Posted by By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Comments
-
I guess you agree I’m around 3.88 million times smarter than you, too, eh?
After all, you “found” zero matches. I found millions.
-
@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions. The question I’m asking—which you keep dodging, for some reason—is:
“what is a global hemispheric reconstruction?”
HINT: to search google for an exact phrase, use quotation marks around it—e.g., “global hemispheric reconstruction.”
No results found for “global hemispheric reconstruction”.
-
“@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions”
YOU found zero.
I guess you’re just agreeing with us that even the trivial is beyond your capabilities!
-
“to search google for an exact phrase”
Why do you want to do that?
-
““@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions”
YOU found zero.”
Wrong. When I omitted the quotes, I got over 5 million hits, of which several were scholarly articles.
But they were about “global AND hemispheric reconstructions”, “reconstructions ON global, hemispheric AND regional scales”, etc.
That is why you mustn’t omit the quotes.
Hurry up. You still owe us an explanation of “global hemispheric reconstruction.”
-
I note that you have semi-successfully evaded answering any questions yourself, dumping all work on everyone else like the lazy fuck you are:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-147547
-
““@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions”
YOU found zero.”
Wrong
Nope, I was right. EVEN YOU admit it:
“No results found for “global hemispheric reconstruction””
-
Hurry up. You still owe us an explanation of “global hemispheric reconstruction.”
Shit, catch up on paying your dues, retard, before demanding payment.
-
““to search google for an exact phrase”
Why do you want to do that?”
To see whether anyone else in the history of the Internet has ever used those 3 words in that order before, or whether you and chek are inventing your own private terminology.
-
Wow @ #6
I don’t get your strategy. Why are you linking people to a question you refused to answer: “which claims about the MWP would you like to know my source for?” Such a link will only add to the Internet’s impression that you’re evasive.
-
“To see whether anyone else in the history of the Internet has ever used those 3 words in that order before”
Why did you feel that was needed?
-
Was it merely some form of desire to find a complex googlewhackblat?
Insanity?
Boredom?
-
“I don’t get your strategy.”
It’s called “ask” not strategy.
“Why are you linking people to a question you refused to answer”
I’m not. I’m linking to a question YOU have refused to answer.
I guess this is yet more concrete proof that “reading” isn’t something you do, is it you warm streak of piss.
-
“Brad” your referenceswere to MBH98//99 – one was global one was hemispheric – hence global hemispheric or global/hemispheric if you prefer. Now put your one good synapse back in the jar and let it rest. It’s just learned something, you petty little word parser you. But then that’s all you’ve got isn’t it? You certainly don’t have even any basic knowledge..
No hold on wait… this needs to be examined too.
Wow, did they know they could embarrass the CRU “scientists” merely by obtaining their emailsFirstly there were several instances of universities studying climate being burgled, or having to chase phoney technicians off the premises. It wasn’t just UEA that was under attack.
Secondly, there was one person in particular with a raging hard on for UEA data who was personally insulted by Phil Jones telling him to take a hike. I stronly suspect – not that I’m advocating such a thing – Heaven forfend! – that if Stevie and his inner coven were waterboarded, some leads would bereadily forthcoming for the authorities to follow up.
Thirdly following on from the above, I think the hackers were too incomptent to hack UEA’s data, and had to settle for the back up mail server.
Which as we now know gained them nothing but a minor blogstorm in the crankosphere unnoticed by the general public who don’t care what happens in crankworld, and the end of tolerance for them by scientists. As Tim Ball and CEI are discovering.
The only people who should be embarrassed were those trying to spin “trick” and “hide the decline” into something nefarious, but they don’t understand the concept of shame (except as a ploy to adopt when caught).
-
As your last argument (“you warm streak of piss”) makes clear, you have no argument. It’s quite obvious to both of us that “global hemispheric reconstruction” is word salad. If it had been used by actual scientists at some point, then we might give it the benefit of the doubt by presuming it was a term of art with a meaning obvious to those scientists, if not to us.
