Brangelina thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2013

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

    How amusingly faux-ignorant!

    But then that’s par for the course with you.

  2. #2 bill
    February 10, 2013

    no graph fiddling, eh?

    yeah

    right

    sure

    thing

    brad

    and that was 4 minute’s work! oh, but let me guess, you were being post-ironic, or something? that’s the ‘get out of jail free’ card for the high-falutin’ denialati, isn’t it? ‘faux ignorant’ indeed…

    are there excrements in paradise, brad?

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow, the questions you’re still dodging, after all these years, are:

    1. was Phil Jones telling the truth in his infamous “Hide the Decline” email?

    2. if so, what did he mean by “the decline”?

  4. #4 pentaxZ
    February 10, 2013

    bbd
    “…they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    Counter arguments not needed, since consensus isn’t science. But that’s of course hard to believe for someone deeply believing in the holy CAGW-religion.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Nice catch, pentaxZ:

    ““…they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    I’d just tweak your riposte slightly:

    Counter-arguments are not necessary, because consensus is not an argument.

  6. #6 bill
    February 10, 2013

    ah, pentax and bradtax – 2 peas in a pod!

  7. #7 chameleon
    February 10, 2013

    BBD.
    I am very disappointed.
    You have asked one of the best questions I have seen at Deltoid.

  8. #8 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ chameleon, I’ve just now noticed it amidst the crud—you mean this, right?

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

  9. #9 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Counter arguments not needed, since consensus isn’t science.

    Science consensus is science, you one-track idiot.

    Go ahead, the consensus that people fall to the ground because of gravity makes gravitational theory not science HOW, exactly?

  10. #10 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Counter-arguments are not necessary, because consensus is not an argument.

    Counter arguments are necessary but you don’t have any.

  11. #11 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow, the questions you’re still dodging, after all these years, are:

    Years? Histrionics much, petal??

    1. was Phil Jones telling the truth in his infamous “Hide the Decline” email?

    Leading question. Stricken from the record.

    2. if so, what did he mean by “the decline”?

    If not, then what do you mean by “the decline”?

  12. #12 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    Since this has been so soundly beaten as complete falsehood, what do you say now?

  13. #13 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Oxford Professor of Physics Jonathan Jones puts it like this:

    So he’s right because..?

    No, he’s wrong.

    You are wrong.

    Live with it, petal.

  14. #14 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    Except that where they are invalid, they aren’t being used and you’re complaining about them not being used.

    The proxies don’t change the graph either, since

    a) they are only one proxy out of scores
    b) they agree with the other proxies including thermometer readings for hundreds of years

    Apparently you don’t know this.

    This is not a surprise since you only learn from denier blogs.

  15. #15 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Oh, so Jones was lying.

    “No,” according to Wow.

    “He was talking to colleagues.”

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

    Yes it does. Glad you agree.

  16. #16 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    Neither, he was talking to them.

    If he’s hidden something, then what was it?

  17. #17 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Was Steve Ballmer lying when he said he was going to “fucking kill google”?

    Or is he a murderer?

  18. #18 Wow
    February 10, 2013

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

    And he (and Montford) are completely wrong.

    If they were right, then there’d be something hidden.

    There isn’t.

  19. #19 Wow
    February 10, 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.

    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.

  20. #20 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Explain, if the proxies are invalid, this graph:

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

  21. #21 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    It seems now the mere fact of saying “Hide” in a private email to someone where the context is unavailable is now a crime.

    You deniers certainly twist logic to breaking point and beyond to continue your little fantasy world, don’t you.

    PS I note that you’ve still not acknowledged the criminal nature of your own side as shown by Bill above…

  22. #22 chek
    February 10, 2013

    For the benefit of “Brad” and his intellectual inspiration PantieZ. consensus isn’t the argument, but it does indicate the strength of the argument.,

  23. #23 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Is all you have against the consensus that so many people agree with it?

    You know, no actual EVIDENCE other than you are contrarian?

  24. #24 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    “…they have no coherent scientific counter-argument to mount against the scientific evidence on AGW.”

    How about that, then Brat Panties?

  25. #25 chek
    February 10, 2013

    Ah, denier accusations of dishonesty – that most hypocritical of phenomena. Spencer and Christy’s convenient incompetence, and their concomitant ideological leanings are strangely always glossed over. What’s the saying? There’s only a crime if there’s a motive? Oh wait – there was a motive.

