Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Ian Forrester
    February 7, 2013

    What as pathetic troll Keyes is. All he has for “evidence” is what he claims appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Funny thing is I can’t find the WSJ in the Science section of my library, it appears to be in the “Fiction” section.

    What a pathetic lying troll.

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    @ chek, in the process of “not getting into the bloody hockey-stick debate,” has found this rather perfect sentence for us:

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. (Thank you, chek.)

    Vince, please tell us why you claimed the BEST study “proved” this to be “correct” when, as we all know, BEST only looked back to 1750. Please, we’re very curious. Nobody but you understands what made you say such a prima-facie absurd thing.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    @ Ian

    “What as pathetic troll Keyes is.”

    It’s true, I’m not very good at trolling.

    On the plus side, this is my bridge, and that makes me Pontifex and Prime Billy-Goat. You’re the vagrant Untermensch now.

  4. #4 chek
    February 7, 2013

    Oh, I forgot this citation. Read it (and the links), digest it, then examine what you * thought * you knew (but actually had shovelled down your willing gullet) and then you can apologise for brainlessly lying and slandering and wasting everyone’s time like a good lad.

  5. #5 peterd
    Melbourne
    February 7, 2013

    #98: Why bother providing a link to an 8-year-old WSJ article that lurks behind a paywall, so that non-subscribers (like me) cannot read it? Why not provide up-to-date references to freely and openly available (as at libraries) journal papers?

  6. #6 chek
    February 7, 2013

    Where does BEST diverge from the hockey stick, moron?

  7. #7 peterd
    Melbourne
    February 7, 2013

    Brad Keyes at #96, #98: “Mann indicated in testimony that the methods and data had been available since May 2000, including the necessary algorithms, in full accordance with National Science Foundation requirements, but NSF policy was that computer codes were proprietary and not subject to disclosure. Despite this, the full code used for MBH98 had been made public.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    There is lots more about the “hockey stick” in this article, Brad. Please read it, and try to learn something.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    All he has for “evidence” is what he claims appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

    He’s merely regurgitating exactly the same script he used at Lewandowsky’s. Over there people pointed out that the WSJ article he relied on had a number of … issues with its claims and with the facts, and that many of his other claims – especially about Mann and his work – did not survive scrutiny either. Despite regurgitating rebutted claims he’ll continue assert that he never lies – but accuse others of lying.

    There is lots more about the “hockey stick” in this article, Brad. Please read it, and try to learn something.

    Not gonna happen. Write-only troll’s aren’t interesting in learning.

  9. #9 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Chameleon needs it spelled out to her:

    You have been linked to the BEST papers.
    Where is that particular confirmation?

    Let me type this really really slowly for you:

    – MBH98 showed a hockey stick (unprecedented recent warming).

    – BEST showed the same hockey stick (unprecedented recent warming).

    Generally – when
    A says X
    and
    B says X,
    the conclusion of any sane person will be that
    A agrees with B

    Of course, you are having trouble with this simple concept, and of course I doubt anybody is surprised.

  10. #10 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Brad cannot argue with the facts, so he has to lie:

    Mann’s data is freely availble,”

    1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

    The thing about lying is, to be any good, it has to be something that isn’t easily shown to be incorrect.

    As you seem unable to type anything that isn’t obviously completely incorrect, it becomes apparent that your position is so far out of whack with reality that you can’t even come up with a decent lie in defence of your obviously indefensible denial of reality.

    I will therefore repeat my previous outline of the facts in reponse of which you resorted to lies in the hope that you might be able to devise a way of addressing it in a truthful manner:

    ANd yet, weirdly, numerous genuine scientists were able to get on with their work and publish their own temperature reconstructions that all showed the same sort of thing as Mann.

    In the light of the fact that genuine scientists were able to conduct research that confirmed Mann’s work, what can we conclude about the Canadian mining-stock spruiker, McIntyre?

    1/ He’s not a genuine scientist

    2/ He was unable to conduct any research of his own

    3/ He was obsessed with misusing FOI to harass Mann

    4/ He was asking for stuff that Mann was under no obligation to give him under FOI laws.

    5/ He has produced no original research nor any competent analysis of others’ research

    6/ Almost everything he says is wrong.

