Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    Shorter Wow:

    What declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be tree-ring growth, because the graph is about temperature.

    SkepticalScience dot com:

    The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
    … The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    Wow, Wow, Wow, you are too easy by half my friend. Seriously, how much is Heartland paying you?

  2. #2 Wow
    February 9, 2013

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

    God knows you need the help. Badly.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com

    Been there.

    So you know the URL. Funny how you can’t find out how to link to what you say is in there.

    “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.

    There you go, you’ve just found out that there is no decline being hidden!

    The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    Except that decline isn’t hidden.

    So how can they “hide the decline” on something that is ALREADY out in the open?

    You need far more help than you think I’m giving you.

    WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN

    All you have so far is

    a) it wasn’t temperatures (your sks link)
    b) it wasn’t tree ring growth (since it was open and cannot be hidden)

    so all you have is what it WASN’T.

  3. #3 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Brad, the point of a “shorter X” is to keep the same meaning whilst using fewer words.

    Not to make up a different meaning.

    The decline being hidden CANNOT be tree ring growth because the graph that hiding is supposed to have taken place on is about TEMPERATURES.

  4. #4 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    “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.

    AND IT WASN’T HIDDEN.

    So it can’t be the decline that was hidden.

    My god, you’re thicker than a mile of pigshit.

  5. #5 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Is the fact that you want to stop talking about anything being hidden?

    We can do that, in which case we can talk about the decline of SOME tree ring proxies in LIMITED LOCATIONS.

    But these are NOT hidden declines.

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow’s latest desperate fabrication:

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. look at the graph
    2. where is the decline?

  7. #7 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And remember, lest any forget, Brad thought the Muir report showed a problem with the temperature graph.

    The REAL report (see http://www.cce-review.org/))

    says:

    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.

    This is entirely why Brat went to climatefraudit. There you can only see the GoodFact. The facts that say what make him feel Good.

    Going to the real report and you get TrueFact.

  8. #8 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    1. look at the graph

    There is no graph.

    2. where is the decline?

    Nowhere.

  9. #9 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “Brad, the point of a “shorter X” is to keep the same meaning whilst using fewer words.

    Not to make up a different meaning.”

    Obviously. And?

  10. #10 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    2. where is the decline?

    Of course, if you mean “decline in tree ring growth”, then I refer you back to your original statement:

    The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
    … The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

    Decline in tree growth of certain high latitude locations for some species of tree since some time after 1960 WOULD NOT APPEAR in a TEMPERATURE GRAPH.

    It DOES appear on many papers, including ones produced by Phil Jones et al and therefore cannot be hidden.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Obviously. And?

    So you admit you’re deliberately changing the meaning.

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “1. look at the graph

    There is no graph.”

    What are you telling us, Wow? That you can’t find the graph Phil Jones was referring to in his immortal email? The one he was preparing for his WMO talk?

  13. #13 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Shorter Brat: I’m allowed to make shit up but call you out on anything not absolutely 100% reliable or supported by data.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    What are you telling us, Wow?

    I’m telling you that you gave no graph.

    I realise for the insane like yourself, who are not limited by mundane reality, that this isn’t considered a problem.

    However, the fact still remains: you gave no graph.

  15. #15 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “Obviously. And?

    So you admit you’re deliberately changing the meaning.”

    But I’m not.

    Here is the longer 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”.

    Here is the shorter Wow:

    “What declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be tree-ring growth, because the graph is about temperature.”

  16. #16 Wow
    February 9, 2013
    “Obviously. And?

    So you admit you’re deliberately changing the meaning.”

    But I’m not.

    Oh, I KNOW you’re not *admitting* it.

    You ARE doing it, though. Just denying.

  17. #17 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Here is the shorter Wow:

    And again, with the bare faced cheek of the serial and congenital liar, leaving out this word: Hide.

    “hide the decline”

    The decline that was hidden CANNOT be tree ring growth.

    Not

    The decline CANNOT be tree ring growth.

    Since this isn’t what you want to believe, you won’t understand.

  18. #18 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow,

    the graph is on this page:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html

    You’ll find it under the question “What does “hide the decline” refer to?”, and the answer: “The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.”

    See, now we both have the WMO graph.

    You lied:

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. look at the graph

    2. where is the decline?

