Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Actually we do know that,

    We really ARE full of ourselves, aren’t we!

  2. #2 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Global hemispheric reconstruction.

    And he wasn’t quoting anyone, so why did YOU want to look for a title or other quoted object of that name?

    BECAUSE YOU’RE A RETARD.

  3. #3 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Chek has since amended it to “global/hemispheric reconstruction”

    Only because you’re a retard who doesn’t understand english.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    the BEST study (which examined Earth surface temperatures, starting at 1750) had “proven” Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick “correct.”

    It has.

    Or are you back to claiming it is showing something different and divergent from MBH98?

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ BBD

    “Ah. I see. Presumably the claim was that BEST corroborated the HS *post* 1750? Which is fair enough.”

    That may have been fair enough, had that been the claim. Alas, there was no temporal qualification.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ BBD

    As an example, see the comment above by Wow. According to him/her, BEST proved the HS correct. Period.

  7. #7 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Alas, there was no temporal qualification.

    there was.

    the length of the BEST project.

    Or do you assume that just because nobody said it wasn’t 1000 years long that they thought it was???

  8. #8 BBD
    February 8, 2013

    Well, we must *all* be careful to define terms. Much pain can be avoided.

  9. #9 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    According to him/her, BEST proved the HS correct

    Wow, how do you manage to lie when it’s so damn easy to spot?

    Here’s what was said:
    “the BEST study (which examined Earth surface temperatures, starting at 1750) had “proven” Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick “correct.””

    It has.

    You need to wonder why you think “prove” means what you think it means when it doesn’t.

    Mann’s Hockey Stick was verified by BEST because BEST produced the same shape over the period of the BEST project.

  10. #10 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Much pain can be avoided.

    This, however, is why this streak of warm dogspiss doesn’t do defining terms, only vagueness and whining.

    The little shitstain on society wants to cause people with better things to do pain.

    For DARING to presume Brat’s insane ravings as being possibly wrong.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    MBH98 is what I’ve continually and consistently said when you’ve wanted to say “Hockey Stick”, since there is no such paper as “Hockey Stick”.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ BBD

    “Well, we must *all* be careful to define terms. Much pain can be avoided.”

    Wiser words haven’t been written in a loooong time.

    Notice how Wow is just now trying to [re]define what he meant, retrospectively, having made ludicrously strong assertions continually throughout the last 150 comments.

    All this time, when he/she’s been claiming that BEST “proved” Mann et al. “correct”, he/she really meant something much more insipid than that. (So he/she would have us believe.)

    Better late than never, I suppose. :-)

  13. #13 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    Notice how Wow is just now trying to [re]define what he meant

    Note how I’ve always used MBH98.

    But go ahead, show me a paper called “Hockey stick”.

    Go on.

    Oh, I see, you’re being an arse again.

    Tell me, do you contribute to goatse.cx?

  14. #14 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    this time, when he/she’s been claiming that BEST “proved” Mann et al. “correct”

    Yup, i meant proved it was correct.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    What?

    You didn’t say it had to prove all 1000 years of a different paper. Nor 600 years of MBH98.

    But it was created to see if MBH98 was false.

    It proved it real.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    I definitely used the words proved and correct and now you’re using quotation marks to say that you’re quoting me.

    That’s what they’re for, right?

  17. #17 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ Wow, while you’re abasing yourself, how about answering the eminently-reasonable and long-overdue questions:

    1. what does “the decline” refer to (in your opinion)?

    2. which 7 national investigations actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue?

    We (including BBD, I expect) would love to get your thoughts on that.

  18. #18 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    1. what does “the decline” refer to (in your opinion)?

    If you don’t know what the decline is that is being hidden, then how do you know that there’s a problem?

    Your version CANNOT be true because the graph is about TEMPERATURE not tree growth.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    2. which 7 national investigations actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue?

    ALL SEVEN.

  20. #20 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Thanks Wow for your tireless efforts in exposing “Brad” as a complete know-nothing and the most utter and base of fuckwit denier blogspews.

