get the dribble on their monitors.
You may want to see if you can make troll thread posts not appear in the “recent posts” applet."
Hm...why doesn't wow and chek have their own threads? The description above fits them like a glove. Tim, please, would you be so kind and banish wow, chek, stu, bernie and jeffie to their own threads. They are turning deltoid into a sewer.
Were you aware people can complete more than one university degree in a serial manner, Wow? It sounds incredible, I know, but it's the reality.
Ha! Do you think this thread can contain me?
Do you think it HAS contained me? Oh, Wow, you simpleton. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Really, so out of valid arguments? Hilarious
Says to double-digit troll who's never constructed an argument in its life.
Because Bray is far far worse?
"Crying to tim to help you was fine, though???"
Fantasy of yours. My comments were awaiting moderation. But as it turned out, I had misstyped my e-mail. You silly little infant.
Yes.
Next question.
Nope. Reality. Page 15.
It has.
Of course.
And you were just about to buy that jumper, right? Just forgot it was in your bag...
Wow, let me put you out of you misery by quoting chek's favorite "dictionary", Wikipedia:
"A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset considered."
The problem Wow is that for the internet to work, it relies on good faith, decency and honesty. Right wing think tanks and their troll armies are anything but.
Rather like that seminar for right wing evangelists showed, they'll quite happily corrupt and turn to shit anything that seemed like a good idea at the time and could have been useful, such as Amazon 'recommends'.
Theirs is a scorched Earth policy, literally so in the case of climate change deniers
“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set’s elements."
And you asked about "minority".
Oh, I note you ignored:
Take voting.
Less than 50% of the voters vote for the winning party. The majority party.
Wow, I've been approached to see if we can take measures to stop your spamming this thread with your decerebrate parodies of "thoughts", freeing it up for actual scientific discussion. I was reluctant to do much about you because:
1. I believe in free speech
2. I believe in comedy
but your idiot schtick is wearing thin.
No, the problem is that for free speech to work, it relies on good faith, decency and honesty.
That voice in your head, again?
Oh, and 16 year temperature trends.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997…
Up.
Wow:
Jesus Christ... this is why I didn't go into dentistry...
Wow, FFS, give us a straight answer: can a view be "the consensus" even if fewer than 50% of the people in the relevant set agree with it?
Veterinary studies was it, then?
Hey, as an aside, now you know how BBD feels, do you have anything to say?
PS you're attempting to provide a false dichotomy.
Again.
How did I know that you'd try to wriggle out of this too?
This is why I explicitly said:
Note my latter emboldening. You are asking about crises stemming from global warming - the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic is a crisis for the Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. It profoundly threatens the population structures and sizes of polar bears, seals, and walrus amongst other species. It's already affecting Eskimo groups. It's a source of additional radiation absorption in summer, and a releasing of methane from thawing permafrost, both of which will hasten warming elsewhere around the planet.
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice a direct and obvious indication of the warming of the planet, as I noted in my previous comment. It's happening much more rapidly than the conservative projections by the IPCC. It's the first domino to fall, and its unexpectedly early falling marks a significant tipping point which cannot be reversed. With the loss of summer sea ice there are inevitable further (critical) impacts to come, and harms to be manifested.
You were happy to bet on a global warming crisis. The loss of Arctic sea ice is such crisis, and it's one of the first indisputable signs of warming, and one of the most spectacular. This is why I have chosen it as my marker of change... and it's why you are back-pedalling as hard as your sorry arse can manage, because you know that you are either going to be fleeced, or that your capitulation is an explicit acknowledgement that serious warming is occurring but that you can't bring yuorself to admit it.
I knew that you'd be as gutless as the rest of your ilk. All words and no substance. The cowardice of the Denialati, and one that dares not speak its name. And why? Because deep down they know or at least suspect that they couldn't be more wrong.
But since we don't disagree that global warming is real, or that it may have "spectacular" signs, the only thing that matters is your belief that it's a crisis. (Thanks, by the way, for supplying an alternative to "catastrophe" that won't offend anyone.) I disagree. The rate of sea ice diminution does not determine the degree of crisis. Therefore your proposed bet is a waste of my banker's time. I want to bet on whether AGW is a major generational disaster, "the greatest moral and economic challenge of our generation" (to quote a former Prime Minister of my country), "the most important question in science," the end of the world, a serious problem, or something along those lines. How would you be prepared to quantify this?
Brad is absolutely fixated on consensus, but doesn't allow himself understand that it's built on the accumulated evidence.
It's almost as if understanding that detail destroys his whole case, which he's never going to win here because the readership (with two exceptions) does understand it.
Give it up "Brad", your pointlessness is dull.
Wow, FFS, give us a straight answer: can a view be “the consensus” even if fewer than 50% of the people in the relevant set agree with it?
What's even weirder is that this psycho loon demands proof that there IS a consensus and insists that even if such were forthcoming, it isn't proof of anything.
How much of a waste of time is that?
Yes.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but only the "accumulated evidence" matters—the continuous and ubiquitous invocation of the extra-scientific concept of a "consensus" can only possibly serve as a distractor therefrom. Why was it introduced into the discourse in the first place, I wonder?
Which you refuse to read.
And the accumulated evidence is WHY every national science body agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC reports and is WHY the scientific consensus is there.
For those unable or unwilling to look into the evidence, the scientific consensus is a very useful shorthand to let them know where they should place their bets.
For those unable or unwilling to look into the evidence, the scientific consensus is a very useful shorthand to let them know where they should place their bets.
Or, in other words "Why are YOU right and thousands of scientists who study this wrong?".
Wow, please answer to the best of your bizarro understanding of the English language:
Suppose that 300 randomly-selected widely-published, active climate researchers are asked:
"What is the best-evidenced, most-probable ECS per doubling of CO2?"
Responses:
30% zero degrees—climate change is teh hoax!
20% 2.0C—2.5C
20% 2.5C—3.0C
20% 3.0C—3.5C
10% more than 3.5C
What is the consensus view of ECS per doubling of CO2 among widely-published, active climate scientists?
"Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t;"
There's no 'maybe' about it.
You are clumsily attempting (as per the Luntz playbook) to conflate the everyday meaning of "consensus" - such as that which powers a lynch mob, with the concept of scientific consensus which is what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted.
As has been pointed out, most recently by Wow at #18, the value of the scientific consensus is for those of us who can't do the math or understand the equations that substantiate the science underlying it.
Which of course why followers of Luntz et his trolls are intent on trying to raise doubt about it.
Yet more evidence Bray's opinion is worthless.
Suppose invisible pink unicorns were stealing your socks.
Or, in other words "You suppose your answer in your question. In what way is this valid?"
Wow, just to jog your memory, you've written:
Unlike you, I remember what I wrote.
So your effort there has been wasted.
The distinction in which you place such faith is not supported by any reputable dictionary; even the Wikipedia definition you cited doesn't mention "what remains standing after all arguments have been submitted"!
You're on your own there chek.
Reputable being "Whatever I can find that I like". I.e. your opinion.
Which, as has already been agreed, is worthless.
Did every national science body agree with the IPCC's conclusion about the Himalayan glaciers?
Wow. Deja vu.
Tell me, it didn't work out well for you last time. Are you expecting the same lame bollocks to work this time?
Because that's insane.
"even the Wikipedia definition you cited doesn’t mention... "
It's called 'having the ability to use language to convey meaning' rather than just parrot it, "Brad".
Lets try this different way to get it through your scull.
What does a typo in WG2's hundreds of pages about glacier melt have to do with climate sensitivity to CO2?
By your own admission you lack the mathematical understanding to know whether "the science underlying it" has been substantiated or not, is that right?
Parroting is all Bray can do, the stupid ass.
(see what I did there? pun!)
Sorry? Where is that admission?
Oh, I get it: you're lying again.
Did every national science body expect a work of that size and complexity to be completely and 100% error free?
Nobody does "Brad" - not even Boeing. Just you point scoring morons who didn't even discover the error yourselves. The science - as advertised - was self-correcting.
Tim! Tim!--I got a question. Asked it once before even, but never really got an answer.
Bernard J. is again trying to set up (see comment no. 10, above) an international gambling operation on this blog. Is that legal in Australia?
Also, I strongly suspect ol' BJ has a bad case of welsher-itis, you know. So do you guarantee any lost bets of his that he can't pay?
And, finally, Tim, if this blog is to succeed as a casino where it failed as a forum for climate science discussions, shouldn't you dump chek, wow, bill, etc. and replace them with cutie-pie, cock-tail waitresses and all? And, oh by the way, Tim, what do you need BJ for, anyway? I mean, like, I'd just cut that pompous-ass parasite out of the action, like, right now!, if I were you. Just a thought--I mean, like, I know it's your operation so run it however you want, guy.
You know, Tim, in the States you've got to be an American Indian tribe member to own a casino. Did you know that? So how's it work in Australia? I mean, like, do you have to be an aborigine or something? Are you an aborigine, Tim? I'm pretty sure BJ isn't how ever much he tries to fake it.
Alas, you're ignoring the language used in your own citation and just imagining concepts which weren't even conveyed therein:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]"
Uh, that is proving chek correct, there, Bray, and you wrong.
Did you mean to do that?
"The loss of Arctic sea ice is such crisis..."
No, it's not, bernie. Not in the real world, and certainly not because you say so. There is nil evidence that the ice loss, the summer ice that is, is due to AGW. How can it be? The temperature hasn't risen a bit the last 16 years and yet you blame AGW for the ice loss. That only make sense in that weird head of yours.
The real world is far more than your mom's basement, panties.