  19. #19 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    Wow:

    ”[w]hat declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be tree-ring growth.”

    SkS:

    ”The decline is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
    … The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.”

    (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-basic.htm)

  20. #20 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    the graph is on this page:

    So at least I can verify we will be talking about the same graph. Not a faked up one for TGGWS.

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. look at the graph

    Done.

    2. where is the decline?

    Here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    So not hidden.

  21. #21 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Note that Muir knew this:

    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.

    But, despite all the protestations of how much you knew of these things, you don’t seem to actually know anything about them.

    Muir’s report alluded to them.

    You claimed you knew the Muir report.

    But you don’t know that the decline of tree ring data was NOT hidden, despite this being IN THE MUIR REPORT.

    This is pretty conclusive proof you were lying (yeah, big shock!) about knowing the report.

  22. #22 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    ”[w]hat declined cannot, repeat CANNOT, be tree-ring growth.”

    Since you maintain the lie, I’ll just point it out.

    Again.

    Liar.

  23. #23 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Brad: He Hid The Decline!!!!
    Reality: What decline was hidden?
    Brad: The decline that wasn’t hidden!!!!
    Reality: That wasn’t hidden.
    Brad: You lie! It did decline!!!!
    Reality: STFU Troll

  24. #24 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Brat, why do you think not using crap data is anti-scientific?

    Is this idiotic idea of yours the reason why you flunked even philosophy?

  25. #25 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    *Sigh.*

    It seems my instructions need to be childproof.

    Wow, You lied:

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. consider Phil Jones’ WMO graph, which is reproduced on this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html

    2. look at said graph

    3. where in said graph can the decline be seen?

  26. #26 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    3. where in said graph can the decline be seen?

    Here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    You hard of thinking or what?

  27. #27 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    The WMO graph was a graph of TEMPERATURES.

    Not a graph of how trees were feeling.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    How can something be hidden when it’s in plain sight?

  29. #30 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I guess willful blindness must be added to your character defects, such as pathological lying.

  30. #31 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, You lied:

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. consider Phil Jones’ WMO graph, which is reproduced on this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html

    2. look at said graph

    3. where in said graph—NOT IN SOME OTHER GRAPH, NOT ON SOME OTHER WEBPAGE—can the decline be seen?

  31. #32 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    3. where in said graph—NOT IN SOME OTHER GRAPH, NOT ON SOME OTHER WEBPAGE—can the decline be seen?

    IT’S ON THE SAME WEB PAGE!!!!

  32. #33 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I would also like to point out for interested listeners that Brat has moved from “There have been no investigations into the ‘hide the decline'” to admitting at least one (the Muir report).

    Quietly done, wasn’t it?

  33. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow, You lied:

    “Except that decline isn’t hidden.”

    1. consider Phil Jones’ WMO graph: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/wmo_graph.jpg

    2. look at said WMO graph

    3. where in said WMO graph—NOT IN SOME OTHER GRAPH—can the decline be seen?

  34. #35 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    2. look at said WMO graph

    I know.

    That graph, however, is about the temperature record.

    Not about tree proxies.

    3. where in said WMO graph—NOT IN SOME OTHER GRAPH—can the decline be seen?

    Did you notice that there were no figures for the GDP of Guatemala there too?

    Do you think they were HIDING SOMETHING!!!!

    On that graph, the tree ring proxies are not there because the graph is about TEMPERATURES.

  35. #36 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    So, in essence, Brat’s evidence that something is hidden is that if he looks where it isn’t supposed to be, it’s not there.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but that doesn’t seem to be evidence of some nefarious hiding stuff thing going on…

  36. #37 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow now stoops to fabricating quotes:

    “I would also like to point out for interested listeners that Brat has moved from “There have been no investigations into the ‘hide the decline’” to admitting at least one (the Muir report).”

  37. #38 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Also note how each time what he’s demanded has not been what he wanted, he’s changed what he’s demanded.

    Starts off with “where is the decline shown?”

    But it is shown. In the paper discussing tree ring proxies.

    So then it was changed “ON THE SAME WEB PAGE!!!! RAWR!!!!”

    But then the graph from the paper discussing the divergence problem was on the same page. So then it changed to “SULK MAD! WANT SAME GRAPH, NOT OTHER, SULK SMASH GRAAAAWWWR!”.