    So actual documented suspicious behaviour is somehow overlooked by the conspiratorially minded, in favour of the hidden that wasn’t hidden. It doesn’t even make sense within the kook’s own terms. But then subjective original thinking doesn’t come into it. There’s a kind of catatonic thinking that triggers a tunnel vision that responds to the command “Look – a squirrel” or ‘hide the decline’. And off they go like ants following a sugar trail.

    Cammy – of course – sees no ships, and carefully avoids noting anything wrong. I think LB’s a psychologist who could frame it all more accurately and eloquently.

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow raises an important (and common) question about apparent double-standards…

    “PS I note that you’ve still not acknowledged the criminal nature of your own side as shown by Bill above.”

    … which deserves an answer.

    (I’m only one “denier”, so I’ll only answer for myself, though I’m pretty sure you’d find the same reasons echoed throughout “denierdom.”)

    I had no idea about these allegations. Now that bill has brought them to my attention, what do I have to say about them?

    No comment.

    Why?

    Because I haven’t looked into them.

    Why not?

    Because I find them peripheral and boring.

    How can I say that, when my confidence in my own climate position relies on the integrity of the researchers bill has now indicted?

    It doesn’t. I’ve never read, believed or cited Spencer or Christy’s work, as far as I can remember. I know they’re “deniers” like myself, but beyond that I honestly couldn’t tell you what their climate views are.

  27. #27 chek
    February 10, 2013

    Ah but fuckwit, you still can’t bring yourself to comprehend the colloquial nature of ‘hide the decline’ but that doesn’t prevent you frothing yourself off based on the same ignorance.

  28. #28 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I had no idea about these allegations.

    So when you opined with certainty:

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

    Your data was ignorance?

    Because I find them peripheral and boring.

    But you find the word “hide” in a personal email where NOTHING HAS BEEN HIDDEN worthy of spending scores of hours pursuing???

    The good old denier double-standard at play!

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    Nor have I cited the work of Michaels, Easterbrook, Eschenbach, Marohasy or Monckton.

    Had I done so, I’d be obliged to take all credible accusations against them seriously. I’d be reading bill’s links very closely, thinking long and hard about the implications (if any) for the credibility of scientists whose work I’ve cited and (if necessary) recalibrating my climate conclusions in light of these revelations (if any).

  30. #30 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I know they’re “deniers” like myself, but beyond that I honestly couldn’t tell you what their climate views are.

    ROFLMAO!

    Yes, you don’t know what they think about climate except they deny the science of climate.

  31. #31 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Nor have I cited the work of Michaels, Easterbrook, Eschenbach, Marohasy or Monckton.

    Yes, you’ve been GETTING your tripe from them, but not citing them.

    You have done a Bishop and ClimateFraudit.

    But oddly enough, you’ve never cited ANY DATA for your claims either.

    Indeed you seem unwilling at the very least to cite anything.

    This is anti-science.

    Rather ironic given your petulance about “this isn’t science”. Looking everywhere but in your own back garden.

  32. #32 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    So basically you’re now admitting you’ve made everything up out of whole cloth.

  33. #33 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @chek raves bitterly:

    “Ah but fuckwit, you still can’t bring yourself to comprehend the colloquial nature of ‘hide the decline’ but that doesn’t prevent you frothing yourself off based on the same ignorance.”

    Of course I don’t comprehend its newly-alleged “colloquial nature,” because I’m aware of no reason at all to think it was “colloquial.”

    But I take it that your new angle is that Phil Jones “colloquially” hid the decline, without *actually* hiding the decline?

    And what, pray tell, did that entail his doing? (Sorry, I don’t speak whatever East Anglian slang you’re suggesting the email was written in.)

  34. #34 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @ Wow:

    “But oddly enough, you’ve never cited ANY DATA for your claims either.”

    Which claims would you like my data for?

  35. #35 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    More of the tired old rubbish.

    I refer you back to my previous query:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147753

  36. #36 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Which claims would you like my data for?

    How about for this claim:

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

    … but only after 1960.”

  37. #37 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And what, pray tell, did that entail his doing?

    Nothing.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    because I’m aware of no reason at all to think it was “colloquial.”

    Apart from the lack of anything being hidden.