LOL!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997…
Since your comment was ambiguous, I courteously suffixed my interpretation with the question (which you've chosen to ignore): "is that right?"
If it's not right, and you're not among "those of us" who don't understand the equations that substantiate the science, then why do you keep talking about consensus? It's valueless to you, according to your own assertion:
Irony: See Brad.
LOL!
You see, WE have looked at the evidence.
YOU refuse to.
So therefore you get "the science consensus".
There is nil evidence that the ice loss, the summer ice that is, is due to AGW. How can it be? The temperature hasn’t risen a bit the last 16 years and yet you blame AGW for the ice loss. That only make sense in that weird head of yours.
Congratulations PantieZ - you've found the flaw in your specious current bit of denierabilia.
Where did the heat to melt those gigatons of ice come from?
Now if you can just manage to apply the 'weirdness' part to your own diseased mind, then overcome the cognitive dissonance and native lack of intelligence that precludes you - rather like "Brad" - from understanding the meaning of your own words you may just about make some progress into rational world.
But frankly I doubt it.
Haha... how did I know Wow would consent to chek's semantic hallucination. How cute. It's a folie a deux!
Tell me Wow, where is the dictionary definition (reputable or otherwise), or the sentence in the Wikipedia definition, that supports chek's definition of "scientific consensus" as
?
Reminder, even Wikipedia doesn't agree with that:
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]“
Because no matter the reality, you'd think you'd seen it?
That's generally how the insane keep their hallucinations going.
Straight lines again, wow? Really? Haven't you learnt anything? Sorry, dude, but that really doesn't cut it. Why don't you ask pope hansen? He hasn't seen any rise the last decade, but don't worry, he will eventually come around too, when he realises that the real world stubbornly refuses to comply with the models.
It's great that you recognise "the science consensus" is NOT evidence. You're learning fast. Well, OK, you're learning excruciatingly slowly—but I'm trying to be positive here.
However, your assertions are extremely dubious. I've looked at reams of evidence.
But what do you mean when you say "the evidence"? Every single climate-science paper ever published? Nobody has looked at that. People have lives.
What is "THE evidence" (in your bizarre idiolect)?
Reminder, even Wikipedia doesn’t agree with that:
Oh really? How does it not?
chek:
I hate to break it to you, chek, but even Wow agrees with all normal people that "scientific consensus" merely requires the majority of scientists to share the same view (just like a lynch mob's consensus is whatever a majority of them decides). As I said, you're on your own, chek. "Consensus" has no extra-special magical meaning in science that it doesn't have in architecture, fashion or lynch mobs. This is what Wow said:
That's what you were talking about.
Your assertion completely false.
You knew that, though: you just don't give a shit.
straight lines
Given that abstract concepts are way over your head pantieZ, this link is likely 100% wasted:
Validating climate models.
But at least I tried.
Since this has not been in dispute, why do you pretend here it has?
I get it: you're lying again!
By refraining from suggesting, implying, entailing or endorsing it in any way.
But that isn't what chek is refuting. Chek is refuting:
Apparently the meaning of this is entirely beyond your ability to comprehend.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
No, I'm drawing an inescapable logical inference from your very words:
Now I know it's difficult for you to relate to what you were thinking five minutes ago, so let me transport you into your ex-mental model: you were alleging that I don't pay attention to the evidence, so I should pay attention to the consensus instead.
D'oh!
Sorry Wow, I assumed you were disagreeing with me. I forgot that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Nope, you're faking shit up again.
YOU get "the science consensus" because you've refused every time to read the science evidence.
Yes.
What's wrong with that?
And you're unaware that you are the stopped clock, right?
From which comes the inescapable logical inference that you view consensus and evidence as TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. (In case that was in dispute.)
And yet again, since nobody has said they were the same thing, why are you pretending that this is news?
Oh, sorry, remember now: lying again, right?
chek:
And you were wrong. Here’s the logical proof.
In science, consensus is not AN ARGUMENT, and it is NOT EVIDENCE. Period. (This is so basic, even Wow gets it.)
If consensus “indicated the strength of the argument,” it would be EVIDENCE from which you could make AN ARGUMENT that “the argument” was correct.
In other words, it would be EVIDENCE, and AN ARGUMENT.
But we’ve agreed (and this is so basic, even Wow gets it!) that it’s neither of those things.
So your quoted assertion above must be false.
If you’ve ever heard the phrase reductio ad absurdum and wondered what it meant, well, congratulations: you’ve just become the victim of one.
Actually, chek says the consensus IS evidence (see above); my apologies if I got my trolls mixed up.
Wrong twice. No, three times.
It is an argument.
It is evidence (of a consensus).
No period.
Except he doesn't.
Unless you hallucinate it to be so. Which entirely explains your confused ramblings.
And it does, and you can.
You, specifically, will not, but that's neither here not there.
Wow:
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence. You’re learning fast. Well, OK, you’re learning excruciatingly slowly—but I’m trying to be positive here.
"Brad" lying and wilfull misunderstanding reflects only on you, not those you seek to misrepresent. What you imagine you're achieving here is now beyond me.
Whom have I misunderstood, chek?
It's not a cat either.
Do you wish to thank everyone for agreeing it isn't a cat as well?
Oh, and it is evidence that the evidence the consensus relies upon is reliable.
Yes.
And me.
The IPCC,
BBD,
BJ.
Reality.
Words.
Science.
Philosophy.
Maths.
And many, many more.
Bray is just trying to justify his pay.
Think of a spam list marketer: doesn't matter IN THE LEAST if there's any change by their efforts, all that is needed is the effort.
Ah, so consensus IS evidence then?
LOL
It’s great that you recognise consensus is NOT evidence. You’re learning fast. Well, OK, you’re learning excruciatingly slowly—but I’m trying to be positive here.
chek, you seem hurt:
I certainly hope you haven't run off crying just because I was mean to you. How will intellectual bullies learn if you always wuss out? So tell me: how did I misunderstand you?
Whom have I misunderstood, chek?
Answered by Wow.
You’re learning fast.
And you're learning nothing whatsoever.
You've been misplaced "Brad". You should be on Yahoo forums or somesuch dazzling and confusing morons at PantieZ level with your schtick.
Once again you are twisting my words to suit your own narrative of dissembling ambiguity.
I didn't say that "[t]he rate of sea ice diminution" determines the degree of crisis. I said that the loss of sea ice volume was a good proxy for warming.
And the magnitude of this loss (a volumetric measure, not a rate measure) that has already been realised (and will continue to be realised) is engendering an ecological crisis. The rate at which it occurs simply means that we will see the crisis manifest in the coming decade or several, but it is not the determinant of the crisis. In case you're still not getting it, volume and rate are qualitatively different measures. Your confabulation is a strawman, a logical fallacy.
You're a great one for arguing semantics, but you are not averse to tossing that linguistic precision aside when it suits your own ends. That smells to me of rank hypocrisy.
And also of cowardice. By any ecological measure, the loss of summer Arctic sea ice is a crisis. If you want to avoid that admission, fine, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size (which excludes PentaxZ, mike, and Chameleon for starters) to be blind to the fact that you're the naked emperor of a realm populated by knuckle-draggers, nose-pickers and sundry other numpties.
I'm happy to leave it at this point. You can persist in picking your nits as much as you want, but it's obvious that you have nothing more for your sling than sour grapes and snot balls.
Evidence, definition:ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Verb
Be or show evidence of.
Synonyms
noun. proof - testimony - witness - attestation - obviousness
verb. prove - show - testify - demonstrate - evince - manifest
Words. You only understand them in your own "special" way.
Yet more evidence of insanity.
Mike:
Bah.
Mike:
This just goes to show that you don't read the links. You argue from ignorance.
An explicit part of my wager was that both sides submit their cash to a third party in advance of the bet being completed, and that the third party be paid for the responsibility.
And your comments about aborigines are despicable.
I'd call you a grub, mike, but grubs are much nicer entities. The same with arse-holes - it's tempting to refer to you as such, but at least arse-holes are useful.
And have a purpose.
Bernard J, I really didn't mean any offence by the word "rate," you're reading vastly too much into it. Instead of "rate", read, "the EXTENT of sea ice loss [does not correlate to crisis-ness, blah blah blah]." Better?
My point remains that sea ice loss does not necessarily tell us anything about the claim that there's a crisis—what I'm much more interested in betting on is the core thesis of the climate movement, that AGW is a net disaster for the planet. How do you think we might frame a bet on that?
I've already got a bet running with someone else about this, but the stakes are a bit lower, and we're good friends, so the terms are correspondingly more subjective than you and I would probably need.
So I'm open to suggestions: how could we objectively detect in, say, 5 years' time whether the anti-carbon-dioxide-emissions movement was on to something or not? In terms of civilizational impacts?
And the Boxing Day Tsunami wasn't a problem for you either.
Likewise no northern summer ice won't be a problem for you down there in Australia.
However, the world is much more than your mom's basement.
No such movement exists.
Wow,
straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
This will be fun!
Yes.
This will be repetitive and boring....
You really are culturally insular, aren't you Wow? In Australia we don't have moms, and basements never really took off here either.
Yet more evidence of the internal world you exclusively inhabit.
OK, so you're claiming all Australians are the result of asexual reproduction???
BJ,
I am laughing at you again.
What possesses you to write such sneering insults?
My IQ is just peachy thanks.
What has your assessment of my intelligence quotient got to do with your attempt to lay a wager with Brad?