  38. #39 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    “I would also like to point out for interested listeners that Brat has moved from “There have been no investigations into the ‘hide the decline’” to admitting at least one (the Muir report).”

    Isn’t fabricated.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-147620

  39. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “2. look at said WMO graph

    I know.

    That graph, however, is about the temperature record.

    Not about tree proxies.”

    *Sigh*.

    Really, Wow? Do we really have to do this little dance too?

    Dear readers, the graph I’m drawing Wow’s attention to is the graph PHIL JONES WAS TALKING ABOUT IN HIS INFAMOUS EMAIL. The one in which he used a “trick” to “hide the decline.”

    Wow is apparently getting a kind of cowardly thrill out of pretending we’re arguing about a whole different graph by a different scientist.

    Boring.

  40. #41 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Really, Wow? Do we really have to do this little dance too?

    Apparently so, but that’s mostly because you refuse to learn anything.

    the graph PHIL JONES WAS TALKING ABOUT IN HIS INFAMOUS EMAIL

    However, there was nothing hidden.

    The graph has the temperature records.

    Any worry about the tree rings for a small section of the proxies used by Briffa was not hidden.

    As you can see here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    The one in which he used a “trick” to “hide the decline.”

    Except no preposition is available for “the decline” to be hidden.

    Takes us back to WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN.

    You’ve still not been able to say what, because your only answer is “tree rings”, but

    a) the graph is about temperature readings not tree rings

    b) the divergence problem is in no way of fashion hidden.

  41. #42 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Boring.

    What’s boring is that you’re screaming “DECLINE!!!!” but there’s nothing anti-scientific about it.

    What’s boring is that you’re claiming “HIDING!!!!” when nothing has been hidden.

  42. #43 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Apparently to Brat, discarding bad data is anti-scientific, ESPECIALLY when you explain in many papers and widely why this was bad data and should be discarded.

    Why?

    Because he only reads the denier blogs because they tell him he’s smarter than EVERYONE if he “knows” that AGW is all a scam.

  43. #44 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “I would also like to point out for interested listeners that Brat has moved from “There have been no investigations into the ‘hide the decline’” to admitting at least one (the Muir report).”

    Isn’t fabricated.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-3/#comment-147620

    Yes, dear readers: please do click on the URL Wow has thoughtfully provided and verify for yourselves that the quote Wow attributed to me was a figment of his / her own fraud. You’ll notice not only that the words themselves are a ventriloquism, but that the idea expressed thereby is also Wow’s invention.

  44. #45 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    I notice that you’ve not taken umbrage at the HIDING of the Guatamalan GDP records in the WMO graph presentation.

  45. #46 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    You’ll notice not only that the words themselves are a ventriloquism

    Really? Ventriloquism?

    ventriloquism
    Web definitions
    the art of projecting your voice so that it seems to come from another source (as from a ventriloquist’s dummy).

    Hmm. How about this:

    par·a·phrase
    /ˈparəˌfrāz/
    Verb
    Express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, esp. to achieve greater clarity.
    Noun
    A rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.

    Or were you so very busy pretending that there were investigations “avoiding” ‘hide the decline’ that you meant to say

    “All 6 investigated ‘hide the decline’? No, some did, but some didn’t”

    And instead ranted about some bloody conspiracy theory (making your comment about “conspiracy theory much?” rather unaware of you)?

    Or is it the fact that you thought none investigated it (hence why there was no change to the graph or censure for it)?

    Yes, it’s the latter, isn’t it.

  46. #47 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Also a hoot that you whine about “ventriloquism” yet for you, it’s normal and acceptable:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-5/#comment-147796

    But the double standard is the standard option for the club-class denier.

  47. #48 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow

    “What’s boring is that you’re claiming “HIDING!!!!” when nothing has been hidden.”

    So nothing has been hidden, in your imagination, Wow?

    Phil Jones was just… lying when he told his colleagues he’d just finished using a trick “to hide the decline”?

    Oh well, that’s OK then.

    LOL

  48. #49 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Phil Jones was just… lying when he told his colleagues he’d just finished using a trick “to hide the decline”?

    Whut now?

    No, he was talking to his colleagues. Not for a fucking science paper.

    What was hidden was NOTHING.

    NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

  49. #50 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Fuck me, the sound of galloping trots from this retarded little twat is deafening.

    Since you can’t find ANYTHING that was hidden, NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

    This isn’t, for sane people, a difficult thing to grasp.

    A screwdriver NOT in the knives-and-forks drawer is NOT hidden away in the tool chest.

    But to you idiot deniers, it’s proof of some world-girdling conspiracy to defraud you of your god given right to kill animals or somesuch.

  50. #51 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    A graph of temperatures has the graph of temperatures on it.

    Things which are NOT temperatures aren’t on the graph.

    Because of the WELL KNOWN divergence problem, some proxies were dropped post 1960 because their values WERE NOT TEMPERATURE READINGS ANY MORE.

    No decline was hidden because on a graph of TEMPERATURES there were no decline IN TEMPERATURES to hide.

  51. #52 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.”

    LOL … OK Wow….

    So Phil Jones was lying, was he, when he told his colleagues he’d just finished using a trick “to hide the decline”?

  52. #53 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Meanwhile, the WELL KNOWN divergence problem and the decline of the utility of some tree species in certain locations as proxies for temperature in locations and times that no thermometers were available, was discussed widely and brought out in graphs like this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Briffa_2000_decline.gif

    and likewise, are not hidden.

  53. #54 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    So Phil Jones was lying, was he,

    No.

    He was talking to colleagues.

  54. #55 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Brat, where is what you’re claiming to be hidden hidden?

  55. #56 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And link to THE GRAPH if you’re going to demand ONLY THAT GRAPH.

  56. #57 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Phil Jones was just… lying

    Answer: No.

    Later…

    So Phil Jones was lying, was he,

    Answer unchanged.

    Definition of insanity: doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different outcome.

    Brat, you’re demonstrably insane.

  57. #58 pentaxZ
    February 9, 2013

    wow, what do YOU think jones meant with “hiding the decline”? Why did he wrote ““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.” if he actually didn’t hide something?

  58. #59 BBD
    February 9, 2013

    The whole ‘climategate’ nonsense was manufactured by contrarians.

    All argument over it ever since, ditto. See above, ad nauseam.

    Paleoclimate can be so much more fun than this.

  59. #60 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Why did he wrote

    When did he wrote it?

    Grammar, bitch. Learn it.

    And what he meant was “I used reliable temperature data in my temperature data graph”.

  60. #61 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    if he actually didn’t hide something?

    If he didn’t actually hide something, then there’s nothing hidden.

  61. #62 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And if he DID hide something, then what was it?

  62. #63 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Paleoclimate can be so much more fun than this.

    Deniers aren’t here for paleoclimate information.

    They’re here to piss on people who do work they can’t understand.

  63. #64 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And why aren’t you demanding the unearthing of the body of Google?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chucking/

    If he wasn’t going to actually kill Google, why did he claim he was going to “fucking kill Google” ?

  64. #65 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    And where is the buried body of Eric?

  65. #66 chek
    February 9, 2013

    One of the reasons, I’m sure, that Monty Python’s Black Knight skit remains consistently popular is that there are an endless queue of “Brads” always willing to act it out while vainly hoping for a different ending

  66. #67 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    There are plenty of flouncing Sir Robins too…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ

  67. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    “Brad, where is what you’re claiming to be hidden hidden?”

    Er, if I could point it out to you, it wouldn’t be hidden, would it?

    “And if he DID hide something, then what was it?”

    The declining trend in the MXD in the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    But you’ve been told this already.

  68. #69 Brad Keyes
    February 9, 2013

    @ Wow produces perhaps the most airheaded, feelgood exegesis of “hide the decline” yet in climate discourse:

    “And what he meant was “I used reliable temperature data in my temperature data graph

    … but only after 1960.”

  69. #70 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Er, if I could point it out to you, it wouldn’t be hidden, would it?

    Er, if you don’t even know what’s hidden, how can you claim something is hidden?

    The declining trend in the MXD in the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    Except they aren’t hidden.

    They don’t apply to a TEMPERATURE GRAPH and are explicitly talked about in the science papers.

  70. #71 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    But you’ve been told this already.

  71. #72 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    “And what he meant was “I used reliable temperature data in my temperature data graph

    … but only after 1960.”