    SO, Brad – why is McIntyre’s worthless nonsense even on your radar, when it forms no part of the body of human knowledge in this or any other area?

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    PeterD asks Brad about his “source”,

    #98: Why bother providing a link to an 8-year-old WSJ article that lurks behind a paywall, so that non-subscribers (like me) cannot read it? Why not provide up-to-date references to freely and openly available (as at libraries) journal papers?

    Easy!

    Brad didn’t get this irrelevant (and obviously incorrect) snippet from the WSJ, but he doesn’t want to admit he got it from the website of a looney-tune right-wing political think-tank:
    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1265

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Here’s an intellectual exercise for you Brad – if Zwiers thinks that Mann’s maths results in a “hockey stick”, is he talking about a long straight line? Or is he talking about the upturn at the end?

    …and which part of MBH98 was confirmed by BEST?

    The upturn at the end!

    So, clearly, your quote of Zwiers means that both you and Zwiers agree with me that BEST confirmed MBH98.

    Thanks for your help there, Brad.

    Additionally, bearing in mind Zwiers was misled by the incompetent and perhaps even fraudulent M&M analysis that arrived at the “Mann’s method creates a hockey stick out of anything”, let’s see what Zwiers thinks about the recent temperature record:

    Different datasets of global mean surface air temperature show consistently increasing
    values for the past 50 years. Since 1990, a large number of record warm years was detected:
    the 12 warmest years since 1880 have all occurred after 1990. The probability p of the event E
    of finding at least 12 of the largest values of a sequence of 126 random numbers (years 1880
    to 2005) on the last 16 places (year 1990 to 2005) is 9.3·10–14.

    Yep, just as we should have suspected – in typical Denier fashion you’ve misrepresented Zwiers. Clearly, he also agrees with the Hockey Stick.

  13. #13 pentaxZ
    February 7, 2013

    I knew you regulars didn’t have any relevant and accurate puestions to Moncktons questions. Just a lot of ranting. ROFLMGU.

  14. #14 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    @ peterd

    “#98: Why bother providing a link to an 8-year-old WSJ article that lurks behind a paywall, so that non-subscribers (like me) cannot read it?”

    Oops. Why indeed. Here is a free PDF of it:

    http://www.readinglists.manchester.ac.uk/items/DF2C647B-6D83-F2B6-E3B1-3DE112C0C644.html

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    @ chek

    “Where does BEST diverge from the hockey stick, moron?”

    When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?

  16. #16 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    “When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?”

    So you’re agreeing that BEST agrees with the hockey stick>

  17. #17 chek
    February 7, 2013

    When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?

    Comment #52 “Those who assert that BEST had anything to say about the Hockey Stick’s correctness in the absence of sufficient data are clearly engaged in fraud.”

    Stop being such a predictably evasive cretin “Brad”, .

  18. #18 Stu
    February 7, 2013

    I knew you regulars didn’t have any relevant and accurate puestions to Moncktons questions.

    Pentax, you are pathetic. You are embarrassed in one thread, so you try the same tripe in another and hope nobody notices.

    Again, you little weasel, this is Monckton:

    h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
    h_ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/mike-steketees-response-to-christopher-monckton/story-e6frg6xf-1225985171179
    h_ttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
    h_ttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
    h_ttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
    h_ttp://www.politicususa.com/christopher-monckton-man-lies-credentials-questions-obamas.html
    h_ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/monckton-lies-to-ap-denie_b_392233.html
    h_ttp://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html

  19. #19 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    I knew you regulars didn’t have any relevant and accurate puestions to Moncktons questions.

    Nope, had plenty. My answers were both relevant and accurate.

    You just don’t want to accept them.

  20. #20 chameleon
    February 7, 2013

    Vince is now asserting that it is the SAME hockey stick!
    @#9.
    Lotharsson,
    there is indeed much controversy over the hockey stick.
    I absolutely agree with that comment.
    Academics love arguing like this.
    Walter Starck calls it an ‘academic pissing contest’
    That is not what Vince has asserted here.
    Do you agree with Vince that BEST confirmed MBH98 & the hockey stick and that it is the SAME hockey stick?