    Just like Ballmer didn’t ACTUALLY bury Eric Schmidt and never buried people before, despite the black-and-white saying so.

  40. #40 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “More of the tired old rubbish.

    I refer you back to my previous query:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147753

    And I refer you (and our long-suffering readers) to the answer I’ve given you every single time you’ve asked me what was hidden: the decreasing trend in MXD of the dendro proxies from 1960 onwards.

    This decline is NOT VISIBLE in Phil Jones’ WMO graph, is it? No.

    Why not? Because he used a trick “to hide” it.

    As everybody seems to understand but you.

    The questions you’re still dodging are:

    1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

    2. What did he mean by “the decline”?

    3. For which of my claims would you like to see my data?

  41. #41 chek
    February 10, 2013

    “Brad” – once again there was nothing to hide. Reasonable, logical people know – and if they didn’t the investigations explained it simply and straightforwardly, that ‘hide the decline’ can be paraphrased as ‘deal with the well cited divergence problem’.

    But not the idiot denier brigade, as exemplified by you.
    Until you understand that you’re stuck in a groundhog fruitloop. Maybe forever. But nevermind, because nobody’s ever going to miss your vastly underwhelming mental acuity.

  42. #42 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Oh, there will be stats. Stats and graphs, my friend.

    Failed to provide any.

    Maybe you’d better tell Michael Mann, who’s conceded precisely what you’re now in denial of!

    No proof.

    1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

    Bare assertion.

    3. The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 statistical “methodology.”

    Bare assertion with no proof and countermanded by all the other “HS” graphs produced.

    Which he didn’t disclose.

    Bare assertion falsified by the paper produced containaing the method.

    The first person on Earth to succeed in retracing Mann’s statistical steps, even in broad outline, was the retired Canadian mining mathematician Steve McIntyre

    Complete lie.

    he still doesn’t know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it.

    The code is not the algorithm.

    Another complete lie.

    Just a few from the VERY FIRST PAGE of this excrescence’s shit-laden spewing vitriol.

    All in the name of what?

  43. #43 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    No reasonable person could mistake Ballmer’s vow to kill Google and bury Schmidt (or whatever) for a literal declaration of intent.

    It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

    This is an a priori judgement any reasonable person would make. (It’s not necessary to ask whether or not Ballmer ever did wind up committing murder.)

    BUT:

    Just because someone isn’t being *literal*, it never follows that what they’re saying is meaningless.

    Ballmer wasn’t being literal, but he was using a metaphor to indicate something like: “I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business.”

    If you think Phil Jones was being “colloquial”, WHAT DID HE MEAN?

  44. #44 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    This decline is NOT VISIBLE in Phil Jones’ WMO graph, is it? No.

    Since there IS NO DECLINE to show in that graph, IT IS NOT MISSING.

    Shit, you kept crowing about how “easy” it was and quoted this as “proof” of how I was lost:

    “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.

    See: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-4/#comment-147787

    So in a graph of TEMPERATURES, there is no DECLINE.

    And because there is no decline, you’re going to pretend there should have been one???

    DATA FOR THAT ASSERTION!

  45. #45 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The questions you’re still dodging are

    Already answered three times before.

    leading question. Struck from the record.

  46. #46 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

    Telling what truth?

  47. #47 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    If you think Phil Jones was being “colloquial”, WHAT DID HE MEAN?

    If you think he hid something, WHAT WAS IT?

  48. #48 chek
    February 10, 2013

    “All in the name of what?”

    Reinforcing the fantasy world he and his new brownshirt friend live in.

  49. #49 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

    BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????

    WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!

  50. #50 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    He hid no decline, Brat.

  51. #51 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And by the way, where is my data?

  52. #52 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    This is an a priori judgement any reasonable person would make.

    But no such a priori judgement for someone writing in an email where there is obviously missing emails preceding it who says “hide the decline”, DESPITE nothing being hidden?

    Again with the double standard.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And STILL waiting for my data as per #36

  54. #54 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    The point is that BEST’s finding couldn’t be called a Hockey Stick,

    Data for that too would be needed.

    250 years is plenty to show the pre-industrial average and the shaft of the hockey stick, given that the warming has been mostly since 1950.

  55. #55 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Proof of this claim too required.

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

  56. #56 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    this claim needs proof too:

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

  57. #57 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And your claims that the current warming is not unprecedented.