    Evidence?

    Got any

  72. #73 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    No, that was entirely your fiction.

    “I used reliable temperature data in my temperature data graph”

    But you don’t like accurate and reliable if it doesn’t give you the answer you wanted, do you.

  73. #74 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    PS, we get back to BEST proving MBH98 and the hockey stick.

    BEST proves that the last 250 years was an accurate record of data.

    INCLUDING tree proxies pre-1960.

    1960 being, as anyone knows, within the last 250 years.

  74. #75 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    You see, Brat, this is why your whines about “what does it mean (in your opinion)” are pointless to answer.

    If they ARE answered, you go ignoring it and pretending a different answer.

  75. #76 pentaxZ
    February 9, 2013

    So…why did he use the word “hide”? Why? And by the way, the team has verified that the e-mails are authentical. Wonder how you could have missed that. In denial perhaps?

  76. #77 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    So…why did he use the word “hide”? Why?

    Why not?

  77. #78 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    the team has verified that the e-mails are authentical.

    I doubt that very much. You see, they understand words and know that no such word exists as “authentical”.

  78. #79 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Since even Brat admits that there is no temperature decline, then the graph being talked about has no decline to hide.

  79. #80 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Wonder how you could have missed that.

    I didn’t.

    Just like you “missed” Steve Ballmer vowing to bury someone.

  80. #81 chek
    February 9, 2013

    I’s called vernacular PantieZ. A form of wordplay used by those at least semi-educated and upwards to whom language isn’t a chore and can be used freely and playfully. The private emails remember, were between friends and colleagues.

    Something those – like you no doubt – who can only read until their lips get tired, won’t comprehend.

    I’m going out now, so I’m gonna kill this connection.
    You go call the police, moron.

  81. #82 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    Hell, their entire spiel is confused.

    They insist this email is talking about the temperature anomaly graph solely. They even insist that they accept that there is NO DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES in that record. But they insist that there is some DECLINE that is hidden on a graph of TEMPERATURES and this is the tree growth figures.

    WHICH ARE NOT TEMPERATURES.

    But they’ve already admitted there is no decline in temperatures.

    So there can’t be a decline being hidden on that graph.

    But they insist that there MUST be a reason for using the word “hide”.

    Why?

    So they can pretend to be dismayed at the crime they want to insist is there.

    Even if they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

  82. #83 chek
    February 9, 2013

    It’s a form of dissonance, that';s the only way I can understand it. All those blogs, run by all those kindly old men (and they are all old men), all laymen, supplementing their pensions by being professional liars for an industry for which money is no object and electronic media cheaper and easier than cheap and easy.

    It’s only when “Brad” ventures out in the real world that the limits of his boundaries become clear. My guess is the dissonance will dictate an overdue flouncing to maintain the integrity of what’s already rigidly believed. An exciting conspiracy story where the scientists are out to steal their burger jobs, take their women and force them into gay marriage. Or whatever version of it paranoid numbskulls believe nowadays.

  83. #84 BBD
    February 9, 2013

    Contrarians thrive on misdirection. They depend heavily on forcing discussion onto a manufactured ‘scandal’ which wasn’t. As long as you let them direct the conversation, you are playing their game, which is to direct attention away from the fact that they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW.

    Interestingly, the rest of us don’t feel compelled to play other versions of this game. For example, we could bang on *forever* about how Spencer and Christy only admitted the full extent of the errors in their UAH TLT product in 2005 when they were forced to do so by Mears and Wentz at RSS.

    Suddenly, ‘no tropospheric warming according to satellite data’ was revealed to be wrong. And this was a major event. The satellite record was being extensively used as ‘evidence’ that there were problems with both the surface temperature measurements and with climate models.

    Given that Spencer and Christy are *sceptics*, we could argue vociferously and endlessly that what they did was suspicious. Imagine: ‘biased scientists manipulate satellite data to hide warming’ etc etc

    Now although some unkind speculation of this sort does crop up occasionally, it is as nothing compared to the roar of opprobrium directed at climate scientists – a few in particular – by the ‘sceptics’.

    Right, break over – back to the game…

  84. #85 Wow
    February 9, 2013

    You certainly don’t get any deniers complaining about Wegman’s lies and manipulations.