But apparently it hasn’t been written before. You and chek appear to be the only people on earth who know what you mean by “global hemispheric reconstruction”, and you’re conspicuously unwilling to tell the other 6,999,999,998 of us what it means. How cute—you and your widdle fwend have a private wanguage!
You’re adorable, Wow. 
-
@ chek, thank you for FINALLY conceding that an “or” sign was missing.
““Brad” your referenceswere to MBH98//99 – one was global one was hemispheric – hence global hemispheric or global/hemispheric if you prefer.”
See Wow—chek can do it.
-
As your last argument (“you warm streak of piss”) makes clear, you have no argument
Yup, pegging straight zero for comprehension.
You are wrong.
I have plenty of argument, and you ARE a warm streak of piss. The fact of one does not mean the nonexistence of the other.
However, you have nothing other than cod-psychology to work with and hence have to clutch at straws to pretend you have no case to answer.
Which rather goes to prove you have nothing.
Ironic, eh?
-
“@ chek, thank you for FINALLY conceding that an “or” sign was missing.”
What the FUCK?????
All this whining and pissing and moaning and all you had to do was ask “Do you mean hemispheric or global?”
???
Fucking drama queen, aren’t you!
“See Wow—chek can do it.”
Do what? All your fucking work for you, you lazy gobshite?
-
“You and chek appear to be the only people on earth who know what you mean by “global hemispheric reconstruction”,”
Nope.
People who have a working brain cell have.
They just don’t know why the hell you’re so fucking ignorant.
-
PS in other words “Prove it”.
-
And note too that despite Brat-the-twat prancing around with his “or”, no actual data or proof or anything is forthcoming.
Answers are only for “lesser mortals”, not for this dripping bumgravy.
-
See Wow—chek can do it.
No, Wow has you pegged as a petty, incompetent ignoramus too.
-
@ chek, thanks for writing a responsive comment for a change. I’m not convinced by your argument, but I respect your right to make it and the right of all others to swim if they can’t put up an argument.
“Firstly there were several instances of universities studying climate being burgled, or having to chase phoney technicians off the premises. It wasn’t just UEA that was under attack.”
Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen? (Not a rhetorical question—I honestly don’t know.)
Secondly, there was one person in particular with a raging hard on for UEA data who was personally insulted by Phil Jones telling him to take a hike.
Who, Warwick Hughes? The scientist to whom Phil Jones wrote the infamous question:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Again, though: why would he or anyone else go to the effort and risk of stealing the CRU’s backup email data without some a priori reason to think the theft would turn up such juicy meat as “hide the decline”, “redefine the peer-reviewed literature if necessary,” “beat the crap out of [Patrick Michaels]“, etc.?
“The only people who should be embarrassed were those trying to spin “trick” and “hide the decline” into something nefarious, but they don’t understand the concept of shame (except as a ploy to adopt when caught).”
Who tried to spin “trick” into something nefarious?
Its nefariousness is wholly and obviously subordinate to that of the following phrase. (A “trick” to do something kosher is itself kosher, as everyone knows. A “trick” to do something haram is itself haram.)
“Hide the decline” requires no spinning. The verb “to hide” is anti-scientific in se.
-
“Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?”
So you admit it was stolen from CRU.
“Who, Warwick Hughes?”
You’re a moron, you know that?
“why would he or anyone else go to the effort and risk of stealing the CRU’s backup email data without some a priori reason…”
It’s called “a fishing expedition” you dripping bumgravy.
Are you SERIOUSLY pretending to have gone to university to study philosophy and HAVEN’T HEARD of Richelieu?
Fucking hell, you’re a moron!
“Who tried to spin “trick” into something nefarious? ”
Yup, more proof you’re a moron.
“The verb “to hide” is anti-scientific in se.”
FUCKING RUBBISH!
Really, WHAT decline was hidden?
REALLY.
REALLY REALLY.