    I never thought I’d see the day that PantieZ could be made to seem like a J.K. Galbraith in comparison, but it’s happened.

  21. #21 Wow
    February 8, 2013

    It’s the fake philosophy.

    I’ve known some philosophy students and they were sometimes too caught up with “quale” and what “is” “is” to make a coherent statement.

    Brat here is just aping Joan’s schtick, mind, with a heaping of cod-intellectualism that Joan has down pat.

    This dickwad is still too green.

  22. #22 Stu
    February 8, 2013

    He’s not a philosophy student, he’s an incompetent sophist with a thesaurus. The most tedious of all.

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “If you don’t know what the decline is that is being hidden, then how do you know that there’s a problem?”

    Even if we didn’t understand what they were hiding from us, that wouldn’t mitigate their crime one bit. We’d still have scientists hiding things from us, and admitting this in writing to their colleagues, and their colleagues not raising the faintest moral protest.

    This is not on. This is not science.

    “Your version CANNOT be true because the graph is about TEMPERATURE not tree growth.”

    What do you mean, it’s “about” temperature? You mean, the y-axis is labelled in degrees Celsius?

    LOL… Wow…. I know I’ve been amazed by your slow-wittedness before, but are you really so primitive and superstitious as to believe that the ritual convention of labelling determines what is actually being measured? Folks, it’s Magical Thinking, alive and well! Not in some Amazonian tribe that’s never heard of European civilisation, but in a suburb with an Internet connection!

    But Wow, instead of continually telling us what it can’t POSSIBLY be, please put us out of suspense and tell us, once and for all, what Phil Jones really meant by “the decline”?

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ Wow

    “2. which 7 national investigations actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue?

    ALL SEVEN.”

    OK. That’s one tooth pulled.

    How about I help you out on 3 of the names: let me guess, are you thinking of (among other inquiries) the Acton, Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh inquiries, to name them after their respective chairperson?

  25. #25 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Give it up “Brad”. This’ll end as badly for you as the ritual intellectual castration of Jonarse aka Jonas N, the former great white hope of Scandinavian deniaslism…. your choice.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    @ Wow accuses me of

    “just aping Joan’s schtick, mind, with a heaping of cod-intellectualism that Joan has down pat.”

    But Wow, that would require me to know Joan’s schtick. In fact I know nothing about it except that you’re probably talking about Jonas, not “Joan.” I’ve read a grand total of one page of Jonas’ thread, max.

  27. #27 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Wow, that would require me to know Joan’s schtick”

    Not at all. You just throw that out as a reflex action, but transparency is as transparency does, and you’re transparent, “Brad”. You didn’t even bother to do your most basic homework, because you thought you didn’t need to. You thought you could wing it. That’s what trashblog sites do to your cognitive processes. They atrophy faster than prawn salads in the desert.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    February 8, 2013

    “You didn’t even bother to do your most basic homework, because you thought you didn’t need to.”

    What makes you say I didn’t do my homework, chek? Did I get something wrong? Ah, if I had, I’m sure you’d be specifying it, wouldn’t you?—instead of doling out vague, one-size-fits-all schoolmarm reprimands.

    Boring.

  29. #29 chek
    February 8, 2013

    “Boring.”

    But readily apparent nevertheless.

  30. #30 Stu
    February 8, 2013

    but are you really so primitive and superstitious as to believe that the ritual convention of labelling determines what is actually being measured?

    Holy crap. No wonder you went into philosophy. You truly are dense as a post.

  31. #31 BBD
    February 9, 2013

    Hide the decline is boring. The Mannean hockey stick is boring.

    Let’s have some fun with paleoclimate!

    How do we get deglaciation under orbital forcing without CO2 feedback? (Shakun et al. 2012).

    How do we get a ~50Ma *overall* cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum without decreasing CO2 forcing? (Hansen & Sato 2012).