  21. #21 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    Again, you’re reading in a parallel universe, chubby,

    If you want to engage in any actual humans, you’ll need to come into this universe where we all live.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    “When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?

    Comment #52 “Those who assert that BEST had anything to say about the Hockey Stick’s correctness in the absence of sufficient data are clearly engaged in fraud.””

    Yes, but when did I say it diverged from it?

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    @ chameleon:

    “Vince is now asserting that it is the SAME hockey stick!”

    Don’t get distracted by Vince’s escalations. The point is that BEST’s finding couldn’t be called a Hockey Stick, whether similar or identical to Mann’s. BEST didn’t show ANY hockey stick.

    It couldn’t possibly have. It only examined 250 years, barely longer than the “blade”. It couldn’t possibly confirm MBH98 or 99, which describe a 600- or 1000-year period.

    The idea that the “sharp” upturn in recent temperatures is the “hockey stick” is an ad-hoc lie-preserving manoeuvre. The “Hockey Stick” has always, always referred to the almost-1000-years-long shaft followed by the 100-to-200-years-long blade.

    Vince either knew this and made the claim anyway, because he’s an unscrupulous liar, or had no idea at the time but cannot admit it now.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 7, 2013

    Hey kids,

    Let’s play Logic With @Wow!

    ” “When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?”

    So you’re agreeing that BEST agrees with the hockey stick>”

    What we’re saying (again, for the cheap seats) is that BEST couldn’t possibly constitute “confirmation” or “proof” of the Hockey Stick because the former only examined 250 years of data. It wasn’t designed to tell us anything about the “shaft” that makes up the majority of the hockey stick and was much more controversial, contested and interesting than the “blade,” which is already well-known and accepted by most people.

  25. #25 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    “when did I say it diverged from it?”

    You’ve already been told.

    Are you that hard of reading?

  26. #26 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    “What we’re saying (again, for the cheap seats) is that BEST couldn’t possibly constitute “confirmation” or “proof” of the Hockey Stick because the former only examined 250 years of data.”

    Are we really?

    Well, we are wrong, aren’t we.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Brad contravenes reality with:

    BEST didn’t show ANY hockey stick.

    and

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

    MBH98 gave birth to the “Hockey Stick”, and it did not have a 1,000-year shaft, ergo your second statement is instantly False.

    BEST confirmed MBH98 (as had many other studies) by confirming that kook objections like Anthony Watts’ about station sitings and temperature adjustments were all invalid.
    Oh look, I just found Brad in contravention of reality again:

    the 100-to-200-years-long blade.

    The “blade” started in approximately 1910. To characterise this as “..to-200-years-long” is incompetent, careless, and almost certainly deliberately dishonest.

    You just can’t help yourself – this is what happens when you waste 3 years at Uni on the study of the art of talking rubbish instead of studying science like we rational people did.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “MBH98 gave birth to the “Hockey Stick”, and it did not have a 1,000-year shaft, ergo your second statement is instantly False.”

    That’s true—I forgot to distinguish the original graph’s 500-year-long “shaft” from the sequel paper’s 900-year-long “shaft.”

    Neither of which is seen in the BEST findings.

    Nor could they have been—because BEST only studied temperature from 1750 onwards.

    Which raises the question of how you could have hoped we’d possibly fall for your claim that BEST vindicated Mann’s thesis, defined as follows (thanks, chek): “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.”

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Vince:

    “To characterise this as “..to-200-years-long” is incompetent, careless, and almost certainly deliberately dishonest.”

    Make up your mind, Sigmund Freud.

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow, caught out in a false paraphrase of me, refuses to back it up with a quote by me….

    “when did I say it diverged from it?”

    You’ve already been told.

    Are you that hard of reading?

    … which is understandable, because no such quote exists. I’ve never asserted a “divergence”, whatever you may imagine and whatever you may hope we’ll imagine.

    Stop lying, alarmist trolls.

  31. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    Richard Muller:

    “Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

    Good question. We know, thanks to the Climategate whistleblower, that “insiders” were well aware of the problem. Rob Wilson wrote:

    “The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking … I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures … The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.”

  32. #32 chameleon
    February 8, 2013

    Vince,
    That’s ironic!
    Timeframes?
    Chuckle :-)

  33. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    February 8, 2013

    “Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?”