    Data for that is needed.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    You assert “infamous”, yet you have no reasoning for doing so with this:

    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?”

    Remember, you refuse to give any data. Probably for the very same reason “we’re only going to find something wrong with it”.

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

    BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????”

    This has already been explained to you.

    As explained to you previously:

    He was using a metaphor to indicate something like: “I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business.”

    “WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!”

    I don’t know.

    (And it’s an odd question to ask about someone who’s making a resolution about the future, which is largely unknown, as opposed to a statement about the past, which is known.)

    You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?

  60. #60 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Proof of this claim too:

    “Hide the decline” requires no spinning. The verb “to hide” is anti-scientific in se.

  61. #61 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And when you claim for Ballmer:

    No reasonable person could mistake Ballmer’s vow to kill Google and bury Schmidt (or whatever) for a literal declaration of intent.

    It was obviously a hyperbolic oath sworn in anger.

    How about these claims:

    “redefine the peer-reviewed literature if necessary,” “beat the crap out of [Patrick Michaels]“, etc.?

    Or are you not being a reasonable person?

  62. #62 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    BUT WHAT DID HE MEAN????”

    This has already been explained to you.

    As explained to you previously:

    He was using a metaphor to indicate something like: “I resolve to inflict financial damage on Google, and to outwit Schmidt in business.”

    And likewise “hide the decline” is metaphorical.

    “WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!”

    I don’t know.

    Funny how that’s not good enough for you wrt Phil Jones’ email, taken out of context and obviously missing many other emails in the conversation.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @Wow washes his hands of all semblance of good faith:

    “1. Was Phil Jones telling the truth in his “Hide the Decline” email?

    Telling what truth?”

    Duh… you gots me dere, Pontius Pilate… wot troof?

  64. #64 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?

    You tell me: is Phil Jones going to fulfil his resolution?

  65. #65 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Duh… you gots me dere, Pontius Pilate… wot troof?

    You really don’t realise that “is he telling the truth” is nonsensical, do you.

    What truth?

    You don’t know.

    All you want is “did he hide the decline?” but the answer to that is: NO and that is not an answer you’re willing to accept for ideological reasons.

    PS still missing a whole slew of data from you.

  66. #66 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I guess you’re not able to actually ask a question since you’ve never been capable enough to concoct a coherent sentence.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2013

    The inconvenient fact is that you don’t GET a hockey-stick from Mann’s 1998 data UNLESS you follow Mann’s 1988 [sic] statistical “methodology.”

    Brad knows – or should know – this is false, because I – amongst others, IIRC – have pointed him to analyses that show otherwise. Brad, despite his protestations that he never lies, is quite happy to repeat falsehoods after they have been demonstrated to be false.

    Most people are happy to call that “lying”. Brad will no doubt dispute the term, and the claim.

  68. #68 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “He hid no decline, Brat.”

    So when he wrote to his colleagues that he’d just finished using a “trick” to “hide the decline,” he wasn’t writing the truth?

  69. #69 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And it’s an odd question to ask about someone who’s making a resolution about the future, which is largely unknown, as opposed to a statement about the past, which is known

    Ahem.

    “I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again”.

    It’s odd how you can reach a conclusion without ever once reading what you’re supposed to be considering.

    I guess it’s a result of not caring what the truth is, right?

  70. #70 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    So when he wrote to his colleagues that he’d just finished using a “trick” to “hide the decline,” he wasn’t writing the truth?

    He hid nothing.

    I note that you’re having to “litter” your message “with” quotes because “you don’t” have “a” coherent “question” to “ask”.

  71. #71 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    What are you claiming he said he did and where is your proof he said and meant exactly that?

  72. #72 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And still waiting for your data.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “And likewise “hide the decline” is metaphorical.”

    So he did hide the decline. Metaphorically. Gotcha.

  74. #74 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Please explain how this gets to be a nefarious “trick”:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series

    Adding thermometer readings to a temperature graph is nefarious HOW exactly?

  75. #75 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    So he did hide the decline.

    No more than Ballmer killed google metaphorically.

    He didn’t hide a thing.

    Get it?

  76. #76 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Despite all these vapid responses, no data is forthcoming from you, Brat.

    You said you had plenty for all of your claims.

    Seems like they’re missing.

  77. #77 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I mean, talk about trying to find problem.