  32. #32 BBD
    February 9, 2013

    And for bonus points, how did we get out of the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth without CO2 forcing?

    ;-)

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “And for bonus points, how did we get out of the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth without CO2 forcing?”

    I give up.

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @Wow,

    1. please confirm for us that when you assert that “ALL SEVEN” national investigations into Climategate investigated the “Hide The Decline” issue, you’re asserting that the Acton, Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh inquiries (plus 4 others) investigated it

    2. it’s impossible to shut you up on the topic of what Phil Jones DIDN’T mean by “the decline”, but please, end our suspense and tell us, once and for all, what did he mean, in your opinion??

    Pretty please.

    With cherries on top.

  35. #35 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ chek, you really seem to have a grudge against this “Jonas N, the former great white hope of Scandinavian deniaslism [sic]” , and I think your original and fatal mental mistake was to transfer that grudge here—to Brad’s Place—where there is no house policy of denialism. I, Brad, am not a denialist. Our guest chameleon is not a denialist. If anyone here is a denialist, they haven’t made themselves known to us. As far as I can tell, denialism has yet to set foot on my bridge.

    Believalism, on the other hand, seems to be rampant in these parts.

  36. #36 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 9, 2013

    Talk about wading – through this old and fetid mud.

    Can’t be bothered writing my own “opinion” on what this “means” because the people who know best have written about it themselves.
    ” As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”
    paragraph 7 on this page … http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

  37. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ adelady

    I’m over it too, believe me.

    But for some strange reason, the mere mention of “maximum latewood tree ring density” causes Wow to ejaculate that, “Your version CANNOT be true because the graph is about TEMPERATURE not tree growth.”

  38. #38 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ chek, you really seem to have a grudge against this “former great white hope of Scandinavian deniaslism [sic]” , and I think your original and main mental error was to transfer that grudge here—to Brad’s Place—where there is no official denialist line.

    I, Brad, am not a denialist.

    Our guest chameleon is not a denialist.

    If anyone here is a denialist, they haven’t made themselves known to us. As far as I can tell, denialism has yet to set foot on my bridge.

    Believalism, on the other hand, seems to be rampant in these parts.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    1. please confirm for us that when you assert that “ALL SEVEN”

    You thick as well as stupid? :D

    All seven investigated “Hide the decline”.

    end our suspense and tell us

    EVERYONE ELSE knows.

    So stop with the “tell us” bollocks.

    You’re on your own.

    Please confirm that in a graph about TEMPERATURE tree growth can’t be what “hide the decline” can be, because the graph isn’t ABOUT tree growth, it’s about temperatures.

  40. #40 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Even if we didn’t understand what they were hiding from us,

    With this “we” again?

    Please drop the multiple personality.

    *WE* understand fine what the hockey stick means and what was meant by “hide the decline”.

    Nothing was hidden from you.

    NOTHING.

    But you can’t see it because you don’t know what the hell “hide the decline” was “hiding”.

  41. #41 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    If you don’t know what’s being hidden, how can you know you should have been shown it?

  42. #42 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    This is not on. This is not science.

    How do you know?

    YOU DO NOT.

    You won’t see stellar evolution papers going on about deriving the gravitational laws. They “hide” them from you. They are “hidden”.

    Yet because they don’t put every single step in there this doesn’t make it unscientific.

  43. #43 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    “maximum latewood tree ring density” causes Wow to ejaculate that, “Your version CANNOT be true because the graph is about TEMPERATURE not tree growth.”

    Are you saying that thermometers should be discarded in favour of counting tree wood deposition?

  44. #44 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    If I answer your piteous whining about “what does ‘hide the decline’ mean”, ESPECIALLY with your unwarranted coda “in your opinion”, you’d just be equally confused.

    You see with the terminally stupid such as yourself, you have to lead them through the problem step by step. You can’t jump around.

    If you’d been a smidgeon less stupid, it may be worth trying, but you’re thick as a tree stump.

    So we have to go small steps.