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
-
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
-
_WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?_
-
Since punctuation is clearly too much to expect of you, I suppose I’ll have to fix this myself:
“You’re still not comprehending the difference between regional events and global/hemispherical reconstructions, are you “Brad”?”
Yes, I understand it with blinding clarity. The two sets are distinguished by these facts:
1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions
2. one contains regional things, the other contains global/hemispheric things
-
@ Wow reveals a deep unfamiliarity with climate-science news:
“WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?”
Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. Look at the graph he presented to the WMO—not only is the decline gone, it’s been replaced by an incline.
Everyone else seems to know this, Wow. Weren’t you paying any attention in the period 2009-present?
-
“Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. ”
No, there is no decline in the proxies. He has more proxies from 1960 onwards than for earlier times.
TRY AGAIN.
-
“it’s been replaced by an incline.”
WRONG!!!!
Go on, show the specific graph you mean and tell me the colour of that line and I’ll tell you what is going on, because YOU, you retard, are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CLUELESS.
-
“Everyone else seems to know this, Wow.”
NOBODY knows “this”, because “this” is completely made up!
-
My god, don’t you know what the result of SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS into it was?
WERE YOU UNDER A ROCK????
Or are you just completely and utterly incapable of learning anything?
-
@ Wow:
““Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?”
So you admit it was stolen from CRU.”
No, but since you claim other universities were being targeted by burglars and phoney technicians, I want to know if said criminals ever stole CLIMATE SCIENTISTS’ EMAILS. Did they?
-
“1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions”
Which one contains events and which one reconstructions????
-
““Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?”
So you admit it was stolen from CRU.”
No
Then why did you ask about other emails being stolen???
Don’t you have a clue what you’re writing?
but since you claim other universities were being targeted by burglars
Liar.
I want to know if said criminals ever stole CLIMATE SCIENTISTS’ EMAILS. Did they?
Yes.
-
@ Wow:
“Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. ”
No, there is no decline in the proxies. He has more proxies from 1960 onwards than for earlier times.
I didn’t say there were fewer proxies from 1960 onwards. I said that there was a decline in the maximum latewood density [MXD] thereof.
Read all the words.
-
“My god, don’t you know what the result of SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS into it was?”
My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”?
-
I didn’t say there were fewer proxies from 1960 onwards
Yes you did: “the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies ”
Since the trees still laid down wood in their growth, there’s more wood laid down.
You also seem to be REALLY REALLY confused about what the hockey stick is about.
It’s about TEMPERATURE.
Not how thick a tree ring is.
What a useless splat of bumgravy you are, Brat.
-
My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”?
No, I KNOW they did.
Where the fuck were you, you lazy bag of putrid shite?
-
“1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions”
Which one contains events and which one reconstructions????
The set “regional events” contains events and “global/hemispheric reconstructions” contains reconstructions.
-
“Read all the words.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!!!
From a retard who discards this every opportunity to lie?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-147560
-
The set “regional events” contains events
There are not sets there.
TRY AGAIN.
-
@Wow:
“My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”?
No, I KNOW they did.”
Would you care to name the 6, so that I might acquaint myself with their concluding assertions?
-
NOTE: Events can be reconstructed.
You have to display PRECISELY what you’re talking about you watery streak of piss.
-
Would you care to name the 6
So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.
-
Just fucking google it, you retard.
-
PS I missed one.
There were 7.
-
Would you care to name the 6
So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.
No, not at all. I expect I know more about the “investigations” than you do. For instance, I know how far out of their way some of them went to avoid investigating the “Hide the Decline” issue. Which is why I’d be very interested to know the names of 6 (or 7) “national investigations” that INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”.
-
So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.
No, not at all.
So you know the 6 then?
-
INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”.
You don’t even know what the bloody decline IS!
-
“You also seem to be REALLY REALLY confused about what the hockey stick is about.
It’s about TEMPERATURE.
Not how thick a tree ring is.”
Don’t worry, I’m well aware of what the graph represents, what it claims to represent, and the difference between them, thanks very much.