    And the only times you hear Mad Lord Monkfish being derided by the denialidiots is when they’re trying to say “he’s not important, so stop picking on him!”.

  85. #86 chameleon
    February 9, 2013

    Rubbish BBD!
    Or as JeffH says : what utter tosh!
    Academics love forcing each other to admit errors.
    They all do it.
    Your good vs evil narrative above makes for interesting reading but not much else.

  86. #87 bill
    February 10, 2013

    Can that idiot really still be running on ‘trick to hide the decline’? What a waste of time and pixels this guy is!

  87. #88 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “The declining trend in the MXD in the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    Except they aren’t hidden.

    They don’t apply to a TEMPERATURE GRAPH and are explicitly talked about in the science papers.”

    That’s strange—all previous vicissitudes of the tree-rings were considered relevant to the “TEMPERATURE GRAPH,” weren’t they?

    In fact, to the left of the 1960 mark, fluctuations in the maximum latewood density pretty much control the curve, don’t they? One might even say it’s a graph OF tree-ring growth… until 1960, anyway, might one not? Never mind what the graph is “about,” what is it a graph of—what are the data that draw the plot?

    Tree ring MXDs. Until the Kennedy administration.

  88. #89 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    chameleon # 86

    ‘Rubbish’ and ‘utter tosh’?

    This is a matter of fact. The Spencer and Christy UAH debacle is the only time that a modern temperature record has been completely invalidated. And its curators were sceptics whose errors only came to light when their work was checked by other researchers.

    Yet we hardly hear about it.

  89. #90 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “As long as you let them direct the conversation, you are playing their game, which is to direct attention away from the fact that they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    Why would I play a game like that? AGW is perfectly plausible and acceptable to me.

  90. #91 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    So where do you sit? Are you happy with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of ~2.5C – ~3C?

  91. #92 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “You certainly don’t get any deniers complaining about Wegman’s lies and manipulations.”

    I’m a “denier” (though I suspect you can’t tell me of what).

    I hereby abominate any lies Wegman may have told. If they exist, they suck.

  92. #93 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 10, 2013

    “The declining trend in the MXD in the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.”

    So it’s a “decline” in “proxies”.

    Decline. You might note that in the paragraph I quoted, it was explicitly mentioned that “decline” was just another term for “divergence”. (My guess being that decline indicates the direction of the divergence – but my guesses don’t matter.)

    Proxies. Proxy for what? Oh, that would be temperature, would it not. And I note that being all scientificky ‘n’ stuff these stick in the mud scientists chuck out particular proxies when they clearly show that they’ve lost their value for that purpose – in this case temperature – when better evidence, such as modern thermometers show different results.

    One hypothetical that fascinates me. It’s entirely possible that proxies of this kind, dendro, could diverge the other way given other aberrations in botanical, meteorological, ecological events in a given region. Just what form would they take, and how loud and prolonged, would the objections be if these, or other marginal trees, indicated faster or higher temperature increase than the instrumental records for the same period?

    Would they object if the instrumental temperature had been used in these graphs by using the same “trick” of inserting that graph portion at the appropriate time period?
    Would they object if the proxy temperature graph had been used for the whole time span “because the proxy had been accurate up until 1960″ even though it diverged strongly upwards of the instrumental record after that year?

    I wonder. (Not really.)

  93. #94 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    So, let’s survey the state of play.

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline”, as he claimed in an email to his colleagues?

    No, “NOTHING WAS HIDDEN” according to Wow.

    So Jones was lying?

    “No,” according to Wow. “He was talking to colleagues.”

    Well, that clears that up, doesn’t it?

    He wasn’t telling the truth (says Wow); he wasn’t lying either; he was Talking To Colleagues.

    Yes, but was he telling the truth to colleagues, or was he lying to them?

    “No.

    He was talking to colleagues.”

    Oh my fucking God. You really are obtuse, Wow, aren’t you? …unless Heartland is paying you for this—in which case you’re the smartest in the room.

    Perhaps it would help if we heard from one of Jones’ “colleagues.”

    Dr Paul Dennis of the CRU writes:

    “The point about the ‘Hide the Decline’ debate is germane to much of what we know about past climate of the last several millenia. There is a discrepancy between the modern tree ring data and the instrumental record. Assuming for the time being the instrumental record is robust then the conclusion one draws is that it is not possible to reconstruct past temperatures on the basis of tree ring data.