    Do you accept that on a TEMPERATURE GRAPH, tree growth can’t be what is being hidden?

    If not, why not?

  45. #45 chek
    February 9, 2013

    BBD, it’s not meant to go that far back in paleoclimate – only the bit where they get to slander Michael Mann. Otherwise they’d have to know something.

  46. #46 chek
    February 9, 2013

    Believalism, on the other hand, seems to be rampant in these parts

    I couldn’t agree more

    You for instance repeat any and all the standard issue denier memes you believe in, despite all of them having been debunked for years.

  47. #47 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow

    “All seven investigated “Hide the decline”.”

    So: the Acton, Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh inquiries (plus the other 4) all investigated “Hide the Decline”, did they, Wow?

    Please confirm.

  48. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “If I answer your piteous whining about “what does ‘hide the decline’ mean”, ESPECIALLY with your unwarranted coda “in your opinion”, you’d just be equally confused.”

    Never mind that—just answer, so that the All-seeing Unforgetting Eye of the Internet can witness that you, Wow, really do know the answer you’ve been histrionically promising to tell us for several hours now.

  49. #49 pentaxZ
    February 9, 2013

    ”People are edging towards the exit.

    The worst and most humiliating indicator of that change is the tenor of the skeptic blogs. There’s been a subtle shift. Instead of doing the usual mentat deconstruction of climate papers, they’re doing humour. There’s nothing much left to hit so they’re having a bit of fun. They’re relaxing, having a larf really. Finally, it’s rest and relaxation time. As R&R goes, they have very definitely earned that, after so many years of brutal effort assaulting each of those islands, one after another. They’re veterans, who’ve taken too many places like Peleliu and Okinawa and have a growing sense of the end of the war.
    Sure, it’ll drag on but we own them. At this stage in the game, we’re just running down the clock.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-breaking-point/

    =)

  50. #50 chek
    February 9, 2013

    “Brad” all the investigations found the science and the scientists to be sound.

    Until such time as you’re able to demonstrate any actual grasp of what you’re talking about, that generalisation will fit well enough into your level of understanding.

  51. #51 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    C’mon Wow,

    Explain to adelady and the rest of us why we’re wrong. Tell us all how “the decline” isn’t about “maximum latewood tree ring density,” as adelady’s quote says.

  52. #52 chek
    February 9, 2013

    There’s nothing much left to hit so they’re having a bit of fun.

    Yes PantieZ, their strategy has failed so they’re desperately hanging onto their readership (a benchmark in stupidity and received ideas) with comics, catoons and circuses until they can work out how to sell them unrequired insurance, shonky investments and horse meat pizzas.

  53. #53 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ chek

    ““Brad” all the investigations found the science and the scientists to be sound.”

    All which investigations?

    Do you mean the Acton, Muir Russell and Ron Oxburgh inquiries (among others)?

    Yes or no? Simple question.

  54. #54 BBD
    February 9, 2013

    Chek @ 45

    It was an experiment. You are almost certainly correct, but I like to test these things for myself ;-)

    A born empiricist, me.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Please confirm.

    How many times are you going to ask me to answer the same fucking question?

    If you want to know why you don’t get your demands answered, THIS is the reason: you keep asking “please confirm”.

    ALL SEVEN.

  56. #56 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Wow, really do know the answer you’ve been histrionically promising to tell us for several hours now.

    Yes, I do.

    You don’t.

    As the all seeing internet has seen.

  57. #57 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Tell us all how “the decline” isn’t about “maximum latewood tree ring density,”

    Because the graph was about TEMPERATURE.

    Are you completely careless that you’ve missed this like 20 times already?

  58. #58 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    All which investigations?

    ALL SEVEN CRU investigations.

  59. #59 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Explain to adelady and the rest of us why we’re wrong.

    Adelady is saying something completely different from you.

    She is right.

    YOU are wrong.

    Yet you continue to pretend you are legion.

    All you are is a cretin.