-
Don’t worry,
I’m not the least bit worried!
I’m well aware of what the graph represents,
No, you don’t. You don’t know the first thing about what you’re on about.
-
“You don’t even know what the bloody decline IS!”
Yes I do. It’s the decreasing trend in the MXD of Phil Jones’ dendro proxies since 1960.
-
WRONG! The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!
Do you have to be told the answer?
-
It also isn’t Jones’ dendro proxies.
And it’s also NOT since 1960.
YOU KNOW NOTHING about this.
-
So, Wow, before we lose all interest / patience in you: please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the “Hide the Decline” issue.
-
please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the “Hide the Decline” issue.
So you DON’T know what they were, then?
You ARE ignorant of everything other than denier spiel on this!
-
“Do you have to be told the answer?”
Not as such—we know the correct answer. However, we have no way of divining your answer, so yes, please tell us: what do you think “the decline” was?
-
Not as such—we know the correct answer
You definitely don’t.
So less “we” there, hmm.
-
Here’s a hint, since you fail to grasp even the simplest of concepts: The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!
-
“please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the “Hide the Decline” issue.
So you DON’T know what they were, then?”
No, of course I don’t—that’s why I’m asking you, though you increasingly appear to have no idea either.
-
No, of course I don’t
FINALLY!!!!
You ADMIT you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!
Why the hell did you make such a song-and-dance about avoiding it?
-
No, we don’t need hints, Wow, we need a straight answer: what is your understanding of what “the decline” referred to?
-
we need a straight answer
Is one using the royal “we” now?
Here’s a further tip: if the graph is NOT how thick a tree ring is, but is instead about TEMPERATURE, then how can a decline hidden on it be from tree thickness figures?
-
Are you pretending to be a multitude because you’re all lonesome in your idiocy here?
-
And remember, it requires YOU to say what the decline is because it is YOU that insists that this is something anti-scientific.
-
@ Wow:
“You ADMIT you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!”
No, we admit we don’t know what the hell you’re talking about when you assert that there were 7 national investigations that investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue. And we suspect you don’t know either. One way to dispel our suspicion would be to actually name them. If the investigations you name DID investigate the “Hide the Decline” issue, then you and we will ALL know what the hell you’re talking about. Wouldn’t that be nice?
-
we admit we don’t know
The royal we again? Are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?
And, correct, you don’t know shit. Or jack.
-
And we suspect you don’t know either.
We? Still with the “we”? Well, you ARE a streak of warm piss, so “wee” may be considered correct.
JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.
CRU investigation.
-
@ Wow:
“JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.”
So you don’t know. Thought as much.
-
when you assert that there were 7 national investigations that investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue.
This isn’t the only thing you’re clueless about.
WHAT IS THE DECLINE THAT IS HIDDEN.
I realise that your pin sized brain can’t hold even one thought, so asking for two is beyond the pale, but there’s an entire fucking THREAD for you to write your “thoughts” on.
-
“JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.”
So you don’t know.
Nope, I know.
I know that you don’t know how to google.
But that isn’t why I say you should google it.
Do some work in your fucking lazy life you over-opinionated work-shy idiot scrounger.
-
Fuck, how the hell did you find about the CRU emails in the first place, you ignorant pustule?
-
“Nope, I know.
I know that you don’t know how to google.
But that isn’t why I say you should google it.”
Says the guy who doesn’t know why you put quotation marks around “global hemispheric reconstructions” in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.
Listen, Wow, plenty of people have googled “CRU investigation” and received a smorgasbord of references to investigations that did not investigate the “Hide the Decline” issue. So unless you can do better than “google it, poopy-heads” followed by a search string that doesn’t point to the answer, we have to conclude that the question has stumped you, as expected.
-
Says the guy who doesn’t know why you put quotation marks around “global hemispheric reconstructions” in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.
WRONG!
I know that.
What I don’t know is why you decided unilaterally to do that.
that did not investigate the “Hide the Decline” issue
Bollocks again.
They did.