BTW, you have misquoted yourself re sea ice loss :-)
Indeed. The idiot is always blissfully happy with that state of affairs.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-07-23/
What possesses you to write such drivel that you deserve nothing other than sneering insults, chubby?
LOL ... ok Wow... flashback:
I said:
and you replied:
Later you even added:
LOL... thank you Wow, for agreeing consensus isn't evidence OR a cat!
Now we're back to me saying:
and you saying:
You really are the gift that keeps on giving, Wow!
:-)
Bernard J, what the hell's your problem?
Let's hurry up and formalise a real bet about the "global warming crisis"... I can't wait to part such an unpleasant troll from its precious gold.
Uh huh.
You had been talking about the scientific evidence.
Which nobody had been saying that the scientific evidence was the scientific consensus.
Then you asked if it was evidence.
It is, however, evidence.
Just not the scientific evidence the conclusion of the scientific consensus was based on.
Words.
Have meaning.
And this is the case since even though you'd had your answer about the consensus and scientific evidence, you demanded a strict yes or no answer to another question.
Which would make sense ONLY if they were not the same question.
But now, having demanded a yes or no answer, you pretend it was the same question you already had the answer to before you asked it.
How boring.
You have one.
But you refused it.
Weird.
Bray thinks that the fact of a consensus is not evidence of a consensus and that there can never be any evidence of a consensus because he mistakenly believes that consensus is not evidence of a consensus.
Wow, there is no wiggle room. LOL... Give it up!! I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science, and you contradicted yourself. Point blank. :-)
"Wow, there is no wiggle room."
Which is a pity because you're wiggling in it.
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is that evidence or not?
Savor the panic, gentle readers:
“Credibility…. Running out. No time for. Complete sentences!”
I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science,
Nope, this is what you asked:
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is that evidence or not?
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
answer: yes or no.
Come on, I answered yours quickly.
Not able to?
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Wow, your lies will not avail you in the House of Brad:
Nope, this is what I asked:
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Or can't you answer a simple yes or no question?
is consensus evidence?
Nope, this is what I asked:
Wow,
straight answer please, yes or no: in science, is consensus evidence?
This will be fun!
Ah, Wow, you're priceless. :-)
As you've already confirmed:
no, it is NOT scientific evidence. It tells us nothing about nature.
FFS! LOL
So are you too busy masturbating to completion or will you answer yes or no to this:
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
As you’ve already confirmed:
You are too busy masturbating to completion to answer the question:
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Why did you demand the answer to a question you now insist you already had an answer to plain-as-day?
Insane?
Wow, as everyone can see, I asked you, point blank, whether consensus is evidence in science.
This is what I wrote:
You're really incapable of quitting when you're behind, aren't you? :-)
I notice that you seem very "excited" at the moment.
Make sure to wash your hands afterwards.
Then answer the question instead of avoiding it:
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Apparently twice.
So why did you insist you need a second answer?
And as everyone can see, you will not answer my question, will you.
Because I knew your position on it was flipping faster than a slinky and it was such fun proving it! :-)
Bit dim, aren't you, Brad.
Not bright.
A bit slow.
Rubbish.
The conversation had been whether the scientific consensus was the same as the scientific evidence.
You then asked whether the consensus was evidence.
Even in science, yes it is.
Er, dude, I answered it several masturbation references ago!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
ROFLMAO
;-) :-) ;-) :-)
Er, dude, no you didn't.
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Answer was not yes or no.
Not too smart, are you, Brad.
But you're excited because mining has paid off, just like it did for pappy.
No, we had some boring BS about sea-ice volume. Can you not read my clearly-explained objection to that topic to Bernard? It's on the previous page. You may not have seen it because you were too busy pwning yourself by being the John Kerry of consensus-as-evidence! LOL
Ah Wow... how can I stay mad at you when you give me such hilarity...
;-)
It doesn't take this long to answer yes or no.
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
Answer yes or no.
Which is your opinion. The "boring BS" is your opinion.
Which we have all agreed is worthless.
Anyway, still waiting for the yes or no answer to
Every national scientific body has agreed that the IPCC conclusions are correct and supported by the evidence.
Is it scientifically evidence or not?
To answer your question again, I reiterate my previous, clear-as-day response:
No, it is NOT scientific evidence.
It tells us nothing about nature.
How much clearer can I make this, Wow? Would you like me to repeat the answer again?
(You'll notice my amazing ability to believe the same thing from one minute to the next—no matter how many times you ask it, I'm not going to contradict myself!)
Hehehe ;-) ... ah Wow
To answer your question again, I reiterate my previous, clear-as-day response:
No, it is NOT scientific evidence.
It tells us nothing about nature.
How much clearer can I make this, Wow? Would you like me to repeat the answer again?
(You'll notice my amazing ability to believe the same thing from one minute to the next—no matter how many times you ask it, I'm not going to contradict myself!)
Hehehe ;-) ... ah Wow
You can even manage to type that with one hand.
So why aren't you?
Is your answer "no"?
Yes or no are the answers I'm asking for. And you're not giving me either yes or no.
No, it ISN'T scientific evidence. It doesn't tell us anything about nature. Sorry Wow. Hate to break it to you.
Because if your answer is "no" then you are wrong.
You can count in this physical world the number of national science academies.
You can view in this physical world their statements.
And you can repeat these data gathering exercises.
That is evidence.
No, it ISN’T scientific evidence.
It's entirely evidence.
You can read the statements. The statement is entirely falsifiable.
It does.
It tells us about the statements of the national scientific bodies.
Even weirder is that Bray had previously wibbled on insanely about having done philosophy.
Except there "blue" as a colour is ENTIRELY from consensus.
quale, they call the perception.
And perception is entirely natural. Otherwise eyes would be Proof Of God's Existence.
So can you rebut any of the counters to your insane insistence that consensus is not evidence of a consensus?
Nothing to frot, Brad?
In denier world, a consensus is not evidence of a consensus because... well, you'll work on that...
You really don't need me here, do you Wow? You can just imagine me writing things and then rebutt the hallucinations. OK, amuse yourself—night all.
PS I had a great time humiliating you, Wow. Same thing tomorrow?
So are you saying that a consensus IS evidence of a consensus?
Or are you refusing to say until you've had a word with your lawyer?
Or if you're saying that a consensus is NOT evidence of a consensus, then in what way was I hallucinating anything?
"Straight lines again, wow? Really?
That’s what you were talking about."
Sorry to break it to you, wow, but I most certanly did not. By the way, have you checked with hansen yet?
"Given that abstract concepts are way over your head pantieZ, this link is likely 100% wasted:
Validating climate models.
But at least I tried."
Well, chek, to this day, not a single climate model has been validated. Not one. Claming that makes you a liar. Why do you think the people playing with these computer games call the results projections and not forecasts? You stupid fuck face.
Strawman.
Whatever: How reliable are climate models?.
You fail again you silly person.
Now where is that crossing sweeper?
If you're always sorry about telling lies, why not stop telling lies?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…
Yup.
He figured a 3.4C per doubling for the median emissions scenario.
Turned out with the actual emissions that happened, a sensitivity of 3.2C per doubling would have been spot on.
"Yup.
He figured a 3.4C per doubling for the median emissions scenario."
So predictabel, wow. Dodging the topic, that's one of your trades. And another is of course lying. And yet again, straight lines proves nothing. Perhaps in your head, but not in the real world.
Strawman, lionel? How can the truth be a strawman? Please, inform the world, where can we find a validated climate model? So I have to educate you too. You know, the thing is that referring to scs, rc, tamino, desmoblog and other zealot sites isn't a valid argument in any way. Heavily biased, alarmistic blogs with censorship as their main tool for discussion just doesn't cut it. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot, you're a fuck face too.
Since the demand was "have you checked with hansen yet?", no topic at all, how can I dodge "the topic"?
They prove your statement about temperatures wrong.
He already showed you. The blue underlined thing is called "a hyperlink".
Click on it.
From the whining arse-vomit who complained "no need for bad language"...
You were offering a strawman argument which had nothing to do with the validity or otherwise, of any climate models because that is not how things work.
What we find is that those climate models used to represent the state of climate and the science which include all forcing factors run fairly close to projections and within the ranges given. This you would have discovered if you had bothered to educate yourself before going out into the playground leaving behind a string of filth - emphasised so that nobody misses it.
Now, where is that crossing sweeper?
We'll have to forgive PantieZ outbreak, as I suspect he's having a breakdown trying to assimilate where the heat came from giving the record Arctic melt this summer with his latest beloved 'no warming for 16 years' meme.
Given that even Cardinal Hansen and Algore together couldn't conscript enough 'activists' to cart it away in wheelbarrows, someone must be lying to him.
And the general first response, especially with psychos, is to turn on the source of the uncomfortable information. Sorry arsed little cretin that he is.
Or all those temperature trends not going the way he claims they do.
Someone's words on science and consensus:
Or all those temperature trends not going the way he claims they do.
Don't forget though that 'lines' mean nothing to him.
But the ice pack..... someone's been lying, and it ain't the Arctic.
There's very little that panties can work out what it means.
But it'll certainly CLAIM a straight line of "no warming for 16 years" then claim "Straight lines mean nothing (if they're not saying "AGW is a scam")".
LOL... Wow:
Whoever came up with this turgid word-salad is not a scientist, that's for sure.
Was it Gore?
Ah, your opinion again.
As already noted: worthless.
So you agree that a consensus is evidence of a consensus?
No—a syllogistic deduction. No scientist could possibly have said that. Go ahead, end our suspense, what whackjob are you quoting?
Here's a laugh-out-loud category error:
Wow, you need better sources!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)
Yeah, it being funny is what..?