  60. #60 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Please confirm that in a graph about TEMPERATURE tree growth can’t be what “hide the decline” can be, because the graph isn’t ABOUT tree growth, it’s about temperatures.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Come on, Brat, why do you keep using “We”?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    There’s nothing much left to hit so they’re having a bit of fun.

    True, by this time the only ones still believing that AGW is a hoax are the Taliban of climate science and there’s absolutely nothing that will EVER convince them of being wrong.

    Therefore why NOT have a bit of fun at their expense?

    People take the piss out of the Taliban (the greatest minds of the 14th century). So why not of the WTFUWT Taliban?

  63. #63 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Note, Brat, how adelady is talking about a WELL KNOWN “divergence problem”.

    Nothing hidden there.

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, for the millionth time, what did Phil Jones mean by “the decline”?

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “Come on, Brat, why do you keep using “We”?”

    Because my friend is sitting a couple of metres away, just as bemused by your evasions as I am.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    what did Phil Jones mean by “the decline”?

    First time you’ve asked that!

    I’ve asked you several times:

    WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?

    You responded with “tree ring growth”, but since “hide the decline” was, BY YOU YOURSELF asserted as something to do with the graph of temperature reconstructions, what declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be “tree ring growth”.

    Moreover, adelady goes on about the WELL KNOWN (therefore NEVER hidden) divergence problem.

    So it can’t be that.

    WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN.

  67. #67 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Because my friend is sitting a couple of metres away

    Yeah, he’s been your friend a long time, hasn’t he.

    Always there for you, even when you were very very young…

    Lovely Mr Pootle.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Please confirm that in a graph about TEMPERATURE tree growth can’t be what “hide the decline” can be, because the graph isn’t ABOUT tree growth, it’s about temperatures.

    If you cannot, why not?

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow,

    When Jones wrote in his email that he had just finished hiding “the decline”, what did he mean? What was he claiming to have hidden?

    The whole world knows my answer: he’d hidden the decreasing trend in the MXD of the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    We’re still waiting for your answer.

    And this time, when I say “we” I mean “the whole world.”

  70. #70 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    When Jones wrote in his email that he had just finished hiding “the decline”

    Your only quoted words there were “the decline”. The rest of that, apparently, entirely your own fiction.

    Please proffer Jones’ own words as made.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I notice that you can’t even say why you can’t say that tree ring growth can’t be what was hidden on a graph of temperatures.

    Why is that?

    Do you not know why?

  72. #72 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    he’d hidden the decreasing trend in the MXD of the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    Except this is supposed to be a graph of TEMPERATURES not tree growth.

    So how can tree growth be hidden from it?

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, you’ve staked out quite a clear position here:

    “what declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be “tree ring growth”.

    I disagree, of course; “tree-ring growth” (the maximum latewood density of the dendro proxies) IS precisely what declined, as I understand it.

    Never mind; you clearly believe something else declined, you just won’t tell us what. WHAT do you think declined, Wow?

  74. #74 chek
    February 9, 2013

    “Brad” must be vying for Denier of the Year or something.
    His pedigree is awesome.
    1. Knows nothing – check
    2. Understands even less – check
    3. Not ashamed of it – check
    4. Kicks warmista ass ………. oh well …. 3 out of four.
    Good if disappointing effort, but should stick to the choir of baying hounds over at willwatts were he’ll blend right in with his limited repertoire of vaguely recalled talking points.

  75. #75 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I disagree, of course; “tree-ring growth” (the maximum latewood density of the dendro proxies) IS precisely what declined

    Except how can that be what was hidden on a graph when the graph was about TEMPERATURES?

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    I’ve been asking, in vain:

    which 7 national investigations actually investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue?

    @Wow:
    ”ALL SEVEN CRU investigations.”

    @chek:
    ”“Brad” all the investigations found the science and the scientists to be sound.”