    And then the results of his own BEST study proved that the above belief Muller held was wrong.

    What “McIntyre has been going on about” was demonstrated to be an incompetent or possibly fraudulent bit of statistics involving running hundreds of simulations and selecting out the handful that supported his idiotic view. So I guess Rob Wilson was misled due to naively believing that McIntyre is honest.

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    February 8, 2013

    @Vince:

    “To characterise this as “..to-200-years-long” is incompetent, careless, and almost certainly deliberately dishonest.”

    Make up your mind, Sigmund Freud.

    My mind is made up. Your pathological dishonesty is incompetent due to your lack of intellectual rigour.

    Perhaps your 3 years at Uni studying the art of talking about nothing were a waste.

  35. #35 Vince Whirlwind
    February 8, 2013

    Ooh, look, more dishonesty – Brad just can’t help himself:

    We know, thanks to the Climategate whistleblower,…

    As the Norfolk Constabulary say,

    the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’
    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx

    Of course, maybe you weren’t lying – maybe you too naively believed the nonsense you read on the crank blog site such as Anthony Watts’ persistently cranky WUWT?

    Have you learned your lesson?

  36. #36 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Vince

    “So I guess Rob Wilson was misled due to naively believing that McIntyre is honest.”

    But Rob Wilson claims to have done the “experiment” himself, rather than simply taking McIntyre’s word. Is Rob Wilson also lying? Is he party to a Conspiracy of Dishonesty? LOL

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “And then the results of his own BEST study proved that the above belief Muller held was wrong.”

    Stop lying, Vince.

    BEST didn’t study Mann’s mathematics!

    How could BEST possibly have proven OR disproven the allegation that Mann’s conclusion is invalidated by dodgy mathematics? That’s simply not an empirical question, to be decided by investigating historical temperatures—it’s a methodological question, to be decided by examining Mann’s use of statistics and the code in which he implemented it. No number of climate studies can or will ever shed any light on the validity or invalidity of the procedure Mann followed in deriving the Hockey Stick graph from his own data. In other words, no study or studies of the climate itself can or will ever validate OR invalidate MBH98. This is just logic.

    But then you don’t even know the difference between truth and validity, do you, Vince? That’s where your contempt for philosophy gets you.

  38. #38 Vince Whirlwind
    February 8, 2013

    Ah, I see where you’ve gone wrong, Brad – just like McIntyre and various other shonky inexperts, you have confused replicating with duplicating.

    Nobody cares about Mann’s mathematics when they are using their own data and their own mathematics to replicate his results.

    And well over a dozen teams have successfully replicated Mann’s results and confirmed the ‘Hockey Stick” is correct.

    McIntyre, on the other hand, despite bombarding various genuine scientists with various demans that they explain to him how to do the science, was unable to replicate anything and produced nothing but a derisory stab at a statistical paper – a paper so pathetically wrong that it forms no part of any extant train of scientific or mathematical progress.

    I suppose you wouldn’t need this sort of thing explained to you, had you studied something worthwhile for 3 years at Uni, instead of the useless crap philosophy course you chose to do instead.

  39. #39 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “In other words, no study or studies of the climate itself can or will ever validate OR invalidate MBH98. This is just logic.

    You haven’t bothered to read the citation at #4 have you “Brad”? Read it all the way through, then read the links it includes, then come back here with your six year old non-arguments.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Vince,

    “just like McIntyre and various other shonky inexperts, you have confused replicating with duplicating.”

    The language of [replicating | reproducing | duplicating] [a result | finding | paper] is so fraught and inconsistent, even among scientists themselves, that I find it best to avoid it unless the context disambiguates it completely. Much better to say exactly what one means than to obscure it with feudal dialect.

    (You’ll notice that nobody but you has even used the term “replicate, -cation” at Brad’s Place.)

    Nevertheless, I don’t have the confusion you’ve diagnosed—if I’m cursed with anything, it’s a surfeit of lucidity.