But you have to understand what “decline” was being “hidden” otherwise you’re looking for the wrong thing.
Which you do because that’s what you’ve been told to do by someone who at least as one full brain cell to work with.
YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.
-
Fuck, you even showed yourself that you think the investigations were into the decline:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-147625
Since CRU investigations were investigations into the CRU and the science, these investigations were investigating the claim of “hiding the decline”.
However, since you’re ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what the hell is going on, you’re left wondering.
YOU claim “hide the decline” is anti-science, but you DON’T KNOW what the phrase is about!
Par for your denier course, mind: make the conclusion, then stick to it.
-
followed by a search string that doesn’t point to the answer
CRU investigation, you retard.
-
Keyes is a dishonest troll and is wasting everyone’s’ time here. It is easy to show that Wow is correct and that there were in fact 7 inquiries into the science conducted by Phil Jones and the CRU at UEA.
Keyes is one of those loathsome idiots who argues for the sake of arguing. If a respected scientist stated that the sky was blue idiots like Keyes would argue that it is not. We have all met these narcissists during our university days, these were the fools who would march up to the lecturer after a lecture and tell him that everything he said was wrong. Luckily most of them never graduated and so never got into positions where they have any effect on the day to day workings of the world and its people.
The only way they can appear to be intelligent is by using big words, which they don’t understand and hope that their audience doesn’t either, on blogs rather in the mainstream science or in accredited literary outlets. Unfortunately for people like Keyes their audience is a great deal smarter than they are.
Keyes should be ignored.
-
“Keyes should be ignored.”
He should be shitcanned.
But that ain’t happening.
-
@ Collected Wow:
“Really, WHAT decline was hidden?
REALLY.
REALLY REALLY.
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
_WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?_
YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.
You don’t even know what the bloody decline IS!
Do you have to be told the answer?
Here’s a hint, since you fail to grasp even the simplest of concepts: The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!
And remember, it requires YOU to say what the decline is because it is YOU that insists that this is something anti-scientific.
WHAT IS THE DECLINE THAT IS HIDDEN.
But you have to understand what “decline” was being “hidden” otherwise you’re looking for the wrong thing.
Which you do because that’s what you’ve been told to do by someone who at least as one full brain cell to work with.
YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.
YOU claim “hide the decline” is anti-science, but you DON’T KNOW what the phrase is about!”How much energy have you spent AVOIDING telling us what you think “the decline” means, Wow?
-
@ Ian:
“It is easy to show that Wow is correct and that there were in fact 7 inquiries into the science conducted by Phil Jones and the CRU at UEA.”
And which of those 7 actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue, Ian?
-
Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Wow:
1. What does “the decline” refer to?
2. What 7 investigations actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue?
-
Wow, you’re slow.
“Says the guy who doesn’t know why you put quotation marks around “global hemispheric reconstructions” in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.
WRONG!
I know that.
What I don’t know is why you decided unilaterally to do that.”
I’ve explained why I did it—because you used the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction” (which I’ve never seen before, and which looks pretty suspect if you ask me). In order to search for a phrase on google you need to enclose it in quotes. Otherwise you get millions of irrelevant hits about “global conference on the hemispheric repair and reconstruction of …”, yadda yadda.
-
How much energy have you spent AVOIDING telling us
BWAHAHAHAHaHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
From a retard who wrigges out of answering where his data is like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-147545
THAT *IS* amusing!
And still with the multiple personality disorder!!!
-
Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Brad:
1. What does “the decline” refer to?
2. Where is your data?
-
I’ve explained why I did it—because you used the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction”
Liar again.
And the person who DID say it never used quotes around those three words.
-
“Otherwise you get millions of irrelevant hits about “global conference on the hemispheric repair and reconstruction of …””
Or, indeed, millions of relevant hits about global hemispheric records and temperature reconstructions.
Hint, though you’ll ignore it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-147552
-
Hint: Google puts “most relevant search results” first.