    All right, since you won’t (or can’t) name any of the investigations, I’ll just have to consider the ones I know…

    The Ron Oxburgh inquiry
    — didn’t even investigate the science!
    “The important point to emphasise is that we were assessing people and their motivations. We were not assessing the wisdom of their judgement or the validity of their conclusions.”
    “… What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study. (http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/)

    The Muir Russell inquiry
    —investigated allegations including:
    “That the reference in a specific e-mail to a “trick” and to “hide the decline” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture.
    —Found Jones guilty as charged:

    “In relation to “hide the decline” we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.”

    - The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
    —looked at some controversial science issues
    —cleared Jones of any suspicion of premeditatedly hiding the decline in his WMO presentation, since, well, he’d openly discussed the decline in, uh, an academic paper elsewhere [!]

  77. #77 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I’ve been asking, in vain:

    Except the only vanity is that you needed explicit names.

    The Ron Oxburgh inquiry
    — didn’t even investigate the science!

    Irrelevant assertion, since you claim that “hide the decline” isn’t science. Therefore comes under the remit.

    They DID investigate the claim that there was something hidden on the graph of paleo temperatures.

    Guess what: nothing is hidden.

    And linking to climateaudit? Really? You don’t know where the ACTUAL report is?

    You see, this is the problem for you: you’re making claims about what OTHER PEOPLE have said about what was said.

    HEARSAY EVIDENCE.

    No actual evidence. HEARSAY ONLY.

    This is why I’ve not acquiesced to your childish tantrums. We’ll investigate the items in order.

    WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN

    That your only response is

    a) something that doesn’t exist on a graph of TEMPERATURES
    b) asserting only TWO WORDS that mean nothing then putting your own words around it to make a “crime”
    c) linking to third-party attributions

    indicates the actual answer.

    Will you be honest enough with yourself to admit it?

    And I bet your assertions about something missing or a decline being erased and replaced with an incline is YOUR record of TGGWS which showed just such a crime: but only because THEY PUT IT THERE.

    Yes, they changed the graph in photoshop or similar then paraded these changes as “proof” of the original being falsified.

    But you are stuck citing only denier blogs as source for your information.

    Go to the original sources. Because you’re accepting a comfortable lie from denier blogs.

  78. #78 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    In summary, of the 3 Climategate inquiries whose findings I’m familiar with:

    — 1 found Phil Jones guilty of a “misleading” graph
    — 1 found him not guilty on the bizarre grounds that he’d discussed it elsewhere
    — 1 didn’t investigate it (or any other aspect of “the science”, for that matter!)

    What a glorious exoneration, guys.

  79. #79 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    WHAT do you think declined, Wow?

    The intelligence of deniers, Brat.

  80. #80 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    In summary, of the 3 Climategate inquiries whose findings I’m familiar with:

    And you aren’t actually familiar with them.

    Only with the made-up stories on denier blogs.

    This, in short, is your problem.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, you call this “HEARSAY”…

    “What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.”

    … apparently because it was quoted at ClimateAudit.

    But the bad news for you is that it’s a quote from the Ron Oxburgh Inquiry’s Chairman, Ron Oxburgh, himself. Admitting that they weren’t even asked to look into the science.

  82. #82 Wow
    February 9, 2013

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

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

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

    Concerns that Muir had were entirely because he wasn’t going to have to do any of the work (unfunded), therefore didn’t care about the work involved nor the intent of that work was to stymie and punish the CRU.

    Further:

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

    The only problem asserted was one that was post-hoc discovered: nobody thought that such a minor point would become for deniers so very important.

    Because the paleo data is a very minor point and the haranguing of CRU over it entirely based on trying to pick ANY hole in the climate science to continue with denial.

  83. #83 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, you call this “HEARSAY”…

    I call your statement http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147763 hearsay because you link solely to the denier blogroll climatefraudit.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    … apparently because it was quoted at ClimateAudit.

    Yes, that is what hearsay means.

    Do you lack EVERY form of education????

  85. #85 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Glorious example?

    NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    ps 84 should more correctly read:

    because you LINKED to it on climatefraudit, and that is what hearsay is.

    “He said he said…”

    Moronic levels over 9000 with you brat!

  87. #87 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And still lacking any actual Phil Jones email.

    All you have are TWO WORDS, one of which is “the”, so a null word, from which to base your claim of “it isn’t science!”.

  88. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow:

    “And I bet your assertions about something missing or a decline being erased and replaced with an incline is YOUR record of TGGWS which showed just such a crime: but only because THEY PUT IT THERE.”

    Arrrgh! THEY PUT IT THERE!

    Conspiracy theorise much, Wow?

    Your bet is way off, pal. I presume “TGGWS” means “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which I haven’t seen in several years and whose coverage of “Hide the Decline” I honestly don’t remember a thing about.

    I know Jones hid the decline because:

    1. He wrote in an email that he’d done so
    2. The resulting graph was found to be misleading by the Muir Russell investigation into the so-called “Climategate” scandal
    3. I’ve seen what he presented to the WMO. (Have you? Take a look. It might provoke some original thought in your brain.)

  89. #89 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Arrrgh! THEY PUT IT THERE!

    Yes, TTGGWS put it there.

    Moron.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Conspiracy theorise much, Wow?

    Says the dude who thinks the CRU are all faking it and all the inquiries were faked…!

    No, it’s ACTUAL FACT.

    You know, when there IS a conspiracy, for some reason a conspiracy is there. Squawking “conspiracy theory? conspiracy theory?” doesn’t make it all magically disappear.

    http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “And still lacking any actual Phil Jones email.

    All you have are TWO WORDS, one of which is “the”, so a null word, from which to base your claim of “it isn’t science!”.”

    How remiss of me. Here’s the whole sentence:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

  92. #92 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I know Jones hid the decline because:

    1. He wrote in an email that he’d done so

    So far you’ve got bupkis.

    No email.

    Nothing hidden.

    All we’ve got is you using quotes around two words “the decline” then a lot of words FROM YOU about hiding it and then claiming Phil Jones said it in an email.

    Where’s your evidence?

  93. #93 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    2. The resulting graph was found to be misleading by the Muir Russell investigation into the so-called “Climategate” scandal

    False.

    Finding #22.

    “So-called” scandal is right.

    There was no scandal. Just manufactured outrage.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    3. I’ve seen what he presented to the WMO.

    No, it looks more like you’ve seen what climate denier blogs say he presented to the WMO.

  95. #95 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    So what is being hid by using real temperatures?

  96. #96 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And what is “Mike’s Nature trick”?

  97. #97 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Don’t tell me, Phil is hiding the decline in denier intellect by using temperature readings from calibrated thermometers on a graph of temperatures, right?

    HOW DARE HE use temperature readings to show temperature readings!!!!

    Doesn’t he know that will be ENDLESSLY confusing for you poor idiot deniers???

  98. #98 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And what was misleading about the graph, hmm?

    How can be using themometer readings of temperatures be misleading on a graph OF TEMPERATURES?

  99. #99 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @Wow:
    ”You responded with “tree ring growth”, but since “hide the decline” was, BY YOU YOURSELF asserted as something to do with the graph of temperature reconstructions, what declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be “tree ring growth”.

    “Please confirm that in a graph about TEMPERATURE tree growth can’t be what “hide the decline” can be, because the graph isn’t ABOUT tree growth, it’s about temperatures.”

    LOL. Wow, you’re making this too easy for me.

    May I commend to your attention a little website called http://www.skepticalscience.com, according to which your interpretation is “patently false” and “demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed.” :-) ….

    The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
    “Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt  to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    “The “decline” does not refer to a “decline in global temperature” as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.”

    ;-)

  100. #100 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Note: When I ask “So what is being hid by using real temperatures?”, this indicates that this email is inadequate to answer the question and therefore you need to find the CONVERSATION to answer the question.

    What is being hid by using real temperatures?

Current ye@r *