That's right: your opinion.
Really, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Nope, your deduction.
Based on your OPINION that it couldn't have possibly been said by a scientist.
You are, in fact, wrong.
You may want to read up on what consensus means.
You could use synonyms like "consilience" which is commonly used too by real scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
Bullshit I'm wrong. Any self-respecting scientist would shave his / her tongue off, piece by piece, rather than utter the abortive vomit you quoted.
Indeed your earlier whines about how nobody could manage to re-create Mann's results is an appeal to the necessity of consensus.
If you can't agree on the evidence, then the evidence is weak.
Indeed that has been your entire tiresome tirade.
Bullshit. I’m wrong
FTFY.
FTFY.
Again, only your opinion.
Note: if consensus is not scientific, why should others be able to reproduce your results?
All that can result in is an agreement on the results being correct.
Which is a consensus.
Which you insist is anti-scientific.
It means majority opinion. Don't get me started—I spent hours explaining this to someone I assume was moderately intellectually handicapped yesterday.
Yes you could, but then you'd actually be saying something somewhat coherent, because "consilience" is NOT A SYNONYM of "consensus." (Seriously, what cheap-ass dictionary are you using, Wow?)
Consilience and consensus are not synonyms, Wow.
No, it's an appeal to the necessity of replicability.
You somehow remind me of this poor person I spent hours trying to educate yesterday.
And if you can replicate it?
They are related subjects.
Consilience is the agreement of various lines of data.
Consensus is the agreement of various people.
Why do you want to replicate someone else's results?
The mental handicap was on the other side of the conversation, Bray.
Slow down—others should be able to replicate your experiment. The results may or may not be the same as you found. If they are, the finding becomes more certain.
No, it could go the other way too.
You could really benefit from an elementary book about how science works.
Shall I tell you why?
To find out if you agree with the conclusion.
Now what is that called..?
Why?
Except according to you, the don't.
All you have now are two people who agree on something.
According to you, that is merely a consensus. And according again to you, that is not proof of anything.
Bernard J,
Hey BJ! Just saw your latest comment directed at moi. Some real pompous-ass zingers you let fly in your last there, BJ! You really get off on that phony-hyped, sanctimonious, judgmental-dork, high-dudgeon, hive-bozo business of yours, don't you guy? Not the sort of thing that appeals to me, but I respect, BJ, that you are a master craftsman in that line of lefty, agit-prop flim-flam.
Let's see now. I think the highlight of your comment was a your high-drama denunciation of my references to Aborigines as "despicable."
Despicable?--really, BJ? Please forgive me, but I'm not likely to be convinced by your judgement in this matter on the sole basis of your one-liner, drive-by say-so, thank you very much. On the other hand, if you can show me the "despicability" of my relevant words, then I'm ready to stand corrected and offer appropriate apologies. To help guide your efforts there, if you care to pursue the matter, I note:
-Since you, BJ, are using this blog to set-up an international, internet gambling operation, I considered your enterprise and your high-pressure sales pitch on its behalf, using my American frame of reference--and, perhaps, I may have made some over-hasty assumptions there in doing so.
-In America, a Native American heritage is a source of pride and my experience is that anyone with a trace of American Indian blood will readily boast of it (family lore has it that Comanche blood proudly flows in my veins, as it happens). By analogy, I assumed the same for an Aboriginal heritage in the Australian context. Was I wrong there, BJ? Is the suggestion that an Australian might have one or more Aborigine ancestors considered "despicable" by people like you, BJ?
-In America, in many locales, casino gambling is only legal on Indian reservations. The general feeling there--even among the palest of pale-faces--is delight that the Indians "won" one this time. And the income from the gaming businesses run by Indian tribes can produce quite a handsome income for the tribal members. Therefore, I wondered and inquired if gambling wasn't run in Australia by Aborigines along similar lines. So, BJ, was my inquiry, in this regard, "despicable? And, if so, how so, BJ?
-The world is filled with scumbag hustlers, BJ--the CAGW con-job and the eco-trash scamsters attracted to it, come to mind, for example. And, in that regard, the American experience encompasses some unfortunate episodes in which individuals claiming to have Native American status have been unmasked as imposters. Indeed, two leading academics (one a former Harvard professor, no less), as examples, have had their status in this area very much called into question after decades of profiting from the affirmative action hiring and promotion advantages of their dubious, Indian ancestry claims. Others have likewise pitched a falsely claimed Indian heritage in order to cash in on the lucrative income benefits of one or another tribal casino operation. So, within that context, was my cautionary wonderment, BJ, about business-related, fraudulent claims of Aboriginal heritage, that might be attached to your "bookie" operation, really "despicable?" Again, if so, how so?
A couple other quick ones:
-"Tim" doesn't seem inclined to guarantee your bets, BJ, being offered on his very own blog, which speaks louder than words that he no more trusts your "third party", "Murphy Man" assurances that you're "good" for your lost bets than moi. Prudence not "cowardice" at play here, guy.
-So, BJ, you avoided one particular question I posed in that previous comment of mine with which you, otherwise, took such histrionic exception--namely, my inquiry as to the legality of your gaming business. So please inform us, BJ, as to the address and phone number/e-mail of your place of business and show your certain compliance with all laws governing international, internet gambling operations from that locale via an Australian based blog. And-what the heck!--while you're at it, BJ, you might even throw-in proofs that you have all required business licenses and permits, proof of your business' creditworthy financial status, a demonstration that all your business-related taxes and fees have been paid, and a police-issued, background-check document affirming that you are not running some sort of "front" operation for this, that, or another organized criminal syndicate or terrorist network.
I mean, like, this is a "quality" blog, BJ, and so I'm sure you'll be glad to pony up and flash your gambling operation's bona fides with all the hyper-active hoop-lah we've come to expect, for example, from Jeff' with his cheer-leader-with-pom-poms pumps of his hot-dog, I'm-such-a-smarty-pants credentials . Right, BJ?
If you're right, you need your experiment to be replicated, in order to confirm that your finding wasn't a fluke.
But then someone has to replicate to see if your version is repeatable.
Which now means you have a consensus of 2 to 1 against.
But you claim that a consensus is no proof of anything.
If that happens, then you have one other person agreeing with you.
In consensus.
Which you insist is not proof of anything.
So therefore the repetition of the experiment has proven nothing in your terms.
So it was a waste of time.
Except you insist that it isn't.
How can that be?
If your results are confirmed, that means that there is a growing consensus that your results are valid.
But you insist this cannot be science.
So why are confirming results necessary?
*Sigh.*
No, Wow, it's not about increasing the number of people who agree with your finding, it's about increasing the amount of experimental data that supports your finding.
Any self-respecting scientist ..
Oh look, yet another tell.
Of course it's not proof of anything—it's not even EVIDENCE of anything in science.
But you've succeeded in generating twice as much experimental data as you had before, and therefore twice as much actual, physical, natural, scientific evidence. Geddit?
So someone will write a paper and do work that confirms your results and won't agree that your findings are correct????
Except you didn't want that with MBH98. You demanded no new data.
But all this replication that happened was no more than the original. It could be flawed too. The only person who knows if it is or not is the author.
So anyone else wanting to see if the original conclusion was right has to do the replication for themselves.
But if they do that and agree, then anyone who hasn't yet done the replication of the work only sees three people now agreeing.
All they (and you) see is a growing consensus.
Therefore the fact that two people have now produced a paper and now agree with each other is not proof of anything.
According to you.
So why did they bother?
Worse, after two papers, anyone needing to find the evidence will have to replicate TWO papers to find out the evidence under your insane theory.
And if they should find out they agree, then the next person has to replicate THREE PAPERS!!!
So in your world, why on earth is replication of results necessary?
chek:
Try this: "Any scientist .."
Put it this way, Wow's quote was so incoherent that my list of suspected sources is quite short and includes Gore and Lewandowsky and probably a couple of other jokers I haven't thought of.
No you haven't.
Two people generated experimental data, but in your fruit-loop-world, anyone else wanting to find evidence would have to replicate the two papers themselves.
All they see is that two people have agreed with each other.
A consensus of two.
And if this third person agrees, then three papers, and a consensus of three.
So therefore, according to you, absolutely no proof has been found for anyone else.
Er, no they won't.
Hmmm.
Lewandowsky is far more a scientist than you, Bray.
And you're still wrong.
Er, yes they will.
No, what they see is that two (then three, then four...) runs of the EXPERIMENT agreed with each other. The more empirical confirmation you get, the harder it is to explain as a fluke.
All THEY see are two papers they don't know are correct and two people who now are in consensus with each other.
According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.
But then if they find themselves in consensus with the other two, then you have a consensus between three people now. And three papers you haven't checked are right.
Since they weren't there when the EXPERIMENTS were done, no they haven't seen two then three then four runs of the experiment.
So all they see are two then three then four ... people agreeing with each other.
Which is a consensus.
C'mon, we're dying to know who this non-scientist you quoted is. What on earth is the point of an anonymous quote? Clearly I'm right, which is why you've gone all coy.
C'mon, we're dying to know who this non-scientist you quoted is. What on earth is the point of an anonymous quote? Clearly I'm right, which is why you've gone all coy.
Try this: “Any scientist ..”
Try this - it's a standard denier claim frequently touted by denier non-scientists pulling an appeal to an authority they know nothing about. And nothing you've ever said leads me to believe you're any different to the know-nothings who pull that one out of their arses.
Based on no evidence????
Really, you don't seem to care all that much about evidence. Seems as long as you're making blank statements, lack of evidence is entirely fine.