    You’ve made 2 substantive claims about BEST in this house, both of them logically abortive:

    1. that BEST “proved” that Mann’s Hockey Stick [MBH98, 99] was “correct”

    2. that BEST “proved” that Mann’s Hockey Stick was not an artifact of Mann’s math

    Note the difference. Whether Mann’s paper was valid and whether his conclusion was true are two distinct questions (as you’d understand by now if you didn’t hate epistemology).

    Remember, bad science + correct result = bad science!

    Any reader who knows what BEST set out to find will know, even without knowing what BEST found, that your claims are false, because:

    1. BEST examined the Earth’s surface temperature from 1750 onwards, which isn’t nearly enough to find confirmation of “the basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [...] that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years”, a.k.a. the Hockey Stick thesis

    2. BEST examined the Earth’s surface temperature. It did not examine the chain of mathematical and statistical steps and computer code underlying MBH98/99, and therefore it couldn’t possibly offer any view on whether or not said chain of mathematical and statistical steps and computer code gave rise to a Hockey-Stick-shaped artifact

    Why are you making such incredible claims in here? This is not a house of lies.

  41. #41 pentaxZ
    February 8, 2013

    Hey you regulars, why do you think the goracle don’t dare to take the debate?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gRFh8KdgKg

  42. #42 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “Brad”, you’re a confused idiot who merely wants to argue semantics. BEST confirms the recent unprecedented warming, which is also what the ‘hockey stick’ showed.

    Get over it because acyually you know nothing about it (nor John Mashey/Deep Climate’s destruction of McIntyre’n’McKittrick’s piece of work underlying the Wegman Report and Joe Barton’s misleading of Congress) apart from the nursery level Cliff notes someone has made available to you.

    As far as I can tell, nobody is interested in what * you * think the science means, essentially because you are, as has been mentioned already, an idiot and an uninformed one at that.

  43. #43 Wow
    February 8, 2013
    Are you that hard of reading?

    … which is understandable, because no such quote exists.

    So, yes, you are that hard of reading.

    You never did do a university course, did you, Brat. The requirements to read and understand were just simply beyond you.

  44. #44 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Hey you regulars, why do you think the goracle don’t dare to take the debate?

    Because debates are entertainment shows that mean nothing. Why doesn’t your genius actually do some science that can be reviewed?

    Oh that right, it’s because he’s a fake who appeals to nutters like you and your ilk PantieZ.

  45. #45 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’
    http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx

    I’ll be more than happy to abandon the phrase “Climategate whistleblower” if anyone can explain the evidence behind the insistence that nobody within the CRU was involved. The closest thing to such evidence I’ve come across (after reading 2 of the Police press releases) is the fact that proxies with various foreign addresses had attacked the CRU servers. But as the Police themselves acknowledge, it’s common practice to anonymise attacks by “hopping” from one international proxy to another.

    Some proper evidence may well be mentioned in another of their investigation reports, and if anyone can name it (as opposed to simply linking to the homepage) then I’ll be interested to hear it.

    But in the meantime, I’ve never heard a plausible story as to why anyone would “orchestrate” such an attack on the CRU without knowing (as CRU insiders knew) just how bad the emails (and Ian Harrison’s code) would make the CRU look.

    I think I’ll stick to “whistleblower” until proven otherwise, thanks.

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ Wow, I’m calling your bluff.

    “Are you that hard of reading?
    … which is understandable, because no such quote exists.
    So, yes, you are that hard of reading.”

    Show us the quote or go tell your lies elsewhere.

  47. #47 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    My god, you really DO want to double down on your stupid, don’t you, Brat.

    IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!

  48. #48 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    PS for double irony points: Brat whining about “lies” and “go elsewhere” like its *his* blog or something!

    What a hoot!!!

  49. #49 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @chek

    “BEST confirms the recent unprecedented warming, which is also what the ‘hockey stick’ showed.”

    Unprecedented, chek?

    I can’t help but notice that you’ve dropped all mention of timeframes—which is interesting, given that “the basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years”).

    Subtle.

    BEST has nothing to say about whether recent warmth was precedented or unprecedented in any useful sense, since BEST only goes back to 1750, when EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS the climate was colder. (Little Ice Age, anyone?)

  50. #50 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “I think I’ll stick to “whistleblower” until proven otherwise, thanks”.