    “hide the decline was metaphorical”

    could be considered

    a) metaphorical hiding
    or
    b) a metaphorical “hide the decline”

    but brat wants to continue with “there’s something missing!!!!” and chooses “hiding, but metaphorically”.

    Worse, nothing about how a “metaphorical hiding” can be enacted.

    Nor even why it would be a problem.

    Entirely made up to pretend there’s an issue.

  78. #78 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Also note that I’d said “And likewise “hide the decline” is metaphorical.”

    With the quotes around the statement “hide the decline”, thereby indicating that the metaphor was to the entire statement quoted not one word in it.

    Yet in the interests of fake outrage, Brat wants to pretend that the quotes don’t work like that if he doesn’t want them to.

  79. #79 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “”You tell me. Is Ballmer going to fulfil his resolution?”

    You tell me: is Phil Jones going to fulfil his resolution?”

    What resolution??

    Ballmer made promises for the future (as well as boasts about the past), whereas Jones only referred to the past. He used the present perfect tense, signifying a recently-completed action:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in …”

  80. #80 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    2. What did he mean by “the decline”?

    If you don’t know, then why are you making claims about something you don’t know?

  81. #81 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in real temperatures…”

    Why did you cut off your quote earlier?

    Is it somehow wrong in your world to use thermometer readings of temperature when you have them?

  82. #82 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Ballmer made promises for the future (as well as boasts about the past),

    And why does that make a difference?

    Ballmer said he had buried people before and would do it again.

    But since we have no bodies, we do not accuse Mr Ballmer of a crime.

    Since we don’t have any missing decline, we have no crime to report against Dr Jones.

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @Wow—a multiple choice for you:

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline” as he claimed?

    1. yes!
    2. yes, but only metaphorically
    3. no, he hid nothing

  84. #84 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And still no data.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline” as he claimed?

    Still a leading question.

    Nothing was hidden.

  86. #86 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And still no data, but a lot more wind from the retard.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    “Why did you cut off your quote earlier?”

    In order to avoid typing “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.”

  88. #88 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    a multiple choice for you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    You would have thought that someone who professed to have done philosophy would have avoided that.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And since there is no preposition for “to hide the decline” (“of what”, basically), you have a priori indication that your email is not complete.

  90. #90 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @Wow—a multiple choice question for you:

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline” as he claimed?

    1. yes!
    2. yes, but only metaphorically
    3. no, he hid nothing
    4. no, nothing was hidden

  91. #91 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    I’m presenting you with a tetralemma, in case you hadn’t noticed.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Did Phil Jones “hide the decline” as he claimed?

    http://www.rationalresponders.com/logical_fallacy_lesson_4_bald_assertion

    You say he claims to have hidden something.

    However, since nothing has been hidden, this claim is contraindicated by evidence.

    Do you have a problem asking “Did he hide the decline in the proxy readings for a small section of time and for a small section of the proxies?”?

  93. #93 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    I’m presenting you with a tetralemma,

    You’re presenting a fallacy.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    And STILL a complete lack of data.

  95. #95 Brad Keyes
    February 10, 2013

    @Wow:

    “And since there is no preposition for “to hide the decline” (“of what”, basically), you have a priori indication that your email is not complete.”

    OMG—the email was truncated? We’re not being shown the whole sentence???

    LOL.

    Really, Wow? You’re going to try this angle? What year are we in, 2009?

  96. #96 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Heck, prove it isn’t meant as a follow up to “The politicians won’t understand: the decline in science understanding in the political class is horrendously obvious and putting data on there that doesn’t have to be on there will just show it up even more starkly”.

    So he put the temperature figures on there and cut off the bad data to hide the decline in education of the politicians.

  97. #97 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    OMG—the email was truncated? We’re not being shown the whole sentence???

    Nope.

    How retarded can you actually get?

    We only have one statement in a conversation that would have comprised many statements by several (at least two) correspondents.

  98. #98 BBD
    February 10, 2013

    Brad Keyes

    I notice you took great care not to answer my question. So I must ask you again: where do you sit? Are you happy with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of ~2.5C – ~3C?

  99. #99 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Alternatively, if you can find within that one email alone in itself any mention of a decline in tree ring proxies, then you may be given the point.

  100. #100 Wow
    February 10, 2013

    Yet more avoidance of providing data.

    Its data doesn’t exist.

1 4 5 6 7 8 48

Current ye@r *