Clearly, you are wrong, Bray. You have no evidence to support your conjecture. Yet still you make it.
Yet I, with the evidence to assert whether it was said by a scientist or not, say you are wrong.
If it were a scientist you would have named them by now.
You're really too easy.
Next.
What causal mechanism maintains that scientific law?
I haven't named them.
But they are a scientist.
The evidence indicates you are wrong.
But you don't do evidence, do you. You only demand it. Then ignore it.
And how do you determine a "real scientist"?
Someone who has a BSc?
That's by definition a scientist.
No they're not. The quote was so scientifically illiterate, they're unmistakeably the words of someone who does not work in science. End of.
Yes they are.
How would you know?
So I'm a scientist by definition, am I?
So I'm a scientist by definition, am I?
An example of how you haven't a clue about science is this:
What causal mechanism maintains that scientific law?
You haven't answered, only insisted this law is irrefutable proof that the quote is not from a scientist.
That's what I'm asking.
What defines to you a scientist. "Has a BSc" is a fine enough answer.
Not that it's really a law, but in short: human behaviour.
Except human behavior does not mean that because I haven't said who it was it cannot be a scientist.
Go on, show me evidence that this is the case or that, yet again, is only your worthless opinion.
No. It's way too easy to forget all the scientific habits of thought after you graduate unless you do something to stay scientific—ideally, get a postgrad degree and work in science.
And besides, you'd be amazed how little BSc students are taught about the scientific method in the first place.
So work as a lecturer in a science department of a university would be fine?
Lewandowsky, for example, doesn't understand the scientific method (as I pointed out to him on his blog)—and he's a Professor in a semi-scientific field.
Not compared to you saying you have a BS. See.
No, not necessarily. Nonscientists commonly do that, including at my university.
You say so, but he's performed precisely what was needed to accord to the scientific method.
He's even managed to replicate his results.
This, once again, is entirely your opinion and is, even compared to your normal fare, worthless.
MmmHmmm.
Well defined sciency term there, Bray!
And nobody would ever need the scientific method unless they were in a hard definitely science discipline, right?
I mean, someone who has a "philospophy of science" degree will have NO CLUE what science is, since it's only a semi-science discipline!
But can be.
So how do you tell?
Oh yeah, that's some sciencey proof there!
Yawn.
You've made a lot of claims and had absolutely no evidence to support them, Bray.
Worthless opinion, each claim.
Ah, that's what they're called in most of the world, I think. "BSc" narrows down the quoted idiot by country.
So now you admit not only is your opinion worthless, but you're also an idiot.
I guess we have consensus here.
Is that even a degree? I would have thought it came under an Arts degree.
You claimed it was.
Do they work (do research) in science? That's a good starting point.
There is no way the person you quoted works in science.
Since they weren’t there when the EXPERIMENTS were done, no they haven’t seen two then three then four runs of the experiment.
So all they see are two then three then four … people agreeing with each other.
Which is a consensus.
So doing research isn't enough?
Come on, how do you tell?
No, I said I studied it at university. My bachelor's degree does not say "B. Phil. of Sc.".
Is how you can tell based on your insistence that someone who says what I quoted can't be a scientist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
So you didn't do science then at university.
Of course not. Most research is not scientific. Science is special.
Hell, if that's all you need: there's no way you're a scientist, Bray, not with the bollocks you've spouted on this blog.
So you can't say how you decide who is a scientist or not.
If science is special, maybe this is as close as you get to scientist, Bray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_needs
Yes I did. I have a BA and a BSc. In each degree you do a major and a number of minors. So you don't just study "one thing" per degree.
No, you didn't.
If you had, you would have said what it was by now.
Apparently, this is human behaviour.
No, the reason I can tell is that the febrile thinking on display in that quote is incompatible with doing scientific work.
If I had, I would have said what what was?
Yes, like I said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
The point here "Brad" is that you wouldn't know. but claim to in order to advance your argumentum ad arsem, to use a 'sciency' term..
"If I had, I would have said what what was?"
Yes.
Hurry up Wow, I've got stuff to do. Who was the non-scientist you quoted?
What? At 5 am?
I suppose the shift change is coming on, eh?
Brad, what are you arguing?
It's never been clear. I've noticed you use the term 'alarmist' a few times. This would suggest one of three things:
- You think the atmospheric physics is wrong
- You don't, but you think the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 is too high.
- You agree with the evidence - not the consensus; we can ignore that - but you dispute that a 2.5C - 3C increase in global average temperature will be much of a problem.
If you haven't read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not? You asked for some evidence so often I assumed that you were interested in reviewing some. This puzzles me.
BK
There's a couple of things worth reading if you are interested in the scientific consensus. Knutti & Hegerl (2008) reviews the evidence and the uncertainty and is a good place to start. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) demonstrates how the 'fat tail' of high sensitivity estimates can be docked. Anti-alarmist science in action ;-)
Mike, you seem to be cognitively impaired.
I've already stated and repeated the terms of the bet, which stipulate that the funds are to be sumbitted in advance, to be held in escrow.
Do you understand this? The money is already there. It guarantees itself.
What part of this concept do you not understand?
Brad Keyes.
You can dissemble as much as you like, but Arctic sea ice loss is a significant, immediate, and clear proxy for cilmatic crisis.
Take it or leave it.
I assume that you will persist with the latter, because you know that you will lose. You've lost though even in the refusal to engage the wager, as that refusal is an explicit admission that there is something serious happening to the planet's climate.
Bernard J.,
yr: #55 above
Hey BJ! You don't mind if I invite the folks to Google: "escrow fraud" do you? I mean, like, that wouldn't mess up any big plans you may have in the works, would it?
And I notice, BJ, you didn't speak to my prior comment's concern with the legality of the improbable, international, net-based "bookie" operation you're running on this blog--a blog in which you probably have no ownership interest. The legal review of your little enterprise is undoubtedly an interesting one, BJ--care to post it?
You know, BJ, no one on this blog rips off more noisome, room-clearing, asinine, pompous-ass, superior airs than you. That, combined with your spastic-dork, fussy-nerd , grotesquely-comic, maladroit-milquetoast, dud-booger obsession with and ineptitude in the put-down, zinger department marks you as one of Deltoid-land's true delights.
So, BJ, please do keep trying your creep-out, control-freak, hive-bozo-aristocrat best to put me in my place--I love the show! But I offer you a fair-warning, I'm not a status-anxiety ridden, self-doubting phony. And that's an advantage I can draw on in any dust-up between the two of us.
Bernard J
— I don't accept any ice-volume-based bet because:
1. I lack the obsessive, detailed icepertise to bet intelligently on it (in fact I didn't even give any thought to what my chances of winning on those terms would have been)
2. it doesn't interest me because no matter who won on those terms, it wouldn't have settled the real bet, which is whether AGW is a catas—er, I mean a crisis. The friend I mentioned was more than willing to put his money where his mouth was because he has the courage of his conviction that this really is a massive threat to civilisation we're talking about. Don't you? If so, I'm sure you and I could find a parameter that objectively tells us, in 5 years' time, whether this grand hypothesis has (at long last) started to come true, couldn't we?
— if (as mike argues) it's dodgy to do this via an escrow arrangement, why not simply publicise our real names and details and let honor enforce itself?
Bernard J
And you can play the racist card as much as you like, Arctic sea ice loss will still be a meaningless metric unless it kills people and destroys things to no benefit.
For example, you seem to treat it as axiomatic that Arctic and sub-Arctic human communities are terribly afraid of / are lamenting the warming of the Arctic. I don't buy it. I expect that, like normal human beings, they hate freezing, they hate ice and they can (at best) take or leave snow. Human beings prefer warmer-than-Arctic climates.
No, as I've said I haven't even bothered calculating my chances, because nothing interesting to me hangs on that measurement.
Wow:
No, at 8am, when I wrote that.
LOL, ok, slow down—you’re taking the duty of nullius in verba a bit far here, Wow. Scientists don’t normally suspect other scientists of lying about what happened; to give the description and data associated with an experiment the benefit of the doubt is perfectly compatible with skepticism, even if you weren’t in the room when shit went down, unless there’s some prima facie reason to think fraud or human error has occurred, or unless the science has become pathologically hostile. So scientists are allowed to believe “such and such happened” because “I say it did.” (They are also allowed to “Доверяй, но проверяй”—the second passage you quoted this morning got something right when it emphasised that scientific work must be scrutable.) What we are never expected to do is take someone’s theories about nature on their word alone, i.e. to believe “nature works in such-and-such a way” because “so-and-so thinks it does.” There must be a physical-evidence-based argument.
No, they see 2 then 3 then 4 papers (corresponding to 2, 3, 4 cycles of the scientific method) that document a growing body of evidence.
No, this person has now performed the third replication of the same experiment. Why would he/she need to replicate both the original and the replication?
You’re confusing yourself by thinking in terms of “checking” the papers themselves—that’s not really the point. The point is to see whether nature behaves the same way again. If nature behaves consistently with the original paper’s hypothesis three (four, five, six..) times in a row, it becomes increasingly hard to dismiss this as dumb luck, and increasingly likely that the original author was on to something real.
All right, we can argue all day about whether climate psychology is a real science, but there are some fields that are real sciences, no question—and whoever you’re quoting does NOT work in one of those fields.
It’s my opinion (but it’s not only an opinion) that the person you quoted is not a scientist. There is evidence for the idea: not only the grossly unscientific content of the quote itself but the fact that, despite my unequivocal prediction that it’s not a scientist who said it, you still haven’t revealed the source, which you would have done in a heartbeat if you could thereby falsify my prediction in front of the whole Internet. You have no imaginable motive for being evasive other than reluctance to concede that my prediction was right in front of the whole Internet.