    Of course you will. You provably already are gullible to any crank theory going. It does your credibility no good whatsoever, but then you don’t have any to start with.

  51. #51 chek
    February 8, 2013

    I already asked (but you conveniently forget) where are you getting your data from “Brad”?

  52. #52 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow, you keep insisting that I claimed BEST’s temperature reconstruction “diverged” from Mann’s. You’re quite adamant that my claim is visible to the naked eye:

    “IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

    Interestingly, though, you seem to be alone in seeing it.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ chek:

    “I already asked (but you conveniently forget) where are you getting your data from “Brad”?”

    I’ve got a lot of data. If you can’t be more specific, I can’t help you.

  54. #54 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years”).

    Sorry, kiddo, you’re lying here.

    Hell, where AREN’T you lying?

    But, no MBH98 WAS NOT about the last 1000 years.

    But go ahead: prove us wrong. Show us the abstract or conclusion of MBH98 and show where it says that.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Interestingly, though, you seem to be alone in seeing it.

    Interestingly, you don’t seem to have understood that others can see it.

    Or can’t you read other people saying you say this? You know, as part of your inability to comprehend even the simplest English sentence.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    I’ve got a lot of data

    Interestingly, you’re the only one who can see it…

  57. #57 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    BEST has nothing to say about whether recent warmth was precedented or unprecedented

    It DOES have a lot to say about MBH98 and how it was being tested to see if it was merely a consequence of data manipulation.

    It found that the MBH98 temperature record was sound.

    Go to the source:

    http://berkeleyearth.org/

  58. #58 chek
    February 8, 2013

    I’ve got a lot of data. If you can’t be more specific, I can’t help you.

    OK, I’ll ………. speak ………….very …………slowly………..especially …………for ……..you …………..”Brad”.

    The ……….. data……….. underlying ……….. all ……….. your ……….. vague ……….. staterments.
    But ……….. first ……….. do……….. you……….. comprehend ……….. the ……….. difference ……….. between ……….. regional ……….. events ……….. and ………………. global……….. reconstructions?

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow, you claim to be appalled that I’m

    “whining about “lies” and “go elsewhere” like its *his* blog or something!”

    Brad’s Place is my thread. (Whose did you think it was?)

    You are but a troll. You’re welcome to soothe your blistered paws and shield your mutant skin from the sun beneath the generous shadow of my bridge, but a certain decorum is expected of guests. Most notably: if you tell a lie, you’d better know how to swim.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Brad’s Place is my thread.

    It’s not your blog.

    Whose did you think it was?

    But you’re an idiot and a troll and that is why you got banned to this single location so you don’t leave your crap all over the place.

    Your entire problem seems to be an overwhelming sense of unearned superiority, Brat.

    This seems to be the entirety of your spiel: you’re brilliant in your own mind.

    And since reality doesn’t accord you that same munificence, you ignore it.

  61. #61 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    Wow @ #54:

    I was quoting chek:

    “The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

    It’s clearly stated (though you mysteriously omit this from your quote) that it’s a summary of both papers—not of MBH98 in isolation, which only went back 600 years.

    If you think the NRC is lying about Mann’s conclusions, take it up with them and/or with chek.

  62. #62 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “Brad’s Place is my thread. ”

    No it’s not – it’s a confinement area for serial idiocy and is actually the “Brangelina thread”. It’s no more ‘yours’ than Sing-Sing prison belongs to its inmates.

    However I can quite understand how your pathetic seeming egotistical pathology may wish to construe it as something slightly grander or at least less demeaning.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow, you keep insisting that I claimed BEST’s temperature reconstruction “diverged” from Mann’s. You’re quite adamant that this claim is visible to the naked eye:

    “IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

    Then quote it.

  64. #64 chek
    February 8, 2013

    ““The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years”

    Which was exactly what was confirmed by BEST.

    Now go find another hobby/means of earning a living “Brad”.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ chek:

    “““The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years

    Which was exactly what was confirmed by BEST.”

    No it wasn’t. Even the BEST team knows this. They never claim to have confirmed Mann’s claim, nor could they possibly claim so, no matter what they’d found.

    Why not?

    BECAUSE THEY ONLY STUDIED THE LAST 250 YEARS.