-
Hey, idiot-boy, did you know that we had THERMOMETERS in the 1960′s?
-
@ Wow, you seem to object to this:
“I’ve explained why I did it—because you used the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction””
I forgot whether it was your phrase or chek’s. Whatever. One of you said it and the other is defending it to the bitter death, never mind that it makes bugger-all sense.
Here’s your killer point though:
“And the person who DID say it never used quotes around those three words.”
LOL!!!
Wow, Wow, Wow… when normal people reference phrases used by others, they often use quotes, a.k.a. quotation marks, to mark the text being quoted.
-
I forgot whether it was your phrase or chek’s
What do you mean “whatever”?
You’ve been whining at me about saying something I’ve not said.
When it’s done to YOU, you go all screaming tart on everyone and DEMAND retraction.
When YOU do it, “Whatevah”.
never mind that it makes bugger-all sense.
THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING.
Putting quotes around it was YOUR idea. And it makes bugger all sense. But YOU did it.
Not chek, not me, not Vinny, YOU.
-
they often use quotes, a.k.a. quotation marks, to mark the text being quoted.
Then do so. That’s fine. What ISN’T is putting it around a google search because, and you don’t seem to know this, if you do so, you’re not quoting someone, you’re limiting to PRECISELY the words used.
And that is why you suck at google.
-
“Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Brad:
1. What does “the decline” refer to?”
I have given my answer to this twice now, Wow. Most recently, see comment #28 on this very page.
“2. Where is your data?”
Hmm. “My data”. What could that mean… what could that mean…
In my left parietal lobe. On the bookshelf in front of me. Out There In Nature. In the mail? Behind your ear—look! In the primary literature?
Close?
No? Then I have no idea how to answer your ridiculous, half-formed question. Perhaps if you could articulate your needs a bit better I might be able to address them.
-
I have given my answer to this twice now, Wow.
And you don’t see a problem in talking about tree growth in a graph ABOUT TEMPERATURES????
THIS is why everyone knows and recognizes your incompetence.
-
In my left parietal lobe. On the bookshelf in front of me. Out There In Nature. In the mail? Behind your ear—look! In the primary literature?
So, like chek suspected, you have none.
-
So Brad, do you think the misnomered ‘MWP’ *was* warmer than the present? Or was the basis of this… discussion about something else?
Forgive me for just coming right out and asking, but I can’t be faffed to plough back through nX comments to find out where the bone of contention is buried.
-
No? Then I have no idea how to answer your ridiculous, half-formed question.
Another HAHAHaHaHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!
From the retard who asks questions like:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-147101
THIS IS RICH!!!!
-
“Then do so. That’s fine. What ISN’T is putting it around a google search because, and you don’t seem to know this, if you do so, you’re not quoting someone, you’re limiting to PRECISELY the words used.”
Actually we do know that, and that was the whole point. We wanted to know what chek meant when he used precisely the words he used: “global hemispheric reconstruction.” Not “global or hemispheric reconstruction.” Not “hemiglobal and spherical reconstruction.” Not “hemoglobin construction in spherocytes.”
Global hemispheric reconstruction.
Nobody else on the world wide web knows what it means, as far as we can tell.
Chek has since amended it to “global/hemispheric reconstruction”, which makes a lot more sense. You don’t seem to have noticed chek’s intervention and are still maniacally defending the original, senseless phrase.
-
@ BBD
That’s a good question but no, it’s not the bone of contention here. If I remember my ancient history, we’re arguing because some long-vanished, vanquished villain vapidly averred that the BEST study (which examined Earth surface temperatures, starting at 1750) had “proven” Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick “correct.” Which is a numerical stretch too far even for Lotharsson to attempt in defense of the “orthodox” view, I’m afraid.
-
Brad
Ah. I see. Presumably the claim was that BEST corroborated the HS *post* 1750? Which is fair enough.
Prior to that, we are of course in the dark forest of Proxy…
February 8, 2013
February 8, 2013
February 8, 2013
February 8, 2013
February 8, 2013