Unfortunately, your evasions look even worse. Better to admit I’m right than to act cravenly.
Actually, my proof was nearly as ironclad as in the current example. Lewandowsky had written that, “Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.” This is just plain wrong—I’ve valiantly struggled to interpret it in a non-wrong way, but there is none (do you understand why?)—and even Lewandowsky’s off-the-charts shame threshold couldn’t plausibly have allowed him to write such a thing if he’d understood the scientific method.
I addressed this question to him in the shapingtomorrowsworld comments: “So Professor Lewandowsky, given that you evidently don’t know how science works, what exactly do you have in mind when you accuse people of ‘rejecting science’? What does that mean to you?” My question stirred surprisingly little controversy—Lewandowsky even emailed me about a different matter without ever mentioning it—and I’m sure it had nothing to do with why the SkS kidz banned me a couple of weeks later.
OK, you’ve impressed me by knowing about qualia. However, the only thing we all agree on when it comes to the blue percept is that we’ll all call it “blue”—and as Feynman pointed out, knowing the name of something doesn’t tell you anything about it. Naming things is just a convention. It’s no more a “consensus” than when we agree we’ll drive on a certain side of the road. Nobody is actually suggesting the right or the left is superior—no claim is being implied about nature, physics, engineering, etc.—but it is unquestionably better to do what everyone else is doing, once the convention is established. This type of convention (violation of which causes fatal collisions) has an intrinsic benefit.
What do you mean? A consensus IS a consensus.
“Frot”? “Brad”? Two typos in a four-word sentence—you must have really been upset by the obvious self-contradiction I’d caught you in!
A consensus is a majority opinion, so you can only have a consensus “of” people [of some type], you can’t have a consensus of cheese, prime numbers, evidence, cucumbers, bacteria, etc. It’s a category error. Geddit?
Wow,
This second quote is preoccupied with something called “denialists”, meaning… what exactly?
A denialist may promote small gaps not yet accounted for by the consilient evidence,
So from the sounds of it, a “denialist” is a kind of scientist.
or small amounts of evidence contradicting a conclusion without accounting for the pre-existing strength resulting from consilience.
Yep, a “denialist” is clearly an Einstein-like person who recognises that it would only take one discrepant observation to falsify their theory.
More generally, to insist that all evidence converge precisely with no deviations would be naïve falsificationism,[9] equivalent to considering a single contrary result to falsify a theory when another explanation, such as equipment malfunction or misinterpretation of results, is much more likely.[9][10]
Well yes, that would be silly if equipment malfunction or misinterpretation of results WERE “much more likely” than the theory being wrong. But who judges that?
No, if the evidence is weak, then the theory is unpersuasive—and if the ARGUMENT you use to big up the evidence is “look how many people agree it’s strong,” it’s obviously pissweak. That has been my entire tiresome tirade.
Finally a quote that makes some sense, Wow! ...
Now you know why (among other reasons) Phil Jones and Michael Mann are considered rogue scientists. They operate outside the civilised borders of this “basic expectation.”
Just in case this was confusing: the SS kidz were moderating Lewandowsky's site, whence they banned me.
You could read the entire exchange about Lewandowsky's dubious understanding of science for yourself if those brave klimate kommunicators had been content with merely banning me. Alas, they bravely shoved all my extant comments down the memory hole.
Lewandowsky is the epitome of the CAGW celebrity.
He has NO training in any science related to climate.
Yet here he is cashing in on the 'funding' available that is related to the 'politics' associated with CAGW.
By the way, folk such as the Russians buck the convention on the blue quale—they gots no word for it. You say “goluboi” or “sinyi,” depending on whether it’s dark blue or light blue, but there’s (reportedly) no common concept for the blue percept. Then again, we Westerners have a proud history of saying that well-known Russian words don’t exist (svoboda, anyone?)…
They may or may not be “related”, but they’re not synonyms like you claimed they were, Wow:
In science, consilience of data matters (it helps you form a likely hypothesis), but consensus of scientists doesn’t—it’s just opinion.
I don’t, as such—I want to replicate their experiment. (So that we’ll have more evidence one way or the other.)
Whether the results turn out the same this time is up to nature, not me.
Right. Very good point.
What McIntyre was trying to do for MBH98 was even more basic and preliminary than “replication!” He merely wanted to audit it (which is sometimes called “internal replication”).
Why?
Because McIntyre couldn’t tell—and nobody else knew, and the authors refused to say—exactly how they’d got from their own data to their own conclusion.
The question for McIntyre, therefore, was whether the paper was even valid (not whether its finding was empirically robust). That is, did its conclusions even follow from its own data?
To validate the paper, it was only necessary to know what Mann’s own raw data were and how he’d analysed and transformed them to get the final graph. If these two factors had been self-explanatory to readers of the paper itself—as they should have been, since the paper was generally presented as a work of science—then history would have been very different. There would have been no Climate Audit, no Hockey Stick Wars, no Jerry Sandusky references and no libel suits. Remember what one of your quoted passages says:
But if any other scientists had “scrutinised” MBH98’s methodology, they didn’t say so publicly.
A paper’s peer reviewers are supposed to vouch for its validity, at least prima facie, so they should have sent MBH98 back as soon as they noticed it was impossible to guess how to trace the steps from raw data to conclusion. But as Richard Muller points out, there was a strong desire in the climate community to “believe” in the Hockey Stick; and because it was such an “attractive conclusion,” there was also a strong temptation to rush it into print without due diligence.
When these problems started coming to light, the climate science community suddenly adopted a code of omertà. To their eternal discredit, they protected the bad scientists in their ranks and disparaged McIntyre instead.
Fortunately we know a bit about what they were saying behind closed doors—thanks to the Climategate emails.
4241.txt: Rob Wilson:
“The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking…I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel … The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. ”
Tom Wigley:
I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith [Briffa] is better? – or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike [Mann] is too deep into this to be helpful.
3994.txt: John Mitchell:
“Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”
Tom Wigley:
“Mike,
----------
Re WSJ. They say ...
"Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data."
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques."
-----------------
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M -- but it seems that you do too.”
Tim Barnett:
“Not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as I remember. For instance, I seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures.”
Myles Allen:
“I completely agree with Tim, but the question is whether we have either the energy or thick enough hides. My recollection of the experience of asking (I thought quite politely) Mike [Mann] about this kind of thing is rather unpleasant.”
Hans von Storch:
“Simon, I think one should list three publications which have stirred some disucsions, namely ours, the one by Anders Moberg and colleagues and Steve Mcintyre’s in GRL. I would assign the following significance to these articles (just among us, please):
—ours: methodical basis for hockey stick reconstruction is weak; discussion was unwisely limited by IPCC declaring MBH to be “true”. (Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbility.)
[…]
—McIntyre &McKitrick: As far as I can say (we did not redo the analysis, but Francis Zwiers did) the identfied glitch is real. One should not do it this way.”
1527.txt: Rob Wilson:
”There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”
4369.txt: Tim Osborn:
“This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ”
4369.txt: Ed Cook:
“I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”
1656.txt: Douglas Maraun (UEA):
“How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that ‘our’ reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
The media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement. However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness.”
1104.txt: Wanner:
“I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report… I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.”
4101.txt: “Dr Dendro”:
“Hi Phil,…
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think so.”
chameleon—yep, and I bet Lewandowsky can't believe his luck. Climate psychology sure beats real work!
chameleon, do you recognise this fully retarded quote Wow dragged in:
Wow doesn't have the guts to identify its source. It's obviously not from a scientist, and I'd say very likely from a "CAGW celebrity" (e.g. some mediocrity like Lewandowsky, who was my first guess). The combination of pomposity and scientific illiteracy reminds me of Al Gore or Chris Mooney, but apparently whoever chundered these words out has a BSc!
When someone has replicated another person's paper, all a third person sees are two papers they don’t know are correct and two people who now are in consensus with each other.
According to you, this person now needs to replicate BOTH papers.
But then if they find themselves in consensus with the other two, then you have a consensus between three people now. And three papers you haven’t checked are right.
BBD: "Brad, what are you arguing? "
The tiresome troll is arguing that they're right and everyone else is wrong.
Based on zero evidence.
Since you can't say how you define whether someone is a scientist, another opinion of yours. And as agreed, worthless.
Aw. :-( Just when I thought we were developing an understanding, Wow. As you can see, I took all your questions as genuine and serious requests for clarity and tried my best to answer them.
And the only "evidence" of iLewandowsky not being a scientist is that he's let you deniers made fools of yourself.
Then let you double down on the same idiocy in his second paper.
Seems like "true scientists" in your world only ever make you deniers feel good.
Not very scientific.
No, you're piteously easy to understand, troller.
You keep saying this, Wow; I have no idea why. Do you?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!
No, you avoid answering questions left right and centre.
Truly you are a pitiful troll.
I know why.
And I can entirely understand why you want to say you don't understand.
It's something you continue to fail to answer.
I already said this—though we got distracted by the other question of who understands the scientific method—but a scientist is someone practicing one of the physical sciences.
But since I've never said this or indicated that I believe this, you're not being truthful, are you Wow? After all the progress we've made, you're apparently just attributing random concatenations of words to me again.
Except you said "usually".
You are only going to say "they are not a scientist" no matter who I say.
Hence saying is irrelevant.
Didn't you read what I wrote after that? I quoted a scientifically-illiterate passage from Lewandowsky. That is how we know he doesn't understand how science works. Are you even reading before typing, Wow?