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    Why, why can’t you people obey Lazarus’ Maxim?

  67. #67 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Watch out folks – you’re now entering the land of bradscience, which is even less informed than blogscience.

  68. #68 chek
    February 8, 2013

    In bradscience, the UEA data theft.
    “But in the meantime, I’ve never heard a plausible story as to why anyone would “orchestrate” such an attack on the CRU without knowing (as CRU insiders knew) just how bad the emails (and Ian Harrison’s (sic) code) would make the CRU look”.

    Only it didn’t, despite the best efforts of liars and sophists far more adept than “Brad” here and despite what cranks prefer to believe.

    Then we get to:
    The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years”
    Which was exactly what was confirmed by BEST.”

    Now to any scientist, the area of interest is the unprecedented part – the 20th Century which is exactly what Muller’s BEST project homed in on, including the lead in period. And they found Mann’s reconstruction stood.

    Now the way it works in the real world “Brad” is that Mann’s reconstructions (plural) stand until contadicted or superceded by later work. But they haven’t been – they’ve been re-confirmed several times over.

    I realise that general rule doesn’t apply in crankland or in bradscience where they do things according to what they prefer (or are paid) to believe, but then – who gives a fuck about that?

  69. #69 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    And BEST, getting the same blade as MBH proves the MBH.

  70. #70 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “why can’t you people obey Lazarus’ Maxim?”

    Why can’t you apply yourself?

    Oh, and the reason is that it isn’t applicable in the way you demand it be.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    ““IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

    Then quote it.”

    CAN’T YOU READ!!!!!

    IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!!!!

  72. #72 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “It’s no more ‘yours’ than Sing-Sing prison belongs to its inmates.”

    Oddly enough, that was going to be my analogy to Brat.

    He won’t get it, because it doesn’t make him Master, and he hates that.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow, capital letters don’t make you sound less evasive, if that’s what you were hoping:

    “““IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

    Then quote it.”

    CAN’T YOU READ!!!!!

    IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!!!!”

    Then quote it.

  74. #74 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “And BEST, getting the same blade as MBH proves the MBH.”

    No it doesn’t. It doesn’t tell us whether or not the blade was surpassed by medieval temperatures, whether or—ah, screw it. This is getting boring.

    You’ve made your position clear, I’ve made the truth clear, and readers can compare them without further help from us, I think.

  75. #75 chek
    February 8, 2013

    You’re still not comprehending the difference between regional events and global hemispherical reconstructions are you “Brad”.

    And you’re still not answering the question – where are you getting your data from for your magical Medieval Warm Period?

    I think any readers visiting scienceblogs:deltoid (note: not crankblogs:bradworld) will understand “bradscience” very well indeed.

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

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

    @chek’s comeback was:

    “Only it didn’t, despite the best efforts of liars and sophists…”

    They didn’t make the CRU look bad?! LOL! As George Monbiot put it, people like you are in denial.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @chek, thank you for your concern:

    You’re still not comprehending the difference between regional events and global hemispherical reconstructions are you “Brad”.

    but what is a “global hemispherical reconstruction”? Is it global or hemispherical?

    Other than that oxymoron, I understand the difference between those things perfectly well, thanks so much for asking.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “I asked why anyone outside the CRU would bother targeting it for a cyberattack”

    To dig up dirt before the climate conference so that their business could continue unabated.

    You’re not very bright, are you.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “They didn’t make the CRU look bad?!”

    Yup, they didn’t make the CRU look bad.

    Well, only to those who think the CRU is bad, but that again isn’t *making* them look bad.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “but what is a “global hemispherical reconstruction”? Is it global or hemispherical?”

    Gosh, you REALLY have problems with english, don’t you.

    Maybe you should go to some remedial adult education classes for it.

    Half of a sphere is a hemisphere. If there is a second hemisphere, then you have two hemispheres in a globe. If you only have one hemisphere, you don’t have a globe.

    Why are you so very DETERMINED to be dumb?

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @chek pretends he/she’s been asking this all along:

    “And you’re still not answering the question – where are you getting your data from for your magical Medieval Warm Period?”

    Ah, finally, you’ve been able to frame “the question” specifically. Almost. Somewhat. Well, not really. But it’s better than before.