    “The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’.

    “This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc.

    “This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible and I agree with him.”

  94. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    So, let’s survey the state of play.

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline”, as he claimed in an email to his colleagues?

    No, “NOTHING WAS HIDDEN” according to Wow.

    Oh, so Jones was lying.

    “No,” according to Wow.

    “He was talking to colleagues.”

    Well, that clears that up, doesn’t it?

    He wasn’t telling the truth (says Wow); but he wasn’t lying either; he was Talking To Colleagues™.

    Yes, but was he telling the truth to colleagues, or was he lying to them?

    “No. He was talking to colleagues.”

    Oh my fucking God. You really are obtuse, aren’t you Wow? …unless Heartland is paying you for all this—in which case you’re the smartest guy in the room.

    Maybe it would help if we heard from one of Jones’ colleagues.

    Dr Paul Dennis of the CRU writes:

    “The point about the ‘Hide the Decline’ debate is germane to much of what we know about past climate of the last several millenia. There is a discrepancy between the modern tree ring data and the instrumental record. Assuming for the time being the instrumental record is robust then the conclusion one draws is that it is not possible to reconstruct past temperatures on the basis of tree ring data.

    “The ‘hide the decline’ graph splices together the modern temperature record and a proxy temperature curve based very largely on tree ring data. But we have direct observation that tree rings don’t always respond as we might think to temperature thus shouldn’t be splicing the two together without a very large sign writ large which says ‘Caveat Emptor’.

    “This is especially so when preparing material for NGO’s, policymakers etc.

    “This is what Bishop Hill argues is indefensible and I agree with him.”

  95. #96 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ adelady,

    just out of morbid curiosity, what are your answers to your own hypotheticals?

  96. #97 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ adelady:

    “Decline. You might note that in the paragraph I quoted, it was explicitly mentioned that “decline” was just another term for “divergence”. (My guess being that decline indicates the direction of the divergence – but my guesses don’t matter.)”

    Yes, that’s all correct and well-known (except to Wow). The attribute of interest in the proxies went DOWN while temperatures went UP.

    The obvious implication of this being: the proxies are invalid.

    These trees are not thermometers.

    You cannot tell the temperature—in 1966 or 1066—from these trees.

  97. #98 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Oxford Professor of Physics Jonathan Jones puts it like this:

    “People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here.

    “Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

    “However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong

    “The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.”

  98. #99 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 10, 2013

    My answers?

    Well, if I had to predict the reactions by some well-known-ish people who write at some websites/blogs, I reckon I’d be pretty well on the money with my guesses. (Several contributors at WUWT, Bishop’s Hill, Nova, Morano, McIntyre, Curry are the people I have in mind if you want specifics.) If I were so inclined, I might even trawl the bottom of these lakes to find suitable examples – but I’m not that bothered.

    Basically the answers would be the reverse of what we’ve seen up until now. In the first case no question, let alone objection, would arise because such a graph would show a lower trajectory than my hypothetical dendro proxy data would show. Any email referring to a “trick” to “hide the incline” would have been ignored – probably never publicly dumped in the first place.

    In the second hypothetical. Incandescent rage. Though there’d not be any “trick” or technique involved. It would be an entirely different issue. But it would certainly lead to vociferous demands that scientists use “reliable” and “modern” and “verifiable” temperature records. The very idea! of using ‘unreliable’ or ‘inconsistent’ correlations or ‘fancy-schmancy scientific footwork’ to justify using a proxy (spit!) record rather than the temperatures everyone! else uses for these purposes is dishonest!! and brings the whole enterprise of science into disrepute!!**#!*%! Disgraceful!

    (Of course, in this hypothetical, there’d also be a lot of climate scientists pushing similar, but reasoned, arguments. They wouldn’t use the top row of their qwerty keyboards.)

  99. #100 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ adelady, thanks for sharing your speculations about how “deniers” would react if the scandal had played out in reverse.

    “Any email referring to a “trick” to “hide the incline” would have been ignored – probably never publicly dumped in the first place.”

    Unfortunately we’ll never know, because “deniers” don’t do that kind of thing (suppress inconvenient truths by falsifying graphs).

1 3 4 5 6 7 48