So you're saying that a consensus is acceptable evidence now.
And you have no idea what a scientifically illiterate passage looks like.
That isn't how you can tell if someone understands how science works or not.
I don't remember saying "usually", but so what? The definition stands as I've just reiterated it. Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.
If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.
You skip your Ritalin today, Wow? What I'm saying is that nobody has to replicate all the previous replications of a study and I'm at a loss to figure out what dark shaft you mined that random idea from.
Do you mean "so what" to the not remembering, or "so what" to the "usually"?
Former: your memory is unreliable.
Second: so your new statement isn't a definition that you use to define a scientist.
Have you stopped shagging your baby sister, Bray?
Yes I do—I can tell such a passage from 20 feet—it's one of the superpowers you get when you become scientifically literate.
And that's what the problem is.
Because if you're not replicating the study, you're accepting other people's word on it being correct.
And you, only you, insist this is not science and is, indeed, anti-science.
No, you can't.
You know what answer you want, and then you fit what you see to it.
Thereby proving you are scientifically illiterate.
My ad-hom came from the fact that you were randomly saltating between apparently unrelated ideas.
Where did your ad-hom come from? Nasty, dude.
Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.
If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.
My ad hom came from the fact that you're a retard and have no clue how to act in society.
"Brad" #64 tries his hand at doing a Montford with selective bites of chit-chat, presumably in some misguided effort to show that consensus arrives whole, pristine and virgin from Heaven, and isn't established in the usual way humans establish things - by trying to knock it down until it's what's left standing.
The trouble for "Brad" is that MBH98 hasn't been refuted. Quite the opposite - the more historical reconstructions that have been researched, the more more hockey sticks have been found. Which rather blows "Brad's" epic piece of intricately constructed nonsense out of the water.
I took the time to write you an entire paragraph DISPELLING this common misinterpretation of the idea of Nullius in Verba. Why don't you read the whole thing, think about it, then reply with some equally nuanced and substantive remarks of your own, rather than give your usual sentence-by-sentence first-thought-that-comes-into-your-head critique? Your tweets are the reason this thread is already 19 pages long, dude.
WTF?
Wow!
Whose quote is it?
Who is the 'someone' who said it?
Scientist or not?
Then the quote was from a scientist.
FOAD, chubby. You're a tiny cockroach of a person with no redeeming features whatsoever.
Again, solely your OPINION.
And, as agreed, worthless.
If you’re not replicating the study, you’re accepting other people’s word on it being correct.
And you, only you, insist this is not science and is, indeed, anti-science.
Do you understand the difference between validity and truth, chek?
No, you spent ages getting some crap together to make you feel important.
You haven't named them so, no, it wasn't.
So you're making things up again, Bray.
This is no surprise.
Here is some obviously unscientific bollocks.
But you don't seem to have spotted it, despite it being only a couple of feet away.
You are completely incorrect.
Rubbish Chek!
You along with BJ, need to follow Latimer's advice & get out more!
Try widening your reading habits for a start!
BTW, did you happen to read the comments attached to that 'validating climate models' link you attached yesterday?
LOL, ok, slow down—you’re taking the duty of nullius in verba a bit far here, Wow. Scientists don’t normally suspect other scientists of lying about what happened; to give the description and data associated with an experiment the benefit of the doubt is perfectly compatible with skepticism, even if you weren’t in the room when shit went down, unless there’s some prima facie reason to think fraud or human error has occurred, or unless the science has become pathologically hostile. So scientists are allowed to believe “such and such happened” because “I say it did.” (They are also allowed to “Доверяй, но проверяй”—the second passage you quoted this morning got something right when it emphasised that scientific work must be scrutable.) What we are never expected to do is take someone’s theories about nature on their word alone, i.e. to believe “nature works in such-and-such a way” because “so-and-so thinks it does.” There must be a physical-evidence-based argument.
Chubby, you're a failure.
Nope, not me.
You.
YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else's word for it is unscientific, even anti-science.
Because taking someone else's word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.
Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.
I'm getting pretty tired of being misinterpreted by you Wow—so from now on, don't tell me what I think unless you have a quote to back it up.
You do.
All the time.
To every single national scientific body, the tens of thousands of scientists whose work is in the IPCC, and the vast majority of the practicing scientists.
So you admit you're not a scientist.
So you're now saying that a consensus is science.
Making progress.
But you'll undo it with more anti-scientific piffle. You always do.
That "it" is dangling, a sure sign that you don't even know the topic. QUOTE ME and you'll discover that I'm very clear on what you can take someone else's word for and what you can't. Stop being so mentally lazy.
Whose quote is it Wow?
I am spectacularly uninterested in your opinion of my sucesses and/or failures because you would not have the foggiest.
I am however interested from whence and/or whom you lifted that quote.
Another example of how you fail utterly at English comprehension.
I am spectacularly uninterested in your opinion.
Except you want a physical act to be accomplished.
That isn't a mental activity.
Yet more sign that you're a kook.
YOU, and only you, insist that taking someone else’s word for it is unscientific, even anti-science..
Because taking someone else’s word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.
Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.
(odd, isn't it, how you can't even quote me)
So am I.
Put a name to the "someone", Wow.
You whine about needing a quote or being misrepresented.
Yet you quote mine and distort me without qualm.
One rule for you, eh?
And you can go on being "interested".
"A consensus is science"? LOL. No.
A good heuristic, if you think I'm "now saying" something, is: if you can't find the words in which I'm "now saying" it, then I'm pretty certainly not saying it.
Even though the person is a lecturer in a science department in a university, you will still claim they aren't a scientist.
Which is why you weasel out of every attempt to find out your "definition": you don't have one. It's all post-hoc rationalisation with you.
There, then, is your quote you demanded petulantly earlier.
Not at all; such would be a hollow victory, a victory without honor. I have huge qualms about that. If I've distorted your meaning, tell me how and when and what you actually meant.
Because taking someone else’s word for it, if several are in agreement, is a consensus view.
Which you, and only you, insist is anti-science.
So you do have a qualm about it, but do it anyway?
BTW, did you happen to read the comments attached to that ‘validating climate models’ link you attached yesterday?
Why yes I did, Cammy. At this juncture I'd normally ask what your point is. But in this case it's you and I already know you don't have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Common Wow,
Fess up.
Whom have you quoted?
Why so coy Wow?
Who is this 'someone'?
Chubby wants to put out there the inference that there is some controversy or counterpoint in that location.
There is none, and nobody is fooled.
But the deniers have nothing better than pretend, so they continue to pretend, even if it's entirely pointless.
Read a dictionary, chubby.
Already been answered two or three times.
Go read it.
Or ask an adult to read it for you.
Second of all, Wow, you come across as psychologically volatile in your vicious responses to chameleon, who is nothing but polite. Do you two have some history that might mitigate or excuse your incongruous reactions?
If so, what is it? Where does the bile come from?
Otherwise, talk like a grownup. You're not a Muslim fundagelical, are you? I mean, you can handle the presence of a female in an interaction among equals, can't you? Otherwise I'm going to have to back several other people up in asking Tim to enforce a "time-out" for you from this thread.
You along with BJ, need to follow Latimer’s advice & get out more! Try widening your reading habits for a start!
I agree, constraints on time currently mean that I'm doing well to keep up with my half dozen preferred science-based sites, let alone my other interests at present..
But what you mean is the crank shit sluices you frequent.
No thanks.
Given your evidenced complete incapability to discern anything you do not wish to be there, this is entirely fabricated hogwash.
So, avoiding your bollocking by pretending to be all concerned.
How pathetic.
The majority of the commenters were not overly impressed were they Chek?
They exposed rather serious flaws in the piece didn't they Chek?
I don't do it knowingly; if I'm guilty of it, that scruples my conscience. Why don't you just give specifics and clear up any misunderstandings?
Also, look up "non sequitur", Bray.
Your post at #34 here is a prime example.
Colloquially known as "Look! Squirrels!!!".
That would be a consensus that you're trying to use as evidence, right, chubby?
to back several other people up in asking Tim to enforce
How many of these fictional requests you've imagined ask for 'something to be done' about li'll mike or PantieZ?
So Wow?
Your 'someone' is a 'no one'?
How ironic :-)
They exposed rather serious flaws in the piece didn’t they Chek?
Not anyone who's opinion was informed enough to be noted, a metric you'd be unaware of Cammy given the noise machines you're more at home in.
Spelling has improved. Only two letters, thought, so much easier.
Ah, basing a conclusion on no information.
How like a denier.
Should of course be 'whose opinion'.
Bray seems very quiet.
You really need to avoid these facile dangling carats.
What is "it", Wow?
I EXPRESSLY said there is NOTHING unscientific about accepting someone's report of what happened in an experiment and the data / observations associated with it.
It is perfectly reasonable for them to ask you to do so.
What is NOT reasonable is for them to ask you to believe a THEORY ABOUT NATURE on their say-so, or on their think-so.
THAT is anti-scientific.
Get the distinction, Wow?
Or do you at least understand why it's desirable to be capable of MAKING such distinctions, Wow?
I'm also worried that Bray didn't ask you if you'd missed your Ritalin prescription today, chubby.
None, because they aren't responsible for hundreds of obnoxious comments on my thread.
Why, have they been antisocial to you? I tend not to read comments from my "side" of the climate debate very carefully, if at all, so I may have missed some verbal atrocities.
Chuckle :-)
Chek!
The ONLY site I have frequented EVER is this one.
I have been dutifully reading the majority of the links provided here.
I usually only read the ORIGINAL publications.