    Now, specifically, my dear chek: which claim about the MWP would you like to know my source for?

  82. #82 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “which claim about the MWP would you like to know my source for?”

    Which claims have you made?

  83. #83 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    And are you telling us that there are claims you’ve made that you DON’T have data for?

  84. #84 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Apparently, Brat can’t tell if he’s got any data unless he’s told precisely what he’s said.

    Dumb fuck prefers everyone else find out his ideas for him.

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    ““I asked why anyone outside the CRU would bother targeting it for a cyberattack”

    To dig up dirt before the climate conference so that their business could continue unabated.”

    But how, Wow, did they know there was dirt to dig up? How, Wow, did they know they could embarrass the CRU “scientists” merely by obtaining their emails? Or is every climate-research institute as decadent as any other? Was the CRU just a random, representative sample?

  86. #86 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @Wow admits that “If you only have one hemisphere, you don’t have a globe.”

    This now puts Wow in the position of having to define a “global hemispherical reconstruction.” Is it global? Or hemispherical? Patience, dear readers—only Wow knows!

  87. #87 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “They didn’t make the CRU look bad?! LOL! “

    No it didn’t – at least not to anyone rational which are who counts. Which of course is a vastly different constituency to the frothing cranks that you invariably acquire your world view from. And as I pointed out, that was even after the best liars and sophists that fossil-fuel money can buy had had a go at making it a ‘scandal’. Practitioners well above your grade, “Brad”.

    As George Monbiot put it, people like you are in denial.

    Monbiot, being essentially rational recanted after his initial knee-jerk foolishness was pointed out to him. His foolishness in this case being to believe the denier narrative before looking at the actual evidence.

    “Is it global or hemispherical?”

    That’s the problem whan you conflate things “Brad”. The reconstruction criteria are given in their titles, MBH 1998 being called: “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” and MBH 1999 ” “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations”.

    You see, globes have two hemispheres “Brad”. From the Greek for ‘half’, (although strictly speaking the globe is not a sphere either). But you’ll learn all these big words and their meanings as you education progresses, should it ever do so, what with having to fight for space with all the crankery you seem prone to absorbing.

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “And are you telling us that there are claims you’ve made that you DON’T have data for?”

    Nope. Are you?

  89. #89 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    Yes but chek, what is a “global hemispherical reconstruction?” Your continued refusal to explain this phrase makes it increasingly likely that it was just word salad.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “Nope.”

    Got proof?

  91. #91 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “Yes but chek, what is a “global hemispherical reconstruction?” ”

    You were told.

    But your tiny little brain doesn’t let anything discouraging in, does it, you pint-sized little retard.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “This now puts Wow in the position of having to define a “global hemispherical reconstruction.” Is it global? Or hemispherical?”

    It’s two.

    Two HEMI spheres in a SPHERE.

    Jeesus frigging christ, you’re thick!

  93. #93 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    And, apparently you have data for neither.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “that it was just word salad.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

  95. #95 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “@Wow admits that “If you only have one hemisphere, you don’t have a globe.””

    Brad lies. “If there is a second hemisphere, then you have two hemispheres in a globe”

    But he doesn’t read.

    He only concludes.

    Sort of the opposite of Sherlock: leap to conclusion, then stay there, hell or high water!

    What a frigging pissant retard.

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ Wow,

    You say “it’s two.” So then, just like glasses, jeans or scissors, perhaps I should have avoided the singular and asked in the plural: what ARE “global hemispherical reconstructions”? According to google, word salad:

    No results found for “global hemispherical reconstructions”.

  97. #97 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    “According to google, word salad:”

    According to reality, there’s more than a googlewhackblat.

    And when I google for global hemispheric reconstruction, I get:

    About 3,880,000 results (0.30 seconds)
    Scholarly articles for global hemispheric reconstruction
    Global surface temperatures over the past two … – Mann – Cited by 540
    Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global … – Mann – Cited by 354
    Temperature trends ever the past five centuries … – Huang – Cited by 320

  98. #98 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Apparently I’m at least 3.88 million times smarter than you, Brat.

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    Which of your 3.88 million hits contains the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction”?

  100. #100 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Go look.