How deliciously ironic :-)
You really need to get a dictionary.
Yet you EXPRESSLY said that if several people do this, then it is not science.
You see, the problem is you're a denier.
And to hold to that requires multiple contradictory ideas.
You, being comfortable with the conclusion do not look at this.
However, when a REAL skeptic comes along and starts dissecting your tortured "reasoning", these contradictions come out clearly and you're left sputtering and going "SQUIRRELS!!!!".
You EXPRESSLY stated that the word of several people on what a paper says is worth as much as one person's word on what a paper says and both are worth zero in science.
Bray, it also looks like you've failed your "Dudley Dooright" self image (which everyone knows is complete fiction).
You haven't lambasted chubby for using a consensus as evidence.
Despite your insistence you ALWAYS do that.
So that you can claim that "your side" is correct and never wrong.
"I see no ships".
Pathetic.
Wow, we're getting sick of waiting. Whose sub-scientific, uneducated theories about consensus did you quote in that passage a day or so ago?
The ONLY site I have frequented EVER is this one.
Right.
Yeah?
So what?
You already know why it's not worth answering your demands.
You are also avoiding your two extremely embarrassing mistakes with a segue into something irrelevant.
So where did you get your "recollection" that nobody had Mann's Hockey Stick?
Where did you get the idea that climate sensitivity was 1.5C?
Where did you get the idea that a climate sensitivity of 2.5-3C was an outlier?
It wasn't from here.
Where did you get your links to, for example, climateaudit, if you'd never been there?
I have never quoted a passage from someone like that.
Except when quoting you, chubbie, panties or other denier sub-scientific and uneducated troll.
DELTIOD NONSENSE
Once again, Brad manages to ignore pertinent questions and so I must repeat myself:
Brad, what are you arguing?
It’s never been clear. I’ve noticed you use the term ‘alarmist’ a few times. This would suggest one of three things:
- You think the atmospheric physics is wrong
- You don’t, but you think the estimate of ECS to 2 x CO2 is too high.
- You agree with the evidence – not the consensus; we can ignore that – but you dispute that a 2.5C – 3C increase in global average temperature will be much of a problem.
Please clarify your position. Thanks.
***
If you haven’t read the Hansen and Rohling studies (or at least skimmed through in the usual abstract/conclusion way) then why not? You asked for some evidence so often I assumed that you were interested in reviewing some. This puzzles me.
***
There’s a couple of things worth reading if you are interested in the scientific consensus. Knutti & Hegerl (2008) reviews the evidence and the uncertainty and is a good place to start. Annan & Hargreaves (2006) demonstrates how the ‘fat tail’ of high sensitivity estimates can be docked. Anti-alarmist science in action ;-)
I would like to see some *evidence* of good faith as demonstrated by your reviewing some of the *evidence* and giving the forum your considered, detailed views on it. Otherwise you might be written off as an attention-seeking tosser who isn't remotely interested in the scientific evidence. This would re-enforce the view that you are motivated by political conviction rather than any understanding of the scientific position. If I were in your shoes, I would be at pains to correct such a misapprehension. Merely denying it - as you have done - is insufficient. You do far, far too much talking. Now you have to walk the walk.
And if you only read the science side of the debate as you claim, and ignore the denier side, you have just proven you lied when you claimed that you ALWAYS told off anyone who used a consensus as evidence.
And have done so deliberately.
Bray isn't interested in evidence.
Simples.
None,
I thought not
because they aren’t responsible for hundreds of obnoxious combative comments on my thread.
I see, so it's not their objective offensiveness and lack of content that bothers you, as long as they're onside in supporting "Brad", however vaguely.
Can't see Tim being too impressed by your flexible standards, not that I can say either way.
*Sigh.* No, I said that in science, the opinion of several people about nature is worth as much as a dead dingo's donger's opinion about nature.
Who even brought up the question of what people say a paper says? READ the effin' paper. What does it matter what other people say it says?
No offence intended, Wow, either to you or to my (immensely more intelligent) friends who never went to uni, but your lack of tertiary education shows in these disputes, when you imagine that other people are available to relieve us of the burden of reading and thinking for ourselves. They're not.
Hell, no need to strike out obnoxious.
Mike is entirely made of obnoxious.
But since he's part of The Team and fighting for The Cause, (hey, didn't he quote from Judith? If he's never been there, how does he know what she says???) he doesn't look therefore, like a toddler, it doesn't exist if you can't see it.
Nope, that isn't what you said.
If READING the paper is sufficient, why does it need to be replicated?
Bollocks.
cf "I'm no racist, but..."
Your opinion again.
Says nothing. Worthless.
BK
The 'DELTIOD [sic] NONSENSE' slipped in by mistake - it is a header in a text file I use to keep track of these long, tedious exchanges.
Yet you EXPRESSLY said that if several people do this, then it is not science.
You see, the problem is you’re a denier.
And to hold to that requires multiple contradictory ideas.
You, being comfortable with the conclusion do not look at this.
However, when a REAL skeptic comes along and starts dissecting your tortured “reasoning”, these contradictions come out clearly and you’re left sputtering and going “SQUIRRELS!!!!”.
You EXPRESSLY stated that the word of several people on what a paper says is worth as much as one person’s word on what a paper says and both are worth zero in science.
chek,
I've only ever considered complaining about Wow, because nobody else comes close in terms of sheer *volume* of noisome noise. If you think I've missed something worthy of condemning from someone else, which I probably have, since I don't read my "side" as much as yours, then tell me next time and I'll condemn them if they deserve it.
You're afraid.
Except you.
Oh, and Joan.
Oh, and "noisome"? Your opinion. Worthless.
Wow!
Vince claimed that BEST confirmed MBH98 and the hockey stick.
Have you read the BEST research?
I have.
I found NO confirmation of MBH98 and the hockey stick in the BEST research.
I have linked the BEST research upthread.
Would you like to point out where this 'confirmation' of MBH98 and the hockey stick is?
Maybe that same 'someone' you quoted earlier is the person responsible for this assertion?
Was that 'someone' a member of the Muller et al team of researchers?
You, Brad, are "doing a Doug":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls
Because it was JUST ONE EXPERIMENT—even if every single word is the honest to God swear-to-Christ Gospel truth, its evidentiary value is necessarily limited. It only happened once. The hypothesis, if confirmed, was only confirmed once. In one lab. On one day. In one litter of rats. In order to know with any confidence something interesting about nature, we need to rule out that it was a fluke.
Yes.
No you haven't.
Yes, you have to look first.
Yes, that is what one paper is.
Are you saying two agreeing with each other is more solid confirmation?
Incorrect.
If you'd ever been in a science lab, you'd know that you don't just do things once.
No, stop guessing. I don't LEARN anything from people who are already in agreement with me about the climate. I only LEARN from exposing myself to other viewpoints. That's why it's a waste of my time to read most material written by fellow realists. I'd rather concentrate on what you have to say.
If neither you, nor your "much more intelligent friends" thought that "it only happened once" was true of a science paper, then you are ALL incompetent.
I think someone needs to keep a link to this freudian slip!
:D :D :D
Yes, you don't learn anything from them because they have nothing other than empty blather and irrelevancies.
I found NO confirmation of MBH98
Firstly, you have to understand what the MBH98 paper shows, which is apparently beyond you. Then you have to understand what the BEST paper shows, again ditto. Then with those understandings in hand, you can compare the two - and hey presto, the unprecedented rate of warming in the 20th Century matches very well.
Witless googling is unlikely to help you Cammy, and Google isn't the problem there..
A hint for you, Chubby: PEBKAC.
Yes, two PAPERS (corresponding to two experiments) confirming the same hypothesis is better (more solid) than one.
Of course, Bray, you REFUSE to learn anything from the science either.
Which makes your rantings rather irrelevant.
So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper's result.
You're saying consensus is evidence.
Rephrasing because you're an idiot denier who never SAYS anything they don't want to believe.
So the consensus of two papers is worth more than a single paper’s result.
Which MEANS consensus is evidence.
Brad
I do hope you will get around to responding to my recent comment on this thread at some point. I will check back this evening.
He won't have done. It is devastating to his imagination.
The unprecedented warming in the 20th century matches very well?
Seriously?
Who is this 'someone' or 'someones' that you lot are quoting?
Does Muller et al agree with your assessment Chek?
BBD
So do I, but perhaps you've noticed a certain Sisyphean chore that is occupying every moment I spend on this thread, BBD? Maybe if you were to help us roll the prolix, palindromic rock away I would get a goddamn minute to read your links in peace.
No, actually.
Yes.
Oh, and before deniers spooge their pants (if they're wearing any):
The "No, actually" means that "Seriously" is incorrect. The word to use is "Actually".
You're making a category error. The same one I've expressly drawn your attention to within the last 24 hours.
There is no such thing as a consensus of papers, Wow. Papers don't have nervous systems. They cannot form beliefs, plans for the future, suffer and rejoice as we do. There can only be consensi OF PEOPLE (or possibly of some higher animals).
So do I, but perhaps you’ve noticed a certain Sisyphean chore
Yes, we know anyone trying to get a straight answer out of you is on an uphill struggle.
However, how can you say "So do I"? YOU are the one making it an uphill struggle.
Wow, who was the supposed scientist who said/wrote that passage about consensus that you quoted?
Nope. You need to understand English a bit more, Bray.
Nope, you've said a load of bollocks, but despite drawing my attention to it, this doesn't make your assertion true.
Doing a doug again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAIGLkSMls
Tiresome.
Except you're wrong.
Two papers agreeing is a consensus of two.